DEBATE ON BUDGET STATEMENT (Business Motion)

Column: 941

DEBATE ON BUDGET STATEMENT:

(Business Motion): Resolved,

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, an additional day, namely, Wednesday, 2nd March 2005, be allotted for the debate on the motion for approval of the financial policy of the Government for FY 2005/2006 moved by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on 18th February 2005. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Column: 941

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18th February, 2005],

Column: 942

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2006.". - [Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would also like to thank my hon. friends for kindly being present.

Sir, I fully agree with the thrust of the Budget Statement. It encourages entrepreneurship, creates more opportunities and promotes an inclusive society. I wish to touch on two issues - Singapore International and inclusive society.

Singapore International

Being small and open, Singapore feels the effects of globalisation more than most countries. The average Singaporean is affected by events overseas more than the average person in a much larger country, and most countries are much larger than Singapore. Therefore, it is important that we enhance the capacity to influence events overseas as they are very likely to have an impact on us.

I think it is useful to significantly enhance and strengthen our foreign service. It is not that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) is not doing a good job now. On the contrary, it is doing excellent work, and is ranked among the best in the world. However, in view of the fast growing impact of foreign affairs in the everyday lives of Singaporeans, we need to raise our international relations capabilities even more. Besides enlarging the foreign service corps, this effort may include training officers in other departments and the private sector as well on international matters.

Sir, foreign affairs is no longer just about inter-governmental relations, the

Column: 943

exclusive domain of diplomats, things which the average citizens only read about in the newspapers. More ordinary people today are effectively players in international relations than ever before. Maybe it is helpful to have an overall review of the whole concept of foreign affairs, as we understand it presently.

To enhance the Singapore International brand, the Government may also wish to introduce international affairs as a module in schools and upwards. This can be done in appropriate doses at suitable levels. The admirable work ethic of Singaporeans is already well known worldwide. It is useful to augment this with sufficient knowledge of issues relevant to foreign lands and good inter-cultural skills.

Inclusive society

Sir, now on the theme of inclusiveness and, in particular, schemes to assist the needy. I wish to raise some issues as regards implementation of these schemes.

There is a need for us to reach the "unreached". The "unreached" are people who do not know of the assistance schemes verily intended for them. Many of them do not read newspapers, or find the printed reports on assistance schemes too complex to comprehend. They do not get much from the brief visual bites of parliamentary proceedings on TV. Even if they get alerted, they do not know where to proceed to find more information.

I say this because, every week, I meet a handful of residents who till today are not aware of schemes such as HOPE, or job fairs, and these are residents of 4-room flats and above. Yesterday, Dr Lily Neo reported to this House that only three out of 10 households living in 1- or 2-room flats are aware of financial assistance schemes. I fear, Sir, that good schemes such as RESS and REAP, recently announced, may also suffer similar setbacks.

Column: 944

There should be much more effort at outreach. There is no need to drop millions of paper birds from the sky containing information on these assistance schemes. Outreach efforts can be more targeted, but more intensive. This task is quite tedious and requires much manpower. But I believe it is worth the while. The local grassroots organisations can render meaningful help, maybe to organise visits or block-level gatherings. But they need more budget to do so.

Many among this needy group require a degree of hand-holding. I agree that we should not encourage a crutch mentality. However, quite often, these people who are in need are not able to articulate their problems clearly. Others have their priorities not quite right. So they need to be coaxed into changing their mindsets and adjust their lifestyles. To change mindsets and adjust lifestyles, agencies cannot achieve this in one meeting. Agencies also should not expect such people to attend sessions in their offices after sending out letters. Agencies need to be proactive, to reach out to them, and visit them. I am not referring to visits in order to verify facts stated in application forms which, I think, are quite religiously done. I refer to visits as an outreach effort, to introduce schemes, to convince people of the need to make changes and help them find solutions to their worries about change. It may take a few sessions before such people decide to follow advice.

I echo the sentiments of my learned friend, Mr Matthias Yao, that a certain degree of hand-holding is useful. It is tedious work, Sir. But I understand that Mendaki has been doing this in some estates, and they found it worth the trouble. But the budget for such programmes is more than the usual over-

Column: 945

the-counter schemes. Such intensive hand-holding approach, I agree, should be done sparingly, wisely and to specific clients, but it should not be done away with totally. Indeed, it should be given greater support.

I believe, Sir, that we are, and we wish to be, a land of opportunity. Let us ensure that all Singaporeans are positioned to benefit from the opportunities.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget covers a wide spectrum of interest, spanning from the low income to the high income, the elderly and the young, the SMEs and the MNCs, sports and philanthropy.

Of interest to me, Sir, is the policy underpinning of this Budget. What was the thinking behind this Budget? What message does it want to convey?

Sir, over the last few years, Singaporeans have gone through several major crises. Many lost their jobs or had to endure shorter work-weeks or layoffs. Last year, the situation improved, but even then wage increases remained at a modest level for most workers. The shorter economic cycles had greatly added to the income and job instability that Singaporeans face. Unlike the situation in the past, good GDP growth alone will not solve all the unemployment problem. Structural unemployment has become a much more sticky problem and new solutions will have to be found. In such a situation, people look to the Government for leadership. And the Government, in leading the people, must do so with a firm hand, but it must also do so with compassion. In other words, it cannot only seek economic solutions without paying attention to how such policies and programmes will affect people during the implementation stage.

Column: 946

Looking at this year's Budget, to me, what the Government is clearly saying is that changes will have to be made to ensure that our economy remains competitive, and these changes cannot be completely painless, but Singaporeans will not be left in the lurch. Indeed, this is not an easy balance to achieve. For example, many structural adjustment programmes imposed by the World Bank and IMF on countries ran into problems because they insisted on a strict regime of economic reforms without balancing them with programmes to meet people's welfare.

Sir, in many countries, globalisation has resulted in more precarious forms of employment, low wages and poor working conditions as competition intensified. Many governments seem to be helpless when faced with this relentless march of globalisation. And many more simply abdicate their responsibility to change this course of globalisation, citing lack of resources or other reasons, when the real culprit is the lack of political will to do anything. The real issue is not whether globalisation is good or bad, but whether we can make globalisation fair and inclusive so that everyone can benefit from it. The experience of workers in many countries shows that without strong government intervention, it is not possible to create a fair globalisation and there will be winners and losers. But we all know that a society where the benefits are enjoyed by only a few, while the majority is left behind, will never be able to enjoy lasting stability or prosperity.

Sir, this Budget demonstrates that in Singapore, we can choose a different model of development - one that focuses on strong economic fundamentals but, at the same time, does not neglect people's welfare.

So I am happy with the Prime Minister's statement that the Government "will prepare workers to meet the needs

Column: 947

of the new economy". It will "invest in the workforce so that they hold productive and good jobs". In line with this, the Government will be topping up the Lifelong Learning Fund with $500 million this year. This will be strongly supplemented by the $34.5 million Re-employment Assistance Programme (REAP), which will not only help to redesign jobs and retrain workers but also provide our workers with some financial incentives to help them stay on the job after they are trained, which is of particular importance to workers in low-paying jobs.

Our workers, Sir, are not against economic restructuring or efforts to boost our competitiveness. They understand that companies invest millions of dollars in Singapore to set up factories and to install machines and equipment, and these companies need to recover from their investments. But what our workers are saying is that they need help to adapt to these changes, without which they will face tremendous hardship. They need support when they are in between jobs and they do not have any income. They need help to find new jobs and to be retrained for these jobs. They need to be given the opportunities so long as they are productive and not to be told that they are too old for the job.

Hence, I am glad that our Government has given a very strong and important commitment to job creation and workers' training, particularly in the current climate where people are still feeling insecure. Again, in the Prime Minister's words, "this is to make sure that every vulnerable worker has adequate resources to retrain". Many foreign unionists had asked me why is it that there is little resistance to change in Singapore among the workers. And my answer to them is quite simple. It is not because the Government had muzzled us or that workers are ignorant of their rights. Workers are more willing to accept

Column: 948

change because they know that if they are prepared to work hard, learn new skills and be adaptable, there will be help for them to move on to other opportunities. Indeed, Sir, I am glad that we are subscribing to a different globalisation process here - one which is inclusive, fair and humane with the Government firmly in the seat.

The Prime Minister had also outlined the importance of helping people to work longer. A tripartite committee will be set up to look into this. But I would like to urge employers not to wait for the recommendations of this committee before they move. I urge them to think of creative ways to engage and retain older workers. If we were to look at the labour force participation rate among older workers, our rate is low, and this may not even capture the picture correctly as some may have given up looking for work and are therefore not reflected in the statistics. So employers need to go beyond lip service in supporting the employment of older workers and actually demonstrate their support through concrete action. I continue to receive complaints from unemployed workers who were told to their face that they would not be given jobs because they were too old and these are just Singaporeans in their 40s!

Australia recently passed legislation prohibiting discrimination against older workers. While I am not suggesting that we do the same, if the situation does not improve and older workers continue to be discriminated in employment, then I am afraid that the pressure for legislation would intensify and this will restrict employer's flexibility in managing their affairs. Hence, it is better that employers adopt a proactive policy before they are forced to accept regulation on their right to recruit and manage older workers. So, I urge all employers to follow the Government - renew, strengthen and reinforce your social contract with the

Column: 949

workers. Demonstrate your support through concrete action. Treat workers not as digits but as important contributors to your wealth and growth.

Sir, since the Budget was announced, I have been asking our workers and unionists for their reactions, and most were happy with the Budget. They welcomed the $100 CPF top-up for Singaporeans above the age of 50 years. For the high income, this is an insignificant amount. But for the low income, this is an important contribution as it can amount to as much as one tenth of a month's salary for some of them. NTUC is also happy that the Government has heeded our call to top up the Medisave as this will help to lessen the burden on older and low income Singaporeans when MediShield premiums are increased this July.

Sir, let me now touch on a few specific issues in the Budget. Firstly, I welcome the increase in the skilled foreign worker levy from $50 to $80 this year and to $100 next year. I think this is timely and necessary as the present rate is too low. At the same time, I note that the employers are now allowed to exceed the dependency ceiling if they pay a $500 levy. Some workers have asked me whether there is a contradiction here. On the one hand, we are trying to redesign jobs so that more Singaporeans can do the jobs which are currently done by foreign workers. On the other hand, we allow a free flow of foreign workers beyond the dependency ceiling. I am concerned that even the $500 levy will not be sufficient to deter an influx of foreign workers. And I worry that we may be working at cross purposes here. Employers can still bring in foreign workers cheaply by reducing their wages, particularly since there is no minimum wage prescribed for such workers that they bring in and they are not required to

Column: 950

pay any CPF as well. I also note that in addition to no limit on the number that can be brought into Singapore, there are also no other safeguards, such as restriction only to workers from certain sources, such as the traditional sources, for instance. I hope to get a clarification on this point, particularly some assurance that this scheme will not end up as a backdoor through which more and more foreign workers will be brought in and thus undermining our job redesign efforts. I would like to know what safeguards will be put in place to prevent abuse.

Secondly, Sir, I would like to touch on the proposal to market test 20% of the non-core activities. I can understand the need for the Government to remain lean and efficient, but I wonder whether outsourcing is the main strategy that should be adopted in order to achieve this objective. As it is today, the talk on the ground is that there is no job security even in the Government service. People somehow expect the Government to act differently from the private sector, which is primarily bottom line, profit driven. In the minds of public sector employees, the 3% reduction in manpower stipulated under the manpower management framework over three years is closely linked to market testing and subsequently outsourcing. I note that the suggestion is only to market test but, nevertheless, in the minds of public sector employees, this will invariably result in outsourcing, and 20% is indeed a significant number of public sector jobs. The older and less skilled employees are the most concerned. They fear that they will be targeted for retrenchment. Often the perception is also that outsourced activities end up in the hands of foreign workers.

So, the clarification I would like to seek is whether the Government has explored other ways of enhancing efficiency and increasing productivity in the public sector. Instead of outsourcing the functions, can the Government

Column: 951

redesign jobs in these sectors so as to enhance their value and generate higher productivity? Will outsourcing these activities result in a deskilling of Singaporeans as core skills are no longer in their hands? I think for the private sector, there is no consideration, it is basically a question of what can be done efficiently at the lowest cost which they can buy from the market. But in the case of the public sector, one issue that I think we need to think about is by Best Sourcing. Are we not then withering down the core skills that our workers have, whether it is in the horticultural area, or other areas? We need to have people with the core skills, to be able to run the public sector services efficiently. Is it wise to outsource so many activities and will there be an impact on the level of service provided to the public? What steps are being taken in the public sector to prepare workers for these changes? Is there a systematic programme of training for workers, like the SRP, to target those in a certain age group and who are more vulnerable to prepare them for other jobs in the civil service or private sector?

My third point, Sir, is on the budget caps. This year, there will be further budget caps of 5%, higher than last year's budget cap of 2%. My concern is that we have announced quite a number of programmes. At least, the Government has announced a number of programmes. In addition, although our economy has done very well last year, there is an expectation that this year the world economy will slow down and there will be an impact on us. This being the case, there will continue to be big demands on Government services, particularly for social, community and job-related projects. I would like to seek a clarification from the Prime Minister whether taking these factors into account, will there be any impact on the level of services provided by the Government with this budget cap of 5%?

Column: 952

My fourth point, Sir, is to commend the Government for making it easier for Singaporeans to top up the Medisave accounts of their spouses and parents. This is important as the statistics show that a high percentage of older Singaporeans depend on their children's Medisave to pay for their hospital bills. The percentage is higher among women, who either do not have Medisave savings or have insufficient amounts in their accounts, particularly the older women. But I feel that the Government could go even further if it wants to incentivise people to top up. Currently, there is no tax relief for topping up the Medisave accounts of spouses and parents. I would like to suggest that the Government consider giving tax exemption for such Medisave top-ups, as I understand that this scheme has not been well-received and not well-utilised. Therefore, we need to better incentivise people to make use of it, if you want to encourage people to actively top up the Medisave accounts of their spouses and parents because this is a very critical account, bearing in mind that our population is ageing very rapidly.

Finally, Sir, I would like to urge the Government to continue to pay attention to the plight of needy Singaporeans. To be fair, the Government has done much to provide for our poor and needy. There are so many schemes available to take care of their needs. Perhaps, this is the problem: there are just too many schemes that people are confused. We need to take a different approach, to take stock. Even among the needy, there are different segments - the elderly poor who live with their family but there are others who live alone, the low income two-parent families and the single mothers, to name just a few of the segments of the needy and the poor. Each of these segments may have different needs and problems, and therefore different approaches may be required to reach out to them. We also need to take a long hard look at whether some of these schemes are indeed serving

Column: 953

its purpose. If the criteria for some of these schemes are so stringent, for instance, they may not be meeting their objective, and yet they appear as just another item to clutter a long list of schemes to help the needy and the poor, but they may not have much impact. Therefore, I urge the Government to look into some of these issues and ensure that help reaches those who are in most need of it.

In conclusion, Sir, we cannot avoid globalisation but we can choose a path that is inclusive, humane and fair. Let us show that we can do it in Singapore.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, the Prime Minister speaks of building an inclusive society where nobody is left out. Yet, in reality, the Opposition wards continue to be discriminated against. In the last 15 years, millions of dollars of CIPC funds have been disbursed

to all the PAP-controlled constituencies, yet not one cent of those CIPC funds has been handed to the Opposition wards. Residents of Opposition wards are also Singapore citizens. They do pay their taxes, they pay their fines probably, they do their stint of National Service, they obey the law and do whatever other citizens are required to do under the law. Yet, they do not benefit from the CIPC funds.

I say that it is only right that all Singaporeans should be treated equally. On my part as MP for Potong Pasir, I have applied for such funds many times. Till today, I have not received any of such funds to benefit my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister and his team to look into the matter of CIPC funds and make provisions for CIPC funds to be disbursed to Opposition wards, as all previous applications for support made to the PAP grassroots were futile.

Column: 954

Sir, I would like now to touch on provisions in the Budget. This year's Budget has been described as the people's Budget. There is supposed to be something for everyone. Yet, it has been pointed out in Saturday's Straits Times that the amount of $662 million disbursed this year is only half of the 2001 Budget benefits of $1.186 billion. The handouts are thinly spread through large sections of the population. Criticisms by academics are that the benefits are short-term and that they are not given in cash, and these shall not have immediate impact on the consumer economy. The Budget handouts are mostly to allow those in financial difficulties to tide over their present predicament. This, of course, helps a little bit, but it is not a long-term solution.

The long-term solution is to provide those under hardship good paying jobs. Job creation on the part of the Government is the crux of the matter. The Government reports that unemployment now stands at 3.6% or 78,600 people out of job. On the one hand, the Government says that it wants to create jobs. On the other hand, some of its policies, such as the levy for skilled foreign workers has been increased from $50 to $100 and the imposition of the new levy of $500 for every extra foreign worker employed above the quota limit, are driving businesses away from our shores, especially the labour-intensive electronic business, which employ large numbers of foreign workers. One manufacturer in Singapore threatened to move his business to Malaysia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and China, where labour is in abundance and cheaper. An electronic factory which employs 800 skilled workers complains that the increase in levy will cost his company an additional $480,000 a year. It would appear that the increase in the foreign worker levy is counter-productive, as far as job creation is concerned. The whole business sector, including the Singapore Manufacturers Federation and the Singapore Chinese

Column: 955

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are against the new foreign worker levy, both for the skilled workers and for extra workers employed beyond the quota limit. The Government should seriously relook the increases in foreign worker levy, otherwise it may face the flight of manufacturing and other businesses from our shores.

I would now like to comment on the so-called "dirty jobs". I think one of the reasons why Singaporeans avoid the dirty jobs is because the pay is too low. The complaint is that, for this type of workers, not only is the pay low, but they are often exploited by the employers. A woman once wrote to the press complaining her mother's pay of $600 as a sweeper is often not paid on time. Her mother's employer often delayed a month before she received her wages. On top of the delay, the employer pegged her mother's basic wage at $300, and the rest as variable components. The CPF contributions are based on the $300 basic wage. This example which I cite, I believe, is quite rampant among the poorly paid. No wonder Singaporeans are reluctant to take up the so-called "dirty jobs", because not only is the pay low, but workers are also unfairly exploited. What the unions need to do for these workers is to fight for a minimum wage of at least $1,000 a month for them. I believe that, with the higher pay, more Singaporeans will come forward to fill vacancies in these so-called "dirty jobs". It is also noted that the poorly-paid workers, once they leave a job, find it hard to get an alternative job. Perhaps the Government could make welfare more accessible to them. They are also less educated, and often do not know where to get help. These ignorant workers should be given help to get help.

Sir, as for estate duty, my stand remains the same as the one I took in Parliament recently. Since the income from estate duty, estimated at $75 million

Column: 956

a year, is so low, the Government should consider abolishing it. Once that is done, Singapore can be fully developed into a wealth management hub. If estate duty is scrapped, then there is no need for the concession to exempt death duty of a second member of a family dying soon after one family member has passed away. This concession is only a look-good one. In reality, it is a waste of time.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. Before I go on to the comments that I have for today, perhaps I could respond to a few of the points made by Mr Chiam See Tong.

Mr Chiam mentioned that job creation is at the heart of the economy. He criticised the Government for saying that it wanted to create jobs but, at the same time, increasing the levy for foreign workers. His argument was that increasing the levy would cause employers difficulties because it discourages them from employing foreign workers, which means that businesses will go away. But the point is that Singaporeans have been complaining that they cannot get jobs because the jobs go to foreign workers. So, there is a delicate balance to be struck. On the one hand, you want to make the jobs available to Singaporeans. On the other hand, for employers, they have costs. So, they will obviously go for a cheaper option, if they can. If the foreign worker levy is too low then, of course, they will employ more foreign workers who are willing to do these jobs which some Singaporeans may not be willing to do. If the foreign worker levy is too high, then it would be difficult for them to do so. So, we have got to balance it. The whole idea behind increasing the foreign worker levy is to make it slightly more expensive for the employers to employ a foreigner and,

Column: 957

hopefully, encourage them to employ Singaporeans. So, the heart of that policy that the Government has implemented is a concern for Singaporeans and a desire to encourage employers to employ Singaporeans.

The second point that Mr Chiam made was on the so-called "dirty jobs". He suggested that, in order to encourage people to take up this kind of jobs, unions should fight for a minimum wage of about $1,000. In theory, that sounds good. But, in reality, are the employers prepared to pay this amount? Probably not. Then we will have a situation where they do not get employed at all. The Government's strategy in dealing with this is probably the right one, which is job redesign and encouraging workers to learn new skills, skills redevelopment and skills upgrading. So, in addressing these points in the Budget, one should be fair to the Government, that what it has put in place is something which is aimed at helping Singaporeans.

That brings me on to the thrust of my speech for today. I sat in Parliament yesterday listening to Members criticising the Budget for not being pro-business enough. There were also others who said that "We did not get something. I want something." When you listen to it across-the-board, you get the feeling that everybody is saying "I want this little something, give me something" and that the Minister for Finance is like this trishaw rider who has to sit there and there is this big load behind him and he has to pedal furiously with this load behind him. My argument today is that the Singapore Budget is not a trishaw. The Singapore Budget is more like a bicycle built for two. The Minister for Finance has to pedal really hard but, in the backseat, Singaporeans have to pedal just as hard furiously together with him.

Column: 958

Let me explain why I say this. It has been described as an inclusive Budget, with a lot of help for the elderly and the needy. When we look at the actual amounts that were being disbursed, for example, for CPF top-ups, for the Medisave top-ups which range between $50 and $350, the total amount is $320 million, which is a lot of money. But when we spread it out amongst everybody, the individuals will get something between $50, $250 and $350. From the individual point of view, that is not that much although, obviously for those in the lower income group, that has a far greater impact on being able to assist them. For utilities rebates for one and two-room flats, they range from $60 to $200, and the total amount being used is $62 million. So, when we look at the numbers in absolute terms, they are huge, ie, $320 million and $62 million. When we look at what we can give each individual household or each individual person, it is much smaller.

What does this mean? In terms of fiscal prudence, it means that we can never be extravagant. It means that, yes, we may have a certain amount saved up, but we cannot be extravagant with it, and it is not something that we can just give away liberally. That is one of the reasons why it has to be spread thinly amongst Singaporeans. What does this mean in terms of what Singaporeans should do? Take CPF, for example. The CPF top-ups are welcome. But the truth of the matter is, in the long run, CPF will not be enough, because of inflation and cost of living increases. Housewives, for example, do not get CPF. So, if we want to prepare Singaporeans for retirement in the future, there is only so much that the Government can do. It can do CPF. That part it can implement and calibrate. But there are other things which it cannot do and where the responsibility falls on the individual to do, eg, personal savings and investments, family support, if it is available, and assistance from voluntary

Column: 959

welfare organisations. In short, if we want this kind of budget to work, it has to be a holistic approach, with partnership from the Government and the people, ie, the Government doing its part on the CPF policies, and the people doing their part, as far as their own personal financial planning is concerned.

But one area where I thought that the Government could help, certainly for retirement, is when it comes to the 30-month ban on being able to rent a HDB flat. As many of us know, many Singaporeans are said to be asset-rich but cash-poor. They have invested their money in their houses. Some of them, because they encounter financial difficulties, maybe sell their 4-room or 5-room flat, and then they get a certain amount and, after that, they want to rent a flat. But HDB's policy is that you cannot rent at least for a period of 30 months after you have sold your flat. I think that that policy needs a rethink, because if your CPF is not going to be enough for people when they get old in the long run, it does make sense to allow them to sell the flat, to use the sales proceeds of that, allow them to rent, and then they can use the proceeds for medical bills for whatever other living expenses they have. In other words, it is a form of investment, but you let them use it in a way that allows them to plan for their retirement.

Another example of the Government-people partnership is the Lifelong Learning Fund. The Government is to inject $500 million into the Lifelong Learning Fund, which will bring it to $2 billion. But it will only work if Singaporeans are willing to step forward and have the right mindset to learn new skills. It will only work if the employers are willing to employ older workers and give them a chance.

Healthcare cost is another example of Government-people partnership. People talk about healthcare costs and say that it

Column: 960

is increasing. That is true. On the other hand, when the Government increases the price of cigarettes to $10.70 a pack, there are many people who do not stop smoking and they put themselves at risk in terms of the possibility of getting lung cancer, for example. So, I can understand when we say that Government should inject more into healthcare and look into Medisave and MediShield. On the other hand, I believe that individuals have a responsibility to look after their own

health, to maintain a healthy lifestyle. When you think about it, $10.70 a pack, that is about $321 per month which comes up to about $3,852 per year. It is a lot of money. Again, when we talk about making the Budget work, it is personal responsibility as well Government's input.

