ASSENTS TO BILLS PASSED

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:

     1.  Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his Ministry has received any update on the status of the 13 granite-carrying vessels bound for Singapore which were detained by the Indonesian Navy for allegedly carrying sand and whether Singapore is still freely importing granite from Indonesia.

     The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, Indonesia has not banned the export of granite. However, there have been supply disruptions in recent weeks due to the detention of several barges and tugboats carrying granite bound for Singapore since February.

     When I met Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda in Nuremburg last month on 15th March, he told me that an inter-departmental team from Jakarta had visited the Riaus to investigate the detention of the tugboats and barges. Minister Hassan assured me that the Indonesian team's verification process would be transparent.  I agreed with him that transparency is important. Transparency in such matters is good for trade and investment and in the national interest of Indonesia.

     On 5th March 2007, MFA sought clarification on the detained barges through a Diplomatic Note and subsequently followed up with two reminders on 12th March and 26th March. DEPLU (the Indonesian Foreign Ministry) replied on Thursday, 5th April 2007, last week via a Diplomatic Note giving us the inspection results. According to the Note, 22 tugboats and barges were detained in February and in March.  However, only seven were alleged to have violated the land sand ban by carrying land sand or a mixture of land sand and granite chips.  The rest were detained on charges of violating various other Indonesian laws, shipping regulations and customs regulations. DEPLU informed us that these cases will now be taken up through the legal process in Indonesia. We are studying DEPLU's response and will seek further clarification from the Indonesian Government, if necessary.

     Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar):   Sir, may I seek the Minister's comment on the article by Asiamoney magazine entitled "The Singapore Sandstorm" which said that, despite Singapore's extraordinary advances, it is still vulnerable and Singapore being the triple 'A' rated First World State can still be bullied by its big developing neighbours and that Singapore is a little more than a 10-stone weakling, defenceless against having sand kicked in its face.  Could the Minister reassure this House on the steps taken by the capable team of civil servants and Ministers to ensure that Singapore, the little red dot, with no natural resources, is not a weakling nor defenceless against having sand kicked in its face?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are used to being called names and described sometimes in comical idiomatic ways. The responses to some of the disruptions we have faced had been discussed in this House and I believe Minister Mah Bow Tan will be talking in greater detail about them in answer to the following question. It is true, Mr Speaker Sir, that we are not a "200-pound Hulk". Maybe we are small, but we are not without capabilities and our gongfu is not bad. If sand is kicked in our face, the person may end up with a mouthful of sand in his own mouth.

     Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio):  Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how long more have we to wait and is there any other action or alternative that we can take?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  In particular, which is the hon. Member referring to - the granite?

     Er Lee Bee Wah:  About those detained barges.

    Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  The process is now in the open. It will be taken through legal channels in Indonesia. Three of the barge owners are Singaporean. If they want our help, we will help them in whatever way we can. It is good that the matter is now transparent. I am sure that they will get their own lawyers. If charges will be pressed, they will defend themselves and the matter should be properly resolved in this way, according to the laws of Indonesia.

     Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang):  Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs how he has taken this whole episode of the Indonesian reaction to the sand and granite ban on exports, and obviously it is coming against us.  Is it a diplomatic failure on the part of Singapore or on the part of ASEAN in which we are supposed to be good neighbours and we help them along?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:   Mr Speaker, Sir, this is primarily a bilateral matter. If any country, in effecting a ban on exports, does so in a way which contravenes the WTO or ASEAN's economic agreements, then we can invoke dispute mechanisms within those agreements. But I believe that it is within Indonesia's rights, for environmental reasons, to ban the export of sand, and it has done so for environmental reasons. I know there have been Indonesian legislators and officials who have talked about various motives for banning the export of sand, but the official reason given to us was for environmental reasons and we have got to take it at face value. As to what we can do in response, well, the key is that we must be diversified and we must have our own strengths. The ban of sand and the disruption of granite supply have caused some disruption to the construction industry, caused some inconvenience to Singaporeans, but I think we are able to cope, and Minister Mah Bow Tan has explained in some detail in this House how we have been able to cope.

     But if you look at our bilateral relations with Indonesia on the whole, it is a big account and we are mutually dependent in so many ways. There are specific problems here and there and it is best we manage them as discrete problems rather than linking everything together. So for example, I have informed this House before that on the Extradition Treaty and Defence Cooperation, we are negotiating these in parallel.  The negotiations are ongoing and I hope they can be resolved in a reasonably short time. We are helping Indonesia in developing the Special Economic Zone in Batam, Bintan and Karimun; we are helping them on Avian Flu in Tangerang near Jakarta; we are helping with the haze problem in the province of Jambi; and in so many areas we are cooperating. So it is important to set these problems in context.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast):  Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to comment on the recent blast of the granite quarry in Karimum.  How will it affect the supply to our construction industry and the measures taken by our Government with regard to other sources of supply?  Also, beyond the possibility of sabotage, what long-term plans or strategies would our Government be looking into where sand and granite from Indonesia are concerned?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  I do not know much about the explosion at the granite quarry in Karimun apart from what I have read in the newspapers and from some reports which I have received from Jakarta. The Indonesian police is investigating into the matter and it is best that we leave it to them. If the Singapore owner requests our assistance in the Foreign Ministry, then, of course, we will help them. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether, in fact, the problem we are now having with Indonesia reflects a certain diplomatic failure. Well, I think that is for others to judge.

     2.  Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry is importing granite from alternative sources and, if so, when will these arrive.

     3.  Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development what are the specific steps the Government is taking to prevent unjustified escalations of overall construction costs by parties who give the high price of sand as the reason for increasing prices.

     The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to answer Question Nos. 2 and 3 together.

     Mr Speaker:  Please do so.

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien :  Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lily Neo asked whether we are importing granite from alternative sources and whether shipments have arrived.  The answer is “Yes”.  When the supply of granite from Indonesia was disrupted in late February, we immediately released granite from our stockpile to make up for the supply shortfall.

     We have activated various alternative granite supply sources from countries in the region.  These measures have helped to minimise the disruption to construction activities. Shipments of granite from the alternative sources have started to arrive in Singapore and the supply is proceeding smoothly.  We will continue to work with our granite importers to maintain the flow from these sources.  We will also look for more sources to ensure that the supply line is further diversified. 

      Diversifying supply sources is part of our total approach to enhance resilience for our construction industry.  The general approach adopted under this plan is this - keep all our options open, and plan for all contingencies.  This is our best defence against the risk of a future supply disruption, whatever the reasons and whenever it happens.  So we buy from as many different countries as possible, continue to keep a sizeable stockpile and work with the industry to switch to more sustainable methods of construction.  One additional option is to tap on our local granite sources, should the need arise.  Thus, it is necessary to carry out some limited quarrying to understand the issues involved in reactivating quarries, such as the preparatory works and time involved, and the mitigating measures to put in place.  HDB will look into restarting one of its former quarries in Pulau Ubin.

     Ms Denise Phua is concerned about the impact of higher sand and granite cost on overall construction cost and has asked about steps taken to prevent unjustified increases.  Let me just explain that construction cost may change because of many factors, not just the prices of construction materials.  For example, the increased demand for skilled manpower as a result of higher construction volumes will have an impact on overall construction cost.  Similarly, we do expect the major adjustments that the industry is making, following the disruption in supplies of concreting sand and granite from Indonesia, to cause construction cost to rise.  The Government is monitoring the situation closely and will look into specific complaints on cases of unjustifiable increase in prices.

      In addition, in response to requests by some contractors who want to produce their own ready-mixed concrete, we are releasing suitable sites for the setting up of new batching plants.   Others who are interested to produce concrete are also welcome to bid for these sites.

     Meanwhile, as a developer and an owner of projects, the Government will help the contractors by co-sharing up to 75% of the price increases in sand and granite.  Public agencies have started to make progress payments. I urge the private sector developers to follow suit. All stakeholders in the construction industry - developers, contractors and concrete suppliers - must work together to cope with this short-term disruption to the industry and to move towards a more sustainable position in the longer term.

     Dr Lily Neo:  Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether the increasing prices of sand and granite will put a dampener on our presently booming construction industry and what are the steps taken to prevent this effect?

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien:  The impact of the price increases in sand and granite, we estimated, would be about 2% of the overall project cost.  I think that is not a very significant proportion and definitely in this current state of the market, we believe that it is still in a very good position to benefit from the upswing.

     Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol):  Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that we may restart limited granite quarrying in our offshore island of Pulau Ubin.  Could the Minister of State confirm that should we restart this granite quarrying, all environmental protection measures will be taken not only

to protect our environment but also to demonstrate to some of our neighbours that granite quarrying can be achieved without damage to the environment, without the outer islands disappearing, and without compromising our maritime boundaries?

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien:  Thank you very much, hon. Member, for raising this issue.  We are definitely doing with all the mitigating factors considered in totality.  Starting from dewatering of the quarry, we will make sure that the marine life in the surrounding area is well taken care of.  We will measure the content that is being discharged and we will also manage the discharge rate at which the water is being released into the surrounding area.  We are very mindful of the marine life in the neighbourhood.  We are also mindful of the safety issue.  So, we want to make sure that, for example, in the immediate surrounding area, safety precautions are taken, that we do sound a siren before blasting takes place and that we will cordon off the area with barricades when the blasting takes place.  And, of course, dust generated as a result of blasting will also be monitored and managed.

     We have chosen the Kekek Quarry in Pulau Ubin because it is far away from the residential area.  So, we make sure that the impact on the residents of the island is also minimised.  And, most importantly, the transportation leg is closest to the sea, to a barge, and therefore it minimises disruption to the island life as well.  Definitely, we want to keep the island as it is as much as possible.  It is a place for leisure which we will continue to maintain it to be.  Blasting and mining activities will not take place over the weekends and not at night.  On an overall basis, we will also rehabilitate to make sure the quarried area is well taken care of at the end of the process.  So, these are all the various mitigating factors that we will consider.  And we have also made sure that the plants and the nature life are well protected on the island.

     Er Lee Bee Wah:  Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask MOS whether the Ministry will adjust the price of sand and granite from HDB's stockpile downwards as there are more and more alternative sources available.  Can the Ministry please also update the House on the state of the cost-sharing in private projects due to this sand and granite issue?

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien:  Mr Speaker, Sir, we are monitoring the prices.  The price of the HDB's stockpile is released at the replacement price.  And that is the only sustainable way for us to both replenish stockpile and, at the same time, release it for the use of the construction industry.  It is actually benchmarked using our replacement price from purchasing from various sources.  As much as the Member has said, if the prices would come down, we would be monitoring it.  Also, we would like to say that at this point in time, while we are releasing the stock from our stockpile, the private sector actually has the ability, and they have in fact done so, to import sand and granite on their own.  So, if there are alternative sources at better prices, we actually encourage the private sector to do so and import by themselves.

     On the Member's second question, it is not something that we would get involved in the private sector, as far as cost-sharing is concerned.  Because we understand that they have their commercial arrangements which we are not in a position to dictate or regulate.  But the Government has taken steps.  For example, the Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore Prisons Service) has started to make monthly progress payments for the cost-sharing arrangement that I have mentioned earlier on.  So, that has already taken place.  We are not waiting to the end of the project.  We are already making progress payments to help the contractors to meet the higher cost of sand and granite at this point in time.  We hope that the private sector will follow suit, and we encourage all parties to look at the issue in totality and work together as an industry to overcome the problem.

     Mr Speaker:  Ms Irene Ng, last question.

     Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines):  Can I ask the Minister of State, rather than hike up the price three times from its original price of $20 per tonne of sand to $60 per tonne, whether we can just bring down the price so that we do not have to think of cost-sharing?  In other words, rather than you hike up the price and then you give back in terms of subsidies, why not just bring down the price to the level that we can afford so that construction can go on, and there will be stability in prices in the market and there will be a steady supply of sand that contractors can be assured of?

