1 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry can provide an update on the rodent situation in Singapore and the measures taken to eradicate rodents.
\tThe Second Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): In 2014, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received about 4,000 pieces of feedback on rodent sightings. This is about 1,000 higher than the previous year.
Rodents thrive when there is plentiful food supply usually due to poor food storage and waste management practices. Since 2011, NEA has implemented an islandwide rodent surveillance programme to conduct systematic inspections of public areas to identify potential food sources, harbourages and burrowing activity so that pre-emptive measures against rodent infestation can be implemented. In 2014 alone, NEA made more than 140,000 inspections islandwide.
NEA has also worked with Town Councils on a dedicated \"Rat Attack\" programme in the housing estates since 2005. Town Councils are required to proactively detect rodent activity and reduce the rodent population. As rodents have adapted well to our urban environment and multiply quickly in poorly managed or maintained bin centres and refuse chutes, NEA will provide more assistance to the Town Councils to enhance the \"Rat Attack\" programme. This would include engaging pest control operators (PCOs) to directly target the rodent population harbouring in these areas, as well as improving the maintenance and management of bin centres and refuse chutes to deny rodents easy access to food sources.
NEA also regularly inspects food establishments and shopping malls. Food establishments that fail to keep their licensed premises free of rodent infestation could have their licences suspended or revoked with a corresponding downgrading of their food hygiene grading. Shopping malls are required to have rodent control programmes and to have proper waste management practices. Where necessary, NEA will also require the mall management
\tPage: 10
to carry out structural improvements to rodent-proof the mall.
NEA takes a serious view of rodent infestation. NEA will not hesitate to enforce strictly against premises owners for lapses in rodent management. In 2014, for example, NEA took enforcement action against 82 errant premises owners for rodent infestation. While NEA will be working together with Town Councils and premises owners to address the issue of rodent infestation, the key strategy to managing rodent infestation is to remove food sources and areas of harbourage. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders, including land owners, building management and foodshop operators, to put in place a good system of housekeeping, refuse management and routine pest control checks and treatment to ensure that the rodent population is kept under control.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Madam, I have been receiving increasing feedback from residents on the sightings of rats and rodents in Nee Soon South. According to residents, it is because there is an increasing number of cat feeders leaving the food behind after feeding the cats, as well as the feeding of pigeons. I would like to ask the Second Minister if it is an offence when people feed pigeons and cats and then leave the food around. If so, how many enforcement actions have been taken, that is, how many people have been issued summonses?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary question. I think she has made a very good point: that, indeed, this problem of rodent infestation can be caused by a myriad of reasons. Primarily, having food as a source of protein, having poor housekeeping that allows the rodents to harbour as well as to move around through burrows are all combinations that, if untreated, could lead to serious rodent populations and problems. Food left behind, whether from pigeon feeders or any other persons that could cause a hygiene problem, will be an offence and actions can be taken against these persons. I do not have the numbers that Er Dr Lee has requested. If she wishes, she could file a separate Parliamentary Question on that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Impact Assessment for Cross-Island MRT Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the Cross-Island MRT Line that will pass through the southern section of the central catchment nature reserve (a) what is the progress of the environmental impact assessment for this project; (b) what will the Ministry do to minimise the long-term repercussions on the ecosystem; and (c) whether the Ministry will give an assurance that the nature reserve will be protected.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, the alignment of the Cross Island Line (CRL) has not yet been decided. We are still considering various options, either going under the Central Catchment
\tPage: 11
Nature Reserve (CCNR) or around it.
Given the importance of the CCNR and its value to our nature heritage, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) undertook the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) even before starting the soil investigations that precede any decision on the alignment. The EIA was scoped with the help of nature groups and conservation practitioners and is on track to be completed by 2016. The findings will help us determine the environmental impact on the CCNR and identify measures to mitigate or avoid it.
Besides the EIA findings, the Government's eventual decision on the CRL alignment will also take into account other considerations like engineering feasibility, travel time, cost and the impact of land acquisition on Singaporeans whose homes may be affected if we decide on the alignment which skirts around the CCNR.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
\tPage: 12
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proceedings on Estimates of Expenditure for FY2015/2016","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2015/2016 be taken till 8.00 pm on the days allotted to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates for FY 2015/2016.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
\tPage: 13
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [23 February 2015], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Budget 2015 is a Budget that focuses on the next 50 years. New schemes, such as SkillsFuture, the Silver Support Scheme and the development of Changi Airport, are all geared towards tackling the challenges faced by Singapore and planning for the country's future.
As our economy enters a mature phase, our competitors are no longer developing countries but developed economies and the focus is on high tech, high productivity and high efficiency. Singapore is a small island with limited land space and our fertility rate is low. Relying on large imports of foreign labour to make up for the deficiencies in our economy is not enough to maintain our competitiveness. It is also not a sustainable strategy for economic development. This is the main challenge faced by Singapore if it wants to continue to prosper in the future.
On the other hand, as China's economy takes off and the world economy undergoes transformation, the economic engine of the world is gradually shifting from the West to the East. For Singapore, this is a good opportunity, but it can also be a crisis. If we miss this economic train and our neighbouring countries develop better than us during this phase of economic transformation, surpassing us, our future will be bleak, our survival and development space will be limited.
Hence, I believe our current strategy of increasing productivity and economic transformation is the correct path that serves the long-term interests of our nation.
However, to increase productivity is by no means easy. It is not just about mechanisation, automation or computerisation or the use of robots, but concerns the development of human resources. The various SkillsFuture training schemes announced in
Page: 14
this Budget focus on talent development to improve the overall economic efficiency.
Some people question whether it is worthwhile to invest such a large sum and whether it is financially prudent. I think it is a scheme that has to succeed, one that cannot fail. Whether Singapore can sustain development and prosperity in the next 50 years will depend on whether we can improve our citizen's quality and skills through SkillsFuture, and maintain our competitiveness in the high-end economic domain of the future.
The second challenge is to ensure that Singaporeans play a primary role in the workplace, not a supporting role. Currently, at some large companies, because of our foreign talent policy, it seems that many Heads of Department or senior management are foreigners, whereas Singaporeans are merely middle managers. Many Singaporeans are stuck in the middle and feel that they should have the opportunity to move up, yet they cannot do anything about the situation.
If this situation continues, it will become a time bomb and a major threat to Singapore's future development. This is because, if Singaporeans cannot assume leadership roles in companies on their native soil, it means that Singapore has lost its dominance to some extent. At the same time, we will not be able to develop the younger generation to take over and become leaders in various domains.
We must have a comprehensive plan to develop local talents, and the ultimate aim is to replace foreigners with our own talents, just like how we welcome multinational corporations (MNCs) to invest in Singapore, with the purpose of promoting technology transfer. The Minister for Finance said that the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Scheme supports companies to groom Singaporeans so that they can assume responsibilities and roles as corporate leaders eventually. I fully agree and hope the Government can implement this scheme as soon as possible.
The third challenge we face is income disparity and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. As the economy becomes highly developed, with finer division of labour and technology advancement, workers will have to constantly learn new technologies and knowledge in order to stay relevant and meet job demands. However, there will inevitably be some Singaporeans who cannot keep up with economic development. Those who are left behind usually have lower income and may not have enough savings for retirement.
In addition, inflation will push up the cost of living, regardless of income disparity. Furthermore, future inflation rates are unpredictable. If the Government does not help these low-income Singaporeans, the society would surely be divided. Hence, I can understand why
Page: 15
it is necessary to introduce the Silver Support Scheme permanently.
Although this Budget lays the foundation for future economic prosperity and development, the main policy framework of the Budget has always had long-term objectives in mind. The key lies in whether successive governments will have the financial capability and political will to continue with the same direction laid out in this Budget, strengthening future skills, developing targeted economic areas, namely, advanced manufacturing, applied health sciences, sustainable urban solutions, financial services, logistics and aerospace.
The economy is important. However, let us not forget that economic development is only the means. The ultimate aim is to build a prosperous and peaceful society where people can work happily.
The Government should look after its people, only then will people feel secure and at home and develop a national identity. Through a fair tax system, building a good social safety net that ensures people's basic livelihood and implementing policies with Singaporeans' interests at its core, we can forge a new social compact and build an inclusive, tolerant and mutually understanding harmonious society, strengthen social cohesion and promote unity among Singaporeans. By doing this, we can truly build a prosperous Singapore for another 50 years.
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, Singapore has come a long way and, this year, we will be celebrating our nation's first 50 years as an independent country. Our history is important. It shapes, moulds and forms our country. Having said that, our future is equally critical, and this year's Budget takes major steps in four areas to focus on building Singapore's future. The Government investing more in our nation's most valuable assets, our people, is welcomed and, certainly, the right thing to do.
Today, I will focus my speech on the need to invest in skills of the future and empower every individual to learn and develop throughout their life.
On Skills Future credit, technology is constantly evolving and changing the way things are being done. Processes that we considered common and had gotten used to for years can be done today more efficiently and effectively with the help of technological advancements. Jobs can be replaced by technology, never to return. When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. And to remain competitive, it is important for people to constantly adapt and adjust to stay relevant in an era of rapid technological advances and environmental change. To charter this course of self-
Page: 16
development, skills upgrading and training are essential.
One of the highlights of this year's Budget is that all Singaporeans above the age of 25 will receive an initial credit of $500 for work-related courses. That is to say, even at the age of 70, one can continue to upgrade themselves. In Chinese, we call this 活到老学到老. It is true that people must be interested in getting themselves trained. They have to see the value training can bring to them. If you are not willing to learn, no one can help you. But if you are determined to learn, no one can stop you.
However, at the same time, we can help enable the individual who is willing to take ownership of his or her life. Apart from providing a $500 credit for work-related courses, we will need to address factors that might hamper the development of a culture of continued self-development.
One reason why employees may not be going for the required skills upgrade could be the resistance they are getting from their respective companies. Training presents a prime opportunity to expand the knowledge base of all employees, but many employers find the development opportunities costly. Employees may need to be absent from work to attend a course or training, which may delay the completion of projects and scheduled work. Employers may also not be willing to bear some of the costs of training fees.
In my previous job, I was very fortunate to be in a company that valued skills and regularly sent staff for skills upgrading for both hard and soft skills. Despite the potential drawbacks, training and development provide both the company as a whole and the individual employees with benefits that make the cost and time a worthwhile investment.
Training provides a series of planned learning experiences for individuals and builds their technical skills and business competencies. Training also helps to improve efficiency and can motivate employees to do well. This helps to make positive changes to the way in which they work and make decisions. It also helps individuals to use the training to meet their individual needs and ambitions. Hopefully, with the Government formalising skills upgrading, we can change employers' mindset.
This leads me to the cost of taking up courses and whether $500 is sufficient for PMETs to adequately upgrade themselves. Many valuable courses may well exceed $500. I understand from the Minister for Manpower yesterday in this House that these credits are to be used to pay the net value of courses that are heavily funded. Will there be a sufficient and robust list of approved courses for individuals to choose from that can be covered by the $500?
Page: 17
While I acknowledge that self-development and upgrading must be rooted in personal self-interest and that, for some, no amount is really enough, we must also acknowledge the cost-of-living issues that many Singaporeans face today. Many working individuals will have to make tough decisions on whether to fork out a sum of money to invest in themselves or to save that money or use it for family expenses.
I noted from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance's speech that the credits can be accumulated and there will be top-ups to pay for more expensive courses. I would like to find out how much and how often these top-ups are scheduled to be, since people may be less willing to commit to longer courses if they do not know how much they will end up having to fork out on their own.