The same with small and medium enterprises. We have heard a lot yesterday about how the Budget is not pro-business enough. It is true that tax refunds will help. It is true that tax incentives can be of assistance. But, at the end of the day, if SMEs really want to take off and do well, they need to get the fundamentals in place, like better understanding of branding, of intellectual property rights, of their marketing strategies and skills, of development of strategies for regional businesses. The one thing that I think Government can do for SMEs is less regulation rather than more rules and regulation. But, ultimately, if you want to create an entrepreneurial society, the onus is on the SMEs to develop that. I remember attending a seminar on entrepreneurship for young people. One of the participants came up and the question asked was, "What can the Government do to help me to be an entrepreneur?" And that seems like such a contradiction in turn because the idea of becoming an entrepreneur is that you should be able to do it, no matter what the Government does or does not do. But that reflects the mindset that Singaporeans are still going through. We

Column: 961

are making that transition from a fairly dependent society to a much more independent one. And some have made that transition, but some are still halfway along that journey. So this is something we need to work a bit harder on.

On the ComCare, again, this is another example where I think that there are some improvements that can be made. We have not received the full details of the ComCare but I do remember that when HOPE was announced, HOPE was not a very hopeful scheme because, although it provided some assistance, it did not extend to divorced families, people with more than two children and single mothers. I hope that when the details for ComCare are developed, the primary focus of ComCare would be on how to help people who need assistance as opposed to trying to make it an instrument to give assistance and, at the same time, an instrument of social policy or imposing a whole lot of restrictions as well.

Sir, with this, if I may just wrap up. The motion is to approve the financial policy of the Government. The feedback on the policy is that it is a prudent Budget and that it is a good Budget. The point I wanted to make was that it is a Budget that would only work if it is done in conjunction and cooperation with the Government as well as the people.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam earlier lamented that ever since he became a Member of Parliament, he did not get a single cent out of CIPC funds. I can also enlighten him that ever since I became a Member of Parliament together with him, all my requests for CIPC funds have never been fully approved. It has been always partially approved. And I have always complained how come my worthy project was not considered appropriately. And

Column:962

since the Minister for National Development had deemed it fit to appoint me into the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC), I can say that when the Committee meets, there are always requests that are at arms-length, and before we can even approve all the projects proposed by the PAP colleagues, the budget had been exhausted. So perhaps, if Mr Chiam tries harder next year, the Committee might have a chance to review his proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now proceed to my ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: rose ---

Mr Speaker: Dr Wang, would you allow Mr Chiam to clarify?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sure.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you. Sir, I have two comments to make. Firstly, at least, Dr Wang has received some money. I have not received any money at all. The other comment is that: does he know that we have to pass through the first hurdle at the constituency level before we can go to the Committee in which he is sitting? That means, we have to go through the person whom I defeated at the last election for permission. What do you think his answer would be?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the process in which the project comes to the review of the Committee. My suggestion is that he works harder with the constituency Adviser so that he can come to see the virtue of the project proposed by Mr Chiam.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): rose ---

Mr Speaker: Dr Wang, would you allow Mr Mah to interrupt?

Column: 963

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Yes.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I just want to clarify for Mr Chiam's benefit that I believe that Potong Pasir has indeed received CIPC funds. CIPC funds do not go to the MP or the Adviser. It goes to the constituencies. I recall that all constituencies in Singapore do receive some CIPC funds.

Mr Speaker: Last interruption, Mr Chiam. I do not want a mini debate on this.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I just clarify? I believe the CIPC funds received by Potong Pasir was awarded to a PAP election candidate.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Through him, at least. And it was for two or three town signs, if I am not mistaken. I think the amount was $6,000. That is all. And to date, I believe a PAP constituency has, on average, received about $1 million.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I just want to reiterate that CIPC funds are made available upon the request of the Advisers of the various constituencies and they go to enhance the facilities within the constituency. In the case of Potong Pasir, I believe funds have been requested for and have been given to Potong Pasir constituency. Of course, the reason why we go to the Adviser is because the request is generated through the grassroots organisations. These requests are assessed by a Committee of which Dr Wang is a member, and all the more deserving ones are given the funds. Therefore, it is not true that Potong Pasir has not received any funds.

Mr Speaker: Let us get back to the Budget debate, Dr Wang.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, the Prime Minister has said that this Budget is an

Column: 964

encompassing Budget and it is indeed so. It has something for everyone - the poor, and not so poor, young and not so young. It is a compassionate Budget. It establishes a ComCare Fund that will provide money to look after the disadvantaged in our society. The $500 million committed to the ComCare Fund to help needy Singaporeans cope with their daily livelihood will provide a safety net to those who need them. However, there is one group who seems to have escaped the attention of the Minister. And I am referring here to the group of Government pensioners, many of whom had provided sterling service to the nation in the past. For those older pensioners who retired about 30 years ago, their monthly pensions are still rather meagre. As the economy recovers and as salaries in the public sector are likely to be restored, I hope the Minister will consider the feasibility of increasing their monthly pension.

Sir, next, I would like to assess whether this Budget addresses some of the concerns of Singaporeans. Between November and December last year, the Feedback Unit conducted a poll with 1,064 Singaporeans on the challenges facing Singapore and Singaporeans to find out about the concerns and issues affecting them. This is a survey conducted using professionals in the business and this survey met the various statistical standards and should reflect accurately the opinions of Singaporeans across all income groups and ethnic origins. The results were telling.

Bread-and-butter issues, such as employment, healthcare and cost of living, continue to be of concern to Singaporeans. They are concerned about their ability to deal with these uncertainties. Yet, two-thirds of Singaporeans are upbeat and confident of Singapore's future. The strongest sense we get from the survey is that

Column: 965

Singaporeans remain confident and optimistic, even when faced with challenges. This is a very positive aspect of the survey.

The survey results were released to the public just two days before Budget Day. The survey was well reported in the press, so I do not intend to repeat those points. However, I would like to point out that the survey also gauged how Singaporeans view the seriousness of each concern versus their confidence that Singapore would be able to handle these challenges. There are areas which are of serious consequences but, at the same time, Singaporeans are very confident of overcoming these challenges. These include the threat of terrorism and reforming our education system. There are also areas where Singaporeans consider serious but are less confident in resolving them. Sir, at this juncture, may I seek your permission to ask the Clerk to circulate the chart that I have prepared. [ Chart circulated to hon. Members .]

If we refer to the chart, there will be two numbers: one, the percentage of the respondents who consider the issue a serious concern. The second is the percentage of the same respondents who are confident of Singapore being able to overcome the challenges. On the right hand column of the chart, I put the differences between these two percentages as a rough indication of the gap, and this is the gap in the perception of the respondents and the wider the gap, the less confident they are about Singapore being able to overcome the challenges.

The issues that registered the widest gap are first, lowering the cost of living; second, ensuring enough babies are born; third, keeping public transportation affordable; fourth, keeping healthcare

Column: 966

costs affordable; and fifth, creating sufficient jobs for Singaporeans.

I must add that this survey was conducted in the last two months of 2004. It captured the sentiments of Singaporeans at that particular period. Sir, it would be interesting to reassess these sentiments from time to time to determine whether these gaps have narrowed as our economy continues to improve. Some might even postulate that when there is a clear trend of these gaps narrowing, the ground would be considered sweet.

Over seven in 10 of Singaporeans surveyed perceived creating jobs for Singapore as a very serious concern. The Budget measures addressing this concern include the topping up of the Lifelong Learning Fund, redesigning jobs, reskilling the workers and others that my colleague, Mdm Halimah Yacob, had already addressed. Although this Budget mentioned SMEs, it did not address the cost of doing business in Singapore at large. In fact, the increase in foreign worker levy would increase the burden to many SMEs, just as the economy is recovering. Hopefully, the Minister has assessed that this measure will not nip the recovery of our economy in the bud.

The Budget also announced several measures to help Singaporeans prepare for better retirement and tackle worries of healthcare costs. Measures such as top-ups to CPF Special/Retirement accounts of older Singaporeans, to increase the CPF voluntary contribution and tax relief caps, as well as to simplify the Supplementary Retirement Schemes are good ones. To address healthcare cost, the Budget has announced Medisave and Medifund top-ups. These would go in a way to alleviate the worries of the 67% of the respondents who said they were concerned about not having enough savings to meet their retirement needs,

Column: 967

and not being able to pay for their future healthcare costs.

Sir, about two thirds (65%) of those surveyed believe that having enough babies is a major challenge facing Singapore. Yet, despite the slew of baby bonus measures announced in the previous statements, the gap of ensuring enough babies are born is among the highest. This indicates that the Government still has a lot of work to do in this area if it wants to see the result desired by our baby bonus policies. It is good that in this Budget, the Government has announced enhancements to the Baby Bonus Scheme and the reduction in the foreign domestic worker levy to help families.

An area of concern is the coping with an ageing population. More than 70% of Singaporeans viewed dealing with the problems of an ageing population as a main challenge. Although the Budget has provided some measures to address retirement-related issues, it is important that we address these issues from a comprehensive macro-manner. For instance, we have to look at the fundamental change in the society's social structure. I urge the Government to continue to adopt a concerted, comprehensive and in-depth approach to cope with the eventual social demographic shift in our population. For instance, it is excellent that the PM recognises the need to provide lift service to every floor of our HDB blocks. Next, we might have to ask how we could incentivise public transport operators to provide elderly-friendly buses. The list goes on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also analysed the profile of the respondents who have expressed a lower level of confidence over Singapore's ability to overcome those five critical areas I have highlighted. I think the results are interesting enough to share with the House.

Column: 968

The issue of cost of living worries especially those who have received a tertiary and a higher level of education. Those who are less confident that Singapore is producing enough babies are in the 45-49 age group. They are typically Chinese. All have tertiary and higher education.

On the challenge of keeping public transportation affordable, those who are less confident are likely to be degree holders or post-graduate holders, the self-employed, as well as the unemployed.

When faced with the issue of keeping healthcare cost affordable, those in the age groups 25-29, 45-49 and 55-59 are typically graduates and the self-employed who are also less confident about Singapore being able to handle this challenge.

And, lastly, considering the issue of creating sufficient jobs for Singaporeans, those who are less confident are more likely to be males, have university education, are self-employed or unemployed, middle income earners or are single.

Sir, we could observe that, by and large, Singaporeans who are university educated, male and those who are self-employed are the ones most concerned with the five issues. One reason could be that they have higher expectations and aspired to attain a higher standard of living. They not only feel that these five areas pose serious challenges to Singapore, they are also not very confident that Singapore could cope with these challenges.

Sir, as Singapore's economy restructures rapidly, structural unemployment becomes a significant issue. My colleague, Mdm Halimah Yacob, has also put the framework in the context of globalisation. Sir, structural unemployment is a very nice term, a scholarly term

Column: 969

used to describe a very damaging social problem. Basically, the people who are structurally unemployed are obsolete with respect to the need of the market. Industries come and go in a few years, but human beings could not change their skill base so rapidly.

It is important that we should explore all avenues to create jobs for these people. It would be uncaring if we leave these people in the garbage heap of history by lumping them into a category called "structural unemployment." So, in this respect, in mulling over the options Singapore has in globalisation, I am struck by the arguments in favour of instituting a Formal Offset Programme in our Defence procurement.

Sir, I must add that I am not an expert in this area. In my capacity as Chairman of the Feedback Unit, a Mr David Hew has highlighted to me the leverage of a Formal Offset Programme that Singapore could have exercised in the economic competition between nations. Sir, David Hew has been the lone voice in the wilderness for many years now, advocating the cause of offset. When David Hew first approached me several months ago, I too mentally brushed his petition aside using my simple Economics 101 argument. And that is basically this: there is no free lunch in the world and offset would simply increase the cost of our procurements. But David Hew persisted and showed documents that are, on the surface, quite persuasive. It seems that in the convoluted world of offset, one could not just depend on simple basic instincts. Perhaps one has to graduate to the theory of Economics 401 or 501, graduate-level economics, to see the virtue of a Formal Offset Programme.

Sir, I am persuaded enough to bring this matter up for discussion because I could not come out with a counter-

Column: 970

argument to debunk his persuasion. But I must declare that I am not championing his cause, nor am I speaking as his mouth-piece. Sir, may I now refer to the second sheet of the chart that I have asked the Clerk to circulate earlier. If you would refer to this table, this table gives the cumulative values of defence procurement by 15 countries from 1993 to 1999. On one column we see the actual value of procurement versus the benefit accrued by the Formal Offset programmes, what we call "credit value". This table is taken from a report issued by the US Department of Commerce and so the dollars are in US dollars. This talks about the purchases from the US and the credit value given by the US Defence vendors. This document is publicly available on the web and the URL is also given in the table.

Sir, the first top 15 countries are mostly developed countries in Europe and they do not engage in barter trade that is typically conjured up by the term "offset". The top country here, in fact, is Finland with a cumulative credit value of US$3 billion and a credit/actual ratio of 1.07. In other words, Finland manage a flowback of $1 benefit for every dollar spent on defence procurement from the United States.

Of course, by requiring the Defence vendors to honour the Formal Offset Programme, the cost of the procurement would go higher. The key question is: by how much. An article in the journal _Counter Trade & Offset _ published on 10th February 2003 contained a Special Report titled "Dutch Audit - A Remarkable Document that Shows Offset provides substantial measurable Benefits". In this report, it shows a "Costs & Benefits Analysis" prepared by Price Waterhouse Consulting [PWC] for the Netherlands' Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Defence finds that the cost of imposing offset averages 2.9% of the value of the acquisition. So, in other

Column: 971

words, if we impose an offset for $1 billion spent, we increase the cost of the acquisition by about 3%. Assuming these figures are correct, on the surface of it, it seems that a developed country like Netherlands is able to leverage $1.28 dollars of benefit by spending an additional 3 cents or a ratio of 42 times cost/benefit ratio. This seems to present a very persuasive argument if offset programmes in defence procurement could be implemented appropriately. For instance, in 1995, our Apache Helicopters purchase amounted to US$1.7 billion. Had we imposed formal offset requirement along the lines of the European countries, maybe we could also obtain a flowback of close to US$1 billion in economic activities to Singapore at an incremental cost of around 3%. Sir, even if we are not as good as the Dutch, and we had to be less efficient and modify this cost by three times, let us say, incremental cost of 10%, it would seem that from a national perspective it is still worthwhile for us to impose this Formal Offset Programme.

Sir, in the age of full employment and vibrant economic growth, I believe we could give up the leverage of a tool such as this. But as we face economic uncertainties, and as our manufacturing sector hollows out, and our workers face structural unemployment, many for the rest of their life, maybe and just maybe, it is worthwhile for us to distort the free market principle that we adopt in favour of protecting jobs in Singapore.

Sir, as I said, I am not an offset expert. But on the surface of the argument, perhaps we should make sure that as a nation, we do not give up this tool that we could have used to our advantage. So, therefore, I would urge the Prime Minister to constitute a multi-agency task force to look into this as the benefit evaluation of such a programme cuts across Ministries, for instance, the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of

Column: 972

Trade and Industry. Perhaps we should not let the Ministry of Defence alone to assess the appropriateness of what we call Formal Offset Programmes.

I have two more cuts in the Committee of Supply on this topic and would delve into greater detail there.

Next, I would delve into Budget specifics. I have a few questions. First on NII. My question to the Minister is why is the current NII lower than last year's NII when the Singapore economy is, in fact, expected to grow further, albeit at a slower rate. Why is there a drop of NII contribution of $0.8 billion or 30%? Does the Minister expect the Total Investment Income to drop because of weaker economic circumstances in the coming financial year or does he tap a smaller percentage of NII and allow the balance of it to be reverted to the reserves? Assuming we kept the NII contribution, Sir, as was last year, and put back $0.8 billion into the budget, then we are actually looking at a budget surplus of $1.3 billion.

The next question I have concerns vehicle taxes and COEs. My question is: why is the revenue for motor vehicle related taxes going up by 10% while the contribution from the vehicle quota premiums declined by 8.6% according to the Budget statement? Since these numbers are all based on the same number of vehicles to be registered in fiscal year 2005, there must be certain assumptions made - tax going up, but quota coming down. It is not transparent to me, Sir. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us why those numbers are what they are.

Finally, Sir, I would say that overall, there is no denying that Singaporeans are confident and upbeat about our future. Bread and butter issues continue to be the focus of concern for Singaporeans. Nonetheless, 62% of Singaporeans are

Column: 973

concerned with the uncertainties in the future economic outlook of Singapore. This is a complex issue to grapple with for any small nation. As such, we should strive our very best for economic growth. We should also explore all ways and means to booster the lack of demand as mentioned in the House yesterday. The key is that we want our younger generation to be confident and enthusiastic about our future. The last thing we want of them is to be uncertain and disillusioned. Sir, we must continue to send a clear signal that even if there were difficulties, hard work and enterprise of our people would eventually pay off.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget this year was announced by Mr Lee Hsien Loong in his capacity as Prime Minister and Finance Minister for the first time. This is the time of the Chinese New Year celebration. When he announced the various reliefs and handouts, I was reminded of the "tossing up of raw fish", a traditional Chinese New Year dish which is very popular with the people, young and old, in Singapore and Malaysia for its auspicious significance.

When partaking of this dish, it is traditional for the people to say out a series of greetings, such as good health, good luck, peace and prosperity, etc. When the Budget was announced, there were all sorts of goodies being handed out, such as topping up of Edusave, Medisave, and so on. Everybody is happy. There will be no cut in defence expenditure. Everybody will be happy and healthy. Happy and healthy are very important to everybody. Everybody will get rebates on utilities.

Many of our MPs came across residents whose power and water supply was cut off. Now we have all kinds of rebates to help these people.

Column: 974

There is also the loss carry-back provision for the SMEs. So there is something for everybody. The NTUC and the employers will redesign the various jobs for the benefit of the senior citizens, so that they can keep their job and be happy.

Of course, there is a price hike for cigarettes. Smoking is bad for the health. We must all work with one heart and seize the opportunity that would be created, and make full use of them.

In the debate yesterday and today, we kept hearing MPs saying that some residents had told them that the Finance Minister's goodies were visible but not tangible. This is because many people regard the Finance Minister as the God of Fortune. The God of Fortune gives away ang pows, but the Finance Minister provides the opportunities. The question is whether we are able to seize the opportunities.

After the announcement of the Budget, the general reaction from the people is different from that in the previous years. What is the difference? In the past, whatever goodies we gave, there was inevitably the complaint that there were not enough and the distribution was unfair. But this year, the people are generally happy and pleasantly surprised. They feel that the Finance Minister has listened to them, and has looked into their needs. Why is there a difference in the reactions?

I think there are two reasons. Firstly, in 2003, we went through the SARS crisis. Secondly, the Indian Ocean tsunami destroyed homes and took away thousands of lives. Now, our people realise that we are indeed blessed with happiness and good fortune. We are better off than our neighbours. Now, people are not so critical. In the past, people who were generous have now become even more generous. The

Column: 975

Government has allocated about $70 million towards the relief fund, and the people also donated a lot of money. So we are all working together, and the people have more confidence in the Government.

Now, the expectations of the people have become more realistic and down to earth. People are more pragmatic. That is the reason why the people have reacted differently to this year's Budget.

The second reason, of course, is that it is a very good Budget. It is full of warmth, very inclusive and very compassionate. When we talk of the "tossing up of raw fish" and the blessings for everybody, I think we should regard the Budget of the Prime Minister and Finance Minister as a very important Budget for creating opportunities and building up the community. There is also a top-up for the Lifelong Learning Fund, some 19,000 job opportunities will be created. Not only that, we can also make use of the Lifelong Learning Fund to help these people.

I do not agree with Mr Chiam See Tong who said that some female workers receive low wages and are exploited, and that the Government and the NTUC should do something about it. I think Mr Chiam See Tong can see for himself that the NTUC has and will continue to work together with the Government and the employers to create more jobs for our people.

Mr Chiam said that we must set a minimum pay of $1,000 per month. If the job is worth $1,000, then the employer will be willing to pay the $1,000. It depends on the value of the job. We cannot make it compulsory for employers to pay $1,000 for a job which is worth only a few hundred dollars. The union leaders and labour MPs have been advocating for better benefits for the elderly workers. So this is a social

Column: 976

problem and also a national problem. The Government, the employers and the unions should try and solve this problem step by step.

On the SMEs, the Government has heard and understood their predicaments. The NTUC and the employers will work together with the Government to solve the problem of the SMEs in the spirit of tripartism.

This is a good Budget. I hope that next year, the Finance Minister will be able to give yet another "tossing up of raw fish" type of Budget so that, in future, our Government and our country will become stronger and the people will be better off.

Dr Loo Choon Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the FY 2005/06 Budget as presented by the Prime Minister.

Sir, this is indeed a Budget for all. It is a Budget reflective of the right priorities - building a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy, keeping Government lean and effective, and applying surpluses to help Singaporeans cope with changes in a caring and inclusive society. I believe the six top-ups are well considered and delivered with surgical precision to those who really need them. These are steps towards a compassionate society.

Of course, one can ask for more rebates and more benefits. The economy has rebounded, the unemployment rate has lowered and many companies are posting good results. But I believe it is more important to ensure that we move in the right direction, and that the economy develops in a sustainable manner. For only when we, as a nation, can "earn our keeps" do we have the means to help and care for our fellow citizens.

Slightly more than a month ago, in the debate on the President's Address, I urged

Column: 977

the Government to study the Nordic countries' ability to create wealth on a sustainable basis. Their economic success enables them to provide good welfare services for their citizens. They are worthy of our study because they, like us, have relatively small populations, as well as highly educated and hardworking citizens. These countries have more natural resources than us. But what is particularly interesting is that despite operating within a high-cost environment, they are still able to retain their competitiveness and develop new strengths. I am glad the Government has taken note of this suggestion.

I hope, as a society, we will form a national consensus that we need to first produce wealth before we can distribute wealth. Otherwise, we will soon become another country requiring international aid. This is even more important as the economy matures and we grow moderately at 3-5% only.

Helping local enterprises

Sir, in his speech, the Prime Minister commented that, "The best way to make Singapore a land of opportunity is to grow our economy, to generate the resources to realise our aspirations."

Since our recession, we are diversifying our economy, building up services and promoting local enterprises and SMEs. Much has been done. But like my colleagues, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Lawrence Leow, I urge the Government not to slow down the momentum even as our economy improves. We must not let up. For 40 years, we have relied on foreign direct investments (FDIs) of MNCs to help us create jobs.

The service sector has grown despite our past neglect. But as competition for FDIs intensifies, we need to grow our

Column: 978

service sector and our local enterprises. A large part of the service sector is served by local enterprises - both large and small. And many of our local enterprises have become world-class contract manufacturers. A few have even become regional and global brands in their own right.

For a start, I think we need to replace the term "SME". SMEs are, by definition, companies with fixed assets not exceeding $15 million and employ less than 200 staff. But SMEs are just not sexy! Somehow, over the years, a certain misperception has been created. People think that these enterprises have no future. We should not brand small companies and start-ups with such inauspicious and unattractive names. Creative Technology, Venture Manufacturing and Hyflux were all SMEs some time ago. But people tend to forget this fact. We should promote all local enterprises, create a conducive pro-enterprise environment so that they can flourish. They will then help to provide jobs and contribute to the economy in bigger ways. We need more than 66,000 jobs a year to grow.

Local enterprises are more likely to stay rooted in Singapore. Even if they expand all over the world, many of them keep their HQ and their listing status in Singapore. They repatriate their profits back to Singapore and pay Singapore taxes. So, does the name matter? Of course! Branding works. "Entrepreneurs", "technopreneurs", "start-ups" all have sexy rings to them.

So, just like we would not think of naming our new born child "Ah Kow" or "Ah Tee", we should rename our local enterprises. Perhaps SLE will do. SLE can stand for Singapore Local Enterprise or Singapore Local Entrepreneur.

My colleagues, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Lawrence Leow, called passionately

Column: 979

that there should be a single agency and more resources allocated to them. Mr Singh is asking for EDB-like approach. Mr Lawrence Leow asked for more resources to be allocated to SPRING and IE Singapore. I support their call for more effort and resources to be allocated for the promotion of local enterprises. Like them, I have been working with ACE - the Action Committee for Entrepreneurship - for the past two years. And I agree that there should be a single point of contact for all local enterprises who need assistance or simply want to expand their businesses locally or overseas.

Yes, we do need an EDB for local enterprises, just like we have had an EDB for 40 years for MNCs. But instead of creating a new agency, I propose that the Government consider seriously of merging SPRING and IE Singapore into one agency for all local enterprises, and charter it to do what EDB has done for MNCs

in Singapore. This combined agency will have more talent and resources and eliminate any duplication. And indeed, if you look at the Mission Statement, there is a lot of overlap. If we take the combined budgets of SPRING and IE Singapore, this agency will have a budget of $211 million and that is not small change. Many local enterprises will benefit from working with a combined agency that can help them grow and expand into the region.