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien:  Mr Speaker, in reply, the prices are not hiked up.  It is the actual replacement price that we have to pay.  The primary reason is because of transportation cost.  The cost compared to importing from Indonesia and a country that is further afield would involve greater transportation needs and therefore the landed cost has actually gone up.  So the price at which we are releasing the stockpile is really the cost to the Government.  Of course, there is this issue about cost-sharing for existing projects.  But for new project, it will be a different matter.  The contractor, the developer, and the owner will then be able to discuss cost issues in a different manner because they are not bound by existing contracts.  Contractors will price their construction cost at the new cost of sand and granite. So, it is really not tenable for the Government to subsidise across the board, because there are projects, for example, which will enter into a new phase of awarding contractors and we definitely want these contracts to reflect the replacement cost, which is the current market price of sand and granite.

     4.  Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on the activities of the Religious Rehabilitation Group and what is the progress in the management of the remaining Jemaah Islamiyah detainees.

     The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs):  Sir, the Religious Rehabilitation Group or RRG is a voluntary group formed by some Muslim religious scholars and teachers on their own initiative. They provide religious counselling to terrorist detainees and those under Restriction Orders, as well as their families. The RRG and MUIS also help to counsel other individuals who have fallen for radical and violent ideology.

     Religious counselling is part of the overall rehabilitation of detainees.  When detained, the detainees are interviewed by ISD for their knowledge of the terrorist network and operations. At the same time, effort is made by the asatizah volunteers in the RRG to try to rehabilitate them, in particular, to show them that the terrorist ideology which they had imbibed is misguided and against what Islam teaches, and to guide them to the correct teachings and interpretations of the religion.  As part of rehabilitation, the detainees also interact regularly with ISD psychologists, case officers and their families, and are given opportunities to improve themselves, for example, through access to a library and pursuit of academic courses. 

     Rehabilitation takes time, as the detainees have been deeply exposed to JI teachings.  It is unrealistic to think that, overnight, they can be convinced that their JI beliefs are wrong, and hence released.  That said, several detainees who were less deeply indoctrinated have been released.  We will continue to try to rehabilitate the others. But it is worth highlighting that a number are adamantly holding on to their radical and violent beliefs. 

     Also on their own initiative, RRG members have reached out to the public to explain the misuse and abuse of Islamic concepts by terrorists, so that other Singaporeans will not unwittingly fall for the terrorist propaganda.  MUIS and several other Muslim organisations have done likewise.  They have conducted many public forums and talks, and also reached out through the media.  For the continued security and harmony of Singapore, we should strongly support all these efforts.  Terrorist ideologues have been unrelenting in spreading their ideas to win recruits, supporters, and sympathisers. The Government and the Malay/Muslim leaders must actively counter their rhetoric.

     5.  Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the challenges faced in (i) retraining and helping the aged fraternity to rejoin the workforce; and (ii) encouraging employers to recreate jobs; and (b) what are the measures planned or in place to encourage more employers to embrace job re-creation for older employees.

     The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenges to enhancing the employability of older workers are multifaceted.  We need to shape employers’ mindsets towards older workers and encourage them to recruit and retain older workers.  At the same time, we also need to help our older workers stay competitive by keeping their skills up to date and relevant.

     The Tripartite Committee on the Employability of Older Workers, in its interim report released last year, recommended several key initiatives to improve the employability of older workers.  These include promoting age-friendly employment practices, such as the re-creation of jobs for older workers through job re-design, automation and the modification of job roles. Last year, NTUC, SNEF and WDA successfully assisted more than 12,000 workers under the Job Re-Creation Programme (JRP).  About half of them were mature workers.

     The Tripartite Action Group (TAG) was set up last year to facilitate sharing of best practices among companies to re-create jobs and raise productivity. Companies requiring resources to undertake these initiatives can also tap on the ADVANTAGE! scheme. So far, approximately $8 million has been committed to companies under the scheme.

     These initiatives, coupled with the strong economic growth in the past year, have helped boost the employment rate of older residents in Singapore. Between 2004 and 2006, the resident employment rate of those aged 55 to 59 improved from 55.9% to 60.6% while that for those aged between 60 and 64 rose significantly from 33.6% in 2004 to 41.9% in 2006.  Both are at record high levels.

      The Tripartite Committee will be releasing its final report shortly. The Committee will recommend additional initiatives to facilitate the employment of older workers. We will continue our efforts to work with the tripartite partners to enhance older workers’ employability.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo:  I would like to ask the Minister of State how many companies to date have embarked on the Job Re-Creation Programme. What is the target that the Ministerial Committee on Ageing has in mind to encourage more employers to participate in job re-creation?  Also, how will the Ministerial Committee on Ageing work with other agencies to promote employability of the older workforce?  And in the midst of these 12,000 workers who have gone through the job re-creation training, how many of them are actually from the PMET category?

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:   Mr Speaker, Sir, as of 31st December 2006, some 300 companies have committed, under the ADVANTAGE! scheme, to employ and re-employ mature workers beyond the age of 62.  Many of these companies have already put in place employment practices that are age-friendly with the help of the ADVANTAGE! scheme.  We will continue to work with the tripartite partners to reach out to more companies and to encourage them to make a commitment to recruit as well as to retain these older workers. 

     Mdm Ho also asked how do we work with other partners.  In fact, tripartite collaboration is a key cornerstone of our success so far in reaching out to the older workers.  WDA will, together with NTUC as well as the employers' associations, work together and reach out to the older workers, encourage the employers to change their mindset to be pro-older workers and, at the same time, we also want to reach out to the workers to prepare them to be more flexible and to equip them with skills that are up to date and relevant so that they can remain competitive and employable.  We will continue to do so together with our tripartite partners.

     Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah):  I would like to pick on Mdm Ho's point.  How many of these programmes are targeted at the PMET category for the older workers, especially those above 62?

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:   Mr Speaker, our programmes cater to all the workers and a significant number of them are PMETs.  They come from different career paths.  We do job re-creation and, at the same time, we also conduct retraining for them so that their skills can be applicable in other areas that are more relevant in today's economy.

     Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast):   Sir, regarding PMETs as well as re-employability of older workers, is there also tracking of salary and are they worse off if they are doing similar types of jobs?

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:   We have to recognise that the priority for us is to ensure that they are employable, and as they are employed, their remuneration or salary must reflect their competency as well as the performance and the value of the job.  With the growth of the economy, I think the job market is very healthy.  We have created a significant number of jobs, a large proportion of them are PMET jobs, and therefore we believe that they will receive commensurate remuneration according to the jobs that were taken.  At the same time, we have also recently introduced the professional conversion programme (PCP) to allow PMETs to convert to new jobs that are in demand.  But, of course, for some of the jobs that are becoming less and less relevant in this knowledge economy, these jobs will become less competitive.  So we want to help them to acquire an occupation that is more relevant to today's economy and PCP is one programme that we have introduced recently to help them achieve this.

     6 .  Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower what is the significance and impact of the Cooperation Agreement, to address labour and employment issues and promote social progress, that was signed on 20th March 2007 between ASEAN and the International Labour Organisation.

     Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Minister for Manpower):  Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, the International Labour Organisation, or ILO, and ASEAN have been cooperating in many areas of mutual interest, such as occupational safety and health, industrial relations and vocational training.  ILO's technical expertise is well regarded and valued by ASEAN.

     The Cooperation Agreement, which was signed between ASEAN and ILO recently, reflects the strong commitment of both organisations to collaborate closely in addressing labour and employment issues as well as promoting social progress.  Singapore is supportive of this Cooperation Agreement and believes that it will pave the way for increased cooperation and partnership between ASEAN and ILO through mutual exchange of information and joint technical cooperation projects.  Such collaboration is likely to benefit workers across ASEAN.

     Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong):  A follow-up question, Sir.  I would like to ask the Minister of State what labour and employment issues will be covered by the Cooperation Agreement.  How will workers in Singapore benefit and will the social partners be involved in this process of collaboration?

     Mr Gan Kim Yong:   Mr Speaker, the Cooperation Agreement covers a wide range of issues in labour, worker-related and employment-related issues.  In particular, from Singapore's point of view, we are very interested in workplace safety and health (WSH) matters.  In fact, as the Chair of ASEAN Labour Ministers, Singapore has adopted workplace safety and health as one of the core focus of ASEAN Labour Ministers, and this issue has also been brought up with ILO.  We are working on the programmes, together with ILO, to address issues of workplace safety and health.  I think we have three objectives in mind.  Firstly, we want to, through this platform, learn from other countries' experience in workplace safety and health.  We will also benefit from the expertise in ILO with regard to workplace safety and health.  The second objective is to share our experience and efforts that we have put in over the many years in achieving our workplace safety and health.  And, thirdly, we also want to showcase our achievements so far in WSH.

    7 .  Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health if the process of class downgrading for wards in public and restructured hospitals can be streamlined and hastened as there are too many steps and  appointments which make the workflow process very time consuming.

     The Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan):  Mr Speaker, Sir, public hospitals offer different classes of ward at different levels of subsidy so that patients can choose according to their budget.  While clinical care is the same, comfort and other non-clinical service levels do differ.  Before admission, hospitals will advise the patients on the estimated bill sizes so that they can make an informed choice. There is no means-testing at this stage and patients are free to choose.

     Subsequently, a higher-ward class patient may seek a downgrading to a subsidised ward.  At that stage, we will require means-testing.  It takes about two days to process the application.  But sometimes it takes longer, not because the procedures are cumbersome, but because the patients are unable to produce relevant documents to support their applications.

     We will continue to streamline the process.  Unfortunately, the necessary step of getting income information and family particulars cannot be avoided in any means-testing process.

     Dr Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade):   Sir, this is also for outpatient or SOC patient where the downgrading actually may take up to eight to 10 weeks.  I have had several cases who had actually come to me to appeal because they need to make several appointments with the medical social worker and also to get approval of the doctor for the downgrading.  So if this could be streamlined further, it would be so much helpful for the patient because, in the interim, they have to pay the non-subsidised rate while waiting to be downgraded for the eight to 10 weeks.

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan:  As I said earlier, we will try to streamline.  But, sometimes, the difficulties are that patients are unable or unwilling to disclose the necessary information.  Dr Fatimah works in SGH.  So I specifically asked SGH's medical social workers about the processes for outpatient downgrading, and they said by and large they are able to do it smoothly.  They make sure that the decision is made before the follow-up appointment.  So if the follow-up appointment is in a few weeks' time and so long as it is done in time for the next appointment, I think that should be adequate.  But if a patient is unable or unwilling to provide the information, I hope the doctor can help counsel the patient to do so.  He has to cooperate with the medical social worker, and we will try to facilitate it as much as we can.

     Mr Speaker:  Mdm Halimah, last question.

     Mdm Halimah Yacob:  I think the difficulty for patients who are seeking downgrading is also because the process of means-testing sometimes requires them to produce the salaries of all their children.  Sometimes, you have elderly patients who do not even know where their children are staying because their children do not visit them, and they may be too scared.  I have a case of a resident who is too scared even to ask his children for their payslips.  So these are the difficulties.  If the hospital could exercise some flexibility and humanity in such cases, I hope the Minister would consider that also.

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan:   Yes, we work in a humane industry and we would try to be as compassionate as we can.  I think hospitals do exercise flexibility.  I did ask for some data from SGH, in particular, on applications and what is the success rate. By and large, they said that for outpatients, about two-thirds have a successful downgrading.  For inpatients, about 1% of Class A and B1 patients have successfully been downgraded.  By and large, the hospitals do try to assist as much as they can, but they really need the help of the family members to cooperate.  Where children are not forthcoming in providing information, or worse, in helping to pay the bills for their parents, I think society as a whole must encourage the children to do so because the failure of them to do so means that you and I have to look after their parents, which I do not think is the right way society ought to be organised.