There is still the supply of relevant and accreditable courses that the Budget did not address. Are individuals free to choose training providers? Will there be enough relevant courses for people to take? Will there be job counsellors to guide and advise interested parties when it comes to choosing courses, especially the elderly or those re-entering the workforce after some time? Will there be a minimum standard that trainers involved in these courses need to fulfil? An example will be, should these trainers be at least Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment (ACTA)-certified? More clarity should be provided on these questions.
One group of Singaporeans who would benefit greatly from these credits is homemakers. Home-makers may find themselves out of touch with the requirements of their respective work industries after staying at home to look after their young children during their growing-up years. Whether they have the confidence or ability to move back into the workforce may depend on whether they can get adequate training to refresh and upgrade their skills.
Apart from going back to the workforce after their children have grown up, homemakers can also make use of these credits to pick up skills that allow them to work from home or be employed in companies that adopt flexible work practices. However, this group of Singaporeans would also not have as much cash in hand, given their lack of income and, often, their families would already be finding it a challenge to manage on a single income. Can family members transfer credits to one another since there is no expiry on credits and it could benefit the family as well?
Madam, I move on to the next part of my speech, which is on internship enhancements. In my speech on the Motion on Applied Study in Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education Review (ASPIRE), I had shared my internship experience, listed the advantages and
Page: 18
pointed out the challenges of implementing internship and apprenticeship programmes.
To recap, there should be consistency in terms of what students can expect to gain during their internships. There should be some formal programme structure that ensures beneficial outcomes for both students and employers. There are situations where employers see interns as cheap labour and are herded from one department to another to fill gaps in any manpower crunches without any focus on their development.
While we do not want to over-formalise practical training either, there must be some guidelines to ensure that students do gain from their experiences, are monitored and get significant work-ready skills. This should include having company orientations, regular mentorship and evaluation sessions and, of course, clearer goals, timelines and outcomes, for both students and the company.
There must be adequate consultation between education institutions and companies from identified industries to ensure that programmes help students further develop their skills and learning, while also being in line with the needs and expectations of industries today.
Lastly, Madam, enhanced subsidies for mid-career Singaporeans. Subsidies of up to 90% will be handed out to all Singaporeans aged 40 and above. These training courses have to be funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Workforce Development Agency (WDA), that is to say, if one chooses a course not funded by MOE and WDA, they will not be eligible for subsidies. There are well-developed professional courses in the market that have been proven to be useful. It will be good if the range of courses can be expanded so that every Singaporean can be given a choice to consider and benefit from the subsidies.
The Government should also look at lowering the eligible age to facilitate mid-career changes, which was the objective of this programme. By doing so, Singaporeans have the opportunity to build up their expertise earlier and, thus, better contribute to the workforce. This is especially useful for women who become mothers and wish to change their career paths in order to spend more time with their children.
The median age of mothers at first birth was about 30.4 years and 30.5 years in 2012 and 2013 respectively. So, it would be reasonable to lower the eligible age to 35 years so that the scheme can benefit more Singaporeans who would be looking to make that mid-career shift.
In conclusion, Madam, I am glad that we are investing in our people through lifelong learning. Regardless of background, age, income or chosen industry, they should all be given
Page: 19
the chance to enhance their skills and experiences to empower them to take charge of their own career paths and direction in life. As the Government invests more in this area, there is much more we can do to facilitate how the culture of self-development is developed successfully.
Investment in people will pay off, especially when paired with the right resources, a long-term strategy and commitment that both the Government and its people must work towards.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I join the chorus of Members who have expressed their appreciation and support for a very well-rounded debate on this Budget. The Budget has been described by some as a bit to the left, a bit to the right, but I think what is most important is that this Budget must improve Singaporeans' lives and move everybody up. So, this should be an \"uplifting\" Budget, rather than a \"left\" or a \"right\" Budget.
This Budget is one that is sympathetic to the disadvantaged in our society while, at the same time, encouraging collective responsibility from everyone. The provision of incentives for learning and honing skills and knowledge will go a long way. If everyone makes use of these incentives for self-betterment, doors will open for more opportunities, better wages as well as more fulfilling careers and lives. This way, the quality of life will improve and income gaps will be narrowed.
The Finance Minister is right in his clarification that this is not a \"Robin Hood\" Budget. A \"Robin Hood\" Budget is one that would be taking from the rich, the well-off, and giving it to the poor directly. I am seeing a lot more focus on self-improvement with assistance from the Government, with the goal of promoting self-sufficiency. This Budget is not about giving fish to our Singaporeans but it is one that promotes and encourages Singaporeans to learn how to fish or improve their fishing skills. It is a wise and prudent move to ensure that Singaporeans would not be burdened with a huge budget to support social welfare in future.
Although it is a Budget that has cast its net wide, covering the young, middle-aged and elderly, there are a few areas which are worth a relook and I hope the Government can consider them in future Budgets, if not for this one.
There are a few areas. First, is on early childhood education; second is on more support for families with young children as well as the elderly; and, third, a greener budget.
Page: 20
First, on early childhood education. I hope that the words \"early childhood education\" could be used to replace the word \"preschool\". When we talk about \"preschool\", people will think that this is before school and something that is not important. It deserves much greater support from the Government. Although our Government has an ambitious plan to expand early childhood education and childcare with MOE-operated kindergartens introduced last year and also the addition of the Partner operator scheme on top of the current Anchor operator scheme, but we are a long way from a universal, high-quality and accessible early childhood education for all Singaporean children. There are a number of challenges.
One of them is the shortage of passionate and skilled educators. I note that this is a problem not just facing our country but also the United Kingdom (UK) where the low salary for these teachers has kept people away from taking up this profession. I hope we can show the way and build up recognition for these teachers to attract the best to the profession as early childhood educators.
Unfortunately, the industry lacks the appeal and a professional image. There are plenty of ignorance and misconception about the roles of early childhood educators. Because many of the early childhood centres are located at Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, there is also a misconception that early childhood educators are \"void deck teachers\".
I feel that more support and recognition should be given to kindergarten and childcare centre educators.
There is a need for a formal pay structure in place like that for mainstream school teachers that all early childhood educational institutions, regardless of whether they are public or private, will have to abide by. Early childhood educators have a challenging job that involves multitasking, not unlike that of mainstream school teachers.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) must analyse the challenges of this career and devise a wage scheme that gives due motivation and recognition. Perhaps, another Mediacorp series on early childhood educators, similar to the one on nurses now, should be screened soon.
The second challenge is space. I look forward to early childhood schools and childcare centres to be allocated land and space just like our primary and secondary schools in any of the towns. They should be planned from the initial stage of a new precinct or town. This will avoid the current acute childcare shortages that we are witnessing in some of our new towns, including in Sembawang.
Page: 21
We could look into setting up kindergartens as a standard feature in all primary schools in future. With infrastructure, such as canteen, bookshop, school field, already in place in these schools, the facilities on these premises will be better used. This can also be a gradual step forward for kindergarten teachers to become part of the overall teaching profession in Singapore.
On this note, I welcome the recent announcement by MOE to set up more kindergartens, including one going to be set up in Northoaks Primary School in Sembawang. There will be better opportunities for interaction between kindergarten and lower primary school teachers to exchange ideas and to address professional issues.
I also note that, in this Budget, the Government is very generous in allocating a donation of $20,000 to all the schools to identify a cause that is found worthy by the school. I feel that if we want our students to imbibe such values, we should start them young, even when they are in kindergarten. The early childhood years are a crucial stage of learning. Early childhood education essentially sets the cornerstone for development and we should ensure that this sector is given the resources it needs to groom our young. I suggest the Government should also allocate some resources to the early childhood education centres, too, for this purpose.
The Government should work closely with early childhood centre operator to launch a national campaign to recruit early childhood teachers. This can be initiated in the secondary schools and pre-university institutions to provide students with a more viable career option to explore. Talks, exhibitions, sharing of experiences by early childhood educators can help to drive interest and improve the image of this sector. With the current acute manpower shortage, I hope the Government can relax the current student-to-teacher ratio so that the existing childcare centres and kindergartens can temporarily increase their intakes to cope with the shortage of manpower. This ratio can be later adjusted or improved once adequate manpower is trained.
In the long run, the Government should really look at nationalising early childhood education and childcare, similar to what many other countries have done. Unfortunately, I know that nationalisation is not a nice word to hear. The current early childhood education scene is heterogeneous, fragmentated, with varying standards. The only way I can see it, going forward, is to think of an overall national scheme. This will ensure we have a universal high-quality and accessible early childhood education to maximise all Singaporeans' potential. We need to do this because human resource is the only true resource that Singapore has.
Second, on the support for the family. Yes, I note that we have the SG50 Jubilee Baby package this year, but the cost of bringing up a child is very high. A study from Liverpool shows that in the UK, the cost of bringing up a child from birth all the way to 21 years old is
Page: 22
about ₤220,000. If you convert this to Singapore dollars, it is about S$465,000, or about half a million dollars. But if you include all the tuition fees that the parents are investing now in all our children, it will definitely exceed half a million dollars.
I hope that the Government can consider enhancing our parenthood tax rebate scheme for parents with children so that they can receive more relief. When was our child, parent or grandparent tax relief last reviewed and adjusted? Has it been adjusted for inflation? In the UK, tax credit, on top of child benefit, is available for children under 16. This can be extended to under 20 if the child is still in approved education institution or training. The beneficiary may not be working and even homemakers and freelancers would be able to get the benefit from the scheme. I hope the Government can increase the child, parent and grandparent tax reliefs as this is a clear and strong signal that this Government supports the family.
For families with young children, a car may not be a luxury. It may practically be a necessity for family outings as well as for ferrying the children to and from schools. The cost of car ownership is very high with the high Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) and, worse still, now with the increase in terms of fuel duties. There is a suggestion for better distribution of COEs to families and to those who need a car more. There are many variations. Some suggested limiting it to one car per family, imposing a levy on the second car in the family and so on.
I note that it will be very difficult to implement and may not be practical at all. There will be ways to circumvent all these rules. One suggestion that I have picked up is that of introducing a special family COE rebate. These are for families with school-going children or an elderly or a handicapped child who need transport. The one-time COE rebate will help to offset all transport costs for the family.
Third, on the green Budget. Every year, I speak about the green Budget. Finally, I would like to move on to appeal for more incentives to promote a greener Singapore. I am glad to hear about the extension of the Carbon Emission-based Vehicle Scheme to 30 June 2017. The question is: what is our long-term strategy for green transport? We started with a green car rebate which was changed to a carbon emission-based vehicle scheme.
Will the Government consider changing the categorisation of COE by engine volume to one purely by carbon emission instead? By allocating more COEs to carbon emission economy vehicles, we would transform the mindset of Singaporeans and achieve a firmer target for green transport on the roads quickly and definitely. I think there is no need for a two-system vehicle classification, both by engine volume and by carbon emission. So, my proposal is to merge them into one and just allocate COE by carbon emission.
Page: 23
We need to do more to incentivise companies and employers to think of more environmentally-friendly ways of doing business. We already have a few grants and funding schemes for building and construction, water and the environment. This is good, but I think we should be looking into making schools and all public buildings green buildings as well because our children and a whole new generation of Singaporeans who grow up in environmentally-friendly buildings would have been imbued with the culture to be green from the start.
In the field of transport, there is the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme, which applies to taxis and cars. Can we set an example with a greener public transportation system? In Scotland, the Scottish Green Bus Fund is designed to help bus companies purchase eco-friendly low-carbon buses. I hope all buses under our Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP) can be eco-friendly green buses as well.