The KPI for an agency like this should be the growth of local enterprises as measured by combined value add, job provision, and new job creation. In this way, the Board and the CEO can be totally focused on delivering the goods for local enterprises.

Land pricing policy

Sir, our property market seems to have bottomed out. Our residential transactions were recorded and prices are

Column: 980

firming. Office rental is firming also as demand picks up. These signs augur well for the economy. However, we should be on our guard against excessively high property prices, which would render our economy uncompetitive again.

The Government, through its promotion of REITs, has helped to promote a yield-based property investment environment, as opposed to capital gains property investment environment. The latter tends to promote speculative bubble with its boom and bust effects.

The Government could also review its land pricing policy and be prepared to zero-rate the land for strategic assets like port, airport, and other strategic industries. The agency vested with the land can be more competitive because there is no land cost to form the floor fixed cost. The Government will then get different yields from its land according to the economic climate and get more visitors to Singapore, more airlines and ships calling at Singapore. The economic spillovers surely will outweigh the gains from land rental. The Government should refrain from behaving like a commercial real estate developer but use its land resources wisely to retain our competitiveness and to do what benefit Singapore as a whole, and not what benefits the agency itself only.

Minor discrepancies

Sir, with your indulgence, I want to mention two minor discrepancies in our taxation policy in these areas. First, we have reduced 10% withholding tax on REIT distribution for foreign non-individual investors. This will no doubt attract foreign investment firms to invest in REIT in Singapore. However, Singapore non-individual investors are still taxed at a corporate tax of 20% for REIT distributions. I think we should align this to 10%, otherwise we will be penalising

Column: 981

local corporate investors which may wish to invest in REITs.

Second, as of 2005, we require corporates to expense their stock options. However, even as such stock option expenses are charged against the profit of companies, I understand they are not considered as "allowable expenses" for corporate tax purposes. Yet when the employee exercises the option, he is taxed on this benefit. I believe, for consistency, the Government should allow stock option expenses to be deducted for tax computation, just like cash and non-cash employee compensation and benefits.

Sir, may I declare my interest as Chairman of Raffles Medical Group. We do have such a scheme in place.

Lean and efficient Government

I applaud the PM's commitment to a lean and effective Government. Currently, we spend 16% of our GDP on Government. This 16% pays for defence, security, foreign affairs, education, health, as well as business promotion. Americans spend 14.7% of their GDP on healthcare alone! So we are doing not too badly.

However, being Singaporeans, we must not be content and complacent. Although we have across-the-board 2% cut in the block budget, the absolute dollar spending by Government has increased. Government and civil servants must not waste. We owe it to the people. We must get more bangs for every buck. Every dollar we save will enable us to help more poor, elderly or sickly Singaporeans. Mr Tan Soo Khoon has previously mentioned in this House the lavish spendings of some Government offices. We should heed his warning even as we want to have a comfortable environment for our civil servants to work productively and efficiently.

Column: 982

I, therefore, recommend that the Government try to reduce total Government spending even as the GDP grows. Perhaps, we can aim for a lower percentage when our GDP reaches a certain level and an even lower one. This will reflect the efficiency we have as our economy grows bigger. In this way, we will retain and maintain our competitiveness as an economy and secure our long-term future.

Effective Government

The Government recognises the need to "consult widely on its policies" and that "feedback is essential to formulating successful public policies". Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Chairman of Remaking of Singapore Committee, has called the casino issue the "mother of all consultations". I agree that this is the mother. But I do not know who is the father.

I see a great opportunity here for PM to recalibrate the tenor and the tone of the people-Government relationship. For 40 years, we have lived under the "wisdom" of "Government knows best". The PM has set a new direction for his Government and for this country in a short space of six months since he took office last year. But old habits die hard. Because the Government has called for proposals, people mistakenly have the perception that the Government has made up its mind and the consultation is only for show. Coffeeshop talk is that it is already "kelong". Of course, in this debate, religious organisations have risen to the challenge, as we would expect them to.

I am personally neutral towards allowing or not allowing a casino at the Integrated Resort. But I am struck by the divisiveness of this issue. This House is divided on this issue. I heard the passionate speeches of many hon. Members of this House, arguing against

Column: 983

the casino during the debate on the President's Address. Mr Loh Meng See questioned, "Are we prepared to give up the values we held dear in the past because of economic benefits?" Mr Tan Soo Khoon, in the same debate, commented, "Singapore got to where it is today not by taking easy options but through sheer doggedness and hard work". And in January, this year, MM Lee told NUS students that the Cabinet is divided. What does this mean to us?

I see this as an excellent opportunity to rework the process for active citizenry. Singaporeans want to have more say in policies, especially important ones. The Government is encouraging them to participate more actively. I believe this is a step in the right direction. When people speak out, it is because they care about Singapore.

I, therefore, propose that the Government consider conducting a binding referendum on the issue of whether we should permit a casino in the proposed Integrated Resort with certain restrictions to access. Like the PM, I do not believe in Government by referenda or plebiscite. But I believe this is one issue where we can benefit as a society when we clearly articulate our collective moral DNA, as I would term it. In short, our collective moral stand may be that we are prepared to deny ourselves the economic benefits of a casino because it is morally objectionable.

By submitting this issue to a binding referendum, the Government will also demonstrate that it really means to have a public debate and the people's views matter. It is not form. It is substance. The results of such a referendum will remind us all that we live a culturally, racially and religiously diverse society, and as fervently as we believe in our side of the argument, there are fellow citizens who believe just as fervently as the other side. So we need to moderate our stance

Column: 984

and be sensitive to each other and show consideration for each other's views. And this will help us mature as a society.

So there is more at stake here than just whether we get another GDP point on economic development, or whether we have a casino or not, or whether we have more tourists. Such a referendum should not be set as a precedent. It is not often that a PAP Cabinet is divided. You may ask, Sir, will a non-binding referendum or lifting the Government Whip during the debate do? After careful thought, my answer is "no". It would not help. Yes, a referendum will be costly and inconvenient. But the divisiveness of such magnitude exists even across party lines and it may make the trouble worth it. Maybe this is the father of all consultations, if we ever have a referendum.

Finally, I applaud the PM's decision to build a culture of volunteerism and philanthropy so as to strengthen our collective social responsibility and build stronger community bonds. I am glad we have removed the different tax treatment for donations with naming opportunities. SMU's Lee Kong Chian School of Business sounds so much more distinguished and prestigious than a bland SMU "School of Business".

Extending the definition of "charitable purposes" will also help promote private and corporate philanthropy. There is a small suggestion I would like to make for the sake of Singapore-based charities with operations in the region. Sir, I would like to declare my interest that I am the Chairman of Asian Medical Foundation.

The 80-20 rule

Currently, fund raisers must apply 80% of net proceeds within Singapore, unless the Commissioner in his discretion allows otherwise. The tsunami disaster

Column: 985

has clearly demonstrated the need and opportunities for Singapore to play a constructive role as a good neighbour in the region. We may be small but our people are serious, reliable and effective.

We are prosperous and rather fortunate. Helping our neighbours, especially when they have problems, deepens the bonds we have with each other and improve our acceptance in the region. I believe we should promote more people-to-people bonds and network through reaching out to the region. The Government can spearhead and lead, as it has done admirably during the tsunami disaster. However, for such efforts to be sustained and to engender the kind of goodwill, the people sector volunteers are very necessary.

Through such people-to-people contacts and efforts, we can build a network of trust, goodwill and bonds which will bolster our relationship with our neighbours, even when relationship swings from time to time between the governments. Strengthening the geo-political fabric will add to the strength of our society and our long-term sustainability.

I therefore urge the Government to abolish the 80-20 rule, or else give liberal exemptions to organisations with bona fide regional activities. The Government should readily withdraw such exemptions when so-called charitable organisations use this loophole for less than noble purposes.

Estate duty

Lastly, death duties. The Government has introduced estate duty relief for deaths in quick succession. This is a compassionate measure for those unfortunate families. The Commissioner collected $182 million in FY 2003/04 for

Column: 986

1,569 cases. Estate duty formed 1.1% of all taxes collected. The Budget estimates a collection of $75 million in 2005. The rationale for estate duty is never quite well understood. I believe it has to do with not wanting people to pass wealth from one generation to another. I wonder if this is at odds with our aspiration to become a centre for wealth management for the region. I wonder if foreign private banking clients would be subject to estate duties.

I am sure, despite the generally liberal exemption of $9 million for dwelling houses and $600,000 for other assets, there will still be a fair amount of monies and assets kept away from IRAS' grasp. I wonder whether it makes sense to scrap the estate duty altogether so that

all the monies and assets can be efficiently re-invested into the economy to create more wealth and jobs in Singapore, rather than sit in some offshore private banking accounts. This may offset the $75 million we expect to get from estate duties this year.

Sir, I support the Budget Statement.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

Sir, this year's Budget has been well received by many Singaporeans. It is a Budget which benefits all Singaporeans, both young and old. The Budget is also strategically focused on creating opportunities for Singaporeans and building a strong community. It sends out clear signals to both individuals and businesses that the Government is compassionate and will always deliver its promise to share the fruits of the country's economic success with Singaporeans. Three clear messages are spelt out in the Budget, as follows:

(1) Small and Medium Enterprises play a crucial role in our economy as they

Column: 987

provide the backbone of our economy and employ many Singaporeans;

(2) We must recognise the contributions and efforts of individuals who pay income tax to support our Government services; and

(3) Every Singaporean has a role in building a strong community.

Sir, globalisation has caused various social gaps in our society. These include income gap, asset gap or living standard gap. This widening disparity between the rich and the poor has increasingly caused concern and posed threats to our society. As such, the Government should strive towards providing a conducive social environment that will strengthen the fabric of our society.

Besides these economic disparities between the rich and the poor which are easily quantifiable and measured, there is a growing concern of an "expectation gap" among our people. This qualitative gap reflects how people feel about their own lives. For example, job security gap, lifestyle gap and parental support gap. These gaps have resulted in a growing number of winners and losers in the new economy.

Sir, in Singapore, our workforce has been increasingly split between the permanent full-time employees and the ranks of "freeters". "Freeters" refers to the growing number of people who move from one temporary job to another. This "job security" gap between the two groups will affect our people psychologically and have significant impact on their future plans, such as getting married, setting up families or owning homes. In addition, the structural unemployment situation has also widened the gap among the full-time permanent and part-time or contract workers.

Another phenomenon of the "expectation gap" is the lifestyle gap. For

Column: 988

instance, two 25-year-old males could be earning the same income of $2,000 per month. But a single male living with his parents will certainly have more discretionary spending and enjoy a different standard of living, as compared to a married man supporting a family of two or three children with the same income. Similarly, there is a widening living standard gap among young couples staying with or near their parents and those living alone. Parental support improves the couples' prospects of career advancement, having children, and standard of living.

Thus, the "expectation gap" will further widen the "status gap" between the rich and poor in our society. It will not only manifest itself in material wealth, but also in differences in opportunity. Increasingly, people of high status will find themselves in an environment where their efforts are rewarded and they have high hopes for their future, while people of low status are stuck in situations where their efforts are not rewarded and lost hope in life.

Sir, although Singapore is affected by globalisation and structural unemployment, we must be mindful to provide equal opportunities to motivate our people to overcome these social disparities. The key is to give hope to all and support all to excel in their lives. I fully support the thrust of the Budget, which is to create opportunity and build community. I would like to suggest the following additional measures for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance to consider.

Creating opportunity

(1) Nurturing the construction industry

The construction industry has been in the doldrums for many years. At present, it is the only sector in our economy which has failed to recover, registering a

Column: 989

negative growth of 6.5% in 2004. The downturn in the industry has caused many Singaporeans to lose their jobs. Many people do not realise that the slowdown of the construction industry has an adverse impact on the supply chain industries, such as building materials and services, furniture, office equipment, transport, machinery, food and many related industries.

Over the last few years, we have lost many established construction firms due to liquidation and diversification. The present consolidation of the industry is unhealthy, as we are losing core expertise in the industry. This is a major setback for the construction industry. Today, sentiments in the construction industry are bleak and practitioners are pessimistic about the future of the industry. Many cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel, and some have lost hope.

Sir, I would like to urge the Government to provide more support for the construction industry. At present, there is an apparent lack of opportunities for the industry to revive, and it seems to be heading nowhere. We need to develop a long-term strategy to spearhead our construction industry and increase its capabilities to export its services overseas. The Government must take the lead and provide opportunities for local contractors to grow into global companies. I would urge the Government to form a steering committee to chart key strategic directions for the construction industry.

Sir, the increase in skilled foreign worker levy from $50 to $100 will further dampen the construction industry. Many construction firms that are currently working on projects will face an increase in cost. Many construction contracts are lump-sum contracts. Thus, developers and public agencies will normally not

Column: 990

reimburse contractors for the increased foreign worker levy. Consequently, more firms will face cash flow problems or liquidation. I would urge the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance to consider imposing the increased levy on new skilled foreign workers instead of the existing ones. In this way, contractors who tender for future jobs would be able to incorporate this increased levy in their tenders and employ these new foreign workers accordingly. This arrangement will also encourage firms to retain their existing pool of skilled workers, thus resulting in higher quality and productivity.

Sir, in times of downturn in the construction industry, the Government should capitalise on the lower cost of construction and initiate more public projects. There is a need to expedite the construction of the following facilities.

Step-down care facilities

At present, there is a shortage of step-down care facilities, such as mental patient care centre, crisis homes, rehabilitation centre, respite care centre, and health-related support centre. These community-based facilities are necessary to support an ageing population, and provide support to families in need. The setting up of these centres will provide more effective outreach and shorten the recovery period of the affected people.

MRT and LRT network

The LTA should expedite the construction of the Circle Line and develop more LRT networks to further connect our public transport infrastructure. The connectivity of our MRT, LRT and bus networks is crucial in achieving the concept of work, live and play, as portrayed by the URA. We need to improve the access between the workplace and the homes of our people so as to reduce wasteful travelling time and boost productivity.

Column: 991

Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP)

Sir, recently, I visited 15 blocks of my residents in Bukit Panjang. I was surprised to learn that many of our senior citizens face various degrees of difficulty in walking up and down staircases. Many suffer from gout, arthritis and various types of leg diseases, thus inhibiting their walking abilities. This is of grave concern.

First, we need to improve the vertical accessibility of all our HDB flats urgently. The Lift Upgrading Programme is very well received by residents. Providing lifts that stop at every landing will definitely improve the quality of life of our residents. Although the Prime Minister has announced that LUP will be completed in 10 years' time, I believe we can further shorten the period to five years, so as to meet the needs of our residents faster. We have also received requests from residents staying in 4-storey walk-up apartments for LUP. I hope the Government will include these 4-storey flats in the LUP.

Second, we need to actively promote a healthy lifestyle among our people to prevent them from suffering such disabilities.

School development and upgrading programme

Sir, with the emphasis to provide a holistic education to all our students, there is a need to expedite the single-session programme for all schools. At present, only secondary schools have single sessions, while most primary schools are not on single session due to shortage of classrooms. We should speed up both the development of new schools and upgrading of existing schools so as to implement single session in all schools.

As it is crucial to build schools near housing estates, we should consider

Column: 992

building high-rise schools to maximise land use. It is not necessary for all schools to each own a football field. We should instead innovate and provide facilities within the school buildings which permit multiple uses, such as indoor school hall and gymnasium. Schools should be encouraged to use more community facilities, such as open fields in housing estates, public swimming pools, sports stadium, parks, or other public amenities. In this way, we can save land in the development of schools and, at the same time, maximise the usage of public amenities.

"Green buildings"

Recently, China has announced plans to build more "green buildings" which conserve energy. In Singapore, the Building Control Authority (BCA) has just launched the Green Mark Building Scheme. This is a voluntary scheme, which audits the extent of environment sustainability elements incorporated in a building. I would urge the Government to do more to spearhead "green buildings" in Singapore. Many buildings in Singapore are not built to achieve efficient operating cost. For example, our lighting systems are not energy-efficient, our air-conditioning systems consume lots of energy, and many buildings do not have facilities for water conservation. These trends, if left unchecked, will further increase the cost of our businesses and erode our business competitiveness. It will also impose more financial burden on building owners and home owners. Many building owners, town councils and management corporations are reluctant or face difficulty to convert their buildings into "green buildings" due to the large initial investment. I would urge the Government to provide incentives to encourage more building owners to improve the environment sustainability of their buildings. These incentives could

Column: 993

include increasing plot ratio or allowing change of use without extra development charge, providing double tax deduction for approved green practice expenses, or property tax rebate for "green buildings".

(2) Support for HDB retailers

Sir, I support the measures to help the 15,000 HDB retailers to relocate, restructure or upgrade. HDB retailers play an important role in providing convenient and affordable goods and services to their customers.

The relaxation of HDB's tenant-mix policy has resulted in the duplication of many retail shops in the neighbourhood. This trend is unhealthy and not sustainable, as there are too many similar trades in one location. Residents will not enjoy a good mix of retail services, and retailers will face stiff competition. It is a lose-lose situation, which we must revert. With the development of regional centres and more accessible

public transport, HDB must re-plan our neighbourhood shops to help them develop niches. HDB neighbourhood shops must continue to provide affordable goods and services to our residents at their doorsteps.

Sir, one contributing factor in the increase of operating cost of retailers is the multiple layer of sub-letting of shops and retail spaces. This practice has increased cost substantially, resulting in higher prices for consumers. We must address this weakness in our retail system. Thus, I hope the rejuvenation exercise will result in better tenant mix of HDB shops, reduce the operating cost of retailers, and improve their service quality.

( 3 ) Healthy Lifestyle Endowment Fund

Sir, in Singapore, people generally know that they must exercise to keep fit, but we tend to eat more and exercise

Column: 994

less. Some of us exercise at random and cause more injuries to our bodies than good. As such, we have lower immunity and are more prone to diseases. This will have an adverse impact on the productivity of our workforce and increase demand on healthcare services. Therefore, it is crucial that we address this problem of Singaporeans not exercising enough.

Sir, we must develop a culture of exercising and instil these good habits among our people. Although the Health Promotion Board is making efforts to promote a healthy lifestyle, the regular participation rate of Singaporeans in various keep-fit activities is dismal. More should be done to encourage Singaporeans to exercise more regularly.

The promotion of a healthy lifestyle cannot be the sole responsibility of the Health Promotion Board. We need a multi-agency approach where community-based organisations such as the grassroots organisations, voluntary welfare organisations and other civic organisations, can be empowered to organise more keep-fit activities for their residents or their members. I would urge the Government to set up a "Healthy Lifestyle" Endowment Fund where proceeds of this fund can be used to support organisations which organise keep-fit programmes for Singaporeans and companies that allocate keep-fit days for their employees.

Sir, as the saying goes, "Health is wealth". As human resource is the only resource we have, I would urge the Government to place more emphasis on healthy lifestyle and create more opportunities for Singaporeans to exercise regularly and stay healthy. Regular exercises, such as brisk walking, taiji , qigong or cycling should become part of our daily life.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Health Promotion Board and the Singapore Sports Council for partnering

Column: 995

with North West CDC to set up 95 brisk walking clubs in our district. Today, we have 22,600 brisk walking club members who exercise regularly.

( 4 ) Creating jobs for Singaporeans

Sir, creating jobs for older Singaporeans remains a key challenge as globalisation continues to transform our economy. Another challenge is structural unemployment. Many Singaporeans who were affected by structural unemployment possess unemployable skills in the new economy. Some have taken up contract, part-time or odd jobs while others remain unemployed. Job-seekers, especially the handicapped, ex-convicts, bankrupts and mental patients, faced different hurdles to secure full-time employment and were demoralised. We are seeing more people suffering from depression and mental disorder due to this sense of hopelessness. Sir, I support the suggestion by Mr Iswaran that the Government can provide incentives such as double tax deduction for employers who employ these people. In addition, I hope the Government can support companies that practise corporate social responsibility by employing these people. This would provide more opportunities for them to join back the workforce and integrate into our community.

Based on the CDC's job assistance experience, although we have helped some of our job-seekers to secure jobs, such as cleaners, retail assistants, factory operators or security guards, many of these jobs offer salary between $600 and $900 a month. Furthermore, firms are offering low-paying part-time or odd jobs with no CPF contribution and medical benefits. These low-paying and non-permanent jobs are affecting the morale and quality of life of our workers, especially older Singaporeans. With such low pay, it is indeed a challenge for families to survive if there is only a sole breadwinner in the household.

Column: 996

Sir, we need to address this problem of low-paying jobs. I would like to suggest adopting a two-pronged approach to address this problem.

First, we must provide free and easy access for these Singaporeans to learn new skills quickly. Many job-seekers are not able to attend training courses due to family commitments or financial constraints. We must identify employable skills courses and make them easily accessible. The courses can be taught in modules thus enabling the acquisition of these employable skills on a continuing basis. They should be conducted in the community or through distance or e-learning mode to provide easy access.

Second, we must add value to low-paying jobs to increase the salary. Sir, I am indeed heartened to learn that NTUC will focus on job redesign and job re-creation. I would suggest that we focus on a few strategic industries in view of our ageing population.

First, we should encourage more Singaporeans to join the healthcare industry. Recently, I met up with all the VWOs in North West District. Many VWOs are supportive of training and employing Singaporeans to join their organisations. As VWOs have limited resources, they hope that the Government can implement the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Scheme (PJTPS) to VWOs. This will encourage more Singaporeans, especially older workers, to join the healthcare and community service industry. Having more healthcare workers or a population with healthcare skills will support Singapore's ambition to be a healthcare hub in the region.

Second, we must train more Singaporeans to join the service industry, such as hotels, retail, food and beverages, and entertainment sectors. To boost tourism, I support the investment of $40

Column: 997

million to rejuvenate Orchard Road. But I would urge the Government to support the hosting of more international mass participation events, such as Chingay , which draw tourists to Singapore. Tourism creates job opportunities for both the young and older Singaporeans in the service industry. We should decentralise the training of the service industry. Accredited institutions such as the universities, polytechnics and ITEs can extend their services to facilitate adult lifelong learning programmes. This will ensure quality training of our workforce.

Third, with a better educated and ageing population, we can tap on the expertise and experience of our elderly to boost the education services sector. Experienced and older Singaporeans, who have undergone proper training, can provide tutoring, counselling and training services to further boost our education services industry. Thus, there is a need to set up more Teachers' Training Colleges in Singapore. Given this option, many retirees can be actively and meaningfully engaged for many more years and be economically independent.

Building community

( 1 ) ComCare Fund

Sir, I welcome the set up of the ComCare Fund to help the needy. As a compassionate Government, we must always provide a helping hand to support our needy to become independent. As announced, ComCare will have three key programmes, namely, ComCare Self-reliant, ComCare Growth and ComCare Enable. These programmes will provide a focused approach to help needy Singaporeans to become more self-reliant. It will also provide more opportunities and flexibility to the CDCs and grassroots organisations to reach out and help the

Column: 998

needy. Sir, there are two ways to help the needy to improve their situations.

First, we must increase their earning capacity. Many of them are lowly skilled or suffer from health problems. Saddled with debts, such as utilities or service and conservancy bills, skills upgrading will not be placed on top priority. Those with health problems cannot afford medical treatment. The Government should provide free training to those who are keen to upgrade and subsidise medical treatment to enable those who are sick to become productive workers as quickly as possible. With the ComCare Fund, we can support the needy, such as paying for their current bills for a specified period while they attend training courses or make efforts to be self-reliant.

Sir, we should also focus our attention to help their children to be productive citizens. With more flexibility, the CDCs and grassroots organisations will be able to help these residents to get on their feet faster and ensure that their children receive the necessary support in their studies.

( 2 ) Unsold HDB flats

Sir, I am concerned about the large number of unsold HDB flats and its impact on community bonding. To-date, more than 10,000 new HDB flats are unsold and left vacant for many years. This has hampered community bonding and the development of other facilities in estates such as Jurong West Town and Sembawang Town. Vacant flats pose holding cost to the Government, and they deteriorate faster, thus resulting in higher maintenance cost. Furthermore, HDB is paying town council the monthly service and conservancy charges for these unsold flats. Singaporeans who have bought and moved into these half-occupied flats or estates also encounter various problems such as security, lack of neighbourhood facilities and lesser community activities.

Column: 999

This situation is detrimental to community bonding. Sir, we must provide solutions to occupy or sell these unsold flats. I would suggest to HDB to consider the following options:

First, we can sell these unsold flats to the open market at valuation prices.