     8.  Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the long-term target for proportion of clean cars on our roads and whether his Ministry will push for a separate "green car" category of Certificates of Entitlement to increase the uptake of 'green cars'.

     The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is keen to promote Green Vehicles that are less pollutive and more fuel-efficient than conventional vehicles. There are in fact various ways to do so. Dr Lim has suggested a separate 'green car' category of Certificates of Entitlement (COE). We had previously studied this idea with the Ministry of Transport and concluded that it would not be appropriate for various reasons.

      First, besides the cost, the pick-up rate of Green Vehicles is also affected by other factors, such as consumer preference, and the provision of maintenance support by the dealers.  Their demand, therefore, is best left to the consumers to decide.

     Second, in fact, it would be difficult to set a quota for such Green Vehicles.  As with all vehicle categories, their growth annually would be capped as a result.  But if Green Vehicles do not have a separate COE category, their take-up can increase freely in response to the demand, because they are part of the total vehicle population.

     To promote the adoption of Green Vehicles, my Ministry had introduced the Green Vehicle Rebate Scheme in 2001. The Scheme aims to narrow the cost gap between such Green Vehicles and conventional ones. We had enhanced the Scheme in January 2006, and the number of Green Vehicles on our roads has since picked up significantly from 198 to 716 as at end December 2006.

     Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang):   Mr Speaker, one of the common complaints that has been given by the public is that they would like to drive a green vehicle.  But the problem is that the importers are not bringing in enough models and even if the models are brought in, sometimes it is not appropriate for their economic status.  It is no point bringing in a RX400 whereby most people cannot afford.  So I am not sure whether by implementing a green category COE, it will help to further promote and force the importers to bring in such models to cater for the market that acts as a catalyst.  I would also like to ask the Minister whether, especially with the release of the Fourth IPCC Report that was stated in the Straits Times on global warming, Singapore should adopt more measures now to encourage environmental sustainability and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:  Sir, in fact, there is a selection of green vehicles available in the market - the Prius from Toyota, the Honda and, of course, the Lexus that Dr Lim mentioned.  We feel that it is best we leave this to the market.  In fact, the incentive schemes that we have put in place in 2001 have proven to be effective.  Consumers are buying green vehicles despite the cost differential but with the upfront 40% OMV, which is the rebate, it has in fact caused a lot of people to cross over.  We constantly work with the dealers to encourage them to bring in different types of models.  And I agree with Dr Lim that this is a chicken-and-egg situation, ie, you have to provide more models and therefore people will be willing to buy.  I recall that Mr Hri Kumar, during the debate, mentioned that he could not buy something below $80,000.  In fact, I would like to tell him that there is a model now by Honda which is below $80,000, which is a green vehicle, and I hope he will buy one.

      Sir, on the second question by Dr Lim on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, I agree with Dr Lim that climate change is an important global challenge, and we in Singapore would have to do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emission and, of course, to maintain our good reputation as an environmentally conscious city.  This point, Sir, has been raised by many MPs during the recent Budget debate and my Ministry fully agrees that the Government has a key role to play in raising awareness about global warming and to ensure that Singapore's long-term environmental sustainability is maintained.  But I think we have to be mindful that we are a small country.  So whatever that we do, if we do it alone, I do not think it will make a difference to global changes, such as climate change.  But we must play our part as a responsible member of the international community.  But if we do not have the big countries like the US, China and India on board, there will be no significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what we do here in Singapore.  Because of that, we also adopt a more balanced approach towards environmental sustainability.  So we ratified the Kyoto Protocol and we have put in place measures to improve energy efficiency.  I announced in Parliament that the way to go is really to look at our consumption of energy and how best we can optimise it.  If we do this well, we can bring down our emissions, not absolute, but our emissions per GDP dollar or, what we call, carbon intensity. At the same time, this will not affect our economy, but, in fact, will render our economy more resource-efficient and more competitive.  So if we are able to put in place the programmes that we have announced, I think we can do our part to bring down some of our emissions but, more importantly, we become more efficient in the way we use energy.

At the same time, Sir, we will have to maintain our good air and water quality because it is good for Singapore and Singaporeans.  Not only does it affect the health and quality of living, but it has, in fact, become an economic competitive advantage for us because, with the good air and water quality, we have been able to attract talent, businesses and tourists.  At the same time, we will use this opportunity to grow the industry so that we can then get the industry to provide solutions to environmental challenges as well as create job opportunities. 

     Sir, in the long run, we will do our part as a small country.  But we recognise that we will need to get other big countries on board, and we hope that Dr Lim will support our initiative on the ground in terms of energy efficiency.

     9.  Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether his Ministry will consider a ban on incandescent bulbs, following a similar ban in Australia.

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:  Sir, moving away from the use of incandescent light bulbs to Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) is a highly effective way to conserve energy.  CFLs, which can fit into the light sockets of most incandescent bulbs, use only about a quarter of the electricity used by incandescent bulbs to produce the same amount of light.  This translates into cost savings, for example, of about $110 over the lifetime of an 18-watt CFL, compared with that of a 75-watt incandescent bulb.  These cost savings far exceed the higher upfront costs of a CFL over an incandescent bulb, which are less than $10.  Furthermore, as CFLs can last up to 10 times as long as incandescent bulbs, the owner would not have to buy and replace light bulbs as frequently.  For Singaporeans who prefer the warm lighting of incandescent light bulbs, CFLs that produce warm lighting are already available.      

     However, Sir, to convince people to switch to CFLs, raising public awareness is an important initial first step.  A decision to switch to CFLs based on the individual’s choice through public persuasion is more lasting than it being imposed.  We need to raise consumer awareness of energy-efficient lamps in Singapore, and ensure that lamp manufacturers provide accurate information on their lamps.

     Sir, under the Climate Change Awareness Programme run by the Singapore Environment Council, one of the 10 energy-saving tips shared with the public is to switch from incandescent light bulbs to CFLs.  The South West CDC recently launched an initiative at Hong Kah North in which a CFL was given free of charge to households using incandescent bulbs to encourage them to make the switch.  In fact, it was a surprise to all that almost 80% of the households have already made the switch.  Such community efforts by grassroots organisations can play a very effective part in raising consumer awareness.

     To help consumers make more informed choices, NEA is working with major lamp suppliers on consistent labelling of lamps.  NEA will also study whether there is a need for Singapore to adopt minimum energy performance standards for lamps, which would remove energy-inefficient lamps from the market. 

     Sir, we will monitor the effectiveness of these actions, and continue to look into other measures which can significantly improve energy efficiency in Singapore.

     Dr Lim Wee Kiak:  Mr Speaker, Sir, there was a recent report talking about Paris as well as Sydney which switched off the lights for a few minutes or hours - I am not sure about that.  But does what we are trying to do now to save energy contradict our efforts to try to light up the city at the same time at night, since I understand that Ministries are also trying to encourage buildings in the downtown area to light up the city so that we will have a beautiful downtown area?

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:  Sir, we do not see this as a contradiction.  In fact, NEA is working very closely with URA.  If we do the right choice of lighting, we do not have to necessarily light up the entire building.  But if we light up the correct spots - and here we need to engage lighting consultants - we can actually have a very beautiful downtown at night, with energy consumption not so high.  So we will work closely with URA.  Sir, if we do this well, it will complement Singapore's image as a buzzing and vibrant city.  Sir, I think the lighting will be done judiciously together with the URA.

     10.  Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport whether his Ministry will consider dispensing with the taxi surcharge and replacing it with other incentives to improve the availability of taxis during peak hours.

     The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) (for the Minister for Transport):  Sir, the deregulation of taxi fares and the supply of taxi services in September 1998 and January 2003 respectively have allowed market forces to determine the appropriate fare structure according to the demand and supply of taxi services.

     The demand for taxi services fluctuates through the day, as Members will be well aware of.  It is high in the morning and evening peak hours, and considerably lower at other times.  Demand for taxis is also more concentrated at certain locations.  We cannot expect taxi companies to plan their fleet size based solely on peak demand requirements.  Hence, the surcharges set by the taxi companies enable taxi services to be priced differently at different times and for locations so as to strike a balance between supply and demand.  Without these surcharges, the shortage of taxis during peak demand periods will only worsen. 

     While fares and taxi supply are left to the market to determine, the LTA ensures that taxi service standards are not compromised.  For instance, to ensure that commuters can get a taxi, if they choose to phone-book a taxi, LTA has, with effect from January 2007, extended the monitoring period on taxi companies’ call booking performances from between 5.00 pm and 8.00 pm to between 5.00 pm and 11.00 pm under the Quality of Service standards.  LTA also works closely with stakeholders, such as the taxi companies, taxi driver associations and building landlords, eg, shopping centres and hotels, to raise the quality of our taxi services.

     Er Lee Bee Wah:  Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask whether the Ministry has carried out any study on the waiting time for taxis during peak hours and whether we are satisfied with the result.  Is there anything that we can learn from Hong Kong, which seems to have better taxi services than ours?

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua:  Sir, indeed, there are many surveys that had been carried out on all components of taxi service standards, and waiting time is one of the key factors, and that is where the surcharges come in.  Ultimately, we are really aiming for a situation where the market demand would determine the kind of charges that commuters would be prepared to pay and whether they would decide to therefore phone-book a taxi or to wait along the street to hail.  At some point, there would have to be a balance that is struck between the commuters and the taxi companies. 

     Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong:  Sir, it seems that presently the balance is towards phone-booking.  Can I ask the Minister of State whether she can make sure that the taxi companies would improve their service so that they do not only respond to phone-booking but also to customers in the queue?

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua:  Sir, the observation is a valid one.  But allow me to put that in perspective.  LTA's figures show that only about 10% of taxis on the streets are actually booked during peak hours.  In other words, the vast majority of taxis or about 90% are still available for street hailing during peak periods, and these taxi drivers would certainly not want to miss having a fare during these lucrative business time belts.

     Er Lee Bee Wah:  Mr Speaker, Sir, I think MOS did not answer my question on whether there is anything that we can learn from Hong Kong which seems to have a better taxi service than ours.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua:  Sir, I believe this point was actually debated and covered during the recent COS debate where my Minister had given a thorough comparison of the Hong Kong taxi situation where, if I recall correctly, the supply of taxis is in greater proportion relative to demand than that in Singapore.  Ultimately, it is again a balance that we will have to strike because one way of meeting all the needs is to have the supply at the peak period requirements.  But that would mean that, during the off-peak periods, there would be a lot of taxis cruising the streets empty.

     11.  Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to (i) educate the public on civil courtesy towards wheelchair passengers riding the MRT trains especially upon embarkation and disembarkation; (ii) enforce the 'yellow lines' rule on MRT platforms so that embarkation and disembarkation are organised; and (iii) put up signs to indicate where a wheelchair person should 'park' in the train so that public consideration can be given towards his or her needs.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (for the Minister for Transport):  Sir, since the early 1990s, our rail operators have regularly implemented public education initiatives, such as courtesy programmes, roadshows, school talks and learning journeys, to promote courteous behaviour on the MRT.  These have so far not specifically focused on civil courtesy towards wheelchair-bound passengers using the MRT.  However, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is working with the rail operators to facilitate greater usage of our MRT by wheelchair-bound passengers. 

     On provision of signs to indicate where a wheelchair user could "park" his or her wheelchair in the train, I am pleased to inform the House that for the Northeast Line (NEL), this is already done as the trains have a designated recess area for wheelchair users.  There are also signs at designated platform screen doors to guide wheelchair users to the train car with such a recess area for their use.  Similar signage will also be introduced along the North-South and East-West Lines where recess areas for wheelchair users have been provided on SMRT's older trains as part of its train upgrade project over the next two years. 

     Assoc. Prof. Kalyani has also asked whether there are plans to enforce the yellow queue lines.  As it is with all matters concerning civic consciousness, there is practical difficulty in enforcing commuter behaviour.  Nonetheless, station staff patrolling the platforms will advise commuters to follow the yellow queue lines, and regular announcements will continue to be broadcast to remind commuters to give way to alighting passengers.

     Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member):  Sir, from the feedback that I have received from my students at NUS where I teach, as well as members of the public, at peak time, it is really very chaotic at our MRT stations, especially where there are interchanges, and sometimes I think the safety of passengers is at stake here.  As we have made our MRT stations more friendly to physically-disabled persons, I think we need to do the software aspect, now that we have a bit more hardware.  I have seen in Hong Kong that they have more staff at the train platforms, and they enforce the yellow lines.  So, perhaps for a start, we could think of some idea like that.  I personally had an example where a tourist really showed his disgust at some ugly behaviour of Singaporeans when they would not allow a wheelchair-bound person to alight and the person was stuck in the train because of the crowd.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua:  Sir, I agree with the Member's comment that there is certainly room for more public education and for commuters as a whole to be more civic-conscious.

     12.  Prof. Thio Li-ann asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will provide an update on plans to establish an ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children under the Vientiane Action Programme and what form will such a Commission take in terms of supervisory or monitoring powers; (b) whether Singapore supports an ASEAN mechanism for protecting human rights in general; and (c) whether the ASEAN Charter will incorporate provisions to promote and protect human rights and to adopt measures to realise this objective.

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Discussions within ASEAN on the establishment of an ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children are on-going. ASEAN officials are looking at possible modalities. Track II discussions on this issue, organised by the Working Group on an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, are also concurrently ongoing among civil society, academia and government agencies.  There have been two consultations conducted to date, with the last one taking place last week in Bangkok.

     I believe that Professor Thio attended the first Track II consultation on the Commission in November last year, and I thank her for taking an interest in this issue.  I understand that some preliminary proposals on the modalities of the Commission will be submitted to the ASEAN Senior Officials later this year.  We look forward to receiving them.

     As for the question on whether Singapore supports an ASEAN mechanism for protecting human rights in general, there is a growing consensus of the need to protect and promote human rights as we step up our community building efforts. The fact that measures such as human rights education, the rights of women and children, and the rights of migrant workers have been inscribed in ASEAN's own action plan reflects its growing importance. Singapore supports the moves within ASEAN to raise the general level of awareness of human rights, including the rule of law and good governance, as they are all inter-related.

     At the same time, we should respect the diversity within ASEAN. ASEAN members are at different stages of development, each with its own history, culture and heritage. Any regional mechanism for human rights has to take this diversity into account.

     Human rights are best protected when they are underpinned by strong economic, cultural and social foundations. Sound national policies that promote economic growth, raise living standards and provide basic social welfare are more important than any regional mechanism.

     Drafting of the ASEAN Charter is on-going. There is a clear consensus within ASEAN that the Charter will contain a strong affirmation of the respect for human rights, as one of the basic principles of ASEAN. We have still not decided whether to have a Human Rights Commission. Being a Constitution, the Charter cannot go into details like a specific action plan.  Instead, it should allow for the introduction of specific measures as and when the Leaders agree on them.

     Prof. Thio Li-ann (Nominated Member):  Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in his opinion, he discerns a shift among ASEAN states in their willingness to raise human rights concerns with each other and whether this is a qualification to the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs.  Also, Singapore, as a responsible member of the international community, do we have any concerns about the human rights practices of other ASEAN members and are we willing to raise these with them, or do human rights issues remain

within the OB markers for international affairs?

     Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo:  Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure Prof. Thio that among Foreign Ministers, and among the Leaders and Ministers of ASEAN, that there is growing interest in this field -- a growing acceptance that we are interdependent, we live together in one global community.  Therefore, there should be minimum human standards which govern our behaviour.  But as to what specific steps we should take, these are issues that we have got to think over and compromise on.  Should Singapore be telling what our neighbours should do?  I do not think we should do that, because to begin with, why should they accept what we tell them?  The best that we can do is to achieve high standards in Singapore, and then set an example which others would naturally want to study.  And if we lead, let us lead by example.

    13.   Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will introduce an Interim Upgrading Programme for private housing estates so that more estates could be upgraded in view of the limited funds.

      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development):  Sir, the public areas and amenities in the private residential estates come under the purview of various public agencies.  For example, LTA manages roads, pavements and street lightings; PUB oversees drainage-related works; while NParks is in charge of works relating to parks.  These agencies have their respective maintenance and upgrading programmes for the private estates, and do consider feedback and requests by the estates for improvement works when executing their programmes.

      In addition, MND has an Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for selected private estates, when more comprehensive upgrading is done.  In carrying out EUP, MND coordinates its works with those of other public agencies.

      My Ministry is open to any suggestions to improve the current arrangements, to better serve the needs of the private estates’ residents in a more comprehensive and cost-effective way.

      Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied):  Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary is not supportive of the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) for the private estates which is one way of coordinating the various agencies in upgrading the estates.  I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into two systematic infrastructures.  One is the lighting level.  In the private estates, the lighting level is really not up-to-date. Secondly, it is the temporary shelters along the private estates because a lot of residents as well as school children walk to the bus stops and go to the basic amenities. These are two major improvements that are needed in the private estates.

    My second supplementary question is this.  Without the Interim Upgrading Programme, would the Ministry consider setting up a body to coordinate the agencies, as he rightly said in his answer that there are many agencies involved in the private estates?

     Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I think Mdm Cynthia Phua did not quite understand my earlier answer.  I did not say that we did not support the request for any Interim Upgrading Programme.  I said that we are open to any suggestions to improve the current arrangements. Specific to the request that she has made, we will study those requests, as we understand that private estates also have got issues that they have put across through the Advisors.  We are open to any possible suggestions.  We will study those suggestions accordingly.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo:  I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten the House on the criteria for the Estate Upgrading Programme and, to date, how many private estates actually had undergone such an exercise. And for those who are on the queue - I understand that quite a number of estates are on the queue - what is the estimated duration that they would have to wait?

     Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman:   Sir, seven estates have recently been selected for EUP Batch 5.  With this, altogether, we have some 30 estates that have already been selected for EUP since the year 2000 and a total of some 23,300 dwelling units would have benefited from EUP. 

     As in the case of public housing estates, it is not possible for us to upgrade all residential estates at one go. Estates in greater need of upgrading would therefore be given higher priority. So far, EUP batches are launched between one-and-a-half and two years' intervals.   Mdm Ho asked for the selection criteria.  The selection criteria of the EUP, as I have written to all Advisors, include, firstly, the age and the physical condition of the estate. Certainly, those which are older and need higher levels of upgrading will get higher priority.  Secondly, the level of community bonding that exists. For example, existence of network committees and residents' associations, because we want some level of ownership with regard to the kind of works that are going to be done. Thirdly, the scope of the significant estate improvement works that need to be done. Fourthly, how well the residents maintain their own property.  And, lastly, we want to also ensure a good geographical spread across all the different selected estates.

     Mr Speaker:  Mdm Cynthia Phua, last question.

      Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman:  I am very aware that Mdm Cynthia Phua is very anxious about when we can complete EUP projects and when we can complete studies in relation to it.  I assure her that we will take up all the suggestions.  I am not able to give a timeframe as of now because, as I have said, we are open to suggestions. We are studying possibilities of different ways of improving the programme.

    With regard to coordination work, we know that the Government has implemented a "no wrong door" policy since 2004. This means that the officer of any public agency receiving calls will help to put queries from members of the public to the right agencies. I think, today, we know that in every estate, there are different agencies that are involved in this kind of upgrading work that is needed, and the cyclical maintenance works of these different agencies may differ along the lifespan of that estate.  So it is difficult to see when, what needs to be done and how.  But when we do a proper EUP, that means that an estate is selected for EUP, we will try to coordinate as far as possible to minimise the inconveniences that will affect the residents of that particular estate.

     14.   Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many people have been convicted for failing to report their change of addresses to the National Registration Office during the past five years; (b) what are the common reasons for their failing to so report; and (c) what action has been taken against people who use their identity cards with old addresses to borrow money from illegal moneylenders.

     Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs):  Sir, under section 8 of the National Registration Act, a NRIC holder is required to report his change of place of residence within 28 days. Over the last five years, 250 persons have been convicted under this section.

     Sir, Police does not track the reasons for people failing to report change of address. Anecdotal feedback, however, suggests that the common reasons are:

     (i) the lack of knowledge of legal requirements;

    (ii) this was overlooked because of busy work schedule;

    (iii) person is living on a temporary basis outside the residential address because of family or marital problems; or

    (iv) person has no fixed place of abode.

    Sir, Police is aware that there are debtors who intentionally avoid changing their address so as to evade loansharks.  As such, while conducting operations against unlicensed moneylenders, Police will also investigate debtors who fail to report the change of their residence or who abuse the change of address facility.

     Sir, to reduce the likelihood of innocent households being harassed by unlicensed moneylending syndicates due to abuse of the change of address system, ICA is undertaking a review of the existing procedures for reporting the change of address to deter abuse. We will announce the details after the review is completed.  In the meantime, those who have evidence or reasons to believe that someone has wrongfully used their addresses should lodge a report with ICA or the Police so that the authorities can look into the matter.

     15.  Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if his Ministry will take over the construction and operation of temporary markets in Hawker Centres Upgrading Programmes so that volunteer hawkers do not end up constructing the temporary markets and undertaking risks in money collections and running of the markets.

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:  Sir, the Government bears the full cost of the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) under a $420 million 10-year programme announced in 2001.

     Under the HUP, centres are closed for upgrading and the period of closure depends on the extent of works.  Based on previous HUP upgrading exercises, some stallholders prefer to take a break while others would like to continue their business.  During the period of upgrading, the Government extends assistance to all stallholders affected, depending on their preference.  For those in the first group, their rent for the period of upgrading is waived.  For the latter group, NEA makes arrangements for them to operate temporarily at vacant stalls in other centres, subject to availability.  In addition, stallholders are given an allowance of $1,000 each when they return to the upgraded centre, to defray part of their relocation expenses.  Temporary hawker centres are not part of the package.  Hence, the question of whether the Government plans to take over the building of such temporary centres does not arise.

    The experience so far shows that not every hawker centre undergoing upgrading requires a temporary centre.  Thus far, only 41% of the 63 markets/hawker centres that have been completed or are currently undergoing HUP upgrading have decided to construct temporary centres.  The Government's policy has been to help stallholders secure the use of vacant state land for temporary centres at zero land cost.  As for the physical construction of the centres, this has been left to the local grassroots organisations and Town Councils to work directly with the Hawkers Associations and Advisors.

      My Ministry will continue to provide technical assistance where required to facilitate the building of temporary centres.  My Ministry will also continue to give at least nine to 12 months' notice to Advisors and stallholders before the closure of a centre for upgrading.  This will give sufficient time for those who plan to construct temporary centres to sort out funding arrangements among stallholders.

      Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the grassroots organisations, Hawker  Associations and Town Councils for playing important facilitative roles in the HUP programme.

     Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar):  I would like to ask if the Government can provide some more help since 41% of the stallholders opt to choose the temporary market as a way of extending their livelihood.   Currently, I am involved in two HUP projects and the grassroots organisations, grassroots leaders and the stallholders themselves are advised to get involved in selecting a site together with Government's help, but they are also supposed to get the tender, collection of money, millions of dollars, and get involved in operating the market.  I really hope that the Government can provide more help.  I was even told that they are advised to start a private limited company to do this.

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:  Sir, I would be most happy to ask my NEA officers to work with Kampong Glam division to sort out the problems. This is not new. We have done it in all our centres.  I am sure we can sort out the problems.  But ultimately, the responsibility must rest with the local community.  I have just completed one HUP in my division.  It is manageable. And other centres, like the one in Dr Lily Neo's constituency in Jalan Besar GRC, is quite huge and costing a lot of money.  But she managed it all by herself.  So I am sure we can sort out the problems.  Let me get my NEA officers to work with you closely on this.