And we should do more than just provide incentives. We will have to work on changing mindsets, investing in education and mentorships to guide companies towards green innovation. The 3P Partnership Fund and iLead are all good initiatives for improving capabilities in this area. I hope the Minister may shed some light on the take-up rate. I believe public awareness of the scheme is not as widespread as we want it to be. Some companies do not understand the relevance of green technology and would rather focus on other means to be more productive and profitable.
It is important that we change this mentality through education and close partnerships with Government agencies, helping the smaller companies by making relevant resources and guidance easily accessible. In Australia, the Green Skills Agreement commits the Australian, the state as well as the territory governments to working with training organisations and businesses to ensure skills for sustainability. It is an integral component for their nationwide vocational education and training programme. Instructors and teachers are specifically trained to impart the knowledge, skills and principles on green technology.
Next, I would like to make a few comments regarding our fiscal position. While I welcome the Government's Silver Support Scheme to provide periodic monetary payouts to our elderly who belong to the lowest 20% of the economic group, I am concerned, like many Members of this House, how sustainable this scheme is as our population ages and this group grows larger.
The expenditure on the Silver Support Scheme will grow. The big question is: the current lower 20% of our poor elderly, are they the same group as 20 years ago? Will they be in the same group 20 years later? If they are the same group 20 years later, I will be very sad, which
Page: 24
means that there is no improvement at all.
As the country progresses, I expect the real income of even the poor to increase. So, by setting the target at 20%, I am not sure whether it is a good measure. Instead, the Government should set a more concrete measure, such as retirement adequacy, to see that whoever falls below this retirement adequacy should receive the Silver Support Scheme. And what is this retirement adequacy amount? That is up to the Government to decide as well as to ascertain what would be the required amount for a minimum life income, in order for them to sustain their living in Singapore.
As the Government increases social spending, our revenue also needs to increase to balance the Budget. The increase in personal income tax of the 5% higher income earners and the inclusion of Temasek's earnings in the Net Investment Income – those are welcomed. The increase in personal income tax will affect high-wage earners more but will not have a significant impact on the ultra-rich whose wealth is not derived from wages all. Their wealth is mainly derived from dividends, investments, properties and their businesses. They should shoulder more taxes to be commensurate with their wealth and also to make sure that they shoulder more responsibility. Taxes, such as capital gains tax, property tax increases – these may be better ways of taxing them.
Another point I wish to make is the lack of any increase in \"sin\" taxes this year, surprisingly. The casinos and our gaming sector are all still reporting huge profits. Why did the Government not consider increasing gambling duty tax, liquor duty tax as well as cigarette duty tax this year to offset some of our increases in expenses in healthcare and social causes? Is increasing gambling, liquor and cigarette duty tax not a better option, compared to increasing petrol duty tax? With that, I support the Motion.
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Like many who spoke before me, I am concerned about the long-term sustainability of the measures and programmes described and I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, hoping he would be able to assure us of the long-term sustainability of the spending plans, that the risks we are taking are well-calculated and well- considered.
Madam, I intend to speak on freedoms and, in particular, provoke some thought about which of the freedoms we have which we are prepared to sacrifice for further freedoms we want. Do we recognise the freedoms we have?
Page: 25
If I could reframe the point made by Ms Chia two days ago, in her excellent speech, we may want the freedom to spend our Central Provident Fund (CPF) money as we wish. Are we prepared to sacrifice the freedom we have, to be financially independent? We need the freedom to be able to age gracefully with comfort and security. The freedoms we want, the freedoms we have and the freedoms we need.
Allow me to use a real incident to highlight the difficulty of deciding what is right and wrong, and what is the right path and the right balance for us, when it comes to that difficult topic of freedom of speech.
Two years ago, at an event at Hong Lim Park, a photographer on assignment took a photo of a young Singaporean protestor. And this protestor was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. Guy Fawkes was an assassin and a terrorist who attempted to bring down the English monarchy 400 years ago by trying to kill King James. And this mask, this effigy, was celebrated on Guy Fawkes night, made famous in the movie \"V for Vendetta\", where the protagonist \"V\", who is an anarchist and protesting against the fascist state, wears this mask to conceal his identity. It then became adopted by the hacker group Anonymous as a way to conceal their identity; and now, young people around the world, as a symbol of rebellion against authority, deciding to be non-conformist by all wearing the same mask, providing significant royalties to a corporation that owns the copyright, are wearing this mask.
This protestor wore this mask, initially a symbol against fascism in the movie, initially a terrorist mask, and, in response to something said on stage, snapped off a Nazi salute – right arm out-stretched, palm face-down. The use of this Nazi salute is a criminal offence in some countries in Europe, given their history of fascism and anti-Semitism, so, it is not surprising. Imagine him, wearing this mask, throwing out this Nazi salute and his photograph was taken. Nothing else of note happened at Hong Lim Park that day. There were no mysterious black vans, no complaints, no Police presence, no violence, no arrest. Hong Lim Park carried on in peace, as it often does.
Madam, I will not show that image, that photograph. I find it disturbing. I also believe that the young man has no comprehension of the symbolism behind the Guy Fawkes mask, nor the Nazi salute. Have I exercised self-censorship in not showing the image, or have I exercised self-restraint in avoiding further discord?
The photographer, Mr Shawn Danker, who gave his permission for this story to be shared, was employed that day to report on the events, and he reported on the events and uploaded this photograph to Facebook. Unsurprisingly, it attracted a very vigorous and lively debate online. The point was made repeatedly that the man in the photo and the photographer were not supporting the Nazis or their memory. The protestor was criticising a policy that he felt was wrong. He was likening that policy to fascism in a public
Page: 26
demonstration of his criticism. He thought he was being sarcastic or funny, perhaps. The photographer was there as part of his work. The arguments online got increasingly heated; offence was taken on both sides and, eventually, Facebook unilaterally took down the photograph on the grounds that it was offensive.
Within Hong Lim Park, this protestor could express his disagreement in what was, arguably, a very disagreeable way. Online, his protest was removed. The photographer could do his work to document the incident but, online, his image, his work, was deemed to be inappropriate. Who was right, who was wrong? Was Facebook overreacting or was it protecting a public space from an offensive image? Was the young man misguided or seeking to be inflammatory? Was the photographer reporting the news or being an activist? Who should have exercised self-restraint or self-censorship?
There is a further twist to the tale, just to add to the irony of the situation where as a result of the protests of netizens, Facebook has restricted the freedom of speech that a Singaporean enjoys at Hong Lim Park. The topic of protest at Hong Lim Park had a hashtag like most protests do and the hashtag of this protest was #FreeMyInternet.
In this instance, the freedom that the protestor wanted was a \"Free\" Internet. What he got was the online mob, the free unfettered online mob expressing a narrow extreme point of view from each contributor. He got a unilateral restriction on his expression.
The freedom that he and we have is the freedom to express our views in person, in a way that we cannot on social media without significant push back. But most important is the freedom we need. We need the freedom to be able to tell the story, to be able to discuss its implications, to be able to have a discussion about the reality of public speech and to find ways to look at this situation without heated tempers and clenched fists, the freedom to find a better way forward in peace and as one united people.
With our strong stance on security, defence, on maintaining the vigilance against drugs, crime and terrorism, we have the freedom to live our lives without fear. With our economic success and social safety nets, we have the freedom from poverty and its deprivations. With an excellent education system, we have the freedom from a path set at the time of birth and we have the freedom of a meritocracy for each of us to strive along a path of our own choosing.
The SkillsFuture credit scheme gives us the freedom to change course, to take a different path at a different time of our life and it gives us the freedom to choose and to make that choice when it suits us. SkillsFuture credit, together with several other initiatives and schemes that address adult learning and retraining, gives us the freedom to be daring,
Page: 27
to be adventurous, knowing that we will have further opportunities to learn new skills, train in new disciplines and follow new paths.
Madam, I move on to a slightly different type of freedom and one that may require some explanation, no hashtags this time. Imagine, if you will, that we are shopping and we enter a shop with no price tags. There are still a few shops with no price tags. Both the customer and the salesman know that the sale price of the item is negotiable and that after each offers a starting price, the bargaining will lead to some eventual agreement somewhere in the middle. But both began as far away from the middle as possible, as far away as they thought they could get. Both the customer and the salesman think to themselves, \"What can I get away with, how far can I push this?\" How do we get to a middle price that allows the salesman to make a profit and the customer to be satisfied he got a bargain?
In this example, starting from two extremely different positions, is probably the best and most satisfying way to have that type of shopping experience, perhaps. But how do we get to the middle of a political and social debate? Is starting from extreme positions good for us as a nation? In politics and social or civic discourse, it can be hard, if not impossible, to shift from an extreme position once entrenched. Real harm can result from an extremist position, with no compromises and no middle way. Real harm – that point does not need to be belaboured.
If we begin from a position that everything is negotiable, that the position will shift on the basis of who shouts the loudest, who is boldest, bravest and willing to risk it all, then we start from extreme positions. Just like our shopper, we are looking for a bargain; we start from an impossible position, knowing that it is to our advantage, so that the price is as low as possible.
In politics, in social discourse, in charting a path for our society, if we are driven by narrow interests, it results in extremes of behaviour: loud, raised voices, hyperbole and posturing to get out the vote, to get people riled up, to get people to take a stand. Eventually, a compromise is arrived at but, sometimes, there is danger along the way. When there is no mandated boundary, no accepted process for resolution, there is every incentive for interested parties to manipulate the discussion to extremes of view.
We hope we take a different approach, an approach that starts from a position of service and addressing the broad middle ground consensus, then shifting out from that position, an approach that emphasises unity. Unity of purpose. One united people. \"Marilah Kita Bersatu\" – come let us unite.
Page: 28
We are and will always be a work in progress, and the boundaries are not permanent but are revised on the basis of broad community engagement. This system gives us a particularly rare and precious freedom. It gives us the freedom from being divided by extremist views; the freedom from having to take polarised positions in order to be effective.
The issue of musical instruments during Thaipusam street processions, for example, shows that while the regulations are in place, there is room for considered polite discussion. Through engagement, the Hindu Endowments Board has obtained approval for the singing of hymns. And there are further discussions that are ongoing.
Our unwritten social compact, our history and our social fabric have given us this very important freedom – the freedom from extremism, the freedom to be moderate and yet still be effective in politics and effective in policy. To not have to be extreme in order to be politically successful. The freedom from social polarisation. Marilah Kita Bersatu.
In politics, the best place is in the middle, the best place in terms of serving the nation and the people. The middle ground is where we are and where we need to be. The policy tools have often been market-driven, right-leaning, economically accurate. But they have been wielded with a clear leftist intent, which unambiguously aims to redistribute wealth and maintain significant state influence over the means of production.
The redistribution has not always occurred directly from one hand to the other. It more often occurs across generations. But it occurred and it continues to occur. The redistribution has always been limited by a recognition that any position has to be sustainable over the long term, in order to secure our future. Not short-term populism but long-term investment.
I echo and strongly support Member Liang Eng Hwa's call for long-term financial sustainability to be explicitly made a part of Parliament's mandate through the Select Committee process.
Madam, we enjoy the freedom from extremism in politics, we enjoy the middle road, the broad consensus and yet still have effective national and social policies. This freedom to be moderate and yet successful is not to be taken lightly. But it is easy to remove, to destroy and to ignore. All it takes is a short-term populist political approach and we have lost it, lost the freedom to be moderate.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, we may ask: what freedoms does the Budget, as presented, offer to us and to Singapore? This Budget offers us the freedom to dream big dreams. The changes to our social safety net, the assurance of the Silver Support Scheme, the SkillsFuture credits, the plans for Changi, for Tuas, for many other infrastructure plans. These are big, big
Page: 29
dreams.