Second, we should rent out these flats to Singaporeans who are not eligible to rent subsidised flats from HDB.

Third, we should provide a special start-up family grant for young married couples to purchase these flats.

( 3 ) Promoting community ownership

Sir, our home ownership programme has provided a strong pillar in promoting community ownership and bonding. Many Singaporeans have stayed in their HDB flats for many years and made friends with their neighbours. To further encourage home ownership, we should reduce the cost of owning a flat. The recent revision of annual value for HDB flats has increased the cost burden of many home owners. At present, home owners pay 4% of property tax based on the annual value of their property. I would urge the Government to consider reducing or waiving property tax for owner-occupied flats. This will align with the Government's policy of encouraging home ownership.

In addition, many community-based organisations such as the Chinese clans or associations have requested for a waiver of property tax as they are non-profit entities. These organisations do play a role in promoting community ownership and bonding. As recognition of their efforts and contributions, I would urge the Government to waive property tax for these organisations.

Sir, this year's Budget provides a good framework for the Government to create

Column: 1000

opportunities for all Singaporeans to do well economically and build strong community. I support the motion.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to note that the Government will continue to actively promote tourism. This is in recognition that the tourism sector offers tremendous opportunities for Singapore and for those who are connected either directly or indirectly with the industry.

On the surface of it, last year's 8.3 million arrivals generating $9.6 billion in tourism receipts and contributing 3% to our GDP is a lot to cheer about. It marks a turnaround from the SARS year of 2003. But let us look at these figures in a larger context. The paper published by the Singapore Tourism Board states that in 1993, tourism receipts were more than $11 billion. And by 2002, that is the year before SARS, then has already shrunk to $8.8 billion, or a drop of 21%. The sector's contribution to GDP then was 6% but, today, it is half of that.

This report also stated that this falling trend occurred against a backdrop of growing tourism traffic in the East-Asia Pacific region. And it is stated that Singapore's share of total tourism receipts in the region between 1998 and 2002 actually fell from 8.2% to 5.2%, which means to say that we are losing out in the race for the tourist dollar to other countries in this vast region.

So something must have gone wrong for us in the past 12 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the competition has intensified. Our neighbours too recognise the importance of tourism to their economy and they often target the same markets as we do, often with slick campaigns to match or better ours. Perhaps, Malaysia's "Truly Asia" sounds more all embracing than our "Uniquely Singapore".

Column: 1001

Of course, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, they have copied many of the things we have done, and even done them better. And it is not just a few more night zoos or underwater worlds elsewhere that threaten us.

Take Dubai, for instance. Only a few short years ago, you only hear of people going to Dubai for business, and that is only if you have business in the Middle East. Heavy investment in infrastructure has transformed Dubai into an attractive business and tourist destination in a short time. Its luxurious hotels and mega malls surpass many in other countries in quality and appeal. I am told that their top hotel there is such a great attraction that if you are not a guest staying in the hotel, you would have to pay something like US$100 just to go in to admire its glitter and splendour. And it is not just Middle East Arabs flocking to Dubai. I am told that even Singaporeans and other Asians are beginning to see Dubai as an alternate holiday destination. Dubai is also going after the lucrative meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions market. By 2010 it aims to receive 15 million visitors, which would surpass our own projected arrivals for that year. Now, who would have foreseen only a few short years ago, that this tiny oasis in the desert, known to many Singaporeans as just a convenient stopover for refuelling, on the way to Europe, would challenge us as a tourist destination?

Sir, in contrast, investment in tourism in Singapore has not been increasing. In fact, it has been falling. The same paper points out that fixed asset investment in attractions in Singapore dropped to an average of $63 million a year between 1995 and 2001, as compared to $168 million a year, in the early 1990s.

Sir, add to this the several conversions of good class hotels like the Marco Polo,

Column: 1002

the Imperial and the ANA into condominiums, and you see a very dismal picture of investments in this sector. People are, in fact, moving away from investing in hotels to elsewhere.

Sir, are our businessmen not seeing investments in tourism as attractive propositions? Many have cited the high costs of land and rentals in Singapore as reasons why they would rather put their money in other sectors. The Government, therefore, needs to ensure that investments in leisure and other like attractions are not hampered by high land costs.

I am reminded of the time in 1997 when the Government put up the old General Post Office for tender to attract developers to convert the building into a 5-star hotel. Today, it is the Fullerton Hotel. At that time, when tenders closed, the highest bidder at $55 million was rejected because the Government felt it was too low. So, to be sure, a new tender was called and this time the Government got double the amount, $110 million to be exact, which is not a bad thing if you think that the Government extracted the maximum value for the building. But I am not sure whether it is working out to be a worthwhile return on investment for its developer.

Another case in point is the piece of land at the junction of Orchard Road and Patterson Road - Orchard Turn, just above the MRT station. We have heard much about how this piece of land, which is about two-thirds the size of Ngee Ann City, could be developed into a defining point for Orchard Road and it would certainly add buzz to the area. If I recall correctly, this piece of land was tendered out in 1992 but, because the reserve price was too high, there were no takers.

So one of the steps we need to take to stimulate bigger investments in this sector again is by making sure those who

Column: 1003

venture into the businesses of hotels, entertainment, restaurants, nightclubs, shops, deem it worthwhile to do so. You see, Sir, if one charges too high, nobody comes and one could not compete. If one charges too low, one gets high occupancy rates, but does one make money?

Small wonder that we fail to attract visitors to stay longer. Take the tourists from China, for example. The numbers are up - from 600,000 two years ago to over 800,000 last year. But most tour operators would tell you that many of them do not even get to spend a night here. They come in, visit what you call the free attractions like the Merlion and Mount Faber, do a little shopping so that the tour operator could earn his commission, and then they are whisked off to Johore Bahru to stay the night because the hotels there are cheaper. So they do not actually stay in Singapore and spend more money that we want them to.

Sir, the question of land cost aside, we also need to be more innovative in how we package our tourism products.

We may have missed several opportunities in the past. We could have hosted the Formula One event, something that is estimated to bring in about a billion ringgit to the Malaysian economy each year the race is held in Sepang. Or, we could have built a super theme park, like what Hong Kong is now completing - a Disneyland that would boost its annual tourist arrivals of 21 million last year, by a few million more over the next few years, not to mention the many new jobs that would be created.

But our record of tourist attractions leaves much to be desired. We have what I call the neither-here-nor-there theme parks like the Haw Par Villa and the Tang Dynasty Village. I think we all read about it over the weekend in the Sunday Times and so we know what they are like. Even Sentosa has somewhat lost its

Column: 1004

lustre. How could you expect to draw visitors to artificial beaches and an ageing musical fountain?

So, we definitely have to work harder to bring in the visitors if we are not to be left behind. Time and again, members of the public have made suggestions as to how we could make Singapore more appealing to tourists. One thing I know is that we need not ape what others do. We must continue to think of original ideas and capitalise on our strengths to make ourselves an appealing destination, and ideas such as promoting health tourism and providing top class entertainment would help us achieve it.

Sir, we are still working hard to find a formula that would make us different. I mentioned once in this House that what we need are things not only unique to Singapore, but also authentic, and I quoted the example of Little India which offers that ethnic authenticity that would be hard to duplicate anywhere else. It is a little messy place perhaps, but it gives that flavour of originality that offers charm and arouses curiosity.

We know it is not an easy task to be increasingly creative to compete for the tourist dollar. Neither could we rely on the same tried and tired formula by simply repackaging it under a new slogan. But one thing I know we should not do, Sir, and this brings me now to once again revisit the subject of the casino.

Reading in between the lines of what the Prime Minister has said, I am a bit worried that the decision is already tilting in favour of having a casino. You could call it an integrated resort, but I think it is just a red herring. It would still be the casino that would be the centrepiece of this project. Otherwise, you could be sure that all the casino moguls around the world are not scrambling here for a piece of the action if it is just to provide wholesome family entertainment.

Column: 1005

Sir, I shall not be repeating what I said previously in the House on this subject, except to say that just as we lament others who copy what we have done, let us also not try to copy what others are doing. The argument that we would be left behind if we do not have a casino because other countries around us are going to have casinos or already have casinos, is fallacious. Mdm Ho Geok Choo said yesterday that if we say no to a casino, we are sending a wrong message to the world, and that we would reinforce the stereotype others have of us. So we should be like Las Vegas or Monte Carlo or Macau - in Las Vegas they call it The Strip, so maybe we should have our own Singapore Strip - and then others would think well of us, that we are such an innovative people.

Sir, I do not need to go into the arguments again. But I need to remind her, and others like her, that if we go ahead, they should know what the consequences are. In my years as an MP, I have seen enough cases of people coming to me for help because they are at their wits' end. They, or one of their parents, or in some cases, both parents, are deep in debt because of gambling. We do not need to perpetuate this further. In the end, Sir, we reap what we sow.

This is an issue that strikes at the heart of all Singaporeans and I ask the Government not to rush into a decision. I would not go to the extent of what Dr Loo Choon Yong has suggested earlier, and that is to throw this matter to a referendum. But I think this topic is important enough for us to debate it in Parliament further, maybe even lift the Whip and allow us to vote according to our conscience, so that Singaporeans know where each Member of Parliament stands. So far, only a handful of MPs have spoken on this important topic, and I am curious to know where the Opposition

Column: 1006

members stand because so far I have not heard a squeak from them at all on this issue.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I would like to make six general comments regarding the Budget announcements, before going into two specific proposals to help our aged citizens, and then ending with some arguments to refocus the casino debate.

First, I support the prudent Budget in principle. A small budget surplus of $200 million to add to our reserves is okay in principle. However, I take offence that the investment returns from our national reserves are never publicly announced. It is an offence to me, because nobody in his right frame of mind would put his money into any kind of investment that never reports its economic performance. In this instance, I believe our public would not support any surpluses going into our national reserves until the economic performance of the GIC is publicly announced every year. Till then, I think the $200 million surplus should be better off returned to the people through other incentives, than going into the reserves.

Second, unlike some pro-business MPs, I support the Government's increase in the foreign worker levy for skilled labour. I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for heeding my call at the recent debate on the President's Address, to strike a balance between business demands and the workers, by not suppressing their wages through increasing the supply of foreign labour. This small increase in levy would add some cost to the business and may lower their profit, but it would go in some small ways to help our workers and improve their job opportunities.

Third, on behalf of the aged in our society, I also again thank the Prime

Column: 1007

Minister for heeding my call at last year's Budget debate to "take care of this pioneer generation of workers who had slogged and worked hard at third world's wages in the past decades, only to retire now with our first world expensive cost of living." The $100 top-up to the CPF Special and Retirement accounts is a small gesture of goodwill from the Government and I hope more would be done for this pioneering batch of older Singaporeans over the next few years.

Fourth, many people comment and even newspapers report that this is an election year Budget. Sir, the Budget is an important instrument of the Government to promote growth and economic development. It should never be used as a ground sweetener to promote the ruling party to the people prior to an election year. Otherwise, this attitude of giving goodies and cash to the people by the Finance Minister in an election year would promote money politics and the beginning of white-corruption, government-style. And, it makes the job of future Finance Ministers even harder in trying to give out more and more goodies every year.

Fifth, I want to congratulate the Government in effectively turning on the four national water taps, such that in the midst of our heat wave and drought this month, our Environment and Water Resources Minister could reassure Singaporeans that we still have more than enough water flowing to last us for a long time. Now that water is effectively being recycled for potable and non-potable use, I would expect the Government to remove or, at least, reduce the water tariff taxes in our utilities bills in the near future.

Sixth, the cost of crude oil has been rising and is expected to rise again this year. This is causing imported inflation - with a corresponding rise in the cost of transportation for our people. I ask that the Government ease the burden on this

Column: 1008

rising cost of petrol by charging a fixed-dollar-value tax rather than taxing it at a percentage of the selling price of petrol, which is escalating. And, as the price escalates, the revenue collected by the Government goes up and the surplus to the Government gets bigger, while the people get poorer.

Next, I am talking about two specific proposals to help ease the burden of the aged unemployed while, at the same time, it would help to promote having babies and family life for the Government's consideration.

First, the Prime Minister introduced the grandparent's incentive tax relief of $3,000 and a centre-based infant-care subsidy of $400 per child at the National Day Rally speech last year. This is good,

but it does not provide job opportunities for unemployed grandparents in their 40s to late 60s.

If the Government is prepared to fork out $400 per month per child on centre-based infant care subsidy, and a lesser amount for child-care subsidy, there is no logical and good reason why this $400 subsidy should not be paid to any grandparent who is willing and opts to become a full-time paid caregiver for his or her grandchild. It is the joy of any grandparent to look forward to caring and taking care of their grandchildren.

The $400 paid by the Government, and the $3,000 divided by 12 months, which equals to about $250 per month grandparents' tax relief (that should be given to the grandparent by the taxpayer) add up to a significant salary of about $650 for any grandparent willing to stay at home to take care of his or her grandchild.

This is the best job any aged worker, who has become a grandparent, will be most willing to undertake in the comfort

Column: 1009

of his own home, taking care of his own loved ones. It adds life to his years and helps build a child with strong values for the community.

This type of job is better than asking the aged grandparents to go for training and retraining so as to become a public cleaner or a sweeper earning $600-$800 a month doing all those dirty jobs in their old age. They are already well trained to take care of children and infants from their past experience as parents. And the young parents will definitely feel safer leaving their infants and children in their grandparents' care than a stranger or a foreign maid speaking a foreign language in their own homes.

Allow grandparents to rent out whole HDB flats to stay with grandchildren

Second, to encourage the young parents, grandparents and grandchildren to stay together as a multi-generation family, the Government should liberalise the rules on the rental of whole-unit HDB approved flats further, ie, to allow HDB flat owners who become grandparents to rent out their whole HDB flat as an approved unit - if they choose and opt to stay together with their children and grandchildren.

This will free up a locked asset and make it productive, helping them to generate additional income together with the salary as a paid child care giver. This is definitely a better option than allowing and asking them to go for reverse mortgages, as some MPs have suggested.

It is also good for the young parents as they now do not have to rush back immediately after work to pick up their infants or children from the child care centre. Also, they may get to enjoy mum's cooking after a hard day's work.

Column: 1010

Sir, although it takes a man and a woman to make a child, it takes a village to care, nurture and build up good values in the child. To quote Prime Minister Lee at last year's National Day Rally, "Grandparents are a tremendous help to families who have children ... Because the grandmother will help look after them, guide them, spot what's wrong and nag you to have a few more children." Giving incentives for grandparents to stay together with grandchildren will help build such a village.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these two proposals will not only give greater incentives for aged parents to chase their children to have more children, it will also promote a tighter and integrated family, promote home care services and, at the same time, it will significantly and immediately reduce the unemployment figures for those aged workers looking for menial work.

Integrated Casino Resort

Next, I move on to the integrated casino resort proposal. Sir, the Government keeps denying that they have made up their minds on having a casino. Like what Mr Tan Soo Khoon has said, I do not think they have not made up their mind. I say that they have already made up their mind to have this integrated resort with a casino built in.

Why do I say so? Because they have already laid out the parameters and set the ground rules for interested investors to submit their concept plans, which they have already done by yesterday's deadline. Their intention to proceed is already clear with the announcement of this set of social safeguards to go with the casino. Only what is not decided is whether to accept any of the proposals submitted at yesterday's deadline, whether to have one, two or none, ie, whether the submitted proposals are good enough to have the go ahead.

Column: 1011

This way of calling for project proposals is similar to the way the Singapore Land Office calls for public tender in the sale of public land. Their intention is to sell. All they are waiting for is the right proposal at the right tender price.

Therefore, the debate is no longer about whether to have a casino or not, but refocus it as whether the submitted proposals at yesterday's deadline is worth proceeding with, considering the consequences. I hope the Government can release the submitted proposals for public viewing, scrutiny and further discussion - while taking the public's feedback on the various proposals into consideration - before making its final decision to proceed or not to proceed with the casino. Anyway, I will further elaborate on my position on the casino at the Committee of Supply debate.

With this, I thank you, Sir, for the indulgence.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not inappropriate to describe this Budget as distinctively thoughtful, cleverly innovative and multi-pronged with something for everyone.

Sir, I therefore generally support the Government's prudent fiscal stance. In fact, I am very heartened that the NCMP Steve Chia has also given his full support for the Government's prudent fiscal stance as well as the many measures that have been implemented in the Budget and the policies that have been taken by the Government including the issue of the four water taps.

Sir, in my humble opinion and in layman's terms, the Finance Minister could be compared to a housewife faced with a tight allowance. She has to be very budget conscious and careful, as she has to meet the many needs of her family with the limited budget available and

Column: 1012

which could even become tighter in the future as the needs and aspirations of the family members increase.

Hence, Sir, I will not be asking the Finance Minister and Prime Minister to be Santa Claus or the God of Fortune, as my parliamentary colleague, Ong Kian Min, so colourfully describes the expectations of some Singaporeans regarding the Budget.

Nonetheless, Sir, I would like to highlight three key areas of concern arising from the Budget for further fine tuning. These have been discussed by many of my parliamentary colleagues, but I feel duty bound, as an MP and Mayor, to highlight them yet again as they have a major bearing on our collective quest to build a cohesive and vibrant economy, and hence cannot be repeated adequately.

Firstly, nurturing our SMEs or SLEs, local enterprises, as Dr Loo mentioned, because "SMEs" is fast becoming a stigmatised acronym. Although some SMEs have expressed disappointment as they have hoped for more help from the Government in this year's Budget, they were nonetheless pleasantly surprised by the loss carry-back provision, because apparently they had argued for this a number of times but without success. Furthermore, PM Lee has acknowledged that SMEs are the backbone of many economies and provide jobs for a large part of the population. This recognition is precious to them, and signals that their plight will occupy more Government attention and resources.

I therefore heartily support my colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, erstwhile champion of SMEs, on his suggestion to have a dedicated agency modelled after EDB to help SMEs survive and even thrive.

There are two other areas I would like to highlight which I feel the Government can further assist the SMEs in.

Column: 1013

One of the constant bugbears of SMEs remains the difficulty of getting financing even though there have been some improvements over the years. Obtaining financing to fund expansion and daily operations remains a challenge for local businesses. Indeed, one of my grassroots who used to own and manage his family's recycling business shared that he found looking for funding to expand his business so difficult, costly and limited that, in the end, in exasperation, he sold the company to a GLC. Come to think of it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a bad way to grow our GLCs!

Furthermore, many SMEs feel that the application procedures of Government-initiated funding schemes for SMEs are too complicated and the processing time too long. SMEs often complain that the schemes seem to be created and administered by people with little practical business experience.

Hence, the Government agencies should look into simplifying the application and funding procedures for these schemes. For instance, under the Local Enterprise Financing Scheme, since the banks already undertake very detailed evaluation of the loan application, there should be no need for SPRING to do another round of evaluation. This would be in line with the perspective of managing risk instead of eliminating risk which, PM Lee says, Government agencies should adopt to ease regulatory restrictions and promote enterprise.

The Economic Development Board and the SME Feedback groups together with the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce recently mooted the idea of a "Buy Singapore" campaign to boost demand for locally made goods and services. The rationale is that even though the size of the Singapore market is limited, its importance and usefulness to

Column: 1014

SMEs cannot be under estimated. After all, home grown companies like Osim and Bread Talk would not have been able to expand overseas if their products did not first fly locally.

I find this idea appealing, even if we are wary of a cynical public, tired of campaigns. What is worth pursuing is the philosophy behind this idea, ie, adopting a "Buy Singapore" mentality.

Even before this idea was reported in the press, a young Singaporean professional I knew had remarked to me that unlike Malaysia, we do not have a "Buy Singapore" drive, which can help our own home grown companies. Indeed, if "Malaysia boleh", "Singapore can also boleh lah!!"

There is clearly a place for efforts to promote Singapore-made goods and services and inculcating a "Buy Singapore" mentality. Of course, the presumption is that such goods and services must be able to meet the needs and aspirations of discerning local consumers and be competitively priced. The "Buy Singapore" mentality should be imbued in the mindsets of all consumers and not just individuals but also Government agencies and the GLCs.

The intention to outsource non-core Government functions is welcome as it would help to increase the market opportunities for our private sector. However, to boost our fledgling entrepreneurship culture and our SMEs, Government agencies should be encouraged to consciously package their required services or products such that SMEs would be able to participate.

They can do so, for instance, through breaking up the size and value of the project so that SMEs can qualify to bid for the project. I urge the Government not to view this as protectionism, but rather as a means to nurture our SMEs.

Column: 1015

Alternatively, Government contracts should allow smaller firms to band together in a loose consortium without a formal merger or setting up a formal JV entity before they can bid for such contracts so as to meet paid up capital requirements.

Government agencies and GLCs should also be imbued with the commitment to consciously invite our local firms to partner them or to tender for their overseas projects. This is in fact one of the main gripes of our contractors who were yet again virtually left out in the cold in this year's Budget! Of course, whether the local firm is successful in bidding for the project would still depend on its competitiveness, but at least there is an open door policy for the firm which gives it an added business opportunity. Currently, many SMEs feel that whilst the Government expounds on the virtues of entrepreneurship and the importance of SMEs, its action in its procurement exercises sadly tells a different story.

Jobs and lifelong employability

My second point is relating to jobs and lifelong employability. Getting a job and staying employed remain the topmost priorities of most Singaporeans. Indeed, many residents who come to see me at the MPS sessions tell me that they are working odd jobs. In fact, there is a common joke among professionals that if you lose your job and subsequently label yourself as a consultant, or are labelled as a consultant in the same company, you are technically unemployed!

The Government's continued emphasis on helping Singaporeans to get jobs and remain employed through topping up the Lifelong Learning Fund and launching the Re-employment Assistance Programme is commendable. These will be especially useful for the older and less skilled workers who are at a higher risk of

Column: 1016

getting retrenched and find it more difficult to get re-employed.

While these efforts and incentives are useful, they are job seeker centric and only address the problems on the employee side of the employer-employee equation. To motivate employers to seriously look into job redesign, incentives, such as cash grants or tax incentives, to supplement the subsidies provided by WDA for part of the costs incurred in job redesign projects could be given to compensate the companies for the time, expense and inconvenience of doing so.

Thus far, only the cleaning sector has been successful in job redesign and recreation with Singaporeans making up at least 70% of hawker centre cleaners, up from 20% some 18 months ago. Other sectors, such as hotels and horticulture, have had limited results. It would appear the employers are reluctant to redesign jobs and some incentives to motivate them and hasten the process are in order.

Clearly, we need a multi-pronged approach targeted at both employers as well as employees to help alleviate the unemployment woes of the older workers. But, Sir, unlike the NCMP Steve Chia, I have said that if we adopt a multi-pronged approach and are determined to incentivise employers as well as employees in the job redesign process, then we will be able to succeed and, contrary to what he terms as "dirty jobs", say, in the cleaning sector, I believe that these are decent jobs. They are far from being "dirty". And if we actually are successful in job redesign, then all the jobs, including those in the construction sector, will be decent jobs that enable our Singaporeans to make a decent living.

Additionally, with the increased grant that WDA has got from the budget, it should also develop more comprehensive

Column: 1017

life skill training programmes and offer them to all the job seekers, including those fresh out of school. Many employers I have met have consistently fed back to me that, in general, our local workers' attitude is far from ideal. One employer narrated her encounter with a job applicant for her food business. Throughout the interview, she felt more like the one being interviewed than being the interviewer! This may be one of the reasons why some employers may actually prefer to employ foreign workers. Of course, part of the reason may be skills mismatch but another reason could be the attitude of our local workers.

Even my hairstylist never fails to complain each time I visit the salon about the poor attitude of our local workers and how difficult it is for him to hire and retain them. I usually keep my peace and listen intently rather than argue with him lest his excitement throws up dire consequences for my hairdo! Members will then be able to discern the reason for my bad hair days!

The Government could further increase job opportunities particularly for the older less qualified job seekers by identifying industries and sectors where age and experience do not put them at a disadvantage and may even be valued by employers. This could be compiled in a database constantly updated and made accessible to the public as well as publicised through various media.

The employment problems of older workers are compounded by the phenomenon of an ageing workforce due to longer lifespan and declining fertility. On the other side of the equation, economic growth can be adversely affected if the size of the labour force cannot be maintained as the population ages and they cannot be persuaded to retire later.

Column: 1018

In Singapore, we are beginning to see more senior citizens looking for work for various reasons, such as wanting to remain economically active and independent since they are still healthy, need to work as they have insufficient retirement savings or unable to rely on their children for financial assistance. Therefore, consciously looking at ways to extend the effective retirement age which currently stands below our official retirement age of 62 years as well as finding suitable employment for older workers will not merely benefit these older workers but also benefit employers and the economy as a whole over the longer term. Again, to do this effectively, mindsets of both employers and employees must change.