     Dr Fatimah Lateef:  Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if there are any plans by NEA to actually assist some of the stallholders in the older-generation hawker centres where business is really taking a downturn. They have problems and because of their lease they cannot return the stalls.  I am referring to perhaps something like the RPS programme done by HDB or if there are any other options.  Because lately, we have seen a lot of stallholders approaching us for assistance in terms of poor business.

     Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, we look at this request on a case-by-case basis.  There are people who decide to exit their business and, therefore, we can facilitate that.  I would not want to give a definite answer but I would like to look into the case specifically.  There may be an instance whereby we may want to give them an alternative site so that they can improve on their business.  I think there are measures in place by NEA to help affected hawkers but, ultimately, we would leave to the hawker to decide what is the best outcome for him in terms of his business.

     16.  Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Transport whether his Ministry plans to install road humps in the vicinity of schools to slow down speeding vehicles and prevent accidents involving students and what is his Ministry's policy on the installation of road humps.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (for the Minister for Transport):  Sir, road humps are a traffic calming measure normally constructed along minor or local residential roads where traffic volumes are relatively lower and where fast-moving traffic poses a safety concern.  Road humps are not used on major roads as they affect the efficient performance of these roads.  Instead, road signs or road markings are used to alert motorists to keep to a safe speed.   Therefore, where appropriate, road humps have been provided in the vicinity of schools sited on minor or residential roads.   

     The safety of road users, including school children, is a top priority when LTA constructs new roads or modifies traffic schemes to cater to changes in the environment.  Recognising the need to pay special attention to the needs of younger school children, LTA has introduced the Enhanced School Zone (ESZ) scheme to all primary schools since 2004.

The ESZ comes with special features: a red textured asphalt pavement, road markings and traffic signs placed within the vicinity to alert motorists to slow down and look out for school children. Depending on the specific road conditions, the ESZ may be complemented by other traffic management measures such as road humps, signalised pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, railings, centre dividers, traffic warning signs or road markings.

     Ensuring road safety is a shared responsibility.  I therefore encourage motorists to drive carefully when travelling on roads near schools, and pedestrians to make use of pedestrian crossing facilities.  Schools and parents can also play an important role in inculcating good road safety habits in our young.

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State when does the Ministry actually consider it appropriate to install road humps in addition to the signages like the Enhanced School Zone and Slow Down markings.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, as I have explained in my reply, road humps are used judiciously, and the overall performance of the road concerned would be a major consideration.

     17. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development what is the policy on the setting up of columbariums at places of worship and whether the Ministry takes into account the location of such places of worship, which are near to residential areas.

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, currently, columbariums are allowed within places of worship as well as other institutional premises, such as clan associations, homes for the aged, nursing homes or religious schools.  This is to provide for the needs of members of such institutions, as well as members of the community.  Increased public accessibility inevitably means that these columbaria are located closer to residents.

     We are mindful of residents' concerns over the presence of columbaria in their neighbourhoods. Therefore, proposals involving columbarium use in places of worship are carefully evaluated, based on the following stringent guidelines:

     First, the columbarium must be integrated with the place of worship building.  It must be co-located with the religious use in the same building and not be in an independent block;

     Second, it is to be completely screened from public view.  The columbarium should not have any openings facing residential houses; and

     Third, the columbarium use cannot exceed 20% of the total gross floor area of the development.

     To avoid possible traffic congestion or parking problems in the surrounding residential estate, road access and sufficient car parking lots within the development site are also carefully evaluated before columbarium use is allowed.  The columbarium also is required to provide its own car parking facilities in accordance with LTA's requirements.  Where possible, access to the site should be taken directly from the main road without having to pass through a residential estate.

     These measures have helped to minimise potential disamenities arising from the location of columbaria at places of worship near residential areas.

     Mr Speaker:   Order.  End of Question Time.

For the PMETs, we want to continue to have a bold Government to create new jobs and to invest in retraining so that their new careers are better, if not as good as their old ones.

     So, now do we, as Singaporeans, collectively hold the Government accountable for improving the lives of not just one segment of Singaporeans but all Singaporeans?  It is with this in mind that I support the stronger linkage between the Ministers' salary and the GDP as it is one of the most representative indicators of the well-being of a broad base of Singaporeans.  And it is definitely not something that will enable the Ministers to earn a "sure-win" salary because the economy can go up and can go down.  So the Ministers' packages will also have to be adjusted because of that.

     At the end of the day, in companies, if an employee does not live up to the expectations and to the salary that he is paid, he can be fired.  Likewise, in Singapore, an incompetent and uncaring Government can be voted out.  Every five years, all Singaporeans, regardless of income levels, have an equal vote in deciding whether or not the Government has done enough for them.  The people will decide whether or not the Government acted as though it has a blank cheque, which Mr Low talked about, or whether the Government acted in a responsible manner with their long-term interest at heart, implementing policies that do indeed improve their livelihoods and well-being.  If the Government takes care only of top-income earners, who are a small minority, and forgets about the low-wage workers, the older workers, or the PMETs, it cannot win enough votes to stay in power.  And Singaporeans must judge the whole Government for its record in the next few years and decide if it is good enough.  This is how Ministers will be held accountable for their efforts to improve the lives of all Singaporeans, and not just those at the top or at the bottom.

     Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I think if we want people, including Ministers, to give of their best, we should not create the conditions to make them feel disaffected, for example, by paying them far lower salaries than commensurate with the demands of the job.  We can never fully measure the value of competent and honest government.  What matters most is whether the Ministers deliver on their promises to Singaporeans and that, over time, all our lives are improved.  All Singaporeans can and do judge the Government according to their own yardsticks, whether it is the unemployment rate or any other yardstick that they deem to be important, and they will express their assessment through their vote.  Because of this, I support the revision and the stronger linkage of the Ministers' pay to the GDP.

     Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, is it a clarification?

     Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I clarify what the Member has talked about?  In Mandarin, Sir.

     (In Mandarin ):  Mrs Josephine Teo said that I had mentioned during the General Election that the Ministers' salaries should be pegged to the lowest 20% of the workers.  But I did not mention it in my speech just now.  Most importantly, it is now that the Ministers' salaries are pegged to the top 48th earners in the private sector.  This has always been the concept. So, a very important point is that the Ministers occasionally may forget that there are some people who are in the very low-income group - they are the poor people.  It is for this reason that I mentioned during the General Election that Ministers' salary should be linked or pegged to the lowest 20% income group.  Maybe you multiply it by 100 times, is that considered high enough and, if it is not enough, then how much more do we need, maybe an astronomical figure?

     The second point that I would like to clarify is that she said that we must have high salaries so that we can have a clean and honest government.  But I would like to tell her, if a person is greedy, no matter how high the salary is, he will not be satisfied. So can high salary ensure a clean and honest government?  This is still a controversial question.
 
      Thirdly, I want to clarify that she said that the PAP can be ruling for a long period of time because the Ministers have high salaries, all the civil servants are highly paid, so they are all very clean.  But I think the reasons for ruling over a long period of time should be more than this.  It includes, for example, during the General Election, amend the General Elections rules ---

     Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, those are not points of clarifications.

     Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir.

     Mrs Josephine Teo (In Mandarin ): Sir, regarding what Mr Low said just now - the quote about high salary fostering a clean government - I had shared an observation by Prof. Lu Yuanli of Shenzhen University.  It is not just my view, but a view of the Professor as well.  So, whether Mr Low agrees or not, he is free to have his own view.  Earlier on, Mr Low mentioned the point of linking the Ministers' salaries with the bottom 20%.  In my previous speech, I did point out that if we really did that, then all the Ministers will only be concerned with the welfare of the lowest-income group.  But what about the sandwich class, what about the professionals - is their welfare not important?  Is the Ministers’ work not concerned with raising the living standards of the whole society, and not just of the lowest income?  So, I believe that the people will understand that what we want are Ministers who are concerned about all Singaporeans, and not just a small segment of society.

5.58 pm

     Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to the thinking behind why we need to pay for talent.  Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has said it simply and said it best - the price of not having the top talented people in the Government and the civil service is the failure of Singapore.  No one can deny this point. It is a given.  But I would like to raise several points that the Government, this House and the civil service could consider and reflect on.

     All of us here are for a purpose and while we are here in this Chamber as Members of Parliament, we have the responsibility to uphold the basic tenet of what makes this country work and why we should defend that principle.  Though it is ironic that we should be discussing and debating on something that we may have direct benefit, it is for this very reason that the Members of Parliament are elected to do.  In fact, this matter does not concern any individual civil servant or Minister.  It concerns every Singaporean because it is about the future of our civil service and our leadership. 

     Let me start by offering one perspective for my fellow Singaporeans to consider.

     Support for this salary review for civil servants will send a strong, enduring and permanent signal by the people, especially to the world out there watching us, that we are committed to have and will continue to have the right and best talent in Government and political office in order to continue having the right policies and executive actions to sustain our country as one of the best places to live and to do business.  This, we do so that Singaporeans will never lack good-paying jobs, continuous employment, better facilities and infrastructures, like schools and homes, and steady economic growth to assure a better future for our children and their children.

     However, Sir, I do recognise that the timing for this salary review comes at a time when there are still quite a number of people out there without jobs or facing retrenchment or have unpaid utilities bills to settle or long-term medical expenses to meet or have difficulties to service housing loans or struggling to cope with their children's future needs or having difficulties to upgrade and improve their careers amidst a rapidly changing globalised world.  My heart especially goes out to those who are struggling with low-paying, very often temporary, jobs and have aged parents to support too.  We can emphathise with them.  We can feel their frustration and pains and they do confide with us when they come to see us at the meet-the-people sessions.  Many of these folks are normal folks who, like any other Singaporean, have hopes and aspirations for their family and children.

     Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must remember that while the economy today may be humming along, the victims of the last economic downturn have still not recovered.  I am sure my experience is mirrored at the meet-the-people sessions of Members of this House too.  There are still too many who are unable to find jobs.  There are many who, despite Government's help schemes, cannot afford to fully support their children's education needs, and I do not mean simply paying school fees, because we all know that the cost of education today is much more than school fees.  Many middle-aged workers, even skilled workers, have not found jobs of the same quality or pay to replace those that they have lost during the downturn.  I now regularly encounter Singaporeans who find daily living a growing financial burden and often fear for the future well-being of their family and their children in this increasingly competitive world.  Then, we have decided to raise the GST.  No doubt, any rational person calculating the offset package that the Government has generously given will know that the offset will pay for any GST hike for many years.  Unfortunately, Sir, we all know too well that the issue we discuss today does not reside in the realm of rationale nor logic; it is an emotive matter. 

     As to be expected, there are uneasiness and strong feedback about the proposed review.  To mitigate some of the concerns on the ground among them, residents who still have not recovered from the last economic downturn or, worse, have not been able to benefit from Singapore's economic growth in the last few years, we must take pains to show the contributions that each member of the Government and each senior civil servant make to the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans.

     Sir, there is a time and place for generalities, for broad big-picture statements, but what we need today is for the Government to clearly explain how each person who will receive this salary increase contributes to the well-being of all Singaporeans.

     Mr Deputy Speaker, let this House hear and listen to what they would or might say in the Chamber and, I quote: "Yes, the best and talented should be paid a just and fair salary, just as we too want to be paid an adequate salary for our day's work."  Yes, civil servants must have passion for public service as well as strong empathy for the less able, weak and sick in our society.  Thus, is having a higher pay the best or only method to recruit and retain the right talents who have a passion for public service?

     The Government needs to communicate in clear and uncertain language that we are indeed sensitive to the plight of those having great difficulties in daily living and those who are unable to get jobs or better-paying jobs because of outdated skills or old age and the abundant employment opportunities out there that have been announced in the last few years.  To put it simply, the right and best talents in Government and public office should be visibly known and measured by the extent to which they have improved the general level of the well-being of the people.  Some may say public service is a noble calling, it is more than just a job.  It is a calling.  It is a privilege of service and leadership reserved only for those who are exceptionally caring for their fellow men and women.  We need to continually under-promise and over-deliver and strive to surpass the reasonable expectations of the people who expect no less from the right and the best talents that this country can offer.

     Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the great public interest generated by the salary review of civil servants serves as a timely reminder for those of us in public office that we are measured by the extent of our active compassion for our fellow citizens.  Members of this House will be among those who may benefit from this salary increase.  I believe that with this comes a set of very serious responsibilities.  It is for us to prove that we have made and will continue to make Singapore a better place for our constituents and also for their children.  Let us remember that we have a sworn responsibility to our constituents.  We must recognise them as individuals and not mere numbers.  We must recognise that they are afterall the people that we are elected to lead and to serve.  They have put in our hands their future and the future of their children.

     Thus, I urge every Member of this House to reflect on a few of these questions:  How are we making a difference?  How are we fulfilling this burden of responsibility?  What are we doing to make sure that every resident who has voted us as their representative of this House can rest assured that we will help improve their lives?  When we can confidently answer with our own conscience clear, then we know that we are on the way to build a great Singapore where every Singaporean has a fair chance to achieve his aspirations and his future and the future of his family is secure in the hands of this Government.  And as we govern and lead them into greener and better pastures of our promised vision, let us carry

this pleasant burden of developing this country together and make it into a great nation where ordinary people live in a grand manner, where great community flourishes and where all citizens call themselves Singaporeans proudly as one people, as they proclaim this their beloved country.  If we can achieve this, then the debate whether or not civil servants and political leaders deserve their pay will be moot for they would already have proven their worth.

6.00 pm

     Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic.  It has been hotly debated by many people since the announcement was made by the Prime Minister on 22nd March 2007.  Sir, I accept the principle that if you do not pay Ministers and senior civil servants competitively, then you risk the situation where you have poor quality and incompetent government and even possibly corruption.

     Recently, I read in the Straits Times that hundreds and thousands of low income civil servants in Malaysia are moonlighting to make ends meet.  I certainly do not wish for a situation where any of our civil servants had to moonlight to work a second shift just to pay for their monthly expenses.  For that reason, I understand the rationale for increasing salaries of the various categories of civil servants.  Last week, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave an interview in Australia where he asked, "Why do we quarrel about whether we pay the Ministers and office-holders $46 million, which is 0.13% of Government expenditure, or whether we pay them $36 million or, better still, $26 million?"  Minister Mentor said, "So you save $20 million and jeopardise an economy of $210 billion."  Indeed, from the perspective, to pay the Ministers and office-holders $46 million seems a reasonable amount.  But, Sir, the counter argument may then be, "Why not pay them $20 million more at $66 million?"  The question many people grapple with is: what is a reasonable sum to pay for the Ministers, office-holders or senior civil servants?

     Sir, whilst I feel that we should pay our civil servants competitively, I have my reservations about the huge amounts of money that we are paying for our top civil servants and office-bearers - $2.2 million for an officer of Grade MR4 and $363,000 for an officer at Grade SR9.  And from the feedback that I have received, many people too feel that the salary which the Government is paying for these civil servants and office-bearers is too high.  I express my concern as to the manner of pegging civil service salaries to the income of private sector individuals.  Allow me to elaborate, Sir.

     Firstly, in the private sector.  Many of the top earners receive such high income because they either built up the companies themselves or they took huge risks with their personal fortunes. Had they failed in their endeavours, they would have received the blue bankruptcy papers that all businessmen dread.  For every success story of any businessman that you read about, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, who had failed and are now either bankrupt, or lost their family homes, or have suffered huge financial loss.  Sir, my humble opinion using the top earners in the six professions can at best be a guide as to what a top civil service officer should earn as he or she simply does not have to contend with the risk of losing her personal fortune.  Former Permanent Secretary, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, once said that, as a Permanent Secretary, he never had to worry whether he could pay his staff their wages.  It was all provided for in the Budget.  When he became the Chairman of DBS Bank, he worried about wages only 20% of his time.  When he became the Chairman of HDB Corp, a new setup spun off from HDB, he spent 90% of his time worrying whether he had enough to pay his staff at the end of the month.

     Sir, if you are a top earner as a lawyer, an accountant, engineer, banker or employee in an MNC or local manufacturing, the worries are just as bad, if not worse, than at HDB Corp.  As a lawyer who runs a law firm, I worry all the time whether the clients would continue to use my services, whether the bills which the lawyer renders would become bad debts, whether the law firm staff would leave and take away business, whether the incompetent staff would mess up the accounts, whether the firm could deliver on legal work and whether the firm will be sued for negligence.  There is also the worry that a dissatisfied client may make a complaint against a lawyer with the Law Society.  All these, Sir, are on top of the concern whether I could pay my staff at the end of the month. And if these worries, like poor business, bad debts, negligence suits, etc, are not properly handled, the consequences are devastating for the business.  For the other industries, they are likely to be the same for accountants, engineers and bankers. Possibly for bankers and some of the MNCs, you have to worry whether you can meet the sale targets for the year. 

      Sir, I struggle to understand what does the top Administrative Officer aged 32 at Grade SR9 have to worry about that would justify him receiving $363,000 a year, assuming he completes NS and graduates at 25 or 26 years of age, spends one to two years on a Master programme, at best he would have received five to six years of working experience at age 32 years old.  What does a Grade SR9 Administrative Officer scholar with five to six years of experience do to earn that kind of salary of $363,000?  From many people's perspective, they take no personal risks and are thus paid employees.  If they mess up the policies, at best, they fail to be promoted, or they are asked to leave the Administrative Service.  How does the Government justify paying such top dollars for someone with such experience even if there is only one such officer who achieves the grade in a year?

     Sir, it is not my intention to run down the work that these Administrative Officer scholars do or to cast down on their ability.  I know a few of these Administrative Officer scholars who work very hard and do their utmost best to deliver in their work.  I just wish to put into perspective that having a benchmark does lead to a financial result that many people feel is unjustified. 

     Next, Sir, a top earner in an MNC, a lawyer, or an accountant, in the last three years may not be a top earner this year or the next.  Fortunes in business vary according to industry cycles, and today's top earner may be in financial difficulties tomorrow.  Based on the current peg to private sector salary, the senior civil servants will never ever have to face a downward cycle because it is pegged to the salaries of top earners, and there will always be top earners.  Thus, this year, the top earners may be a property developer.  If there is a glut in properties, he will not be the top earner next year and, next year, the top earner may be someone in the IR business. The following year, the top earner may be someone in the computer business.  But for the civil servant, his fortunes will never fall, as he is always pegged to the top earner.

      Third, assuming that indeed, we have talented people that justify that kind of salary, my next concern is whether any increase in salaries will keep these talented people.  Some of us may have read in the Straits Times about a former Administrative Officer, Mr Lee Chee Khoon, who already had four job offers when he quit the Administrative Service.  In the year 2000, when the Prime Minister spoke about the review of salary benchmarks in Parliament, he spoke about the resignations of eight Administrative Officer scholars, of whom three left to join start-ups because they wanted to be part of the revolution.  So the reality is that talented people want different challenges.  Some officers may feel that if they do not make it to the top three of their cohort in the year, they would never make it to the top in the civil service.  So they better leave as their talent is not recognised.  Thus, up to a certain stage in one's life, increasing salaries alone may not be a motivating factor in persuading an Administrative Officer to stay.  They may want to be their own boss.  They may want to see the world from a different perspective, or they just may want a more balanced family life.  In any event, Sir, I would submit that it is not a bad thing for talent to go to the private sector.  This spread of talent in the civil service and the private sector may be better for Singapore as it keeps the economy vibrant with good exchange of ideas to make things work more efficiently.

     Fourth, Sir, I am not convinced that if we lose talent to the private sector because of inadequate salaries, the officers and Ministers that we lose are not replaceable.  Former Secretary of State of America, Mr Colin Powell, recounted in his autobiography that when he was promoted to Brigadier General, the Army Chief of Staff told the 52 newly promoted BGs that competition was very keen at that level.  General Rodgers said, "All of you could board an airplane and disappear over the Atlantic tomorrow, and the 52 Colonels that we replace you with would be just as good as you are."  In other words, Sir, in the Singapore context, if half of our Permanent Secretaries were to quit tomorrow, whilst the transition would be very painful, I would expect the Deputy Secretaries to be able to step in and take over, and perform equally up to the mark.

     Finally, Sir, I am concerned about the message that we are sending to Singaporeans by paying our top office-bearers such a large sum of money, and the message was unintended in that money is everything.  As it is, the public perception is that Ministers and senior civil servants are already well-paid.  For the Government to argue that they should be paid even more would create a bigger gulf between the Government and the man-in-the-street.  It would cost more misunderstanding that the Government does not appreciate the hardship that the people are suffering under.  And here, I say, misunderstanding because I know fully well that the Government does appreciate this hardship and is doing its utmost best to solve these issues.  We assume, Sir, that Singaporeans cannot be motivated to serve as civil servants, office- bearers or Ministers, unless they are paid well.  We assume that Singaporeans will not rise to the challenge to make personal sacrifices and to serve when called upon to do so.

      Sir, I am aware that every Member of this House has made personal sacrifices and suffered financial loss to be serving as MPs.  Some have taken pay cuts to serve as office-bearers.  Some have lost business opportunities due to the huge amount of time taken up by parliamentary duties.  There is also the loss in privacy and loss of family time with loved ones.  But we all came into politics with our eyes open and we have all decided that we would accept the sacrifices required of us.  And I am certain that all of us would consider this service as MPs an honour to serve the people and the privilege to have the opportunity to lead, to influence policy and to make a difference in the life of fellow Singaporeans.  Likewise, for senior members of the Government service, the Permanent Secretaries, the Directors and the Deputy Directors.  They all have the privilege of drawing up policies that would have an impact on the lives of Singaporeans.  They would be working with the best of the best in Singapore.  As the newly appointed Second Permanent Secretary for MTI, Mr Ravi Menon, said, he stayed there a little longer because he found this work meaningful.  Maybe I am idealistic, but I firmly believe that to be a leader, self-sacrifice is important.

      Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Minister Mentor spoke about the huge personal sacrifices made by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Dr Balaji, when they gave up their lucrative medical practices to become Ministers and Senior Minister of State.  And having read of their personal sacrifices in the newspapers, my respect for each one of them has shot up several notches, just as all of us in this House have immense respect for Minister Mentor because he gave up the opportunity to be a top lawyer, earning millions of dollars, to take home the pittance that Ministers in those days received.  And one day, Sir, I would like to be able to say that I had the privilege of working with these giants in politics who were prepared to make the requisite sacrifices to answer the call to duty.  Can we find more such people?  I am certain that if we put our minds to it, we would be able to do so.  And if any person who does not wish to join the rank of Ministers or Government officers simply because they cannot take the financial sacrifices, then let us just accept that.  It may be better for both Singapore and the persons concerned that they remain in the private commercial world where they can contribute to Singapore in a different manner.

      Sir, once again, I reiterate that I have no issue that civil servants and officers should be paid competitively.  But I would urge the Government to rethink the policy of pegging the civil service salary to the top earners in the economy.  Let us look for a formula that would compensate our top Ministers, other office-bearers and senior civil servants well and yet allow the people of Singapore to appreciate the sacrifices that these leaders are making.

(a) What is the job about, ie, what is at stake; (b) What kind of people do we need to do the job well; and

(c) What is a fair pay for these people.

What is the job about, what is at stake?

     The job of any modern government is a complex one.  It not only has to address current issues, but it has to plan for the future.  It has to affirm the successful, it has to encourage and assist the weak.  It has to protect its citizens, but also to challenge them to be responsible. It should not be populist, but should seek to strengthen consensus and unity amongst its constituents so as to achieve a common vision.