This Budget, once again, demonstrates the commitment to both ensuring that each generation pays its own way and invests in our future. This Budget, once again, demonstrates that we are economically secure because we have the Reserves to call upon in times of crisis and we have surpluses to use from this term of Government, such that in a global environment that is uncertain, at a time when international trade and commerce have an unclear future, we are able to increase social spending, increase assurance for a large section of our population, increase expenditure in this Budget with a deficit of $6 billion and yet still not draw down from the Reserves.
What freedom does this give us? It gives us the freedom to create our own future even as we build on the legacy of our Pioneers. It gives us the freedom to chart our own course as a nation, the freedom to weather the storms and winds that buffet other nations' finances, their trade and stability.
Madam, we will always be a little red dot but on the 50th anniversary of Singapore's birth, I hope we will always have big soaring dreams. I hope we will always be a nation with both the means and the drive to make those dreams come true.
This Budget gives us the freedom to stay true to our values and principles, the freedom to hold true to the vision of a vibrant, shining, dynamic nation. This Budget gives us the freedom to believe that the words, \"Majulah Singapura\", still have and will always have meaning as we continue to strive for a better future for ourselves, our children and our country. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget. [Applause.]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mdm Speaker, let me first, thank Members of the House for the thoughtful and valuable views that everyone has made over the course of the last two days. Members have spoken about each of the major thrusts in the Budget, both by providing perspectives of how we should go about things, underlining the values that should underpin our efforts and making many specific suggestions on how we should implement our schemes – how we should learn as we go along and improve as we implement our schemes. So, it has been a very useful debate. Many of the specific issues, as usual, will be taken up during the Committee of Supply (COS) by the respective Ministers.
I will focus on three main issues today.
Page: 30
First, quite briefly, I will respond to some of the perspectives provided during the debate on economic restructuring and, in particular, how we have got to help uplift our SMEs, so that the future – when we talk about the next frontier of our economy – is not just a future of technology and skills but a future that contains a vibrant SME sector as part of our society.
Secondly, I will talk about our approach towards building a fair and inclusive society.
Thirdly, very importantly, I will talk about our ability to sustain what we are doing: how do we sustain a fair and inclusive system well beyond the current generation of Singaporeans?
Let me start with restructuring. The issues that came up in the debate are not new. If you look at the debates of the last few years, you will find similar issues coming up and they illustrate inherent tensions in restructuring our economy, inherent tensions in moving from one state of economy to a new state of economy, with a transition in between that is an inherently difficult transition.
Mr Inderjit Singh spoke about high business costs. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and several Members highlighted this constant problem of business cost increases at a time when revenues are not growing very rapidly. It is a real problem. The fundamental reason for business costs being high lies in demand and supply. That is the fundamental reason. We are a supply-constrained economy. But demand by businesses for land, labour and all sorts of resources remains high. There is some positive in that; there is some positive in an environment where businesses are still trying to do business, trying to expand, need more workers, space and resources. It is not an economy in crisis.
Over the last five years, the number of new firms formed each year minus those that exited – net new firm formation – was 20,000 per year. Twenty thousand firms formed each year, minus those that exited. That is more than twice the preceding five years. During these five years – when we had sought to restructure our economy and were grappling with the shortages we face in manpower and the increasing constraints of land – we have seen a significant increase in the number of firms being formed across every sector.
Even in sectors like the food services sector, hotel services sector, we have seen the same phenomenon. In the food and accommodation sector, the average number of new firms, minus those that exited, was nearly 1,000 per year, 50% higher than in the preceding five years.
But revenues, overall, are not growing more rapidly. They are not growing by 50% at all. We all know that. So, it is a question of revenue growth not being unusually buoyant but demand for resources is growing. And in that situation of demand and supply, business costs
Page: 31
go up. That is a fundamental reason.
We, therefore, have two basic approaches that we can take in attempting to move from one state of the economy to the next state. Two basic approaches that we can take in transition. One is to find a way to subsidise business costs across the board. Subsidise rental cost, subsidise labour cost, subsidise business cost across the board, because, actually, it is an across-the-board situation. It is a fundamental constraint in resources pitched against increasing demand for resources. It is not about one firm or the other, or one sector against another. So, find a way in which the Government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise across the board to reduce business cost. That is one way.
The other way, as Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and a few others mentioned, is to withdraw support and accelerate the process of restructuring by letting market forces take charge, letting the market sort out more quickly winners from losers. That is another way. And it is not a crazy idea to accelerate restructuring by letting market forces take charge.
We have not chosen either approach. We have chosen an approach that is the middle path. As Mr Ong Teng Koon and others have pointed out, a phased tightening of our foreign worker policies, starting in 2010, year by year, always giving lead time for workers, and it has been quite a gradual phasing in. If we look at it over the five years as a whole, it is a significant tightening, but it has been phased in. And very importantly, we have not just collected high foreign worker levies but we have flowed it back to companies. Flowed it back to companies that are taking some initiatives to upgrade, invest, improve processes so that they are prepared for higher productivity in the future.
As Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and others know, the process takes time. It takes time to reengineer a business, some time to switch to an entirely new business model and to train up our people. It takes time, but that is the approach we have taken. Gradual tightening so as to allow the market to work, but very strong support for firms that want to upgrade and do something about it. And we have more than flowed back to the business sector the additional foreign worker levies that we collected.
The reason why we have taken this approach and not the harsher approach of simply allowing market forces to work in the face of a very tight labour market is because shock treatment does not just weed out the weakest players. It does not just weed out unviable businesses. It has a way of weeding out good businesses as well. It happens in every crisis, in every economy. When you go through a deep crisis, you lose many good businesses, including very promising entrepreneurs. So, we have taken this phased approach because we are not an economy in crisis, we can afford to take this phased approach.
Page: 32
Secondly, we have not wanted to impose a large cost on our workers. That is the second reason why we have taken this phased approach. Indeed, in the last few years, you have seen a very significant increase in labour force participation amongst older workers as well as people returning to the workforce, particularly women returning to the workforce. As Ms Foo Mee Har noted, I think quite thoughtfully, when workers who have been out of the workforce for some time or who have lower skills enter the workforce, it does not immediately help productivity. It takes time to train our people. And that is another reason why productivity growth has been hampered. Because we have, as part of our social objectives, to try and make it as friendly as possible an economic environment for anyone who wants to join the workforce and contribute to the family. And I think that is the right balance that we have taken.
But we do have to ensure that our SME sector, five and 10 years from now, is a vibrant one. We will not be able to keep all our SMEs, but we want to have a critical mass of SMEs in every sector of the economy. That is Singaporeans – they are part of our society, not just our economy – we want them to be there in the future Singapore economy. Innovative SMEs, expanding abroad and even where, in the domestic market, finding a new way of doing business or bringing in new ideas to the market. And it can be done. We have seen leaders already amongst our SMEs in every field that are breaking the mould. It can be done.
We are sparing no resources in helping our SMEs. And although we have concerns about how many agencies we have, how many schemes we have, frankly, these are second order issues. It just depends on the entrepreneurs. If they are willing to take advantage of schemes, the schemes are there. They are more generous than in any other economy I know of, when you add up all our schemes – tax incentives, focused as well as broad-based, like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC); grant schemes through Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING), Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), Media Development Authority (MDA); and the other schemes. When you add them all up together, it is a very generous set of supports. Please come and take advantage of them. And the Government will work as closely as possible with our trade associations and chambers to help more companies take advantage of our schemes. Entrepreneurs have to rise to the occasion.
Mr Thomas Chua asked about the numbers. Small numbers have been taking advantage of these schemes. If you look at our Innovation and Capability Vouchers which help small companies to take incremental but significant steps, since 2012, we had about 16,000 vouchers awarded, 90% of which going to very small businesses. If you look at IDA's iSPRINT scheme, since 2012, about 7,000 SMEs have been implementing new IT solutions. IDA has also been promoting sectoral platforms and we have 46 sectoral platforms taking root and which will yield positive results in time to come, I am sure.
Page: 33
SPRING's Capability Development Scheme, which is one step up, higher than the Innovation and Capability Vouchers – we have 2,000 projects supported in the past three years. Again, it will take time for it to move the needle at a broader level. And as I announced in the Budget, we are now introducing a lower tier of support that will be granted much more easily so that we multiply the 2,000 figure.
So, we are making some shifts in our approach towards focusing our innovation and breakthroughs whilst retaining a base level of support for all companies to get onto the basic level of productivity initiatives. We are shifting emphasis, and I am glad that everyone who spoke supported that shift. But very importantly, we have got to help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) take advantage of SkillsFuture. This is an opportunity for our trade associations and chambers, or TACs, to strengthen themselves and work with their members. And the Government will work very closely with our TACs on this.
SkillsFuture is a real opportunity. Industry by industry, sub-industry by sub-industry, we will work with TACs and clusters of companies to develop Singaporeans to develop talent. Develop courses that really suit the needs of the industry – short courses, modular courses, helping workers take advantage of new technologies – and develop training options that are meaningful to the individuals, meaningful to Singapore. And a very important part of this initiative of helping SMEs will be to develop a pool of mentors who work with specific industries and firms to help them. Because, as we noted, SMEs, on their own, will find it difficult to train up their people and take full advantage of SkillsFuture. So, TACs and a pool of mentors will help our SMEs.
There are already examples of how this can be done. The furniture industry is one of them. The Singapore Furniture Industry Council has collaborated with NTUC's e2i and WDA to launch the Creative Craftsmen Entrepreneurship Programme, combining on-the-job training with training at the Institute to develop a local pool of skilled local craftsmen. Good example. It is when some TACs take the lead that I think others will begin to move and they will know that you provide very strong support as the Government for the TACs to take the initiative.
SkillsFuture was supported by everyone who spoke. I am glad that the Workers' Party, too, joined in support of this whole initiative. There were useful suggestions on how we should go about it and, in particular, I would like to highlight the suggestions that several Members made – Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Patrick Tay, Dr Intan, Mr David Ong, Mr Ang Hin Kee, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. I am sure I missed out some other names.
In particular, the suggestion that we should not just develop a landscape of offerings, but should actually work with groups of Singaporeans to develop offerings that meet their needs. So, it is not just about the landscape of offerings on the one side and firms on the
Page: 34
other. You have got to help groups of Singaporeans to meet their needs – mid-career PMEs, our homemakers, our low-income workers, Singaporeans aspiring for leadership positions. Singaporeans who really need, in some cases, hand-holding; in some cases, some customisation within this landscape. And I think that is a very exciting opportunity to develop intermediaries and mentors, use our trade associations and have individuals who are also passionate about this to come forward and work with the groups of people, including our homemakers, as was emphasised, who do want to return to work for some period of time, part-time or full-time.
We will place great emphasis on developing quality offerings. This has been emphasised by everyone, in particular, by Ms Denise Phua and Ms Foo Mee Har. We studied the experience in some other countries. The UK did experiment with individual learning accounts more than a decade ago. They faced problems because of a lack of quality assurance and they did not place enough emphasis on developing the supply side, developing the training landscape that was relevant to the needs of employers and individuals. It is no point just creating an account where you put money into people's account.
You need to ensure quality. You need to assure people of quality and you need to ensure relevance to jobs and individuals. And that is what our primary focus will be about. So, SkillsFuture, frankly, will itself be a learning journey. We are embarking on a major new phase in developing our people. It involves some experimentation. It involves learning as we go along, but let us do it with the right spirit. As Mr Lim Swee Say says, everyone plays a part in this. You just need the mindset of embracing the future. We all have to embrace the future. And I think this will, in time to come, prove to be a transformative force in our society.