As the Minister for Manpower has acknowledged in this House before, a multi-pronged approach is needed to tackle the employment woes of older workers. Hence, there is an urgent need for a more coordinated, comprehensive approach to study and alleviate the problem with the setting up of a high level multi-agency task force, comprising the relevant Ministries and organisations like MOM, MTI, MCYS, CDCs, NTUC and SNEF.

Helping Singaporeans cope

Thirdly, helping Singaporeans cope. Much attention has been focused both in this House as well as in the press on the plight of the poor, needy and elderly. This Budget has devoted a significant amount of attention and measures to help this less fortunate group cope. It is in line with what seems to be the paradigm shift of the new Government which acknowledges that as we grow and develop, there will be a group left behind due to market distortions and it is the community's responsibility to help our less fortunate members.

A study by the Department of Statistics in 2000 showed that income

Column: 1019

disparity had increased in 1999 compared to previous years and this represents a change in trend from earlier periods when household income distribution remains relatively unchanged. The increase in income disparity was associated with an increase in households in the lower income brackets. The study concluded that while the situation was exacerbated by the 1998 economic downturn, the tendency towards greater income disparity may remain, as there will be a small group of households who are unable to exploit career and other business opportunities in the new economy leading to the prevalence of structural unemployment. Hence, recognition of the need for the State and the better off to help those who are unable to help themselves.

A Social Development Feedback Group survey of 311 residents living in 1- and 2-room flats in nine mature estates found that seven in 10 respondents have little clue on how and where to get financial aid and this drew many reactions.

Reaching out

Last year, the five CDCs alone dispensed close to $40 million worth of financial assistance to more than 35,000 hardship cases. This excludes the help dished out by self-help groups and VWOs. It shows that help is available and there are those who are aware of how and where to get help. In fact, more than half of the cases assisted by the South West CDC, for instance, are walk-ins at our various centres located at highly accessible premises within the heartlands, whilst the remainder are referred by the advisors of the constituencies or by VWOs and self-help groups. Nonetheless, there is likely to be a group of Singaporeans who may have little knowledge of how and where to get help. This would tend to be the less educated

Column: 1020

elderly who may have no family support and who tend to be isolated.

There are already existing efforts by the CDCs as well as VWOs and grassroots organisations to reach out to the needy. For instance, at my constituency, we have formed a welfare group comprising grassroots volunteers from the various RCs and CCCs who visit any hardship cases which they are alerted to either by fellow residents or when they come to my MPS. These volunteers then assess the needs of the families, give them emergency short-term funding, where necessary, and then help them to get more comprehensive help from CDC, including of course job matching. Occasionally, on house visits, we also find the hardship cases needing help.

Nonetheless, I agree that there is certainly room for a more organised and systematic effort to seek out this group of hidden chronic poor. The CDCs can work with the VWOs and grassroots to identify the areas or precincts where the most vulnerable are likely to be, such as precincts with 1-, 2-, or even 3-room flats. The grassroots and VWOs can then adopt these blocks for regular visits to reach out to those in need and who are unaware of the help available.

Streamlining and consolidating help schemes

There is also good reason to streamline and consolidate the many help schemes currently available from the various Government agencies and organisations. This is not merely to minimise duplication and make them easier to understand.

Criteria for the assistance schemes should be refined to ensure that no deserving applicant who genuinely needs help falls through the cracks. For instance, an applicant should not be refused help just because he stays in a

Column: 1021

private apartment if he is the sole breadwinner, has lost his job and exhausted all his savings or some member of the family has met with some catastrophic illness that has wiped out their family savings and caused financial difficulties. Means testing, together with qualitative assessment of the family circumstances, would be more appropriate and allow for greater flexibility in the provision of assistance rather than, say, stipulating housing type as one of the criteria. We will then be able to more adequately help those often identified as the sandwich class, the middle income who live in bigger flats or private apartments but who have been hard hit by economic restructuring or some catastrophe and need short-term help to tide them over their difficulties till they become self-reliant again.

Centralised database

A centralised database of recipients much akin to the way the credit bureau is set up would also be useful. The VWOs, self-help groups and CDCs could pool the data together and become members of this database with MCYS providing the framework and administrative support to manage the database. This would help all participating agencies to administer more comprehensive and holistic help to the applicants as well as prevent the more enterprising from abusing the system by applying for and getting help from many agencies.

The establishment of the ComCare Fund which will be administered by the CDCs working together with MCYS, VWOs and grassroots with the aim of formulating new schemes and streamlining existing schemes would certainly help to strengthen our safety net for those in genuine need of help.

A key feature of the ComCare Fund is the flexibility to be given to the CDCs and

Column: 1022

community organisations in dispensing help to deviate to some extent from the criteria of the national financial assistance schemes. However, I feel it would be even better if some in-built flexibility is incorporated into the national schemes themselves, say, by using means test together with qualitative assessment of family circumstances. This would allow help to be dispensed more efficiently and speedily.

For the intent of the ComCare Fund, that is, dispensing assistance to the less fortunate and help them become self reliant again without breeding a crutch mentality to be fulfilled, the MCYS, CDCs, VWOs and grassroots organisations need to work closely together to formulate comprehensive and flexible help schemes. Furthermore, we would need the full support of grassroots volunteers as they are the closest to the ground. This will also help achieve the vision of the community taking ownership of itself and helping its less fortunate. And this is also in line with the current desire for higher volunteerism and philanthropy.

We will need to equip these grassroots with the skills and knowledge to be able to work with the CDCs and Government agencies and provide appropriate assistance to those who need help.

In formulating the ComCare programmes, some of the issues raised above should therefore be taken into account.

Sir, the Budget this year is mildly generous to the tune of $1.3 billion for almost everyone.

But it cannot be called spectacular, as the benefits are spread more thinly and do not comprise any direct cash handouts in the form of ERS, as in previous budgets. In fact, one of my residents told me the other day, "I have got $100 CPF top-up, but I cannot see the cash. I have to wait for many years before I can withdraw." But I told him, "It is still your money." Nonetheless, this

Column: 1023

Budget is highly significant as a very visible signal of the new leadership's emphasis on building a caring and inclusive society. It is also a strong acknowledgement that the community has a duty to help those unable to cope with structural changes.

Putting priorities on our SMEs besides the sectors which are identified as potential star contributors, like financial services and logistics sectors, focusing on upgrading the skills of our workers for lifelong employability and strengthening our social safety nets for the less fortunate members of our society while fostering self reliance are welcome measures. I hope that further refinements will be made to these measures to help us achieve the vision of a land brimming with opportunity and a strong sense of community and belonging.

Sir, I support the Budget.

Dr Tan Sze Wee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Budget Statement that was announced by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. The theme for this year's Budget, "Creating Opportunity, Building Community" speaks of more good things to come, both for the individual and the community. As a healthcare practitioner, I would like to focus on the areas that relate to health reforms, as discussed in the Budget, before moving on to other pertinent issues which relate to the biomedical industry and also affordable housing for the public.

_Harnessing market forces
_

The Minister for Health has done a wonderful job using market forces in getting a better deal for patients and taxpayers. His master stroke in publishing hospital bills is a case in point. In many cases, hospital bill sizes have come down. I would like to propose to the Minister

Column: 1024

that we expand this idea further to drug prices. We know that the clusters enjoy good drug prices due to economies of scale and sheer purchasing power. Some time ago, it was mooted that the clusters pass on their preferential drug prices to general practitioners, by selling their low-priced drugs to them, so that general practitioners can pass on these drugs at lower costs to their patients. This has not come about.

I would like to suggest to the Minister for Health a simpler task instead. The clusters can publish on the Internet the prices offered to them by vendors for certain expensive drugs that are used in the outpatient setting. The GPs will realise that they still have to give maybe a 20% to 30% premium to the drug supplier, because they are only small buyers. However, with published rates, the GPs now have something to rate the prices by, so that they may know that they are being charged vastly different prices from that enjoyed by the clusters. I hope the Minister can consider this suggestion favourably so that there is more transparency in the system.

_Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) financing
_

Another issue is the Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) financing. At present, I understand that the clusters are financed at the SOC level on a per-episode flat rate regardless of discipline. On top of this, there is also a revenue cap that also disregards the type of clinical specialty. This does not reflect market reality. We know that certain disciplines use many drugs and investigations consume a lot of resources. These disciplines are typically the medical disciplines that often have elderly patients on many drugs, for example, renal medicine, which relates to patients with kidney diseases; geriatrics, which relates to elderly patients; as well as

Column: 1025

endocrinology, which relates to patients who are diabetic. The current system leads to chronic under-funding for these disciplines.

On the other hand, Specialist Outpatient Clinic surgery services, which typically use less medicines, are also reimbursed on the same rate. The result is that, at the financial statement level, some disciplines are perpetually losing money while others are always making money. I would like to suggest to the Minister that this one-size-fits-all rate needs recalibration and variation. Some disciplines should enjoy a higher rate while others have a lower rate. One may argue that this is a moot point with block funding in place. I think not. If we want to truly retain more doctors in clinical disciplines that are important, such as endocrinology, geriatrics and renal medicine, then it is important that they do not feel they are pressurised to continually balance the books for their clinical department, against seemingly insurmountable odds stacked against them by the current financing system. I am not asking for more subsidies at the governmental level from the Ministry, but merely a recalibration of the Specialist Outpatient Clinic subsidy rates and revenue caps to be discipline-specific, to better reflect market and clinical reality.

_Funding for biomedical research
_

I would now like to move on to the level of funding that is available in Singapore for biomedical research, both in the public as well as private research entities. I have to declare my interest as a Managing Director of an Australian Stock Exchange-listed biomedical company.

In the United States, around US$57 billion is spent annually on both biomedical as well as health research.

Column: 1026

This represents about 0.6% of GDP back in 2002. In comparison, Singapore's spending on health R&D was 0.2% of GDP in 2000 and 2001. In the US, public sources of funds account for 39% of that spent, and private sources account for 61%. The direct and indirect costs of illnesses are worth around US$3 trillion per year or about 32% of US GDP. Direct costs account for 44% of the total and indirect for 56%, according to the NIH in 2000. The rate of return on publicly funded research, ie, in terms of direct and indirect cost savings, is in the order of 24% to 40% per annum (NIH, 2000). About one-third of improvements in mortality and morbidity can be attributable to medical advances.

Figures taken from the Singapore Economic Survey Report show that expenditure on R&D totalled S$3.4 billion in 2003. As a percentage of GDP, total R&D expenditure in Singapore is maintained at 2.1%. In comparison, Sweden's total R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 4.3% in 2001; Finland, 3.5% in 2002; Japan, 3.1% in 2002; and Switzerland, 2.6% in 2000 - all higher than Singapore. While we spend around 0.2% of GDP for healthcare research, both in biomedical and clinical research, Canada spends 0.32 to 0.4%; Japan, 0.46%; France, 0.57%; the United States, 0.6% to 0.71%; the United Kingdom, 0.80%; and Denmark, 1.1%. Switzerland spends 0.86% of GDP without even counting its pharmaceutical industry spending. I would like to pose to the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry could release the breakdown of the figures for healthcare research in Singapore, both in the public and private sectors.

Moreover, Singapore has benefited substantially from global investments in health research and development. Between 1960 and 2003, the mean life expectancy at birth in Singapore increased by 15 years, from about 63 to 78 years,

Column:1027

giving us one of the highest lifespans in the world. These gains have derived largely from reduced death rates from cardiovascular diseases, together with an almost complete eradication of deaths from infectious diseases, such as polio, tetanus, smallpox, measles, mumps and rubella, as well as reductions in morbidity and mortality from respiratory diseases, cancer and other causes.

In the United States, local and foreign companies, private and public alike, can apply for biomedical research funding through the United States National Institute of Health (NIH). In Singapore, we have the Biomedical Research Council under A*STAR, as well as the National Medical Research Council through Ministry of Health, which provides grants for biomedical and clinical research. Presently, it may appear that private local companies do not qualify for grants from the Biomedical Research Council. Why is this so? In this light, if we intend to create a world-class biomedical hub in Singapore, we will need to increase the funding grants available for biomedical research that is less restrained by regulations that hamper research processes.

_Intellectual property (IP) and public education
_

The Patents Act came into effect in Singapore in 1995. With the Patents Act in place, an independent patenting system was established, where local patents could be filed directly in Singapore for patent protection. Sir, the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) and trademark patenting education for the public cannot be over-emphasised. As we head towards a knowledge-based economy, intellectual property rights and trademark patenting will act as the impetus to the creation and innovation of new products in various industries ranging from the arts to the mass media, design, scientific innovations and information

Column: 1028

technology. With reference to the biomedical industry, there are long lead times as well as high capital costs involved in the commercialisation of new biomedical products. Most hon. Members would know that it takes up to US$800 million and 10 years for a new drug to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. After the drug is approved, it is still considered an expensive item, as the company has to recover their cost of investment and risk incurred during the research and development process.

_Patenting indicators
_

Once again, the Economic Survey on Singapore's patenting activities shows that such services continued to grow in 2003. The number of patent applications increased 6.9% from 936 in 2002, to 1,001 in 2003. The number of patent awards rose 2.0% from 451 in 2002 to 460 in 2003. R&D expenditure per patent application decreased marginally from $3.6 million per patent application in 2002 to $3.4 million per patent application in 2003.

Hence, I hope that the Ministry of Law will, through the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), look into the matter of educating the public on intellectual patenting rights and raise awareness on research developments in the biomedical industry. After all, the biomedical industry is a nascent field, with the vision to develop Singapore into a regional biomedical hub within the next few years, and needs the concerted effort and support of both the private and public sectors to make it viable.

HDB ResaleNet - a single avenue for submission of HDB flat transactions

Mr Speaker, Sir, the budget has been lauded as one with opportunities for all. With this, I would like to address an area concerning the provision of affordable

Column: 1029

housing, which is one of the issues highlighted by Dr Wang Kai Yuen before me from the survey that he has gathered from the public. It has been suggested by some estate agents that the "cashback" transactions, which took place recently, arose because there are different avenues for the submission of resale flat transactions. From my understanding, HDB has a ResaleNet system in place, where only agents holding a Common Examination for Housing Agents (CEHA) certification, and who brokered the resale flat transactions, have access to.

With such a limitation, buyers and sellers cannot use this ResaleNet without a CEHA agent's account,

as only those agents holding a CEHA certificate can submit transactions via the ResaleNet. From the feedback that I have received, I understand that most of the cash-back transactions are carried out by non-CEHA agents submitting the transaction application manually. Therefore, it may be difficult for both HDB as well as the real estate agencies to police the practices by these errant agents. I would like to suggest that the Ministry of National Development, through the HDB, make it compulsory for all agents (those with CEHA and non-CEHA certified ones) to submit all HDB resale flat transactions through the ResaleNet. Even though all transactions are made through this online portal, I would propose to HDB that CEHA-certified agents be given the advantage of paying a lower transaction fee as well as obtain an earlier appointment date with HDB officers, compared to non-CEHA certified agents. By encouraging the use of information technology, this will expedite the HDB's move towards a paperless system. It would also ensure the information is easily monitored and that all agents' transactions would be accounted for.

Column: 1030

Another solution put forth, from the estate practitioner's point of view, is to ensure some level of accountability among all individual practising property agents. I would like to suggest that the Ministry of National Development, through the HDB, consider only allowing estate agents who are members of a recognised organisation, be it the Singapore Institute of Surveyors' and Valuers (SISV) or the Institute of Estate Agents (IEA), to broker HDB resale flat transactions. This will ensure that there will be a minimal standard of professionalism among these real estate agents. Furthermore, it will allow the industry to police their own practitioners, and to set guidelines in place for proper registration of all practitioners; thereby freeing the Government from the task of micro-managing the practitioners in the industry.

I would like to urge the HDB to explore putting such measures in place, to reduce further incidences of the cash-back transactions from occurring. The implementation of the above suggestions would serve to protect the buyers of 3- and 4-room flat establishments, who are often the ones most vulnerable to such offers of fast cash-back, to the detriment of their own CPF savings.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Minister for Finance's Budget for FY2005/2006.

Going through the fiscal operating revenue and expenditure figures for 2004/2005, the primary balance deficit of $1.41 million for FY2004, compared to the original estimate of $2.53 million deficit shows good prudence and financial management on the part of the Government. Otherwise, with the reduced revenue, especially about a billion dollars or so coming from the motor vehicles and Vehicle Quota Premium, and no controlled

Column: 1031

management of expenditure, the primary balance would have shown an increased deficit.

I would like to compliment the Minister also for the special transfer mechanism to transfer wealth and relieve some of the burden for the more needy in our midst, including the aged. Various Members have talked at length on some of the problems faced by the aged in our society. These transfers will be used by the needy, including this new fund called the ComCare Fund. The present mechanism of these special transfers does not represent the usual way transfer payments from Government to targeted sectors usually work. For example, the Medifund and the Lifelong Learning Fund are really endowment funds, and the spending on them depends on applications from the respective administering agencies, such as the CDCs and so on.

I share the same opinion as the previous speaker yesterday, Mr S Iswaran. I believe the best way to help the poor is really to provide them with jobs which can enable them to earn an income. It is really surprising and yet very humbling to me to realise when I come across so many 70-year-olds who are begging to be given jobs for them to do, to support themselves. I have come across so many in my meet-the-people sessions. But as we know, it is difficult for many of them to get jobs.

We have to realise one thing. Many of the so-called retirees, aged 65 and above today, did not really retire with such a nest-egg. Salaries were low in the 70s and 80s.

We know Singapore was transformed from a third world country to a first world country in one generation. That is a cause of pride for all of us, 25 years. But along with it is a generation of workers paid third world wages during those times when we were a developing economy and who are now retired, and faced with first

Column: 1032

world cost of living. We really have to think hard how to help these retirees find work, income or assistance schemes for them to sustain. I have spoken on the reverse mortgage scheme for HDB owners, past the age of 65, many times in Parliament for many years. Many people say that the private sector insurance companies or banks have tried this for private housing and found it to be not very successful. In truth, the private sector houseowners do not need this scheme. Their need is different. It addresses a different market, different size, different needs, different income, different age profile and different asset-type with different regulations. So I sincerely hope the Government should study into this seriously.

I note in the Budget Highlights that the Government has fine-tuned its block budget framework for Ministries to ensure that dollars spent by the Ministries are best allocated and spent effectively by themselves under an overall cap by the Ministry. This is a correct approach.

Discretionary flexibility by the Ministries in adjusting their spending to match their cashflow situations through advances, carry forward and rollover are good adjudicating measures and the Ministries and the controlling officers should ensure implementations are efficient. I would not compliment this framework, even though it looks good, however, were it not for a further 3% cut in the Ministries' total budget for 2005. So I welcome this and I believe this kind of cap measures would further provide the limit for the Ministries to operate and the pressure for efficiencies to result.

Having said this, the Ministry's Budget Highlights also mentions it is working on a smoothened GDP projection, in order not to make budgetary policies pro-cyclical. This smoothened GDP framework or, what they call, sGDP framework has been implemented in FY2003/2004. I am glad

Column: 1033

that the Ministry has adopted this counter-cyclical stabilisation fiscal policies approach. But really, running budget surplus of up to 2.5% of GDP is also counter-cyclical when the economy is growing well, as in previous years. The devil is in the details.

What is important is the Government revenue must not be too high as to make the private sector's economy carry too much burden. Running a low budget surplus or even a slight budget deficit with a lower revenue collection in taxes and fees, such as now at 16% of GDP, makes the Government and the public sector more beneficial to the economy than running a high budget surplus with almost 20% of the GDP of revenue in collection some previous years not so long ago.

A smoothened GDP is based on three years of historical GDP and three years of projected GDP. I can understand three years of historical GDP and even a moving average of some number of years. But making three years of projected GDP in such an open economy like Singapore is really difficult to fathom and most likely wrong.

Hence, while I agree with the counter-cyclical approach in fiscal stabilisation, and the policy framework, it would be really interesting to fathom with any level of confidence how the three years' GDP will be projected. Because upon this projection depends on whether the counter-cyclical policies and stabilisation are correctly targeted.

I find that the intention to allow carry forward and carry back of losses for companies and the announced lower rate of taxation for individual income tax, effected over the next two years, shows very imaginative ways that the Ministry is responding to concerns by many SMEs to

Column: 1034

corporations and individuals to income tax payments. It is really not easy for the Ministry of Finance's officials to administer taxation with one hand and another for beneficial allowance and reduction, taking into account the pleas of smaller companies. I have heard this feedback many times. It shows the Government does listen. And it shows that SMEs' interests are addressed in this Budget.

The Minister has also announced a Re-Employment Assistance Programme, a nation-wide effort to redesign jobs, combined with training and also a financial scheme to encourage job-seekers to take up and stay with the jobs.

In my view, the best approach to redesign jobs and getting the process right is to incentivise companies to upgrade, to innovate, to train, to raise productivity and to pay workers more for their higher productivity. These are all tied together. The worst way to do it is to try and write a manual on what has to be done.

I give an example. All through the 80s and even into the 90s, the Construction Industry Development Board was trying to standardise and set rules and controls for the construction industry to try to raise the standard of building and construction in this industry. It never quite succeeded. The construction industry today has been and remains a laggard in our economy despite huge amounts of investment in this sector, with one of the lowest pay, highest cost, lowest productivity and lowest quality in any industries in Singapore. A lot of construction sector jobs were created for the migrant farmer workers usually from somewhere. The result is a sad construction industry with a hard landing. I do not believe that it is primarily because Singaporeans cannot take the rough job of the construction industry. Look at how fast and neat the Australian construction workers build bungalows and high-rise buildings despite

Column: 1035

their many restrictions and practices, and compare them to our construction sites and our construction industry. They have already streamlined their construction processes and practices. We have not quite found out what went wrong.

It is enlightened companies in the competition of the market place through enlightened management that will think out processes to solve problems faced by the companies, within the context of the industry. The first thing we should do is to give incentives to successful innovation either in the form of capital allowances or incentives for the use of equipment to facilitate employment of workers and training of workers when they lead to higher productivity.

All companies in the same industry face the same environment in the market place but every company faces a different set of problems from another because of legacies, different customer needs, different management types, etc. It is too difficult for bureaucracies, or worse, community development groups to map out the required measures. The Government wants to encourage job redesign to get more Singaporeans to be employed. It should incentivise successful schemes implemented by management. Management must be the driver. I would suggest that we give more tax allowances to successful management schemes. Management must devise their own schemes. If they are good, they will find the right answers.

All the equipment that facilitate more friendly interface with the workers -

male, female, young or old, skilled or not-so-skilled, in the common service industries, whether in cleaning, food and beverage, material handling - have already been invented, in production and used somewhere in the world, in the advanced countries and in the not-so-advanced countries.

Column: 1036

The difference is whether management could use this equipment and exploit them, to improve the bottomline and to achieve some tax breaks with this process improvements. Success stories must be rewarded and the stories must be told to educate mindset shifts and change perspective. The redesigned exercise would be futile at the end of the day if it was only to lower wage cost and does not raise productivity as measured by increased value-added per worker. The man-hour cost of the worker may not fall, but with the right equipment and process, many service jobs, such as cleaning, food and beverage, logistics, retail, and healthcare sectors, could be redesigned to allow Singaporeans to work at a wage level that must make sense for the workers to do so. The value-added per dollar of input cost, labour and capital combined, must be higher than before, at an improved service level required by business and workers.

Mr Lim Swee Say is absolutely right. If there are so many jobs available, and Singaporeans could not be found for these jobs, we have to ask what is wrong with these jobs. Incentives and tax breaks could be given after implementation and achieving results. They could be audited and determined for these results by management consultants with benchmarks and yardsticks of measurement. And the end result is higher productivity and better employment.

As long as we do not shift away from the labour intensity of the job, our Singaporean workers would all the time be forced to compete at the bottom wage cost as the Bangladeshi, the Thai, or the Malaysian workers, in their midst. To shift to a higher capital intensity of the job would mean higher cost, but productivity in terms of value-added and quality and standard of service would be better. With this, training and skill training matter. Wages would also be higher and payment

Column: 1037

and incentive schemes in the job must be made to encourage higher productivity to pay for all this. Hence, capital allowance should be granted to encourage this shift for mechanisation. Tax breaks could be given for effectively employing more Singaporean workers and raising productivity. Favouring local content and raising productivity are not sins of commission, even in a globalised market economy. They make good sense.

Finally, I support the Budget policies of the Government. The Minister has come out with many creative and imaginative policies to address the needs of all Singaporeans and it provides the framework for the right approach and solution to the many needs of our society.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.33 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: **** Debate resumed.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): (In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that during this debate, a lot of our MPs are pro-workers and they spoke a lot for the workers, especially for the older workers. But as a labour MP, I want to stress that in order to help the older workers to retain their jobs, it is not just redesigning jobs but, in addition, we need 3Rs.