     While these job descriptions may seem common for many governments, the job of governing Singapore is made much more difficult because of our smallness and vulnerabilities.  Despite all odds, we have accomplished much.  Singapore is worth much more now than 40 years ago and the stakes are high.

     How much is Singapore’s worth?  Based on our GDP of S$210 billion growing at 4% to 6% annually, every five-year term of good government will produce new combined value add in excess of S$1 trillion.  What about our foreign reserves managed by GIC, savings in the banks and investments in the SGX?  They run into hundreds of billions.  We all know that commercial buildings are worth a certain price.  Likewise, our factory buildings, MRT system, roads, airport and seaport all have monetary values that can be realised if they are listed and sold to international investors. Yet, we have not put a price tag to these assets.  

     Imagine if we go one step further and impute values to the intangibles of the operating environment in Singapore: safety, reliability, stability, efficiency and "integratedness".  These are valuable attributes money cannot buy and yet, these values have become synonymous with Singapore’s infrastructure.

     Singapore’s value is also expressed through other countries’ curiosity at our achievements.

     Just a few months back, a middle-eastern country actually wanted to buy over the entire JTC.  In Saudi Arabia, one marketing brochure for a new 150 sq km City reads “Singapore in the Middle East”.  Many of the oil-rich middle-eastern countries are now diversifying their economies by building new cities and infrastructure. Many of them wish they could build an “instant Singapore” into their systems.  I think if we had offered, they would have bought up not just  JTC, but PSA, CAAS, IDA, MOE and many other institutions.

     Sir, as far as I know, not a week passes by without a foreign delegation in town studying our systems, with the aim of adapting it back in their countries. They come from China to the Middle East, Russia to India, and not to mention many officials under training from ASEAN countries.  They are interested in our urban planning, environmental protection, medical 3M, e-Government, workers upgrading programmes, CPF and soon, the Workfare Bonus programme.

     This week, the second Jiangsu province delegation, comprising 18 party secretaries and 11 Mayors, are visiting Singapore. What makes the delegation unusual is that either the Number 1 or Number 2  persons of the major cities in Jiangsu are here at the same time. They are very serious about studying our urban planning and public administration system.

     When the first Jiangsu delegation visited us in November last year, one of the Mayors commented to me, "In terms of individual buildings, I believe we have more outstanding architecture than you have. But when you assemble all your buildings side-by-side, your city looks so neat and beautiful. They are in harmony.  So what is your secret?"

     Our former chief national planner, now a senior director of RSP Architects, Mr Liu Thai Ker has been doing many architectural and city master-planning work all over the world.  He reminded me that “Singapore is the world’s only brand new, well functioning global metropolis built up in the last 40 years”. That is why we are a subject of case studies and analysis, from countries near and afar.

What kind of people do we need to do the job?

     Does it make sense now that we know we are dealing with trillions of assets in Singapore and we want to start to relax the system and have lesser people to run the country?

     Consider an executive search firm’s view below.  I quote:

     "Singapore's bureaucrats are seen as "positive-minded achievers who know how to work ethically within the system with a view to actually get things done and delivered to the population quality products and services” - be it in healthcare, public amenities such as transport and housing, utilities like water and power, environmental issues and, most important, education."

     “The current "global initiatives" of Singapore to expand its presence beyond its shores and into the large emerging markets of India, China, etc, are being watched closely.  Singapore's experiences in setting up SEZs in Bangalore and in China are practically textbook cases for many countries which are looking to expand their GNPs by co-investing worldwide. The successes of Singapore’s Civil Service Professionals in these areas make them extremely valuable to countries seeking to repeat these achievements.  So the next wave of Executive headhunting from Singapore to many other countries in emerging markets could involve senior civil servants - at salary levels far in excess of the ones currently prevailing at home.  This process could start happening within the next two to three years as more and more countries are on a platform to take off  and need high quality governance to ensure sustainable world class infrastructure is in place."

     Sir, I am worried that there might be an exodus of talents from the civil service.  If we are not able to appreciate our own talents, others will express the appreciation on our behalf.

     Of course, I am not trying to over-simplify any career decisions at the senior level to just a single dimensional consideration of “dollars and cents”. In fact, I believe it is most common for any executive offered an opportunity to consider four key factors: (a) mission and meaning of the job; (b) challenge and growth opportunities; (c) environment for self and family; and (d) monetary compensation.

     In the talent wars out there, firms are competing by raising the bar in every of the four components above. If all that we can offer in public sector leadership are the first three components, and have a very weak fourth component, it is most unlikely that we can compete effectively against other career opportunities, much less convince anyone to take up public sector leadership positions.

     For multinationals, they can recruit worldwide for their CEO and the senior management team members.  In Singapore, for positions of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, we can only choose from the limited pool of top local talents.  We cannot possibly appoint foreigners or PRs to the Cabinet, lest we will end up having many foreign Ministers! This is a severe constraint on our building the best team from a population base of 4 million.

     The Straits Times reported on 6th April 2007 that Mr Wee Cho Yaw was the best paid banker at $9.25 million last year. DBS’ Jackson Tai and OCBC’s David O Conner were reported to receive around $7.5 million and $5 million respectively.  In the real estate sector, Capitaland’s Mr Liew Mun Leong was paid $5.14 million, City Development’s Kwek Leng Beng received $4.25 million and Keppel Land’s Lim Chee Onn $5.5 million. Earlier on, it was also reported that SingTel’s new CEO, Ms Chua Sock Koon, would be paid $5 million if she meets her performance targets.

     I think our companies paying their CEOs regionally-competitive salaries is a good sign. As our companies grow in sophistication, assets and their international reach, their management teams will also become valuable to other international companies.  I am sure their boards, in deciding the level of compensation, have taken into consideration the job scope, complexity and the market value of these leadership positions.

     Some people argue that running a business is different from running a country.  Running businesses require functional and execution skills; you also need market knowledge and business acumen. Hence, you need to pay top dollars for this unique blend of rare qualities.

     For political leaders, do they also not need to possess strong functional skills and the political acumen to take into account a wide range of variables in decision-making?  See how the Thai stock market plunged by 15% and US$25 billion was wiped out overnight on the announcement of currency control measures.

     What about anticipative work, such as averting terrorist attacks, keeping our sea lanes open, keeping drinking water flowing, ensuring sand and granite supply coming?  Do they need organisational skills and execution skills?  Do they need plans and preparation? Do they need imagination and risk-taking?

     I believe good political leaders not only need to be rational and analytical - the head factor, they must also have the character, empathy and the temperament -  the heart factor.  They must have exceptional abilities to connect with people.

     It is fair to assume that the top 500 professionals in Singapore have the basic “head” factor.  Then, as we begin the filtering process, using the “heart” criterion and relevant skill sets, removing PRs and non-Singaporeans along the way, we will quickly come to a much shorter list of qualified potentials.  If we talk to them, telling them the kind of drastic pay cut they need to expect, and the heavy burden and nature of the political office, I think they will consider the four components of a career choice, speak to their family members and, finally, politely decline the opportunity to serve. We will have very few people coming forward.  With the war for talents intensifying, the situation will be worse in the future.  Should we then lower our standard of selection, by going down to the next 500 or next 1,000?  The further down we go, the less capable people we are recruiting into the team, the less assured will be our future.

     Some people argue that business leaders are faced with greater risks.  But would not leaders of nations face the same risks and more?  We just need to remember the Asian financial crisis, 911, SARS, terrorism, possible pandemic flu, the rise in oil prices, and, of course, in recent months, the shortage of sand.

     A business can leave a hostile operating environment, retrench workers and pack up and move to greener pastures.  However, our Government cannot relocate Singapore.  We have to accept the situation as it is, retrain displaced workers, restructure on a national scale, sustain livelihoods and maintain confidence.  Bankrupt businesses can fold up under Chapter 11 and get reborn with new capital and owner.  If Singapore folds up, we would not even have a place to call 'home' anymore.

     Some people argue that corporate leaders face fluctuating incomes every year.  They argue that Ministerial pay should be tied to their work performance.  Yes, but we should also recognise that good business leaders deliver strong performance over a period of time.  Likewise, we should look at a Cabinet’s performance in leading the country in its five-year term or longer.

     However, I also want to caution against an over-zealous performance-based implementation that will encourage short-term behaviour.  We know that not everything that is quantifiable is important, but not every important thing is quantifiable.  Many decisions taken for a country must be long term in nature - master-planning of the city, the population model, policies on a social safety net, defence policy, etc.  Even when to build our new MRT lines has very long-term implications. 

     If we over-incentivise short-term behaviour, as you see how many other governments do, we could end up implementing populist policies, squandering our reserves away and neglecting capacity building and investments for the future.  In the corporate world, we have heard of CEOs creating short-term results or turnaround by stripping assets, scrapping staff training and trimming R&D budget just to maximise profits.  A company can be propped up for a few years but will die of poor nutrition thereafter.  This approach should not be the outcome of our performance-based compensation system for Ministers.

     I met with the Chairman of a large industrial park developer in a neighbouring country about two years ago.  I was very curious at his business model.  So I asked him, "Industrial park development in most countries is a money-losing proposition.  Government typically has to put in a lot of infrastructure around the industrial park for it to work.  Roads, water, power plants, sewerage system, telecommunications and all these are very expensive investments.  In Singapore, we set up JTC just to do that.  How is it that you can develop greenfield industrial parks and still make money?"

     The founder-Chairman replied, "Oh ... in my country, the government is not so organised and have people like yours.  We, the private sector, must organise ourselves to build our own industrial parks.  Besides charging land rental, I also provide utilities, telecommunications, canteens, workers’ uniforms, housing... anything that my tenants need I would provide.  We create a revenue model from our tenants and we become profitable."

     So impressed, I asked further, “But you have created a new industrial park from ground up. What about your capital city? It is a large metropolis. But traffic congestion is choking it.  Is there any plan where you or your government has to tear some of the old buildings down, widen up the roads, build more subway lines and perhaps also bury overhead cables underground?” Without much hesitation, this entrepreneur said, “No, if the government attempts to do that, there will be riots. They will be overthrown the next day. We are too democratic, too many voices and there are too many interest groups.  Don’t forget, our government is weak. Your PAP government is half a communist! When you say you do, you will do!"

     Sir, whatever others may call us, we deliver benefits to our people.

     The latest Merrill Lynch report has this to say about Singapore: “At the risk of being abstract, we would say that Singapore is amongst the best countries in the world. ... There is no prescribed way to analyse a state’s Grand Strategy. But you can start with its perspective. How it sees its goals, its strengths and fears.  ... These are key issues for a country … countries with governments that have strategic vision and the ability to implement, also have strongly-performing stock markets. Those that don’t, have not.”

     Sir, persuading the ablest men and women to lead this country must be an urgent priority for the present generation of leaders. The Prime Minister needs every tool he can have to make it easier, not harder for talented people with the right character to come in.  We should give our strong support to the proposal to pay Ministers and senior civil servants, and statutory appointment holders market-based salaries.

     Sir, paying S$56 million for a Cabinet to run a GDP of S$210 billion is cheap. You cannot get that anywhere in the world.

      Conversely, paying a team $46 million (or even $4.6 million for that matter) can be too expensive, if the result is a floundering economy, high unemployment, empty government coffers and a divided people.  All these can happen faster than you think, with an incompetent government.

     Sir, the choice is clear.

7.03 pm

     Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.  I know that the hour is late, and I beg the indulgence of the House while I make my speech. 

     I will start by stating my support for the principle of paying Ministers and top civil servants fairly.  But I would draw a distinction between Ministers and Administrative Officers. I will first discuss Administrative Officers, or AOs.

Administrative Officers

     Sir, the Administrative Service is a career. It is a job for AOs, albeit one in public service and hence expected to have a greater sense of purpose and an accompanying element of self-sacrifice.  Seen from that perspective, we cannot fault AOs if they view the public service and the private sector as alternative career paths, between which they have to weigh the relative merits. It is a choice between two competing jobs, each with their own attractions, and we must be realistic and accept that remuneration plays a big part in the decision-making process.