Let me now move on to a second major theme, which is that of building a fair and inclusive society. We have embarked on major moves to build a more inclusive society and mitigate inequalities. It is not a recent shift; it is not a sudden shift. It started in a major way in 2007 and, since then, step by step, year by year, we have made enhancements in education, housing, healthcare and retirement. A deliberate tilt to support our lower- and middle-income groups, step by step. And if you look at each of our Budgets, if you look at the philosophy articulated in National Day Rally speeches by the Prime Minister, this is a shift that we have been working at progressively year by year over the last seven to eight years.
What it boils down to is that we are providing more active support for Singaporeans at each stage of life: when you are young, when you are in your working years, as you raise your family and when we all retire and get older. Very importantly, we are building a social compact that is not only about stronger collective responsibility, but which seeks to encourage personal and family responsibility. I will come back to this later. That is at the heart of it. We are building a social compact that is not just about stronger collective
Page: 35
responsibility, but seeks to encourage personal and family responsibility.
Let me describe the major steps we are taking and how they add up to this new social compact. First, we are intervening earlier in life: investing more in our young so as to preserve and encourage social mobility because that has to be part of our Singapore identity. It is a challenge all over the world. Social mobility is the defining challenge in every advanced country today. The slowdown and the low level of social mobility, almost irrespective of which of these countries you look at, including the Scandinavian countries.
We are fortunate that Singapore has so far done relatively well. It is still a more fluid society than most. I can show Members a slide. [Please refer to Annex 1] What this slide looks at is people who start off with low-income family backgrounds, and we look at what happens to them once they have finished education, entered work and are well into their working lives. Where did they end up?
If everything was equal – in other words, if we all had equal abilities and if backgrounds and everything associated with our backgrounds played no role in what happens in life – then, the chance of you ending up in the bottom 20%, the next 20%, the middle 20% or the top 20%, will be equal. Wherever you start, 20% will end up in each quintile of society. Everything equal. But everything is not equal: there is the \"lottery of birth\" and, in every society, your background is associated not just with your abilities, but the culture around your background.
What has been seen in most advanced societies, for reasons that are not fully understood, is that in the last 20 years especially, people who are better off are not just giving more resources to their kids, they are also putting a lot more effort and time with their kids. Everyone else in society is trying to do as best for their kids, as they have always done, but, for some reason, those at the top are putting even more effort into helping their kids succeed – starting very early and through life.
Those are the natural workings of society. We cannot help those natural workings of society; they are true everywhere in the world. But we want to give the best chance for someone who starts off with a low-income background or middle-income background to move up and make sure this remains a fluid society.
Now, we will look at the data. If you look at the US, for those who start off from parents who were within the bottom 20%, only 7.5% of them – or about one in 14 – make it into the top 20%. If everything is equal, 20% of them will be in the top 20%. But, in fact, only 7.5% make it to the top 20% of their cohort. This is now widely acknowledged in the US. They used to think of themselves as a place with considerably more mobility than Europe, but actually,
Page: 36
it has not been the case for decades. The UK is not very different, very little mobility. Poverty today is poverty tomorrow, it is entrenched.
The Scandinavian economies are somewhat better. About 10% to 12% of those who start off from parents in the lower- income group end up in the top quintile, the top 20%. Canada is doing much better than the US. They are located side by side, but Canada has got a different system, less entrenched social barriers and they are doing somewhat better.
In Singapore, for those who start off with parents in the bottom 20%, 14% of them end up in the top 20% of their peers. This is a relatively young group that I am showing – those in their mid-20s to early 30s. If I were to show you the older generation, we know the story – even more fluid. But even for this younger group, 14% end up in the top 20%. A relatively fluid society.
We know it will get more difficult. With each decade, it gets more difficult as society gets more settled. We will not evade the problems faced in the advanced societies; the natural workings of societies exist. So, we have to work harder at it, and that means, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak had emphasised, starting earlier. Finding every way to help every kid who has a weak start to gain confidence and to get a strong start.
We are investing very heavily in pre-school education for this reason and we are doing a lot in our primary school years. Preschool education – it is well-known. But let me remind Members that when we add up what we are doing for students with a weak start in primary school, we are now spending 2.5 times more in real terms, compared to just five years ago. That is, investment in teachers, programmes to help them develop stronger numeracy and literacy skills, starting in Primary 1 and 2, and working our way up.
A very significant initiative. We have to intervene earlier, intervene more strongly, but find the best and most creative ways to help children gain confidence and overcome early deficits.
We are also doing more for special needs students. Our spending on students in our special education (SPED) schools has increased over the last five years by 50%. It was already much higher than for students in a regular school and we have increased it further by 50% in real terms. We have been strengthening the SPED curriculum, helping to train up the teachers. MOE is funding professional development of the teachers in our SPED schools. We are intervening earlier and trying to intervene better.
Secondly, we have enhanced affordability across the system, from preschool all the way up to the tertiary level. We know about the kindergarten and childcare subsidies. For low-
Page: 37
income families, they pay as little as $3 a month for childcare, and $1 a month for kindergarten. Across the system, we have also enhanced subsidies for the middle-income group. I spoke about this in the Budget. This is especially so in tertiary education. A significant shift that began a few years ago was to enhance bursaries and other forms of support for the middle-income group in tertiary education.
Thirdly, it is about the pathways. By creating more diverse pathways to cater to every talent and inclination, and even different learning styles, we are also trying to promote social mobility. People have different strengths, different interests and by providing more diverse pathways, we maximise our chances of social mobility. That has been true in the school system but especially true at the tertiary level. The strengthening of the applied pathway is a critical route to social mobility.
That is education – a major set of initiatives.
The second major initiative that we have taken is to promote home ownership, particularly, by helping the lower- and middle-income groups. I am not going into details because Members know the details.
Housing prices are not like what they were 40 or 50 years ago. That is, indeed, why the older generation today is sitting on substantial housing assets and equity in their homes. Prices are not like what they were even 30 years ago. What is critical is to help young couples today, once they are ready to set up a family, to own a home. On that front, we have spared no efforts, first, in trying to tame the cycle, which we are achieving by boosting supply of HDB flats and through our additional buyer's and seller's stamp duties. All the measures we have taken to tame the cycle are working and are working better than in Hong Kong or some other places.
More importantly, there have also been enhancements to housing grants – the HDB and Build-To-Order (BTO) grants. What we are able to achieve for young couples in Singapore today is unmatched by any other leading city in Asia. We know about Hong Kong, extremely high housing prices. Likewise, in Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, Taipei, even Sydney and Melbourne – if you look at the income of the average young couple, compared to the price of a home that they want to move into, homes are more within the reach of our young than they are in any other leading Asian city. That is home ownership.
Thirdly, what we are doing for those in working age. I am listing this in a little bit of detail but it is worth reminding ourselves as to how our social programmes add up and how we have been making deliberate moves over the last seven to eight years: what we are doing
Page: 38
for people in their working age.
SkillsFuture is a major investment and I have spoken about it. At its heart, it is not an economic programme. At its heart, it is about helping every individual push their potential through life. Not just what you do in school. Keep discovering and pushing your potential. Everyone has a strength, although we may not figure it out during our school years. Everyone has a strength and it is never too late in life to identify your strengths, identify your interest, and push your potential. It is never too late to learn. SkillsFuture is, itself, a major force of social mobility. It is not just an economic strategy.
Fourthly, we have also taken significant moves to temper inequality. Workfare was a major step, which started in 2006 as a temporary scheme, we made it permanent in 2007, and we enhanced it in 2010 and 2013. We will continue to review it in future so that even as wages go up over time, we would still want to use Workfare to redistribute and temper inequality. Workfare is not about alleviating absolute poverty; it is about mitigating inequality even as incomes rise. We have to mitigate inequality.
For the lowest-paid workers, the Progressive Wage Model is now working its way, first, through the cleaning industry, and we are moving on to the security industry. We focus on industries where outsourcing is prevalent and which are prone to cheap-sourcing as a result of outsourcing practices. That is what we are focused on.
We have also introduced a permanent Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher scheme. Again, it is a redistributive device: a permanent GST Voucher scheme to help lower-income households. So, that is the fourth set of initiatives – tempering the disparities in life.
Fifth, we are giving greater assurance in old age, so that our elderly can make the most of life. First, at work, we introduced a Special Employment Credit – quite a unique scheme by international standards – to help our older workers keep their jobs or find new jobs and to stay employed and continue to contribute and take pride in contributing, which is what Singaporeans want to do.
Beyond work, we have made very significant shifts in healthcare, first, by enhancing subsidies not just for the lower-income group but the middle-income group. Last year, through the Pioneer Generation Package; this year, through MediShield Life, which would be heavily subsidised for the lower- and middle-income group; and by the significant expansion of capacity which Members are familiar with – all around the island, primary care, acute care, step-down care; very significant expansion of capacity.
Page: 39
Next, we will be rolling out the Silver Support Scheme to provide a further supplement to personal savings and family support. Silver Support, like Workfare, will be a way of tempering inequalities through life.
Finally, we are doing more to encourage the community to take responsibility and to step in. In Budget 2011, we had a major initiative – the Community Silver Trust Scheme. We put aside $1 billion, for dollar-for-dollar matching for voluntary contributions to voluntary welfare organisation (VWOs) providing intermediate and long-term care, which includes helping the disabled. It was a major scheme and, I should add, in relation to Dr Teo Ho Pin's question that the Community Silver Trust provides matching grants for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and for VWOs providing kidney dialysis.
More recently, we have launched the Care and Share SG50 movement. It was rolled out in 2013 and we have extended it this year. Again, it provides dollar-for-dollar matching for a whole range, a very broad spectrum, of social service sector VWOs.
We have enhanced our tax incentives for donations, which Members have welcomed. Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about this. We introduced a 250% tax deduction in 2009 and had good results, which is why we have extended it for another three years, quite apart from this year having a 300% deduction.
Mr Seah, in fact, asked about the revenue implications of this tax deduction. This tax deduction, the 250% tax deduction, has meant a tax loss to the Government of about $120 million per year from 2010 to 2014. But it led to a gain for the charitable sector of about $870 million a year. The Government lost $120 million but it led to a gain for the charity sector of over $870 million per year.
If we take it all together, this has been a set of major moves – at every stage of life, strengthening our policies, providing greater assurance and opportunities – in education, at work, in healthcare, in retirement.
Let me show how it all adds up in our system. When you take all the taxes that people pay and all the benefits that they receive through our different schemes, how does it add up? It is basically a progressive system and one that has become more progressive. Where the higher-income households contribute the bulk of the taxes and the lower-income households receive the bulk of the benefits. It is also one where the middle-income receives more benefits than it used to.
Let me show that very briefly with the slide. We take the top 20% of households: they pay 55% of all taxes, when you add up income tax, property tax, GST, car taxes, maid levies
Page: 40
and so on; they pay 55% of all taxes and they receive 12% of the benefits. If you look at the middle 20% of households, they pay 11% of all taxes and they receive 20% of all benefits. When I say, \"middle 20%\", I mean those between the 41st and 60th percentile. They pay 11% of all taxes and they receive 20% of all benefits. And the lowest 20% of households pay 9% of all taxes, mainly through the GST. Everyone contributes, and the low-income group contributes through the GST and a few indirect taxes, but mainly the GST. They pay 9% of all taxes, but they receive 27% of all benefits. It is a progressive system.