Redesigning the jobs is one. The second 'R' is to restructure the wages.

Column: 1038

The third 'R' is to reform medical benefits. We cannot do without any one of them. All three of them have to be held in the hand so that our older workers can continue to contribute and earn decent wages.

We have also to help the older workers adapt to new work environment and equip them with employable skills to meet new job requirement.

Cost of medical care is what the older workers are most worried about. With globalisation and an uncertain employment prospect, I urge the Government to facilitate reform in our so-called employment-based medical benefits and provide a portable framework for all workers so that they can actually take care of their medical needs as they move from one job to another.

Of course, to all these older workers, they hope that they could work as long as possible, but we need to change the mindset of our employers to give them the job opportunity. It is not so simple as some MPs have commented that it was "the perception of some external board directors who feel that the older employees are more a liability than asset" as being external directors, they have not grown up with the employees and are less empathetic. I think it is a general perception of the management, and we need to change it. It is not true that older workers cannot adapt to the new environment and would become a burden to the company. I feel that many employers can actually continue to keep these older workers by working closely with unions and Government agencies to strengthen their employability and change the mindset of the directors and HR practitioners.

We need to remind the companies that as corporate citizens they do have a social responsibility. I read an article in which the writer described enterprise as a

Column: 1039

human being and personified it. It says that enterprise basically is "psychopath" as:

"He does not care about other people and just do good for themselves;

He cannot have relationship with others and just simply fires any employee that it does not want;

He does not care about the safety and it pollutes the environment;

He does not bring out truth but creates some falsehoods, especially like some big MNCs in other countries that have caused small investors to lose their hard-earned savings;

So whatever he does, he can simply get away by stating that "I am doing it for the sake of my shareholders."

I mention this because I hope the enterprises in Singapore are not like that. I hope that the companies in Singapore will be corporate citizens. I hope all our companies can actually cooperate with the trade unions and the Government so that we can continue to bring about more benefits for our workers.

A few MPs actually mentioned that we need to help our older workers to have more job opportunities. Some asked whether the Finance Minister could give some tax incentives through some special schemes to help employers retain their older workers. I am very supportive of this proposal.

In Japan, there are schemes like this. First of all, they raise the retirement age of the workers. Employers who raise the mandatory retirement age or introduce a continued employment system, or employers whose workforce has more than 15% in the 60-64 age group, would be given Government subsidy and tax incentives. Employers who have made a plan for raising the retirement age and job

Column: 1040

adaptation, and have engaged in some consultation with their older employees also get special grant to implement the plan.

I hope the Prime Minister can consider implementing this in Singapore. Of course, like the baby bonus, all these tax incentives and Government support may not bring about the expected results, but it would at least send out a better signal to the employers to help them understand that the Government is serious about giving employability to the older workers.

In this Budget debate, the Prime Minister also mentioned that in the next few years, the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board will invest more in the tourism industry. But this is merely upgrading of hardware. I think what we need most is a boost in the software.

Looking at the performance of our services sector, Singapore has fallen to 21st place in the international ranking for customer orientation. We need to have more incentives to help our services sector, particularly the retail sector, to bring the standard of service up so that we can bring about more economic improvements. This is very important because our service sector's share in the overall employment is 75%. It is one of our major sources of employment opportunity.

In this Budget, there are a number of ang pows reaching out to Singaporeans from all walks of life. However, I feel that there is a need for us to emphasise that a good Budget is not one that gives all types of goodies, but one that will really bring about sustainable growth of our economy. We have to look beyond the tax rebates and financial benefits for the needy.

As a simple illustration, we may have heard of the Coca-Cola company having a

Column: 1041

new product. Coca-Cola carried out a series of tests. They blindfolded the participants and let them taste different types of Coca-Cola. They found that clients who liked Coca-Cola during the blind-tasting did not choose the Coca-Cola. Instead, they chose another type which was sweeter. In view of this, they decided that maybe their clients preferred to have a sweeter drink. Consequently, they introduced a new product and the new Coca-Cola was very close to the sweeter type which the clients chose during the test. But in the end, Coca-Cola failed. This is because they forgot that their clients in ordinary life do not just go for the sweetness of the drink. During the test, when they were blindfolded and focused on one mouthful, it may not mean that they have changed their expectation and preference of their regular drink. They forgot that people's acceptance of sweetness with one mouthful and when drinking a whole can is not the same. The customers, after drinking a whole can of sweeter Coca-Cola, found that it was too sweet and it is no longer the old Coca-Cola that they like.

I use this example to illustrate that while we try to meet certain demands by some people on the Budget, we must continue to ensure that the fundamental objectives of the Budget is to bring about a better and stable economic and social environment.

Sir, to enable sustainable growth we have to continue to strengthen the strong tripartite partnership. The role of the labour movement is crucial. Many people have not realised the important role that the trade unions played to help retain jobs. The Star gave a very good sum-up in its publication on 28th February. Let me quote from this article:

"NTUC has undergone many recent changes. It now allows individual workers or

Column: 1042

certain categories of executives (as long as they have no fire-and-hire power) to become members.

Today, this umbrella body is like a huge conglomerate itself, operating a whole range of businesses ranging from taxis, insurance to supermarkets, from resorts to healthcare. They offer good discounts or benefits to members, adding up as a nice package of incentives.

But in a job-risky environment for hundreds of thousands of low- or non-skilled workers, NTUC serves two fundamental functions. It helps and provides advice to members and plays a crucial retraining or skill-upgrading role.

Has membership a real benefit? Yes, in this uncertain age, workers need more protection. In this uncertainty, this is the true value of the trade unions. Unions here can't stop retrenchment, but they can ensure the workers get fair compensation."

Sir, the article highlighted how the labour movement here gives benefits and protection to the workers. Under uncertainties, it gives a certain assurance to the workers. Its aim is to help workers who need to strengthen their job security. Many do not realise that without unions, the way the employers treat the employees would be very different.

So I hope that the Government has not forgotten all the work done by the trade unions, especially in the last few years, during the restructuring of the economy. Looking ahead, in the next few years, a strong partnership between the Government, employers and the trade unions has to be further strengthened. I feel that the Government, in this way, has to consider providing more generous support to the unions and recognise the efforts done by the trade unions and union leaders.

Sir, I support the Budget.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker,

Column: 1043

Sir, I just came back from the desert of Saudi Arabia. So please excuse my coarse voice. But I am nevertheless clear in my support for the motion.

Sir, this Budget is a landmark budget, being the first by the Finance Minister who is also the Prime Minister. The Budget has wide-ranging effects on the country, its people and highlight the Government's principles of governance. But allow me to touch on our efforts to make Singapore a land of opportunity, in particular on opportunities overseas.

Before that, Sir, it is important that we remember the point made by the Finance Minister and Prime Minister in his Budget Statement

that while we promote an economy brimming with opportunity, we should also foster a strong sense of community among Singaporeans.

I applaud this balanced approach to economic development and nation-building, for I am sure all will agree that an economic miracle without the social cohesion for our multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore is not sustainable. To use the desert jargon, our economic miracle is no mirage, the financial crisis of 1997 and the economic slowdown the last few years notwithstanding.

We have shown what Singapore, its Government and its people, can do in bringing this tiny city state from the swamps of Jurong to the wafer fab plants of Pasir Ris, with the financial centre of Shenton Way thrown in and life science laboratories of Biopolis emerging in the wings.

As PM Lee said in his Budget Speech, "The best way to make Singapore a land of opportunity is to grow our economy, to generate the resources to realise our aspirations. That requires us to continually adapt to the changing world, upgrading and restructuring ourselves in order to stay competitive. Only then can

Column: 1044

we create jobs, realise our dreams, and provide a better future for our children."

While I still dream of the Arabian nights, let me draw some lessons from SM Goh's Saudi Arabia trip that I consider relevant to our goal of the blessed land of opportunity - our Singapore.

Sir, Saudi Arabia is our largest trading partner in the Middle East. Although most of our trade is in oil imports, our exports being small, that relationship keeps our oil refineries and petrochemical industry going. Despite that, the last time a senior Minister visited Saudi Arabia was Mr Rajaratnam, and that was more than 20 years ago.

Mr Goh's visit was indeed an eye-opener in many ways. For one, we cannot take such relationship for granted, not that we would lose the oil supplies, but we could lose out on many more opportunities.

The world is changing post-cold war and, specifically in the case of Saudi Arabia and Middle East, post-911. Following the black tragedy of September 11 and the introduction of new security immigration measures in the US and Europe, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East are now giving more attention to East Asia. Whether in terms of capital flow, investments, education and tourism, Middle East is a new area of opportunity for Singapore.

We might have our own perceptions of Saudi Arabia, its conservative traditions, women cannot drive, its lack of safety, in terms of the recent terrorist attacks, but it is not a country that we can afford to neglect anymore. I was told when we were there that there is a woman pilot, and they took pride in telling us that, in fact, the woman pilot came from Mecca, the cradle of Islam. And they also have an astronaut Prince who went along on

Column: 1045

the shuttle and to the outer space. Similarly, we must also ask ourselves which other country have we taken for granted. We need to revisit our old relationships and look at them anew and see what opportunities hold.

I was told, in the case of Saudi Arabia, trade with China has grown from a mere US$300 million to US$10 billion over a short time of less than a decade. Did we miss out on those opportunities for Singapore, in many ways has been a gateway to East Asia?

There are many ways Singapore can benefit from the growing opportunities in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Manpower development is a clear one. During my earlier trip to Bahrain and also Saudi Arabia recently, Singapore's expertise in manpower development was often quoted as exemplary. So is our town and urban planning experience, its clean and green image and, of course, discipline; chewing gum issue notwithstanding. These are areas where we can market our products and services for export.

Our standing as a financial centre is impeccable. It is a draw for conventional banking. But that is now incomplete as a banking financial centre, as a growing number of Middle East countries and Muslims look for Islamic finance and banking opportunities. We need to develop new partners in search of maximising such opportunities. Whether dealing directly with Saudi Arabia or other Middle East countries, financial institutions and banks, or through Malaysia, or Bahrain, which have had a headstart in this field, fresh efforts must be taken or we would lose out on such opportunities too.

The Government has shown interest and taken new initiatives as enablers but

Column: 1046

the private sector must quickly follow suit. I welcome the moves introduced by the Finance Minister to facilitate Islamic finance and I urge the private sector to seriously follow up to take advantage of the new facilities.

The Government, I trust, would be following developments related to Islamic finance closely and will be equal to the needs to match the opportunities mushrooming. I would also like to see the Government, through its financial and investment arm, for example, the GIC, to set an example in showing confidence in Islamic finance as some of these instruments have also proven to be equal if not better than conventional banking ones.

Like the hon. Mr Othman Haron Eusofe, I also hope that members of the Malay/Muslim business fraternity would take advantage of the new opportunities to help uplift their level of economic presence. Admittedly, they are small players and would not be able to match their competitors. But I hope they could use their advantage, in terms of religious and cultural affinity, to help the bigger boys to muscle in that new competitive market. In the Middle East, it is sometimes more than just a question of technical capability and financial capacity. It is also about establishing personal relationships and trust.

Many of us would have that photograph of SM Goh extending his hands to a desert Bedouin etched in our minds. Let me share with you this anecdote. We were guests of the wealthy and flamboyant Prince Al-Waleed Talal at a desert dinner, resplendent with baby camel meat and countless number of dishes. I think we all know how the Bedouins eat. They are at their best with their hands. So after clawing out the baby camel meat and distributing it to each one of us on a plate, and we, as humble guests, reciprocated and showed

Column: 1047

our enjoyment, then with his hands full of oil, camel fat, he extended his hand to our SM. Perhaps, he saw the charm in SM's personality or, perhaps, he was also testing SM, in terms of how SM would respond to such a gesture. But SM Goh rose to the occasion, extended his hand and there you have a friendship for life established.

So you can see Saudi Arabia is not only rich in oil, camel and camel fat, but also warm in friendship. Earlier, in fact, SM Goh was even invited by Crown Prince Abdullah - I think, here, Mr Speaker may want to note there is something in the name - to watch his annual camel race, which we were told was also a very rare hospitality and rare show of friendship which the Crown Prince extended to our Senior Minister. To me, that was a royal invitation indeed for Singapore to grow closer to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East too.

To conclude, Sir, we indeed must revisit our relations with the outside world to look at opportunities we might have missed out when we plan strategies for the future. Whether the Middle East, East Europe or Central Asia, these are new frontiers that await our venture and exploration. We need to open up new opportunities outside to achieve our dream of becoming a land of opportunity in Singapore.

Just as we have achieved better understanding among our diverse and plural society through dialogue and developing trust, we must also take advantage of the opportunities for dialogue with other countries and other regions. The Asia-Middle East Dialogue held in June in Singapore is a good example, like the one which Singapore initiated for Europe (ASEM) and with Latin American countries too. My hope is that the private sector will also tango with the Government in its efforts to seek and benefit from these new opportunities.

Column: 1048

Only then can we grow our economy and realise our aspirations for Singapore - a land of opportunity. In short, let this land of opportunity be our oasis for prosperity and harmony.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, unlike hon. Mr Zainul, I did not come back from any desert. But I do have a coarse voice due to flu.

The Budget is a wonderful one for most Singaporeans, if not all. It contains help for almost everyone, as mentioned by so many speakers earlier on, from the school-going children to retired elderly, from working adults to needy families.

While coming up with the dollars and cents, we need to look into the delivery component at the same time. This also applies to the recently announced ComCare Fund. We have many assistance schemes in Singapore to help the poor, the elderly and the jobless. But there is much more we can do to improve our system of delivering help to them.

The Social Development Feedback Group has recently released an interim report on needy Singaporeans and our social safety nets. The study found that many needy residents are now aware of the schemes available. The Government has been putting much effort planning and setting up various schemes to help different groups of needy Singaporeans. However, this is not enough. No matter how good our schemes are on paper, they are useless if they are not reaching the people they are meant to help.

In the study, a face-to-face interview was conducted with 311 residents of 1-2 room rental flats in nine mature housing estates, including Ghim Moh and Henderson. As the MP for one of the areas covered, this has a personal resonance for me, and it is an issue close to my heart.

Column: 1049

About 50% of the respondents were over 60 years old. Most were unemployed due to old age or chronic illnesses. Although many of them were in financial difficulty or needed assistance in securing daily necessities, only 33%, or one third, were aware of any financial assistance schemes. Of these, most were likely to have heard about the schemes from friends (60%) or relatives (21%). This shows that we need to do more to reach these needy families. We also have to be much more effective in raising the awareness of our assistance schemes. More publicity and better strategies are needed to identify and reach them.

The elderly needy are particularly vulnerable. They are most likely to be "hidden" as many are isolated, with negligible social networks, are illiterate and dialect-speaking. In modern day Singapore, they struggle to understand the presentations in the mass media. Being poor, they may not even have the money for televisions or newspapers. If they are hard of hearing and having weak eyes, they would have difficulty even listening to the radio, watching television and reading any printed materials.

The only solution is for us to reach out to them personally. For this, we need the help and collaboration of volunteers, grassroots leaders in each neighbourhood, and social workers. In addition, the study also found that even social workers felt that there are too many financial assistance schemes involving different agencies - MCYS, NCSS, CDCs, VWOs, FSCs, GROs, etc. I quote: "While many have similar eligibility criteria, others have

specific criteria corresponding to the policy objectives they were meant to serve. As a result, there are not only many overlapping schemes, but also gaps where the criteria exclude some needy groups. Attempts to plug the gaps usually result in the introduction of even

Column: 1050

more schemes, further complicating the already confusing system."

It is not only potential recipients who are confused. Even scheme administrators, as illustrated in the survey, are confused. They found that they have difficulty in "keeping up with the available schemes, especially since there was no comprehensive listing of all available schemes that they could easily refer to". If the professionals, ie, the administrators and operators, are confused, can you imagine the bewilderment of our poor and feeble elderly?

We must simplify and consolidate our assistance schemes, so that they are easy to understand and, just as importantly, easy to administer. A review of all available schemes should be conducted regularly and, wherever possible, overlaps be reduced and the gaps plugged. For many years now, our approach to assistance for the disadvantaged has always been the "Many Helping Hands" approach. A weakness of such an approach is that, without sufficient coordination, communication and cooperation between the various agencies, particularly the voluntary welfare organisations, it could easily result in confusion, inefficiency and lack of economies of scale. We can learn a simple lesson from the fast-food company, McDonalds, which operates on the "KISS" principle, ie, Keep It Simple (Stupid). This is one of the ways to ensure efficiency and speed. Our assistance schemes should also be efficient and speedy in reaching our needy families, preferably JIT, ie, Just In Time.

I recommend that we set up island-wide one-stop centres, where those in need can go to apply for help, especially in areas where the needy are concentrated, eg, one to two-room rental flat areas. The locations have to be easily accessible for people who have problems with mobility. I urge the agencies

Column:1051

involved to set up such centres for all target needy groups together.

Another recommendation is the setting up of a central nation-wide database of recipients and the details of the assistance they have received. Apparently, there have been cases whereby some recipients take advantage of the system by applying for as many schemes as they qualify for. Due to the lack of a tracking system, they are successful. In addition, the ignorance of the other qualified poor has ensured the availability of the funds to such people. While one might argue that as long as one is willing to give and the other is willing to receive, the Government should not interfere with the process, I would beg to differ. Most donors, given enough relevant information, which is not the case currently, would have preferred to move beyond to help more needy people, once the basic needs of the first group have been taken care of. A central database would help us to even out the uneven distribution of welfare and reduce exploitation.

Next, I would like to highlight on geriatric care for the elderly which has been eloquently elaborated by the hon. Member, Dr Lily Neo, yesterday. So far, the home-based care aspect of elderly care has not received sufficient support from the Ministries involved, particularly for its step-down care components, namely, home nursing, home medical, home help and home therapy.

Let me just elaborate. Imagine an elderly, say, Tan Ah Pek, who has been admitted into an acute hospital for stroke. Subsequently, he is transferred to a community hospital for rehabilitation. Ideally, if it were up to the Government to decide, the best scenario would be for Ah Pek to be sent home for home-based care, as compared to institutional care. However, for this to happen, all the other components must be in place to support home-based care.

Column:1052

Firstly, we must have the ability to administer follow-up care to the chronic sick. If Tan Ah Pek were a diabetic, follow-up care is crucial to prevent his condition from deteriorating. However, for many elderly, mobility is a problem. Going to polyclinics or hospitals, especially by themselves, is akin to scaling Mount Everest.

Secondly, we need to provide subsidised home therapy. Currently, only therapies given at day care centres are subsidised. The Ministry introduced subsidies for home-care providers three years ago. However, they do not extend to home therapy providers. Mobility is a big problem for many elderly, particularly those who have no relatives who can help them, or who are, as what I would call them, "latch key" Ah Gongs and Ah Mas, whose family members are at school or at work in the day. I hope the Ministry will reconsider this decision, in view of our growing ageing population.

Thirdly, we also need home help if home-based care is to be feasible and to be more common. Certain social services are required, eg, Befriender services, laundry services and meals-on-wheels services. There are currently a few providers for these services, but I must say that there is much more room for improvement and much more support to be given to these providers.

Looking at this holistically, if we want the elderly sick to recover at home, we need all the supporting components to work well together. If only one component is missing, the entire plan has to be abandoned. Mr Tan Ah Pek would either have to stay in a nursing home or, more likely, in the case of many poor elderly currently, neglect their health by not going for follow-ups. As we say in Chinese, que yi bu ke , which may be translated as "not a single component

Column:1053

must be missed". Without the necessary care, Tan Ah Pek's condition will deteriorate unnecessarily. Hence, the Government must support every component of step-down care fully. This would help to bring down medical costs overall and reduce the sufferings of the poor elderly.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate my call to the Government to reduce the audit requirements for VWOs. I understand that the objectives of greater Government oversight are to enhance the professionalism of VWOs, raise the standards and increase their accountability to the public, and they also just as likely to encroach upon the freedom of the professionals and volunteers, eroding their independence and may reduce their personal motivation and commitment. Bureaucracy impedes the creativity and dampens incentive. Conversely, autonomy gives them a sense of pride and self-satisfaction. Additional audit requirements lead to heavier workloads for our already strained social services personnel and distract them from their main duties. Thus, I urge the Government to consider reviewing our current systems of regulatory and administrative control for our voluntary welfare organisations.

On the other hand, for those VWOs which flout the rules and abuse the trust of well-wishers and the Government, they must be severely punished and heavily penalised. Such heavy penalties would act as a deterrent and send a warning signal out to potential wrongdoers.

We must not create a hurdle for the good VWOs in the process of dealing with the black sheep. We must not forget to make sure that we give sufficient encouragement for VWOs which are sincere and effective in delivering their services.

Column:1054

With this, I support the motion.

Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar): Sir, I wish to thank the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the thoughtful and well carved out Budget this year. He has demonstrated once again his acute sense of where the needs are and the areas that require our attention in meeting the challenges ahead.

Last year's economic growth of 8.4% was remarkable, considering the period of poor performance in the previous three years, ie, 2001 to 2003. We experienced the worst economic recession in 2001 with the negative growth of minus 1.9%. We managed to recover in 2002 with the growth of 2.2%, and struggled to keep the economy afloat at 1.1% in 2003.

Through these years, we have been through the terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Centre Twin Towers on 11th September 2001, Bali bombing on 12th October 2002, Iraq War and SARS in 2003, and the tsunami tragedy in December 2004. The Government and the people of Singapore had responded well, took the bitter pill of restructuring our economy and achieved a healthy growth last year.

Whilst the economic forecast of a growth of between 3% and 5% for 2005 is reasonably good, we cannot take things for granted. We need to continue to work hard and be prepared, in case things turn out unexpectedly. Economic cycles in the globalised world can change very quickly and dramatically. We have still to contend with high oil prices, volatile foreign exchange rates, the threat of terrorism, the avian flu epidemic, and we do not know what else would turn up next to torpedo our economic plans.

What is very disconcerting is the slow return to the good old days of high employment rates. Even with the high economic growth of 8.4%, our

Column:1055

unemployment rate, though we see a slight improvement, remains at around 4%. With the economic growth of 3-5% this year, we would not see much improvement in employment, if we do not take drastic action to help more Singaporeans get work.

I, therefore, welcome the top-up of another $500 million to the Lifelong Learning Fund and allowing a larger annual sum of $80 million to be used to retrain and help job seekers with work. It would be a major accomplishment, if we are able to assist 15,000 Singaporean job seekers in the next two years to find work through new skills training and job redesign efforts.

Sir, it is timely that we reviewed the foreign worker policies. In the years of high economic growth and a tight labour market situation, we could not help but to bring in large numbers of foreign workers. During this time, when many Singaporeans cannot find work, it is difficult to see why we should continue to have such large numbers of foreign workers, leading Singaporeans to perceive that the foreigners are taking away work from Singaporeans. The issue is not about "reserving jobs" for Singaporeans but helping the market to function better in the use of manpower resources in our country.

I, therefore, support the move to put a cap on the current foreign worker dependency ceiling and charging a higher levy for the additional foreign worker at the rate of $500 per month. This is a nudge in the right direction. We want companies to innovate and look for higher value-added work that can use the foreign workers productively. The question in most employers' minds would be whether the Government is signalling that, in the not-too-distant future, the price-based mechanism would be used to allocate the limited pool of foreign workers that could be employed to work in Singapore. Sir, I

Column:1056

have a vested interest here because, if there is improvement, my constituents in Beach Road and Rowell Court would be most happy to see the number of foreign workers congregating in the housing estates reduced over time.

Sir, I am also concerned with the number of cases of malpractices in the companies listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange. While I agree that the Government can promote enterprises by adopting a risk management approach to regulation, the frequency of occurrence in the malpractice cases is putting our investors at grave risk and can adversely affect the reputation

of Singapore as an international financial centre. I would like to find out what is being done to put a stop to these financial scandals whose regularity suggests something endemic in the culture and a less-than-ethical approach to doing business in Singapore.

Next, the businesses of the HDB shops have deteriorated over the years - and there is little chance of things improving, other than for the few HDB estates which are well-supported because of their good location, shop mix and local demand of residents. The HDB shops will face even greater challenges when the operations of the low-cost carriers get into full swing, with greater frequency and more regional destinations, and the shopping habits of Singaporeans would change even further. It is best that early action is taken to do whatever we can to help retain the piece of the retail pie for the HDB shops that remain to survive and make a decent living.