     I therefore agree with the benchmarking of the Administrative Service salaries with the private sector salaries, with two caveats.

     Firstly, the benchmarks should be adjusted for the fact that AOs are entitled to pensions if they serve long enough. Pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur in the private sector. It is therefore inconsistent to benchmark Administrative Service pay to private sector salaries on the one hand, and to retain a pension scheme on the other. We should either do away with pensions completely, or adjust pensionable officers’ salaries to take into account their potential pensions.

     Secondly, and more importantly, the officers in question must really be that talented and must actually contribute that much.

     Sir, I spoke to a lot of people over the past few weeks about this issue. And curiously enough, I have found that those who argue against high salaries for AOs are frequently serving or former civil servants. They question whether the AOs are all that talented. They believe that AOs are almost never asked to leave, that they receive private sector salaries while retaining an iron rice-bowl, with the prospect of a pension to boot, and that they would not command such salaries if they enter the private sector.

     So either those in the civil service know something the rest of us do not, or there is a serious perception gap. Perhaps, what is needed is to increase awareness about the contributions of AOs and to have greater transparency in how they are held accountable for their performance.

Paying Ministers fairly

     Sir, I think that the considerations are very different when it comes to Ministers. I agree that people should not have to make “unreasonable financial sacrifices” to enter or to stay in public service.  But that simply begs the question of what is unreasonable. What level of salaries would be fair? What sacrifices would be considered unreasonable?

     Sir, I agree that Ministerial salaries need to be high enough, and that worthy candidates will not be deterred from public service by financial considerations.  In fact, I do not think that the current MR4 benchmark of $1.2 million per year is too high in today’s world.  I know that many Singaporeans will disagree with me. But we have to be realistic. In a globalised economy where there is massive demand chasing a limited pool of top talent, $1.2 million per year is very possibly at the lower-end of the scale for the very best of top talent.

     And I agree that Ministers should be entitled to a comfortable lifestyle.  I think that we would be demanding an unreasonable financial sacrifice, if we were to ask potential Ministers to downgrade their standards of living upon entering public service.

     Top talent will expect a nice house, a nice car, or maybe a few nice cars, including for the wife and children, overseas universities for their children, good medical care for their family and parents, luxurious holidays, adequate insurance and sufficient investments for a decent retirement.

     But, Sir, how much does it really take to provide for all that? $1.2 million per year seems enough to me. Still, I am willing to accept that it may not be enough – I make nothing near those levels, and I would hardly know what expectations such top earners would have. So I am prepared to agree that the number may need to be higher, and may even need to be $1.6 million, $1.8 million, or $2.2 million.

What it means to be a Minister

     But the present benchmarking system is flawed in its mechanics. Many have pointed out these flaws, and I will not repeat them. The only suggestion I would make is to introduce a cap which can be revised from time to time if the Government feels that it is not sufficient for a fair standard of living for Ministers. There should also be an adjustment when a Minister or top civil servant becomes entitled to a pension but the present benchmark is not being changed, and there is no cap.  There is no linkage between the benchmark and what it can buy. There is only a linkage with the top earners, whom I think we can all agree will earn more and more as globalisation gains pace.

     Beyond what is needed to sustain a fair standard of living, what does more and more salary go towards?  The salary becomes the opportunity cost of public service, losing out on the millions waiting in the private sector. It becomes the envy of one’s peers, those raking in the big bucks at the top of the corporate ladder.  It becomes valuing our Ministers by their salaries, and not their contributions, both tangible and intangible.

     All that sends the wrong message about our political leaders.  It equates political leadership with management. We often hear the phrase “running a country”. I think our Ministers do more than just run Singapore. They lead Singapore.

     Government is more than just management. Competency and ability at leading and managing an organisation, at problem-solving and policy-making, are in and of themselves not enough to make a great leader. They might be necessary, but they are never sufficient. It might make for an excellent civil servant, but it is not enough for a political leader.

     Sir, Ministers cannot be just good managers or able technocrats. They must be more than that. They must be leaders of men and women, leaders of Singapore and Singaporeans.  A Minister must inspire respect and confidence.  A Minister can be appointed to the office, but he or she will command respect and confidence only because of the measure of the person that he or she is.

     But what is the message sent to society when we focus so much on salaries and money, when we equate government so closely with CEOs, COOs and CFOs, lawyers and accountants and engineers? The message is that our Ministers are really just managing the country, and not so much leading the people.

     Sir, I do not think that that is right or healthy. We rely on the civil service, including the Administrative Service, to manage the country. We look to our Ministers to lead us.

     I think it is safe to say that every one of us in this House are honoured and privileged to be here.  It was a great honour for me to be appointed as a Nominated Member, and I am sure it was the same for my fellow Nominated Members.  I imagine that it was an even greater honour for all of the elected Members who won the trust of their constituents, and for Ms Sylvia Lim who won over enough voters to qualify as an NCMP.

     But the honour and the privilege is greatest for the political office-holders. We Singaporeans have reposed our trust in our Ministers, to lead us into this ever more uncertain future that we call a post-9/11 globalised world. That is, I think, the greatest honour that any Singaporean can have, to be so entrusted by his or her fellow Singaporeans.

     This honour and privilege cannot be measured in monetary terms. It is unquantifiable. And I would argue that it means far more than any amount that a company can ever pay to an executive. I would even go so far as to say that any person who disagrees, who cares so much about what he or she is paid, someone to whom this honour and privilege is not enough, is not a suitable leader and is not fit for political office.

     Being a Minister involves a lot of sacrifices.  Most of them, such as demands on one’s time and the loss of privacy, are non-financial.  And I am sure that many, if not most, who have been asked to serve but who declined, did so because of these non-financial sacrifices. So for these people, increasing Ministerial salaries would not make a difference.

     As for the others, for whom the decision against public service turned on the financial consideration, I would argue that we should not have them in government anyway. They are not suitable for political leadership at all. Their priorities are skewed against public service. And yet, increasing Ministerial salaries would pave the way for precisely this group of people to take up public office.

Perspectives

    Sir, Singaporeans have been asked to put some perspective around the current $45.5 million for the political appointees, being 0.13% of Government expenditure and 0.022% of our GDP. I think there are some other perspectives that can be put around these numbers.

     At the revised MR4 benchmark of $1.6 million per year, a Minister who serves a full five-year term would have made $8 million. Serve two terms, and that becomes $16 million plus a pension. Even if the Minister spends a million dollars a year, there would still be $6 million left over for a retirement in style.

     Meanwhile, Workfare will cost the Government $400 million a year. But it is intended to benefit the bottom 15% of the workforce. In 2005, we had 2.36 million workers. The bottom 15% means 354,000 workers. Workfare will cost over seven times of the aggregate revised salaries of political appointees, but it benefits 10,000 times the number of political appointees we have.

     Or let us take Public Assistance.  MCYS recently announced a revision to the amounts that Public Assistance recipients will get.  Some Members felt that the amounts are not enough, especially for one-member households. Dr Lily Neo has calculated that a minimum of $400 per month is needed by such households, yet the revised rate for them is $290 per month.

     With 3,000 households on Public Assistance, an across-the-board increase of $110 per month would mean an additional expenditure of $3.96 million a year – 7% of the amounts that we will pay political appointees every year after the revisions. Yet, we decline to do so, fearing an erosion of Singaporeans’ work ethic, never mind that one must be unable to work to qualify for Public Assistance.

     Sir, there are a lot of different perspectives that can be put around Ministerial salaries. My fear is that the singular perspective being applied, of what our Ministers could potentially be earning in the private sector, ignores other perspectives that are equally valid and equally important.

     We place so much emphasis on using public funds wisely, on sending the right message to society, on not inadvertently creating new problems when we address existing ones. These same considerations must apply when we consider Ministerial salaries. It is not just a question of the number, whether we can afford it or its size relative to the stakes involved. There are other considerations involved, and other potential repercussions.

     And my greatest worry is that an open-ended linkage between Ministerial salaries and top earners, which is how the benchmarks work in their current form, could in the long run undermine the moral authority that a government needs to lead the people.

Moral authority

     As our leaders, Ministers wield a great deal of authority. They have legal authority due to their positions. They also have moral authority, by virtue of being our elected leaders to whom we have entrusted the reins of the Government.

     Sir, our leaders must maintain that moral authority, so that Singaporeans will instinctively trust that whatever is done by the Government is done for the good of the country. Government is more, much more than just management. There is an intangible, moral dimension to government and political leadership that civil servants are not equipped to deal with, that have to be addressed by duly-elected Ministers.

     Our leaders need to have this moral authority to lead the nation, so that whenever we have to ask Singaporeans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, whether it be workers bearing the brunt of CPF cuts or NSmen putting their lives on the line to defend Singapore, they will respond without question, willingly and courageously, because they trust and believe in our leaders.

     I dare say that our NSmen will risk their lives if ordered to do so by the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister, but not if it is the Permanent Secretary.  It is this moral authority that makes all the difference between a Minister and a civil servant, a leader and a manager.

     Sir, the track record of the ruling Party has been almost impeccable. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, many an unpopular policy has proved to be the right choice. So, by and large, Singaporeans remain trusting of the PAP, and that shows at each and every General Election since independence. The present Government is no different. It won last year’s election by a landslide, and it has the requisite degree of moral authority.

     But we need to ensure that future governments will continue to have that same level of moral authority. The benchmarking system puts that at risk. When we focus on salaries to the exclusion of the moral imperative and considerations of public duty and service, we endanger the moral authority of the Government to lead. Because then, cynicism creeps in, and it taints, weakens and may ultimately destroy the bond between the Government and the people.

     This is exacerbated by the surrounding context of a widening income gap. During the Budget debates, the House heard so much about the income gap, about how it is inevitable, and about what we are doing to address it. The MR4 benchmark is such that Ministerial salaries are tied to the very narrow tip at the top of the pyramid, but are decoupled from the stagnant broad base at the bottom. The benchmark itself becomes part of the problem.

    Also, a large part of Ministers’ bonuses are tied to Singapore’s economic growth.  This growth represents the sum total of the efforts of all Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreign talents. But thanks to globalisation, many Singaporeans are not reaping the fruits of their labours and are instead struggling to stay afloat. Ministers benefit from this economic growth through the GDP bonuses, even as many Singaporeans do not. There seems to be a certain degree of inequity here.

    Sir, we are told that it is an admirable sentiment to want our Ministers to be people with that sense of self-sacrifice, who are prepared to make a financial sacrifice - a reasonable one - to serve the country, but the real world is different and that this view is unrealistic.

    But to me, this way of thinking is not unrealistic. Instead, it is actually an important sieve that filters out the types of people that we should not have in Government, people whose desire to serve would be outweighed by a few million dollars, even if their standard of living is not compromised.

    I believe that our Ministers did not make the decision to enter public service lightly, and they have made great sacrifices in doing so. And because of that, Singaporeans respect and salute them, and give them the moral authority to lead. We have to ensure that future governments are able to enjoy the same degree of moral authority.

     Sir, I think that we are all idealists in this House. We all believe in this great social enterprise that we call Singapore. We have to, otherwise we would not have sacrificed our time to be here, we would not have heeded the call of duty and served.

     We must believe that we are not the only ones with this idealism and sense of purpose. We must believe that there are many other Singaporeans who feel strongly enough about our nation, that they would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to serve the country.

     If we have reached the stage where money is necessary to draw able Singaporeans into public office, then I think we might as well pack up now, because we would have failed, because Singaporeans obviously do not see Singapore as a nation worth fighting and sacrificing for.

     Sir, I do not believe that to be the case. To believe otherwise is to admit failure in our nation-building efforts. I am not prepared to do so. And I hope that the Government is not prepared to do so either, and will show that in future revisions.