Then, I should add that we have also shifted significantly in the weight being placed on structural transfers, permanent schemes, as distinct from temporary schemes that we are able to afford when the Budget is in good shape. Ninety percent of our transfers in recent years comprised permanent schemes.
The system is not just about redistributing from the rich to the poor. It is also about the middle-income group, very importantly. The middle-income group in Singapore are net beneficiaries of our system. There has been a very significant increase in the amount of benefits that the middle-income group has got over the last 10 years. For every dollar of tax paid by the middle-income group, they now get $1.70 back. In fact, a bit more than $1.70 back. For every dollar of tax paid and you add up all their taxes – income tax, what those who happen to own a car would pay, add all the taxes, property tax and so on – for every dollar of tax they pay, they get $1.70 back in benefits. This is real data that refers to the middle 20% in our society, Singaporeans. It has gone up significantly over the last 10 years.
It is a fair system. The benefits that our middle-income group gets are not like what you see in the Scandinavian countries, the UK or many other advanced countries. Some of them have ‘free' healthcare, ‘free' tertiary education, \"free\" many things. But they are paying for it. It is not free. It is never free.
In most of these societies, with Scandinavian countries being the classic example, their tax systems are not typically progressive. They rely mainly on the value-added tax (VAT) and high income tax for everyone, to be able to flow back the benefits. Everyone is paying for the free benefits that they are getting. When you add it all up, the benefits they get for the dollar of tax the middle-income group pays are less than ours.
I will show Members another chart which compares us to some other countries. The US is the lowest tax country amongst the advanced countries, generally. Their effective income tax for the persons in the middle-income group is about 17%, relatively low, compared to many other advanced countries. In Singapore, it is close to zero for those in the middle. In the US, it is about 17% – lower than the Scandinavian countries.
Page: 41
In the US, when you look at their sales taxes – they do not have a national GST, but they have sales taxes at the local level – they are about 4% to 11%. The US has somewhat lower taxes at the most. In the US, you get about $1.30 back for every dollar of tax you pay. Finland is about $1.30 as well. UK, slightly more. And in Singapore, it is about $1.70.
We are a low tax regime. We try to keep the burden of taxes of the middle-income group, in particular, low. We target our benefits in healthcare and education, in every area, to support the low-income group and the middle-income group. We target it. In general, everyone co-pays for what we are getting, so that we know that nothing is for free. We co-pay, we keep taxes low, and the net benefits are ones which the middle-income group gains from. So, that is worth highlighting.
Let me go on to explain what this adds up to in terms of our thinking, values and philosophy. We have tilted our system deliberately to help our lower- and middle-income groups. In the last five years, there has been a significant tilt. The Government is playing a more active role in redistribution.
But the key to building a strong society is not just in how much we are doing to redistribute. It is in how we strengthen the values that undergird and sustain a fair and inclusive society. It is not how much we are doing, but how we do it, and whether what we are doing helps to strengthen the values and the habits that sustain a fair and inclusive society.
At the heart of it all, we are seeking to build a stronger social compact for the future, a compact where personal and collective responsibilities go hand-in-hand. That is at the heart of what we are doing. We are seeking to build a stronger social compact, where personal and collective responsibilities reinforce each other and go hand-in-hand.
Our approach is quite different from the cradle-to-grave welfarism that was developed over 50 or 60 years in many of the advanced countries. Our approach is about empowering people and aspirations, and rewarding responsibility throughout life. That is our approach. It is quite different from cradle-to-grave welfarism. It is about encouraging and empowering people to learn at every age, to work, to take second or third chances and to make meaningful contributions through our careers, whichever the job; helping people to own a home and whether as a breadwinner or homemakers, to raise the next generation and helping everyone to make the most of life even in our senior years.
It is also about developing a broader culture of responsibility in our society. It is not just about everyone doing their part, rich or poor, but also about being able to count on one another. And those two things go together. We are able to count on one another, now and
Page: 42
in the future, only if everyone plays their part, if everyone plays their responsible role.
Our whole approach, therefore, has been to avoid a zero-sum game between personal and collective responsibilities. Avoid a zero-sum game and get a compact where personal and collective responsibilities reinforce each other.
We have had a thoughtful debate on this issue. As Ms Chia Yong Yong said, if we lean too much to the left, we will not have much left. As Mr Karthikeyan said, if we lean too much to the right, too, then we may not be doing the right thing. There is truth in both views.
Mr Seah Kian Peng noted the polarisation of views in the US, the polarisation between \"red\" and \"blue\" views. Very serious problems, because they are looking at problems through red lens or blue lens alone. We have to avoid looking at problems through the lenses of the left or the right alone because there are truths on both the left and the right. These are the truths that we learned from 50 years of experience in social policies all over the world, particularly in more mature societies.
We cannot solve problems if we leave it entirely to the market or the natural workings of society. It would lead to widened income gaps that reflect not just people's different abilities and efforts, but also the advantages and disadvantages in the backgrounds they start with. It will sap the morale of our society if we just leave it to the market to sort things out.
Neither can we think that social policy interventions alone can create a fair and cohesive society, without a culture of personal responsibility in the family – in education, at work and in saving for our future. It will not create a fair and inclusive society, and it will sap the vim and energy of our society at every level.
We need some humility. In every society, we need some humility as to what works in social policy. Take truths from both the left and the right, but we must have some humility. Because one of the lessons we have learnt from the policy interventions in the more mature societies is that lasting improvements in society are not easy to achieve. It is certainly not just a matter of putting in more Government resources. Our real task is to find ways to help people, not just by providing them with more resources, but helping them to rebuild family lives, making sure they have got empathetic teachers, mentors, community volunteers, and helping them to build circles of friends and peers around them, people with a positive and aspiring outlook on life.
We have made our system more progressive, as part of our efforts to build a fair and inclusive society, but we should never forget that it rests on this compact of personal and collective responsibility. As Ms Jessica Tan put it, we must preserve our Singapore ethic of
Page: 43
work, effort and responsibility, and collective responsibility for the community. I think that sums it up.
Let me now talk about a critical issue, which is sustainability. Fairness is not just about what we do today – how we distribute taxes and benefits, who takes what share today. It is not just about the current generation. We must build a fair and inclusive society for today's generation, our children's generation and generations in the future. That is the difficult task.
There are countries more progressive than us. There are countries that have achieved a very high degree of transfers and redistribution. It is worth watching them and how they changed over time. How their values changed and, also, whether they had been able to sustain what they are doing.
The whole experience of the UK, Europe and, to some extent, the US, has been one of building up unsustainable social welfare systems. The UK is a very good example. With each electoral term, each party and each government coming into power has increased social spending and increased spending particularly on the elderly. It is vote buying. But the system is now unsustainable and they are paying the price.
Unfortunately, the ones who are paying the price are the young and the lower-income group. Spending in the UK in the last few years has been cut for children. Between 2009 and 2012 – I do not have the more recent data, but it has been intensified austerity – real spending per child in early education and childcare fell by 25%. Spending was also cut on programmes to subsidise early education and childcare for disadvantaged children – a significant cut, more than 30% cut.
It was not as if it was to help poor retirees, because the whole weakness of the system was in extending benefits to everyone, including the upper middle-income group and the rich. The rich get generous pensions, they get winter fuel allowances, free transport. Even the Conservative government today is committed to preserving those benefits for the elderly rich and the upper middle-income groups at the expense of the young and the poor. That is how inequitable it is.
We have got to sustain a fair and inclusive society for generations; not one election at a time.
The US faces the same situation. It has lower taxes than in many European countries, but it has the same basic flaw of looking at things short-term. What has happened in the US now – and the Obama Administration has recognised this – is that they are severely
Page: 44
constrained in investing in their future.
The reasons are, first, the interest payments on the debts they have accumulated are going to grow as a share of their budget. Interest payments on debt are going to increase by almost 2% of GDP over the next 10 years. Second, the entitlements they have promised are also growing because people are getting older. If you add those two things together – the interest payments on debts and their entitlements which are a fixed item of their budget – it results in less being left over for the rest of spending. They have to cut back on spending on the future, on fostering opportunities. They have to cut back. And if we look at it at the state level, California and other states, a very significant cutback on education spending – inequitable.
This is true for most of the advanced countries. An OECD report stated, forthrightly, \"governments will have to make tough choices of about how fair it is to ask current workers to pay taxes to support pension payments of a level that they themselves won't enjoy.\" Current workers have to make higher contributions for pension payments that they are not going to enjoy, but which current pensioners will enjoy, including pensioners who are not poor.
We have to avoid these basic political flaws. We have to avoid them. I am glad Members have raised caution and have asked the right questions which we have to keep asking as we move along. We have to make sure that, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa says, we never cross the red line of failing to balance our Budget within each term of Government. Mr Hri Kumar also spoke on this matter. Ensure sustainability, ensure we never run down our Reserves.
This is why we have written rules into our Constitution. We have gone further than most other countries – by writing the rules into the Constitution to prevent the Government from running a cumulative deficit within its term of Government. Except in crises, when we have to go to the President to get his permission to draw on Reserves. We have written it into the Constitution, so that it is enshrined in our political culture, no matter who is in government.
Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Arthur Fong also voiced concerns about the Budget deficits that we are running in recent years. Let me clarify that the Government Budget has been in a healthy position. For this year, as I have explained, the deficit is almost entirely due to funds being set aside for future investments. It is not a deficit due to spending exceeding revenues. It is a deficit because we are setting aside funds that we have earned in this term of Government, for the future. And until this year, during this term of Government, we have not recorded a deficit in any year before setting aside funds for the future. For example, the small deficit we ran last year would have been a significant surplus, had we not set aside
Page: 45
money for the Pioneer Generation Package.
Essentially, what we have been doing is prudent budgeting. We have had a temporary surplus in revenues, particularly because of the revenue boost from the property cycle. And rather than spend those revenues in the current term, which is what some other governments do when they get a bonanza in revenues, they spend it, we have set it aside. And that should remain the way we go about fiscal planning in the future. When we have a temporary boost of revenues, and we know the cyclical reasons why our revenues exceed our spending, set it aside for the future; do not spend all of it immediately. That way, we avoid \"feast and famine\" in our spending.
Let me now go on to two major issues that arose in the debate that relate to sustainability. The first has to do with the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework and the use of Reserves. The second is the CPF system as well as Silver Support.
Several Members raised questions about the sustainability of our system of drawing income from Reserves, and about making sure that we are not disadvantaging future generations. The NIR framework, in fact, underlines our commitment to preserve the value of our Reserves and to allow it to grow with the economy over the long term. It allows the Government to tap on part of the investment returns for current spending, and it strikes a fair balance between present needs and the interest of future generations.
We had put a lot of thought into it when we moved the constitutional amendment in 2008. It is about striking a fair balance between present needs and the interest of future generations. It ensures that we spend from our Reserves in a disciplined and sustainable way.
First, by spending at most 50% of expected long-term returns, which means at least 50% are kept in Reserves. Second, by spending based on real returns, not nominal returns, so that we preserve the international purchasing power of our Reserves. Otherwise, if we have high inflation globally, and you earn higher nominal investment returns and you spend more on that basis, what you are doing is reducing the real value of your Reserves for the future.
We have also provided stability in the NIR, by spending based on expected long-term returns, not actual returns. This recognises that actual returns will be more volatile than the long-term expected returns. And we smooth our asset base. This is an important point. There are two ways in which we achieve this stability over time: first, we are spending based on expected returns, rather than actual returns, which can be volatile; and secondly, we also smooth our asset base.