From what I see, the over-capacity is actually not beneficial to the HDB residents because they do not get value from the goods and services offered by their neighbourhood HDB retail outlets. Moreover, the HDB and the Singapore Land Authority work at cross purposes that aggravate the situation. In my constituency, I have a HDB coffeeshop

Column:1057

owner at Block 31, Kelantan Lane who bought his coffeeshop for more than $1 million. Later, another food court leased from SLA was opened. I feel very sorry for this coffeeshop owner for the sad financial state that he is in, having taken a substantial loan from the bank to buy the coffeeshop from HDB. How could he have ever imagined that the former Jalan Besar Neighbourhood Police Post would be converted into a food court competing next door to him? The Government, as the landlord, in wanting to maximise the use of public assets should not cause undue hardship to a small businessman.

In facing the intense competition from overseas, companies have taken active steps to increase productivity and cut cost to stay lean and competitive. It is laudable that the Government has committed to do likewise and is able to reduce its expenditure by 5% in two years for all Ministries, with the exemption given to MINDEF. It is indeed a progressive Government that is able to adopt the best practices normally associated with the private sector.

Sir, the Government has been an active promoter in the use of IT and millions of dollars have been spent over the years on IT infrastructure and applications. I am not sure whether the Government has taken a close look at how its IT expenditure has brought the value envisaged by the numerous projects in the different Government Ministries. I wonder whether it is a standard practice for a Government Ministry to conduct a post-mortem after the implementation of a major IT project to validate that the project objectives have been realised. Many organisations today are questioning how much of the IT expenditure has really brought in the value and benefit that they said it would. Indeed, it could be a bottomless pit which very few people have the knowledge and understanding to

Column:1058

handle them. We read about the Ministry of Manpower's initiative in outsourcing its IT operation to an external vendor. How many other initiatives are in the pipeline for other Ministries in pursuing outsourcing to stretch the precious budget dollars?

We have now learnt that after public consultation, the Ministry of Finance will not be proceeding with the current year basis of assessment for income tax. It did not want to impose the administrative burden and compliance on the businesses and individuals. This is commendable. We have a case here with clearly obvious advantages but dropped because of implementation concerns. Indeed, the Government must be allowed to make decisions based on objective and well-informed assessment in the long term interest of our people. However, we must also be mindful not to repeat the mistakes of the past when rational policies were implemented which became unpopular and, because of public outcry, had to be withdrawn and the stigma remains.

Finally, Sir, Singaporeans are living longer. It is common nowadays to see Singaporeans living long lives into their 80s. Many of them have exhausted their savings, if they had any to start with. The children of the aged have also retired and they could hardly look after themselves. It would be difficult to depend on the grandchildren to support these aged. I wonder if the Government could favourably consider this special group of Singaporeans who are 80 years old and above and needing medical attention and long-term nursing care. We have heard what Dr Lily Neo and Dr Chong mention about the geriatrics and the need for home nursing care. Many do not have CPF accounts to enjoy the Medisave top-ups. Is it possible for the Government to pool the Medisave top-up for this group of elderly Singaporeans without CPF accounts and grant them waiver on the hospitalisation bills in the lower hospital

Column:1059

wards? This will help keep the dignity of the elderly in the final lap of their lives.

In conclusion, Sir, I must say that this has been a good Budget for all Singaporeans. I hope that our economy will continue to do well to spread the good cheer, and Singaporeans would feel proud that we belong to a great nation and a worthy member among the community of nations.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget Statement, entitled "Creating Opportunity, Building Community", has brought much cheer and comfort to many Singaporeans. The Government has signalled very strongly to the people that the change in leadership has not resulted in any letting up of its unrelenting effort to ensure that no Singaporean will be left behind. Indeed, the words of our Prime Minister in a recent speech have been very assuring. He said, and I quote, "A sense of community is what ultimately makes us a nation - forged by shared experiences, inspired by a common vision, and bound by a collective resolve to help one another. Restructuring brings adjustment pains to many segments of our population. We must help them so that they too will share in the fruits of economic opportunity."

This is not just a bald statement, but one which has been backed by the rather generous handouts in this year's Budget, ranging from the ComCare Fund to the CPF top-ups and the rebates on utilities. For many grateful Singaporeans, these handouts by the Government could not have come at a more appropriate time to cope with the overall cost increases, now expected to hit them with some measure of regularity.

As Singaporeans, it must be right that we do not forget those amongst us who are frail and in need. Sitting in this House and listening to the speeches made, I am

Column:1060

glad to note that the spirit of caring for the less fortunate has not waned. On the contrary, I note that, increasingly, many colleagues are now speaking up and, at times, rather passionately about doing more for the poor. Just the other day, in this House, my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the MP for Ayer Rajah, spoke of the financial burden of the underclass and the critical need to put them on their feet. Dr Tan even suggested declaring a debt amnesty for them, by wiping clean all their outstanding debts to the authorities and allowing them to start afresh. What Dr Tan expressed was just a reflection of the genuine desire to want to help the general underclass in Singapore.

The question is: how can we best help them? I believe the general consensus among many is the application of the principle of teaching them to fish rather than to give them a fish. While there may be a general acceptance of this principle, the perception often has been that it is more difficult to fish for many of those amongst us and it may be easier to continue to give them the fish. This is relatively evident in the way we give handouts, subsidies and rebates to help the relatively worse off to mitigate the effects of rising cost of living. Can we do better? I believe we can. In this regard, I would like to raise four issues that we can perhaps give more thought to.

Rights versus needs

First, under the various top-up schemes that the Government has announced, much money would be given to all Singaporeans. One would presuppose that the principle of parity applies here. For instance, we note that the Government would give Medisave top-ups of between $50 and $350 into each Medisave account, depending on the age group. This exercise alone will cost the Government $320 million. To give another example, the Government has also decided to top up the CPF accounts of

Column:1061

older Singaporeans. This exercise is carried out in recognition of the fact that many older Singaporeans earn less now as they have lower skills levels and are disadvantaged because of lower CPF contribution for their age group. To help Singaporeans in this age group, our Government will have to dish out $80 million. The money that the Government talks about here is really no small beer.

The question that one would ask is whether such assistance, evenly applied to all Singaporeans, is an effective way of helping our society. The value of money is always relative. What to me is a princely sum may well be a drop in the ocean for others. Can we stretch the charity dollar further here? I believe we can. Rather than giving money to all Singaporeans, why can't we put in place the principle of each man according to his needs or, at least, what society is able to determine to be his basic needs? While I recognise that our Government has to be fair to all Singaporeans in topping up their CPF accounts, it would, I believe, perfectly in order if the top-up would also carry an assignment provision that allows more fortunate Singaporeans the opportunity to assign such payments to charity of choice or to the Community Chest. Giving Singaporeans the opportunity to give up their entitlement to a public handout in favour of the needy would signal the taking of yet another step towards making Singapore a more caring and cohesive society.

Building strong families

Sir, much attention and resources have been given to the basic issue of declining birth rate in Singapore as a maturing society. The Baby Bonus Scheme that was started last year has now been tweaked to allow for the extension of the period allowed for co-savings as well as the expansion of the

Column:1062

use of co-savings for health screening and early intervention for children with special needs. I welcome such refinements to the scheme and hope that more Singaporeans will be persuaded by the position taken by the Government to have more children. However, while I laud the initiatives taken by the Government, I would also caution that we do not take a myopic perspective of the issue.

The issue for most Singaporeans is not just about having more babies. The issue for most families in Singapore is also about raising children in an appropriate environment to ensure that they get the best of what our society has to offer to them. At the moment, I believe that while our Government professes commitment to the principle that having strong families is essential to nation building, I do not see as much focus and commitment in this regard as we have towards encouraging more Singaporeans to have babies. Often, most parents have been left with their own devices

to finding out ways to help bring up their children through their own social network or through the voluntary welfare groups. I have yet to detect any serious efforts on the part of the Government towards coordinating and publicising the availability of such resources. How many of us as parents could effectively say that we know where to get help for proper guidance and counselling on raising children if we needed help?

Unfortunately, at the moment, parents are left very much to their own devices and, perhaps own resources, to get on with the families. Would parents know where they could turn to on how to increase the level of communication with the children so that the level of interaction and hence the bonding within the family could be strengthened? Would parents perhaps know how to handle sibling rivalry? How could we properly counsel our children from families who break up? I know that there are voluntary organisations

Column:1063

out there that do much work in this regard. However, I feel that our Government could, and should, do more in strengthening the capabilities of these organisations. Here we are talking of families from the middle income group who appreciate the need to get help on such matters. What about those from the lower income group, who seriously need help with family related issues? Could the Government honestly say that it has done enough in this regard?

I find this Budget lacking in providing incentives to commercially run organisations that are dedicated towards providing a service for parents. For instance, I do not see anything in this year's Budget that gives tax incentives for child and infant care services to encourage more of such centres to be set up so that it would be easier for mothers to go back to the workforce. What about child minding services for couples who do not have the wider family support network to take the load of looking after their children from time to time so that they could spend time together to strengthen their relationship with each other? Or tax incentives to encourage more businesses to be set up that are dedicated towards organising activities, whether indoor or outdoor, specifically for the purpose of building strong family ties?

Sir, we should take a more balanced perspective towards child bearing and raising families in Singapore. What is important for the country in the longer term is not only about having more babies to populate this country, but also ensuring that strong family ties form the basis of a strong and united society which is essential for the long term viability of our nation.

Employment for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled

Much has been talked about this subject but I would, nonetheless, cover

Column:1064

this because I think it is important. Our society upholds the principle of equality as a basis of governance. Yet, as a matter of practice, we know that discrimination, intended or otherwise, exists for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled when it comes to employment. In the recent debate on the President's Address, I highlighted the plight of the middle-aged workers who are not able to find employment on account of age. The same could also be said of the elderly and the disabled. Increasingly, at a time when the elderly are still active and healthy past retirement age, and the disabled, through training and therapy, are able to adapt to the work environment, there are no good reasons why they should not be able to find employment other than principally on account of some form of unwarranted discrimination. This is sad really, Sir.

As a nation, we want to recognise the principle that although not all are born equal or are equal in circumstance, we want to have a culture where all Singaporeans would be treated equally without regard to the age group or physical ability. Yet, more often than not, as MPs, we bemoan that fact that we often come across many Singaporeans, the middle-aged, the elderly and the disabled, who are truly having a hard time finding employment to be financially independent. I know that the Government has tried to persuade the private sector to hire not only the young, but I honestly doubt whether the Government has been successful in this regard. Singaporeans are still discriminating on the basis of age and physical ability and I am not sure if we have gone very far in this regard.

Sir, if persuasion does not change mindset, perhaps legislation may. The MCYS GPC, at the moment, Sir, is looking at age and ability discrimination legislation in other countries and see whether the same may be adapted and applied here. Until then, I would have thought that the

Column:1065

Government could have provided some tax incentive to encourage employers to hire such people. This Budget has, I must say, missed the opportunity to send a strong signal to prospective employers to level the playing field in employment for the middle-aged workers, the elderly and the disabled. While this is not the most ideal way to move prospective employers to hire these, what I should call, "disadvantaged workers", it would, nonetheless, serve as a strong incentive for them to consider such a possibility. Hopefully, in the course of employing these disadvantaged workers, employers would gain a better appreciation of their abilities and dispel any misgiving or prejudice that may have existed before. Such tax incentives may be seen as an indirect form of subsidy, Sir. If it is seen as a subsidy, then it is a necessary evil, until the playing field is levelled without any form of Government intervention.

Greater devolution of decision making to the grassroots

Sir, the greater impact of democracy lies in the devolution of decision making to the grassroots. We began this process by devolving the work of estate maintenance to a council of local leaders appointed through the grassroots organisations. We subsequently carried this process forward by passing on matters relating to the community to the Community Development Councils. This devolution has, in the main, been reasonably successful. Over the years, the town councils and the Community Development Councils have achieved much within their respective communities and have had a great impact in the lives of the people they look after. The common thread that lies with the town council and the Community Development Council has to do with giving the local people a greater say in the way in which local township matters and the

Column:1066

community is managed. This has worked well, and it is now evident that the different town councils and Community Development Councils have evolved different identities and priorities. This has indeed widened the choice for the people to decide on how and in what kind of community or environment they want to live in.

The time has perhaps come for us to consider devolving this decision making power even further by empowering the local Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) with greater say over how and what resources from the Government for the poor and needy residents should be given in their respective divisions. For a start, I would suggest that there are two ways in which this may be carried out. First, a block grant based on the number of residents could be given to the CCC to decide how that sum of money should be spent to help those who are in need in their particular ward. We accept that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to policy making in this regard. With the sum of money, some CCCs may decide to concentrate on providing tuition subsidy for children from disadvantaged background. This would help to break the cycle of poverty and help place the children on a more level footing with the others in their community. This would be helpful in areas where there is a high concentration of young children from relatively deprived backgrounds. On the other hand, there could be pockets of communities in Singapore where there are more elderly and senior citizens and for whom school pocket money may not be a solution to their problems. For such areas, the CCC could perhaps be given the ability to decide on welfare packages that are more suited to their needs. With more financial resources at their disposal, the CCC could, in fact, work with the CDCs to maximise the grassroots' outreach to the needy residents.

The second approach takes the form of giving the grassroots organisation

Column:1067

greater leeway to generate funds through the private-public partnership model. Typically, grassroots organisations generate funds for their activities through donations or sponsorships. With numerous charities and non-charitable bodies chasing for the donor's dollar, fund raising could indeed be a challenge for many communities. In fact, the public is increasingly complaining of donation fatigue as they are constantly bombarded with calls for donations. Sir, the way forward is to not only rely on donations to fund community programmes, but to expand the horizons of the grassroots organisations by allowing them to partner the private sector in win-win ventures that would result in more money being generated for community work that is outside of the traditional model of donation. Some examples of this would include, for instance, working with commercial set-ups to establish food factories where small areas secured at cheap rates are tenanted out to housewives who need industrial-grade kitchens to produce cakes and pastries for sale. The grassroots could even work with commercial operators to establish a distribution chain to help housewives package and place out their products. They could organise quality control checks to ensure hygiene and consistency of quality. The point here is that we overlay a good organisational framework on the business with the intent to help them with their businesses. But for the help of the grassroots in partnership with the private sectors, these housewives would not have the wherewithal to start their enterprise. And, if successful, this model could be replicated for soap making and other forms of cottage industry businesses. By adopting this suggestion, Sir, you will realise that we are moving away from the traditional model of depending on others for handouts and placing control over the ability to make money back to the grassroots and the individuals concerned.

Column:1068

Some may well argue that getting cheap rentals from JTC or HDB to help kick start this business must surely come at some cost to the Government. My retort to that line would be, if we do not help the needy this way, the money would still have to be given to the needy in any event, albeit in a more direct form. Allowing grassroots leaders to run ventures like the one just suggested, also provides the opportunity for those in need to regain their dignity by working for their living and not just depend on handouts for their livelihood.

Sir, I would like to end by again repeating the words of our Prime Minister. In his recent speech, he said that Singapore may be a small country, but it may be a great nation. I could not agree more. To be a great nation, we want to be a country where we are a world class economy and a politically stable and socially vibrant community, a place where we are able to nurture and maximise, to the limit, the talents that we have been born with and a place where the pursuit of happiness is not an idle wish. However, if that is all there is that could be said of us being a great nation, then I would be very disappointed indeed. For to be a great nation, we must also be sensitive and caring to the needs of those who, whether through choice or circumstance, have fallen by the wayside. To be a great nation, our policies towards the poor and the needy, the elderly and the disabled, must not be premised on grudging giving, but on adequate and fair provision to ensure that those who are truly in need do not have to worry about living from day to day. To be a great nation, our society must frown upon those who judge others based on prejudice and discrimination, and not on the basis of their character and ability. As a society, we want to deem such conduct to be unacceptable and, if necessary, to legislate against it.

Column:1069

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.13 pm

We have responded well to the Asian tsunami disaster by donating generously as a people. Our Government has responded in a way that makes us proud to be called Singaporeans. This shows that we do have a caring and a charitable spirit. If the Government could tap on this spirit to empower our society to lift the underclass out of their rut, I have no doubt that history would truly judge this generation as having made a turning point towards making Singapore a truly great nation.

With that, Sir, I support the financial policy of the Government for the next financial year.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): (In Mandarin) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lee presented a comprehensive and pro-people Budget which looks after the needs of every family in Singapore. The topping up of the Edusave account, lowering of personal income tax rates, topping up of Medisave accounts of the elderly and rebates on water and electricity bills have brought happiness to all the people of Singapore.

Prime Minister Lee also emphasised that in order to make Singapore a land full of opportunities, the Government will adopt measures to instil vitality to our economy and encourage our people to be enterprising, so as to enable Singapore to achieve better competitiveness and healthy economic development in the face of intense global competition.

The Government would also adopt new policies and measures in the various sectors to assist the people, and the

Column:1070

people will be challenged to work hand in hand with the Government to attain their common target.

For the Government and the people to attain this ideal target, the work attitude of the civil servants is an important factor because they are the bridge between the Government and the people. The heavy task of implementing these measures is in the hands of the civil servants. Unfortunately, when these new policies and measures fall on the civil servants who are "afraid of changes, afraid of making mistakes", they will formulate all sorts of bureaucratic red tape and work according to the rules so that all the innovative entrepreneurial ideas would be stuck in a complicated process of examination and inspection, and eventually die a natural death. The editorial of Lianhe Zaobao of 8th February entitled "Do not let bureaucratic red tape kill the Entrepreneurial Ideas" actually hit the nail on the head in describing the mindset of the civil servants. Let me give you two real life examples.

A certain Mr Ng Thiam Poh became unemployed due to the economic restructuring. Failing to find any alternative job, he applied to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources for a licence to sell ice-cream. When he was issued with a licence, he was full of confidence. To his astonishment, things turned out to be even worse for him because the Ministry imposed all sorts of restrictions that made it almost impossible for him to sell his ice cream, and he ended up with piles of debts. Mr Ng felt that these restrictions made it difficult for him to do his business, resulting in the loss of all the money he invested. He had no choice but to write to the Forum page in the newspaper to voice his concerns and suggest that the Ministry relax its rules, allow him to sell ice cream at more localities, and give him more room for survival. But the Ministry immediately replied that the restrictions on itinerant

Column:1071

ice-cream hawkers cannot be relaxed, and hoped that Mr Ng would understand. However, understanding does not help to solve the problem.

During my childhood days, my next-door neighbour was an ice-cream seller. That is why I know of the many restrictions being an itinerant ice-cream hawker. In the morning and at night, business is poor. During rainy days, ice cream is not saleable. It is only in the hot sunny afternoons that the ice-cream seller can strive to do more business. The relevant authorities also impose many restrictions on where he is allowed to sell his ice cream. For example, he cannot sell near the schools, at bus stops and MRT stations, main roads, pedestrian walks, town centres, hospitals, police stations and Government institutions. In other words, wherever there are a lot of people passing by, he cannot sell his ice cream.

Just think about it. What is most important for a hawker to do his business? Crowds! Here, you cannot sell, there you cannot sell. How could Mr Ng not end up losing all his capital and incurring piles of debts?

Obviously, the civil servants do not know the basic demand and supply conditions in the selling of ice cream. I suggest the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources grant the officer-in-charge of licensing two days' leave to walk around with Mr Ng to appreciate for himself the predicament of an ice-cream seller. What Mr Ng wants is to be self-reliant and self-dependent and to work to maintain his family. Such hardworking and enterprising spirit should be supported and encouraged. I hope the Government will consider changing or relaxing all the unnecessary rules so that it would not stop somebody who wants to become independent and sell ice cream from doing so, to keep his body and soul together.

From this example, we feel that any change in policy must be sunk into the

Column:1072

minds of civil servants so that they will make the necessary adjustments. The civil servants should do more to understand the problems of affected people so that they will make the changes and make suitable adjustments to help them become self-dependent and self-reliant. It is indeed the objective of our Government to assist the people to become entrepreneurs.

A lot of people have been affected by our economic restructuring. There have been changes in the mode of business and increased competition. The neighbourhood shops are under pressure from restructuring, and they face competition from the supermarkets and convenience stores.

In my constituency, there is a dry market. Because it is very crowded, the hawkers find it difficult to do business there. The customers also find the place too congested. So the stallholders, with the help of their association, were prepared to upgrade the market. They applied to the HDB for permission to upgrade and after some attempts, they finally obtained the approval of the HDB, but there were three conditions attached. First, the hawkers and stallholders must set up a new company. Second, the rentals will be raised. Although the proposed new rentals were not ideal, they were prepared to accept them. Third, the HDB will compensate the stallholders a sum of $48,000, but they must bear the cost of the upgrading.

The stallholders abided by the terms and conditions and engaged a lawyer to set up a new company for them. Everything was ready, and they were just waiting for the green light from the HDB to start the upgrading work. The green light did not come but instead a bomb was thrown at them. The HDB informed the stallholders that they will select the tenants on an open tender basis. The

Column:1073

hawkers were afraid that if they were not successful in their tenders, the business which they had been diligently building up bit by bit over the past 20 years would be lost, and they would become unemployed. Eventually, they decided to abandon the upgrading plan, and all the hard work they put in towards this plan went down the drain. They will just continue to operate under the present environment.

Sir, according to my understanding, when Government departments, like PWD and HDB, went through restructuring, PWD formed a subsidiary called CPG and HDB formed a subsidiary called Surbana, and some of their projects have been given a five-year grace period with preferential treatment. Why is it that the companies set up by the people because of economic restructuring cannot enjoy the same concession? Why should the Government policy be discriminatory against them? I am of the view that all Government policies should be equally applicable to one and all. The Government should allow the people themselves to restructure their companies and automatically enjoy the no-tender requirement for five years, so that they will be able to overcome their difficulties.

Why do civil servants have this kind of mentality? As it is said, the more you do, the more mistakes you make. You do less, you err less. If you do not do anything, you make no errors at all. So to protect themselves and to avoid trouble, civil servants create rules to restrict all these kinds of activities, and they treat all these rules and regulations as their talismen. So whatever is new, they will say no at the beginning. Because of this, a lot of new Government policies cannot be implemented thoroughly. Finally, they will become mere paper talk. This kind of bureaucratic attitude should be overhauled so that the people will not think that Government policies are mere lip service and do not benefit the people.

Column:1074

I feel that the stereotype attitude of the civil servants is related to the present appraisal system. Under the present system, creativity and initiative are not very clear cut, but on the other side of the coin, very severe penalties are meted out for any mistakes made. If you do something wrong, you will be punished severely. Under these circumstances, a lot of civil servants, in order to protect themselves, would not dare to try anything new, and hence they simply cannot afford to be creative. As a result, no attempt will be made to be creative in the Government policy. Civil servants will stick very closely to the rules. In the face of any new policy or idea, they will become very conservative. In order to avoid making mistakes, they will adopt this kind of conservative attitude, which is unwise in a changing world. The Government should review the present appraisal system to create flexibility and transparency. I think the Government should encourage the civil servants to be creative and take the initiative to make contributions to the people and the country. With creativity and initiative, of course, you may make mistakes but nobody can be free from making mistakes. We are not saints. So we must teach them and give them the chance to learn from their mistakes so that they would not make the same mistake again. In this way, we will be able to bring up a new generation of creative and innovative civil servants and leaders. We cannot expect a horse to run well but refuse to give it any hay to eat. If you want the civil servants to do well, you should treat them well and give them the space to experiment and innovate, without the threat of being censured for any mistakes made in the process.

I understand that new civil servants are employed on short contracts of between one and three years. I think this is too short, and not good for our civil service. They are being treated as commodities that can be easily replaced.

Column:1075

This is very demoralising, particularly for those who are employed on a one-year contract. With only one year in their contracts, they will start looking for alternative jobs just a few months on the job, as the contract is due to expire soon and there is no sense of security. How could we expect them to give of their best to the job?

For those who are on one to three years' contracts, they will not attempt any project that is likely to jeopardise their contract. They can only look at the short-term perspective and shy away from making long-term plans. They just do not have the motivation. Their defensive attitude results in the lack of initiative and creativity in the civil service.

I think we should review and change this kind of contract. Of course, we cannot continue with the "iron rice bowl" concept. I feel that the three to five years' contracts are better for the civil service and the people. The longer contracts will provide the civil servants with more opportunities to prove their worth, and contribute more to the departments they belong.

Next, let me deal with the problem faced by the SMEs. In the past few years, because of the economic downturn, our SMEs faced a lot of problems, especially those who are renting JTC properties. They faced a lot of challenges. I have visited the JTC industrial estates and I found that some 800 to 1,000 hectares of land are left vacant. These pieces of vacant land can be used to build some 2,000 factories, providing jobs for some 200,000 people. I have some friends working in the SMEs and they told me the reasons why the SMEs were afraid to tender for these pieces of land.