Page: 46
For instance, there is a boom in asset markets, a boom in asset prices and the value of our Reserves go up, the value of the asset base goes up. We do not spend on the basis of that boom in asset prices. We smooth the asset base, so as to discount the latest changes in prices. If there is a boom in asset prices, it does not mean that you spend the same increase in NIR, because you do a smoothing of the asset base. These are rules we have written in that help ensure there is a fair balance between current and future generations.
There have also been some questions, understandably, in the media about whether bringing Temasek into the NIR framework will impact Temasek's investment strategy. The same question can be asked about GIC and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Let me assure Members that this will not be the case for Temasek, just as it is not the case for GIC and MAS.
The NIR framework provides a formula to work out how much the Government can spend from Reserves. That is what the NIR framework is about. It is not based on actual returns, but on the expected long-term real rate that we expect our investment entities to earn within the framework. It is about the expected real rate of return from each of our investment entities, and not based on actual returns. It is not a dividend policy in disguise that determines how much cash Temasek has to pay the Government each year. If anything, by focusing on expected long-term returns, we ensure that in no time in the future does the Government put pressure on our investment entities to sell assets, realise capital gains, and pay more dividends. It keeps their investment strategies independent of the spending rule of the Government.
The natural question that arises, of course, is that if the Government is spending on the basis of expected returns which will not year-by-year be matched by actual returns, where then does the Government obtain the funds, the cash flow for NIR to go into the Budget? This is a liquidity management issue and not to do with the spending rule and not to do with the investment strategies of the investment entities. It is a liquidity management issue which I had addressed in Parliament when we first introduced the NIR framework. I will not go into the details again, but we have a variety of sources of liquidity and cash flows that will enable us to manage the Government's liquidity needs independent of the investment strategies of the three entities – Temasek, GIC and MAS. Let me assure Members that what we are doing does not change their investment strategies in the least.
I go on now to the second important issue related to sustainability, which is the CPF system and Silver Support. Let me first explain – and this is quite important – how the CPF system is different from the main systems that we see abroad, the commonly known systems abroad. In particular, how we have tried to avoid the major disadvantages of these other systems, whilst being able to take some of the advantages. It is a very important feature of the CPF system. We are actually a system that is quite different from the main systems that
Page: 47
we see abroad.
There are, basically, two main types of retirement savings systems. The first are collective pension schemes, where everyone pays taxes or regular contributions into a common pool while working, in return for a promised regular payout in retirement. They are usually state-run, some are employer-run, but they are basically collective pension schemes. Everyone pays into the common pool and they are assured of a certain payout in retirement. That is one type of system.
The second type of system is individual retirement accounts, not collective. Individual retirement accounts where an individual puts his savings into an individual retirement plan and he or she draws on their own account in retirement. People have to choose how their monies are invested and they take the investment risk.
In the US, they call this the 401(k) schemes. In Hong Kong, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme is designed that way. It is purely individual retirement accounts, you choose your investments and you take your investment risk. The Australian Superannuation system is another example.
Within the industry, the first type of scheme that I have spoken about, the collective pension schemes, are often known as defined benefit schemes because the benefits are determined in advance and they are not linked strictly to your contribution. And the second type, the individual retirement accounts, are called defined contribution schemes, because the benefits are not known, they depend on investment returns, but your contributions are what are known in advance. Those are the two schemes. Both have their pluses and minuses.
The collective pension schemes promise individuals a regular payout throughout retirement without them bearing investment risk. They also involve redistribution, which is done in two ways. Typically, there is a minimum level of benefit which helps the low-income group. That involves a transfer within the state pension scheme – a transfer from the higher and middle-income groups to the lower-income group within the pension scheme.
Secondly, there is a transfer across generations, in particular, from the younger working population to the current elderly. These are pay-as-you-go schemes, where the benefits of today's elderly are funded by the contributions of today's working population.
There are some advantages to the collective pension schemes because they provide some certainty to the retiree and involve some necessary redistribution to the lower-income group. But there are major disadvantages in the way these schemes have been run, because the benefits have been made more generous over time and they can no longer be afforded
Page: 48
by the current working population as I spoke about earlier. Countries are making major reforms, one after another, to cut back on the future benefits of today's working populations because of unsustainable benefits that have been promised previously. People who start work today have to contribute more, but will receive less benefits compared to current retirees.
As a result of this unsustainability, there is a shift in most countries away from the emphasis of collective pension schemes towards individual retirement accounts. But the individual retirement accounts still remain quite small, compared to the collective pension schemes. They are a small layer on top of what is really a system of collective pooling of contributions – mainly through the state and, sometimes, through the employer.
The individual retirement accounts, too, have their pluses and minuses. The pluses are that they are financially sustainable because what payout you get depends on what you put in. It does not depend on intergenerational transfers.
The big disadvantage is that the investment risk is borne by the individual and this risk can be substantial. We have learnt, especially over the last 10 years, that the risk is substantial on the individual. I explained this in Parliament last year about how, in general, the investment returns in these individual retirement accounts in the UK and Europe have substantially under-performed the market averages. Firstly, because they do not time their investment well, they make wrong investment decisions or they are poorly advised. And, secondly, because of the timing of their retirement because of the luck of when they retire. If you retire during a crisis, you just have much lower retirement payouts for the rest of your life, compared to someone who retires during a boom.
The CPF is neither of these two approaches – collective pension scheme or individual retirement account. It is both individual and collective. It is, first and foremost, built on individual savings and responsibility. First and foremost. But there is a strong element of collective responsibility built into the CPF scheme. The Government provides support through the Budget to lower-income members and provides assurance to all. And through CPF LIFE, we are pooling risks to support one another in the face of life's uncertainties throughout retirement. There is a collective responsibility that is built into the CPF system, both through the Government and through members pooling risks in retirement through CPF LIFE.
The whole purpose of the CPF is to avoid the major disadvantages seen by the two schemes that I spoke about, whilst incorporating some of their advantages. It is progressive, like most of the collective pension schemes. But it is financially sustainable, unlike the collective pension schemes. It places no investment risk on the individual, unlike the defined
Page: 49
contribution schemes of individual retirement accounts.
Let me emphasise this, that the reason why the CPF system is both progressive and sustainable, which is a rarity, is because the transfers that take place in the CPF are essentially from the Government Budget, not through transfers from one generation to the next, or promises made to the current generation which, eventually, have to be funded by the next generation. It is transfers that are achieved mainly through the Government Budget and the Government has an AAA rating. That is the strength of the CPF system. It is sustainable, it is progressive, but it achieves its progressivity through transfers from an AAA-rated Government. That is why we retain the whole system of fiscal discipline, prudence and planning for the future that keeps the CPF system both progressive and sustainable.
How do we inject this support? Through Workfare, which is a very significant infusion into the accounts of lower-income workers. Through housing grants for the lower- and middle-income member. Through MediSave top-ups which are now a permanent feature for the Pioneer Generation. MediSave top-ups throughout their retirement years. And through extra interest on smaller balances.
In each of these areas, in each of these elements' of progressivity, there has been an enhancement, a significant enhancement since 2007. To illustrate how significant the Government's role in this aspect of collective responsibility is in the CPF, if we consider a young worker today, taking advantage of all our schemes in the CPF, all the enhancements we have made, a young worker, someone who is at the 10th percentile of incomes today, by the time he retires at age 65, he would have received $200,000 of Government support in his CPF – through Workfare, through the Housing Grant. And I am not counting the interest earned on the Housing Grant; just the original Housing Grant, Workfare and extra interest, it is $200,000 over the course of his working career till 65. Not a small sum.
When Mr Gerald Giam described the CPF system as a defined contribution scheme – that is the way it is referred to sometimes theoretically. But it is, in fact, not just an individual savings scheme. It is a scheme that comprises the individual's savings and significant injections of Government support. It is individual and collective.
We have further enhanced the system by providing additional flexibility as recommended by the CPF Advisory Panel, while keeping its basic strengths. Keep it fair, keep it sustainable. The CPF Advisory Panel has recommended allowing for the flexibility of a 20% lump sum withdrawal of retirement savings at the payout eligibility age. Quite an important recommendation. We had to think very hard about this because we know there is a trade-off in retirement payouts. If you take out 20%, you get lower payouts for the rest of your life. But we decided that this was the right approach to provide a degree of flexibility. And, on top of this, in the Budget, we are enhancing interest for lower balance members, starting
Page: 50
from age 55, to help them accumulate their balances in their retirement years.
It is not a perfect system. It avoids the big disadvantages of the major schemes that we see in the rest of the world, but it has some significant advantages. It is fair, it is sustainable and it takes the risk away from individuals who cannot bear that risk. Not a perfect system, but it is working quite well and it is internationally recognised by the experts as one of the better systems around.
The WP Members of Parliament have suggested further flexibility. In addition to the option of the 20% withdrawal at age 65, they suggested an option of earlier payouts starting from age 60. Looked at in isolation, any proposal for flexibility appears reasonable. When we look at each proposal in isolation, it appears reasonable to provide more choice and flexibility. However, there is a real risk in offering this flexibility that we have to be honest about. It is not a crazy idea, but it is an unwise one because there is a real risk when we offer this flexibility.
It has been tried in other countries. In fact, everywhere it has been tried, the result has been that those who take up this option of early payouts, end up less prepared for retirement. Less prepared because they stopped work earlier, or less prepared because they will have lower payouts through the rest of their lives. The upshot of it, or the real outcome, is that the rest of the society eventually has to take on a larger responsibility to support them, as Ms Chia Yong Yong had reminded us.
The countries that had tried introducing this option of early payouts are now reversing course. It had been tried. Denmark was an example. They introduced it very early on. In 1979, they introduced such a scheme. They called it the voluntary early retirement scheme. In fact, at that time, because they were having a bit of an unemployment crisis, the real aim was to persuade older workers to get out of the workforce and make way for younger workers. Then, the pressures of an ageing population began to take hold; it put great pressure on the pension system's financial sustainability. And the weaknesses of allowing for that early payout became known over time.
So, in 2006 and then 2011, they passed reforms to reverse course, aimed at phasing out this early retirement option with early payouts. It was supported by the opposition and the government at that time. They have had changes in the government and the new government that has come in has stuck to the reforms because the early option was the wrong move for the individual and the wrong move for the rest of society which would have had ended up paying a higher burden. That was what it amounted to. It was a wrong move for the individual and the wrong move for the rest of the society.
Page: 51
The Finnish are another example, very similar example. They introduced it and they have had to reverse course. The French, more recently, just two years ago, 2012, made a concession for some workers to get an earlier payout from age 60. They went against the grain, but only for some workers – those who started work at 18 years old and had made a minimum contribution of almost 42 years into the system – a small group. Even for this group, they realised, just two years later, last year, that it was a mistake. They are going to face growing pension deficits and they realise that this was actually a mistake in helping individuals prepare for their retirement. They now have to take steps to reverse the decision and they are bringing the minimum contribution period up from 41.5 years or so back to 43 years. So, they are extending the minimum contribution period you need to 43 years, before you can have an early payout – which very few people would qualify for.
The UK has also gone against the grain, allowing retirees to take out their retirement savings early. Previously, they had mandated everyone to put their monies in an annuity – it is a bit like our CPF LIFE where you can choose your annuity. Now, they allow the retirees to take it out, partly because the annuities in the market were offering very poor returns, far poorer than what we offer on the CPF. It is probably a political gesture, largely a political gesture – they have allowed retirees to take their money out early and do what they want. And it has been viewed negatively by experts. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has warned that this is detrimental to both retirement income adequacy and incentives to work, and has urged the UK to make a move back to the annuity system.