Firstly, the market rental rates fixed by JTC are too high, at an average of $8 per square metre. In Jiangsu Province, China,

Column:1076

the industrial land is being rented out at only $1.50-$2.00. The difference is more than four times.

Secondly, JTC fixes the plot ratio at 0.8, which is much too high, and the factories to be built have to be two storeys high.

I think these terms are not favourable to the SMEs when they want to rent the industrial land from JTC. I hope the JTC could be more flexible so that in this competitive environment, SMEs can rent the land through open application instead of tender. I feel that JTC should consider lowering their rentals by 20% for a period of three years, and reduce the plot ratio to 0.4, so that the building cost of the factories could be lowered to enable our business environment to be more competitive.

In addition, I hope that the JTC will consider selling the factories to existing tenants on 20-year or 30-year lease at concessionary prices. This will help them to avoid the rental fluctuations which impact business costs.

The third point is that JTC is valuing their own properties much too high, and there is a lack of transparency. Valuation is being done by their in-house valuers. I visited a restaurant in Woodlands. JTC valued it at $490,000. Someone offered to purchase it at $350,000, but JTC thought that the offer was too low, and decided to call for an open tender. At the open tender, it fetched only $290,000 and the deal was sealed at this lower price. Apparently, the JTC's valuation is 40% above the market price. So, I suggest that JTC engage independent valuers to form an independent valuation committee to perform valuation of their properties. It should be more transparent. It would be able to fix more reasonable market prices. This independent valuation

Column:1077

committee should also take into account the rentals and the valuations of our neighbouring countries like Malaysia, Vietnam and China so that our businesses would gain a more competitive edge. I think this is a very important matter that we should look into to strengthen the competitiveness of our local enterprises, and to provide our SMEs more opportunities for development and create more jobs for our people. This is something that we have to really look into.

Finally, I would like to thank the Deputy Speaker for giving me a chance to take part in this debate. I support the Budget policy of the Government.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget is like a beautiful bouquet. It has a wide variety of flowers, pretty ones with nice scent, to capture the hearts of the young, the middle age, the elderly (the uncles and aunties in the HDB heartlands) and even the corporate citizens, that is, the businesses. I rejoice together with many fellow Singaporeans when the Budget was announced. And this floral bouquet does not come cheaply. It will cost the Government some $1.3 billion. This "inclusive" Budget clearly reflects the hallmarks of our Finance Minister, namely, to be bold in making decisions, to recognise the needs of everyone and to give everyone some help to move forward with their lives while creating opportunities for them. It is a Budget that reaches out and touches the hearts of the people. It is just the typical style of Mr Lee Hsien Loong since his taking office also as Prime Minister to extend a helping hand to every Singaporean. Indeed, such is the Budget that has been designed that there will only be a "modest surplus" in 2005, in the words of PM, so as to allow for "measures to be taken to ensure that the vulnerable or needy Singaporeans are

Column:1078

not left behind". Despite the many reverses that we faced in the past, we went ahead with the economic restructuring policies and, today, we can enjoy the fruits of our sacrifices.

Indeed a Budget, such as this, makes it difficult for everyone to be critical but of course we will always want to push the boundaries a little bit more and ask for more.

Handicapped and wheel-chair bound

Today, I like to speak for the handicapped, the wheel-chair bound and the visually impaired, among others, who in times of economic difficulties will need more than just a little help from the Government, in terms of any special relief. Just pause for a moment and ask: If the able-bodied are affected by structural unemployment, what more if someone is handicapped? Even the organisations that are set up to render them assistance face difficulties in a trying business environment. Many are asking for a budget to enable them to seek training to upgrade their skills and make themselves more employable in the new industries. Many of the visually impaired were previously trained to be production operators and telephone operators in the old economy. In addition, they are also asking for small relief or subsidies for their employers to purchase assistive equipment so that they can perform to their optimum as their able-bodied partners. Many strive hard to raise a family despite their difficulties.

Recently, I was invited to a Chinese Lunar New Year function at our community centre organised by the Institute for the Blind. I was impressed by their self-help spirit and attitude. But they too need the care of the community and the Government. Although our transport authority and transport companies have persistently maintained their stand that public transport is meant for the majority,

Column:1079

we have, I feel, arrived at a stage in our economy where we can be more inclusive and show a greater compassion for the less fortunate. To install a beeping sound system in the doorway to ensure that our visually impaired know where the door is and can independently move towards it is not a costly installation. We have made progress slowly and are able to include braille numbering on the lift buttons. The visually handicapped just needed that storey indicators so that they could move about the floors independently and freely. What our handicapped friends are asking is to facilitate them so that they can earn their keep to support themselves.

The handicapped I know have a generous heart. One of the visually impaired has even come forward to serve selflessly as a volunteer in Paya Lebar. She is a graduate; she is unemployed. She needs help herself, but she is helping others for now.

Medical insurance

As we march forward into the new order, we have to find new solutions to an otherwise old problem. This is the problem of medical care. The ever rising cost of healthcare with an ever greying population will put a strain between the providers of health services and the people. What makes this issue even more sensitive is because it concerns life and this can be an emotional issue. People who are sick will want the best care, yet the best is no guarantee to a cure. Worse still, the patient may succumb to his or her illness, and the next-of-kin will have to suffer the pains of having to settle a huge medical bill. Let me quote you this medical bill that is in my hand [indicating] . This belongs to my late ex-secondary school classmate. I have got her husband's permission to disclose this. She was hospitalised for 49 days and finally succumbed to her illness in December 2004. The total hospital bill for 49 days is $204,648. After the

Column:1080

Government grant of $116,746, the remaining bill is $87,901. With Medisave, MediShield and some personal insurance, the bill now stands at $50,000. This liability lies with her husband and her three children now. When it comes to medical treatment, where is the line to be drawn between making a sensible decision for a loved one, to reaching out beyond the limits of a person's financial capability in the gallant attempt to save a life?

I am proposing that one answer lies in medical insurance. This will have to be a portable policy and everyone should be encouraged to buy the coverage according to his ability to pay the premium. If he moves on to the next job, the policy goes with him. When the policyholder is perhaps in his 30s, the premium may be a little higher than the norm. However, when the person hits 55 years, the premium could be gradually reduced because the policyholder may then be heading for his retirement. The higher premium he pays when he is, say, in his 30s would kind of offset the gradual reduction in premium he pays when he is in his retirement years. I know the current policies are tailored such that the premium goes upwards with age. But we should reflect and explore new options and think like the way operators of low cost airlines do in bringing a revolutionary change to the cost of air travel. I know several NGOs run free clinics even in today's marketplace.

A good medical insurance is a vital cog in the wheel of good health. In this way, the aged can grow old with dignity and pride, without fear of burdening their siblings or family members. The sick need suffer no more pain than what has already been inflicted by his illness. The Government could also extensively explore various alternative medicines so as to bring down the cost of medical treatment and cure. In this medical bill, the medicine alone costs $43,252, and

Column:1081

after subsidy, it is $40,385. Like what Mr Inderjit Singh has said, maybe a high-powered committee should perhaps look deeper into the question of medical insurance with the creative premium scheme.

Lean civil service

Next, lean civil service. I will begin with an overview of the Government's decision for the civil service to stay lean, but I hope this will not be at the expense of the public servants and efficiency. I know the Finance Minister had said when announcing the caps on Ministries' budgets that, "MOF believes that by cutting waste and operating more efficiently, Ministries can live within these caps without compromising service levels". I have actually cancelled two pages out of that because Mr Ang has spoken elaborately on this topic itself. We can cut cost but if it is at the expense of the quality of public service, I am concerned what will happen to ordinary citizens who depend on these services.

One other area I want to mention is the cost of internal fixtures and fittings in Government departments and institutions. For the past three years, we have visited more Government departments and institutions than the normal ordinary citizens. I am very sure that the budget can definitely be cut even more based on the specifications that are being put into the tender document. I was told that in one hostel's tender specifications, it specifies for branded mattresses or equivalent for the hostel. Do we need such high specifications? Besides high specifications, the cost of fittings and fixtures will definitely be high. We can have furniture with wood ply and not solid wood. We can have homogenous tiles and not marbles on floors. They are all functional and serve the same purposes. I have seen glass staircases. They still have

Column:1082

to be walked on, as in any ordinary concrete staircases.

Call for a local agency for local enterprises

I applaud Mr Inderjit Singh for calling for a single agency for local enterprises in Singapore. He hits the nail right on the head. It is because of my recent experiences with EDB and SPRING that I sat upright and nodded my head in support of my neighbour in the House, Mr Inderjit Singh, in his call for a single agency for local enterprises. Let me explain.

At this point I would also like to declare my interest. Recently, I was assisting my employer to apply for a site under the Warehouse Retailing Scheme (WRS), whose programme was owned by EDB. Unfortunately, being a local cooperative, our so-called sponsor agency is SPRING. Although SPRING is the sponsor agency, we were unable to obtain prompt updates of the scheme during the months of the process of the application. We have to learn from industry sources that a site has been allocated and the WRS guidelines have been changed. When we further checked, EDB has allocated a site not within the original guideline of the WRS. Of course, we made objection, but were scolded for not thinking out of the box by SPRING, the interesting partnership of the two agencies.

What local enterprises need are not special but fair treatment, equal sources and speed of information, and effective delivery of services. While EDB has done a great job for the MNCs, unfortunately, it is but human, it has only one heart for the MNCs but not the local enterprises. If we continue with the prevailing attitude towards local enterprises, we cannot create a more conducive environment in which local enterprises can thrive. We are really in need of an effective agency looking after local enterprises. Local

Column:1083

enterprises, too, provide the jobs and retain the earnings within the country.

I strongly support Mr Inderjit Singh's call that, if we do not develop our local enterprises, we will continue to need to restructure and attract MNCs all the time, and not having enough local entrepreneurs to move the country up the ladder. I support the call for an agency for local enterprises.

Property

Among the areas where I feel we should have also looked into is the property market. Owning a property is the dream of many Singaporeans. Those who own an HDB flat will aspire to upgrade to a bigger flat, and this desire goes on. We implemented many measures in the past to curb speculative trading in property. Today, conditions have changed. Things are very stabilised, and too stabilised to the point that the market is only moving sideways. People find it difficult to upgrade, even though interest rates are low. Why? It is because the cost of transaction is still very high, amongst others. One of the issues is the stamp fees for property transactions. The Government could review the whole fee structure for property conveyancing to see how it can be realigned to meet the current market conditions. Concessions have been granted for transfers of mortgage. Can the benefits be extended wider to include purchases as well? The benefits extended to properties being transferred to REITs should be broadened to benefit other transactions as well and not just to REITs. A reduced rate would definitely give a boost to the property market.

Construction

While on the subject of property, I would like to say that while other industries have recovered, the construction industry is still caught in a

Column:1084

tailspin. Contractors are going bust, and the domino effect on the subcontractors has made the industry a very high-risk business. Added to their woes are the difficulty in getting skilled foreign workers and the increase in the levy on foreign workers in this Budget. There have been many grouses on the man year entitlement (MYE) to the construction companies. This MYE costing has been used as a leverage on many tenders for local projects which some foreign companies have used to their advantage and, again, the local contractors have not had the advantage of hinterland to supply these skilled workers. Hence, the MYE has become a commodity to be traded. Many subcontractors are also finding difficulty in getting workers, as they are restricted by the main contractors as well. The relevant Ministries should review the whole structure and assist the industry to recover sooner.

Tobacco

Let me at this point talk about smoking. The Government has, almost without fail, annually increased the duty on tobacco for the past five years. The rationale is to deter our young Singaporeans from taking up the habit of smoking. I support the anti-smoking policy, in view of the nearly 2,500 deaths annually in Singapore. However, in the process of formulating the tax policy, the Government must realise that it is also hitting at a group of senior citizens who have for decades been smoking. They are the unfortunate lot who did not have the benefit of public education in their youth and are today caught in the clutches of the smoking addiction. At their age, 60 years and above, to give up the habit of some 40-plus years of smoking may probably do them more harm than good, as I am told. The withdrawal symptoms may cause them more harm.

I would like to ask the Government to consider other measures to curb smoking,

Column:1085

apart from just raising taxes on tobacco. It should, for example, tighten the licensing for the importation of cigarettes. I am told that there are now more brands in the market than before. Or use the taxes to subsidise the nicotine patch to help smokers to give up their habit. I understand that some importers are bringing in cheaper brands in order to make smoking more affordable, and people are smoking cigarettes made in countries where the law on nicotine and tar content is less stringent, and brought into Singapore illegally or without duty.

A colleague, who has a Vietnamese wife, says he smokes cigarettes from friends and relatives who visit him. The result is that they are smoking more harmful cigarettes. We have about 50,000 Malaysians crossing the checkpoints each day. I urge the Government to take a more holistic approach to this problem of nicotine addiction, so that in the process of dissuading our young from taking up the smoking habit, the older loyal Singaporeans do not end up gasping for a puff.

Sir, on this note, I support the motion.

Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to join in the debate. Being 42nd in the overall queue has got some benefits and challenges. So, let me borrow Ms Eunice Olsen's description of ourselves as "newbies" - albeit I am a much older one - and I will let the more seasoned hon. Members peek at the Budget with their microscope and their surgical instruments.

I wish to comment on two areas in particular, ie, on creating opportunities and Government effectiveness.

First, on creating opportunities. I wish to view this aspect through a wide-angle

Column:1086

lens, in order that I do not miss the wood for the trees. The world has become one of paradoxes. We are in one sense in over-capacity in many physical consumer goods relative to their natural demand. This over-abundance may even be true today of more modern products, such as pop music and information. This has led to extreme competition for the sale of too many products and services. While there seem to be greater choices for consumers, in reality, little separates these choices. Few goods have distinctiveness that sustains beyond one or two years of product life. This analogy is also becoming evident in the competition among countries for FDI, talent and ideas. At the same time, we do see scarcity in other commodities, such as building materials, as a result of the great current construction boom in developing Asia. But we also see a scarcity of real talent or innovation, and one would even say of tolerance and human kindness. How has the economic world responded to these effects? What is becoming clear, short of having human conflicts or natural disasters disrupt supply, the modern world, more often than not, artificially creates demand. We see the rise of advertising and mass communication to outshout competition in an already very crowded world. We see ever shortening product life cycles, whether due to fashion or fad, or worse, due to in-built self-destruction. In trying to find and fill whatever niches that may exist, we have to resort to mass customisation, as was earlier pointed out.

Sir, what do these developments have for Singapore? In today's world, Singapore does not have the biggest this or the tallest that, or even the fastest other. When globalisation and modern information technology provide the conditions for almost a perfect market, these arbitrage opportunities disappear very quickly. What firms and organisations could do well individually is now just not enough to compete,

Column:1087

especially when the lack of domestic scale forces all of us to contemplate competing on at least the regional, if not a global, scale right from the start. We now cannot be happy just about environmental scanning, because there is not very much left to seize. We have to resort to other tools, such as scenario planning, in other words, fortune telling.

With that as an imperative, how do we take our points of strength and make them stronger. In my view, as far as governmental action is concerned, one way is for us to push for more integrated and holistic action. And this integrated approach must eventually pervade all in our society, so that it becomes a new type and a higher level of competitiveness and, hopefully, one which is more difficult to achieve by other competitors. Hon. Member Dr Amy Khor referred to this idea as a "multi-pronged" approach. Mr Inderjit Singh mooted the idea of a Local Enterprises Development Board. That, surely, is the same call for an integrated approach, targeted in this case for local enterprise. I believe, and I agree, that this must be Singapore's focus, going forward. We must strongly support our local enterprises, big and small, just as other hon. Members have said before me.

In my view, new opportunities for Singaporeans can come about through utilising this approach and seeking synthesis at the same time. Synthesis is about creating something from its constituents. It is well established that we have the greatest problem to work cross-boundary in our system, for some reason. Perhaps our institutions are so well-defined, controlled and proceduralised that many things come to a standstill when projects and ideas have to require inter, not intra, organisational decision making. We are trapped in a world of circular logjam where one department is waiting for another to kickstart the approval.

Column:1088

With a strict budget control environment within Government and a no-mistakes-allowed culture for wrongdoing, it is almost impossible to get ease of passage for new projects and ideas that have to be cross-boundary. Using the momentum of Remaking Singapore, I would make a very strong call for an integrated approach across the entire spectrum of society, and this must go beyond economic spheres. I would, therefore, like to see our Budgets more readily show and measure the initiatives that have to go cross-boundary.

I feel that an integrated approach also embraces the Government's concept of inclusiveness. Whereas inclusiveness may just mean ensuring that those at the margin of society, eg, the minorities, disadvantaged, unheard, etc, are included. Integration must go beyond this to grow the many necessary tenuous and multi-varied bonds to weave the fabric of Singapore as a strong and dynamic nation. I was enjoying an eye-opening performance of Lady Salsa on Sunday. It told the history of Cuba by way of a musical and through the eyes of its protagonist, an African-Cuban. As she told her life story through the different stages of Cuban nationhood, what struck me was how that society, through its fusion of its music and dance art forms and religions, developed a totally robust and uniquely Cuban identity that has bound and integrated their country. We all know Cuban music and dance in some way or other, eg, rumba, chachacha, salsa,

guantanamera . Salsa dance clubs are a rage among our young adults here and in many other countries around the world. Our Singaporean practitioners enjoyed themselves on the aisle and on stage when audience participation was called upon. The synthesised Cuban brand is truly not only well-known but recognisable and exported all around the world. The Cubans are obviously very proud of it. I left the show, asking

Column:1089

myself, "So where is our 'Uniquely Singaporean' equivalent?" I tried, but I could not name one.

There is a current debate about our Singapore brand, more a result of the raging debate on the casino. While it is one thing to experience the brand in Singapore, and there is real value to this brand because it attracts many foreign professionals to pursue their career and family choices here, it is another thing to be able to package it for export and for further value creation. If it cannot be exported, then only four million residents and eight million tourists a year can potentially enjoy this. I think it is time to find more ways to multiply this impact and to modify the Singapore brand as something exportable, and not just a domestically consumable notion. We must contemplate this seriously.

As we speak, the Sports Hub is being planned for. We will replace the National Stadium, and, together with the beautiful Indoor Stadium, the new integrated sports facilities at Kallang will be a thriving hub for sports and recreational activities for people of all ages, casino-free. Also, as we speak, a new Botanic Garden is being planned for at Marina South. I read that a 10,000-seat outdoor arena is being built there as well. So in addition to the contemplated integrated casino resort, we will potentially have an over supply of entertainment facilities. The world of arts, entertainment and sports events is not one of "built it" and it will come. It is one of shrewd economics and touchy emotions. I hope that the Singapore Government will take an integrated approach to planning these facilities or we will pass an inadvertent structural unbalance to the venue operators, the promoters and other stakeholders, and eventually to the people of Singapore. These projects are under different Ministries. So I urge the Government to

Column:1090

use this opportunity for integrated action as it seeks to create value for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second area I want to speak on is on Government effectiveness. Here, I wish to view them through an x-ray lens since we have a good number of doctors in this House. I agree wholeheartedly with both PM Lee's and DPM Tan's recent statements about pushing for effectiveness in the civil service more importantly than efficiency. When any organisation pursues efficiency, it starts to look inwards and measure things simply as transaction per unit time or per unit of resource. I think this is in part due to our being reminded constantly that we have very limited resources. Unfortunately, an efficiency only based mindset more often than not ignores the real necessity to identify with the ultimate customers' needs for their service. In fact, by pushing harder and harder on KPIs relating to efficiency, we run the real risk of not meeting the external public needs.

Let me cite a scene at a typical Government office. You go to the information desk, you are told which queue to go to, take a queue number, wait patiently in the queue while watching Mr Bean, arrive at the counter, submit the document, get told to go to another queue - simple formula, always works. But does it? The queue performance reports would all show reasonable good performance, but who actually looks at these reports unless someone from the public complains? Then, we all have the statistics and show how we perform. On average, this is for the typical and modal case.

Lest you think I am painting all departments this way, let me say that there are a number of excellent customer satisfying examples in the civil service. That was a hypothetical but nonetheless representative case. Here is a real and recent experience. The scene now is in the recent, " chap goh mei " reception at

Column:1091

the finest lawn in Singapore, the Istana. I was queuing like everyone else. Once the starter pistol for dinner was given, I headed for the satay stall. I arrived at the chef serving station in about 10 minutes. Fortunately, I did not have to stomach Mr Bean because conversation was all right along the way. Anyway, I was given four sticks of satay . But I had in mind, to myself, to be effective and efficient, bring back a plateful for the rest of my table. Lo and behold, the well-dressed serving chef told me that four sticks were all I could have and, if I wanted more, I had to re-queue. The Singapore norm had arrived at the Istana.

A quick glance through the expenditure estimates book quickly reveals that we have workload and performance indicators reported for all Ministries. These are likely judiciously collected and reported on over many years. Most of them are measures of work, not measures of outcomes. Many of these measures are also private as opposed to public in the sense that only those within the organisation reporting them identify with them. One thing is for sure - what gets measured gets attention and gets done. So what is my point? If we keep mindlessly plugging at this efficiency mindset, it becomes a mind trap and Singaporean golfers would be improving their efficiency by lowering the cost of green fees per stroke, which is hardly an effective outcome. Or our public services - they definitely have no problems - trying to come up with KPIs to improve patient-to-doctor ratios, student-to-teacher ratios, cars per kilometre on road, etc. All these are efficiency measures. Surely, our desired outcomes must be to cure patients, provide an education to our kids and have smooth running transportation.

Just to give Members a sense of how deeply mindsetted some of our Government departments are, let me quote you another example which I just heard last night at a gathering of business

Column:1092

people over dinner. This is related to the approval of some kind of project where many professional parties have to fill in the respective sections on a Government form. In this case, the space available for that particular section was a couple of lines. Instead of asking the applicant to write any additional things on a blank sheet and attach it, the civil servant insisted that only that form could be used and if there was not enough space, he could give you multiple copies and you just keep filling that little section up. This is how we work, often with too little empowerment, too often blindly following old rules and not achieving outcomes desired by the public. I hear that now the Government is going further in sophistication to implement KPIs built upon EVA or NEV. These are very complex measures fit only for economists. What I fear is that we are going to do this using our current mindset. I therefore hope that a strong shift towards effectiveness, as seen through the public eyes, will mean a totally fresh approach to the setting of KPIs and to offer us a chance to achieve a real mindset change, not just in the Government bureaucracy but also in the society at large.

If you think this mindset is happening only in the civil service, I assure you that the civil service is not alone. Let me use another example. I played one of my rare golf games at the Sentosa Golf Club, Tanjong Course, last Saturday. At the first tee box, a threatening par four with the sea and the OB markers on the right. The box was sent to repair divots on the tee which was located about 10 metres in front of the white tees. Many have left divots unrepaired and the reason is simple - the sand box is just too far ahead. So I brought this to the starter's attention and I suggested that the sand box be moved to the tee position. He promptly said that there was a lady's tee in front further ahead, so we could share. But he failed to notice that right by the lady's tee was another sand box in a proper position. I

Column:1093

can explain the reason why people make divots when the ball is teed up. It is because of the sea and the OB markers, but I could not, for the life of me, understand why this 30-year-old, good-looking, healthy Singaporean male saw his job only as ticking off the foursome.

As the storm clouds loomed overhead, I asked him whether it might rain, hoping for a rain check. And his predictable reply was, "It hardly rains at Sentosa." He was merely fulfilling his employer's economic goals. After the first hole, the Club sounded the rain signal and we were stuck under the shade for the next 45 minutes waiting for the all-clear signal. Maybe a day will come when our parents and our teachers will no longer say to our kids, "by right, this" or "by right, that". The right comes from rote and likely stems from repetitive action and driven by efficiency. Equally, I also hope that when we set policies, we also remove the concept of "no second bite of the cherry". As the hon. Member, Mr Iswaran, said yesterday, if it is necessary, we should do it.

To conclude, we will be entering the debate in the Committee of Supply with a new set of rules. This will limit each Member to a maximum of 18 minutes. It appears that this is driven by efficiency. So being well-trained in efficiency, I dutifully submitted 18 minutes, six cuts, three minutes a cut. We could have opted to speak faster if time was a limitation but, perhaps, our interpreters would be simply too stressed out, and it is not good for the staff. It will not be a desirable outcome. Perhaps these new rules will create opportunities to have more integrated actions by forcing collaboration on common issues among Members; better still, between Members and Ministers. If we can do that, we will be on the way to creating opportunities and building a Singapore community. If we

Column:1094

cannot do this, then I am afraid that we would have solidified our legacy.

With that hope, I support the motion.