The reasons are the same all over the world. It is good to offer choice, but part of the human predicament all over the world is that we will all place greater priority on what happens today and the benefits that we can get today, rather than what we get well into the future. And we all underestimate how long we will live. It is true all over the world. It is true in Japan, it is true in Europe, it is true in UK. People place more priority on what they get today than well into the future and they underestimate how long they will live. That is the human predicament.
These countries face the same challenges of rising life expectancies like we do, except that, in our case, it is even longer life expectancy than most. And their whole priority has been to encourage people to work for as long as possible, to save more wherever possible and to defer drawing down on their pensions so that they have enough savings to last through their retirement years. That is the way in which the mature societies are moving – encouraging people to work more, to save more and to defer payouts where possible.
Indeed, in countries like the Netherlands and some of the Nordic countries, they have gone a step further than the norm. The norm is to link the pension age to the retirement age. But in those societies, they have gone a step further. They are now linking it automatically
Page: 52
to life expectancy. So, as life expectancy goes up, the pension age and retirement age will automatically go up. They have agreed on a formula and it is now automatic. They have gone further.
We are not planning on that move ourselves, but these international trends illustrate the challenges that all maturing societies face. We should recognise the challenges honestly and not take positions for their populist appeal, when we know fully that putting such proposals into practice will merely set us back in tackling the larger challenge of ensuring adequate payouts throughout the retirement years.
But we do have to find every way of helping Singaporeans in their 50s and early 60s to get by and support their families, especially if their children are not yet in the working years. We do have to help them. Fortunately, the majority own their homes and have fully paid up their loans by the time they are 65.
In Singapore, 90% of our elderly households own their homes and even amongst our lower-income households, the vast majority own their homes; very different from other societies. In Germany and Denmark, it is barely 20% of those in the bottom quartile who own their homes. In our case, it is a vast majority, over 80%. In Hong Kong, less than 50% of those in the bottom 20% of income earners own their homes. We are in quite a unique situation and that is a real strength of our system.
Typically, someone living in a 3-room flat would have $300,000 in housing equity today. We have provided options and continue to make sure that the options are available to them, friendly to them, to help them unlock part of the equity in their homes if they wish to. Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein has asked for more to be done in this regard and Mr Vikram Nair has suggested what, in effect, amounts to a reverse mortgage scheme, which we have studied carefully and the Minister for National Development will address at the COS.
And it is not just about them being able to unlock equity in their homes, it is about saving on rental costs which are a major burden in retirement in most advanced societies. So, that is a starting advantage, a major advantage – home ownership.
But we want to provide maximum support for individuals to continue working while they can, at a different pace if they wish. We have facilitated employment of older workers through re-employment legislation and we are providing substantial support through Workfare and the Special Employment Credit. It is not often recognised how powerful that support is.
Page: 53
For someone above the age of 65, or, let us say someone at 65, who is a low-wage worker earning, say, between $1,000 and $1,500, the Government is, effectively, paying 20% to 40% on top of what the employer is paying – through Workfare and the Special Employment Credit; the Special Employment Credit of 11.5% and Workfare of 10% to 30%, depending on his income. If it is a worker earning $1,000, basically, it is a 40% top-up that the Government is giving through Workfare and the Special Employment Credit – a very significant incentive to help them. That is why our re-employment rates are high and increasing.
For those who are unable to work due to medical conditions, we have to be sympathetic, and we already allow them to apply for early withdrawal of their CPF. That is important.
Thirdly, we must remain as supportive as possible through our schemes on the ground, through our Social Service Offices (SSOs), so that individuals and families in financial difficulty get help.
So, that is our approach: help people gain their rewards from home ownership; help them stay in the workforce by providing additional support, making sure that all of us give them the dignity they deserve when they remain at work; help people who are unable to work for medical reasons and, for them, there is a special scheme in CPF; but very importantly, help people on the ground through our social network and the various other Government transfer schemes.
Let me go on now to the Silver Support Scheme which, again, is not something that we are introducing just for now but must be sustainable to the future. There has been very good support from Members for the Silver Support Scheme and some have asked questions about how it is going to be funded, how sustainable it will be and so on.
Silver Support and Workfare are the fourth pillar of our social security system. They aim at supplementing incomes so as to mitigate inequalities. And I have to emphasise again that it is not about tackling absolute poverty. It is about mitigating inequality. So, even as wages go up in future, we will still have Workfare and we will still seek to redistribute incomes to the bottom 20% to 30%, even as wages go up. We have to temper inequalities.
Silver Support, likewise, will remain a permanent scheme even as living standards go up in retirement. It is not about tackling absolute poverty or helping those who are the neediest. For that, we have Public Assistance and we have, besides Public Assistance, our social network on the ground, or the SSOs. Silver Support is a redistributive scheme. So, it is not that 30% of our elderly has no other source of support. This is an attempt to temper the
Page: 54
inequalities through life.
I was heartened by the fact that most Members reiterated the importance of the values of personal responsibility and family responsibility. We look after our children when we raise them and our children look after us in our older years. That is a critical part of the Singapore ethic. And Members emphasised that we have got to retain the ethic.
Amongst elderly HDB households with children, close to eight in 10, in fact, are able to rely on their children for regular financial support. This is what the survey showed. And a substantial proportion of those in the bottom 30%, in fact, get support from their children. They also get Government support. Outside of Silver Support, there is other Government support. Significant transfers, in fact. Amongst the bottom 30% of retiree HDB households – the bottom 30% that we are targeting for Silver Support – an individual retiree receives, on average, about $640 a month today from the Government in subsidies and transfers. This is through the GSTV, through CHAS, through the other Government subsidies in healthcare and other areas, and through ComCare.
The question of how Silver Support would be funded came up. Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked this question.
First, let me clarify that this is unlike the Pioneer Generation Package. In the Pioneer Generation Package, we were setting aside funds for a special cohort of Singaporeans who built our country. It is defined by when you were born, not defined by how old you are now and in the future. This is a special cohort of Singaporeans. And it is a commitment made by today's Government. That is why we decided to set aside the funds today from the revenues that we have in this term of Government, to fund the entire cost of the Pioneer Generation Package.
The Silver Support Scheme is different. Like Workfare, it is a permanent scheme for today and tomorrow's retirees, for our future generations of retirees, and it will be funded out of our annual Budget. And that is why we have sized the Silver Support Scheme the right way, both in terms of coverage – avoiding the mistakes seen elsewhere where coverage is extended to everyone – and we have also sized it right in terms of the extent of benefits. Not just for fiscal reasons, but to ensure that we preserve the ethic of family support and community support.
We have built the Silver Support Scheme and its future funding requirements into our fiscal planning. The sums will grow over time as more Baby Boomers retire.
Page: 55
But the far bigger driver of our social expenditures is that of healthcare spending. That is the big driver of future expenditures – besides transport expenditures which I spoke about, particularly over the next 10 years. The driver over the next 10 years and beyond is healthcare expenditures. And that is inevitable because our society is getting older.
But we have a real strength in our system. We are starting from a strong position. Because when our society was young and growing, we practised fiscal discipline. We kept our expenditures trim. Our social expenditures were basically, education, housing and healthcare. We kept social expenditures trim and built up fiscal savings in our first few decades whilst other countries did the opposite. The experience of the advanced countries was that when they were young and growing, they built up their social benefits, in fact, with unfunded commitments, and they are now paying the price.
Our position is exactly the reverse. In our young and growing years, we built up our Reserves which now give a lasting benefit for today's generation and future generations. We have a steady stream from our NIRC which will be sustainable well into the future, as I have explained. The rules on the Reserves ensure that the Reserves will not be depleted and will benefit both current and future generations.
We have prepared ourselves in advance and that must remain the way in which we plan for our Budgets in the decades to come. With the change to incorporate Temasek in the NIR framework and the other tax changes I have introduced, in particular, the increase in the personal income tax rate, we will be in a good position for at least the rest of this decade.
Mdm Speaker, let me now conclude. This Budget concludes the major initiatives of recent years to empower Singaporeans at each stage of their lives. I thank the Workers' Party for its support for all the major thrusts of the Budget. And I trust you will have the courage to take the same position and extend the same support during the elections. These are good programmes and they are important programmes for our future. We should be honest about it, join together and stick to the courage of the conviction that this is the right path for Singapore.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad spoke about the commitments we make in our National Pledge and how the Budget reinforces these commitments, not just this year's Budget, but what we have been doing in recent years – \"to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation\". These values and aspirations are what we started with, but achieving them is continuous work in a changing environment and with a changing society. They are the values we started with. But achieving them is continuous work and we have got to live up to these values with each new generation.
Page: 56
The context in which we now strive to build our future is entirely different from what it was 50 years ago. Our competition is no longer regional but global, as Mr Low Thia Khiang himself acknowledged. It is no longer regional competition. If you read the first Budget speech – Mr Liang Eng Hwa mentioned Mr Lim Kim San's speech – he spoke about Indonesia, about Malaysia. It was about the region and how we earned our place in the region. The competition is now global, it is Asia-wide, it is emerging countries around the world and it is the most advanced countries. We can no longer prosper and progress through hard work alone. Our people have to master deep skills in every field and our enterprises have to bring new ideas to the market and, as Mr Lim Swee Say said, \"fly east and chase sunrises\".
Our society is also becoming more diverse in its aspirations and its needs. Important change. It is a more diverse society, with a greater need to temper disparities in life as our economy matures and as our people get older. So, our strategies, both economic and social, must evolve as the environment around us changes, as the competition changes and as our own society changes. But at the end of the day, it is not just about the economic and social strategies of the Government, it is not just about what we do from one Budget to the next. It is not just about seizing new economic opportunities and strengthening social security.
Most importantly, it is about how we relate to one another as people, the respect we extend to every citizen for the effort that they put in and the care that we extend to one another. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said nearly two decades ago, \"We cannot measure our happiness just by our GDP growth. It is how our families and friends care for each other, how we look after our old and nurture our young. They are what make for a closely-knit society, one we can be proud to belong to.\" Mdm Speaker, I thank you. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam, you have a clarification?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for taking the time to explain why he disagreed with our proposal for an early payout eligibility age. I want to clarify a few points just to make sure that the whole House is clear on what our proposal was.
Firstly, we also did not propose the proposal in isolation. We were not saying just lower the payout eligibility age. To clarify, this is not the same as asking for an entire lump sum withdrawal at age 60. It is really just stretching out the period in which the payouts from CPF are given to members. So, instead of starting from age 65 until death, it is from age 60 until death.
Secondly, it is just an option. We are not saying that everybody has to start at age 60.
Page: 57
Thirdly, I did propose also that there should be more personalised public education on the CPF scheme, especially if our proposal is taken up. It must be explained to the members that there will be consequences for an early withdrawal. We did say that there will be a 6% to 7% decrease in the payout. So, the terms of the early withdrawal, early payout, will really only be attractive to those who really need the money at that point of time. As I explained in my speech, it could be because they are out of work and they cannot find work or they are not able to work for whatever reason.
So, our main point is that life is unpredictable and we cannot presume to know the financial situation of every person at age 60. There might be some members who really have a need, too, and we should give them that flexibility.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Gerald Giam for that clarification. Let me say once again, and I did not mean this rhetorically, it is not a crazy idea. But it would be unwise to move in this direction, because we do have to learn from the experience of other countries that have introduced it.
There is something in human nature that none of us fully understands. We will always place more emphasis on what we can get early. We will take advantage of an option to get something early, even if it is at the expense of what we need later on. And that has been the experience in Denmark, Finland and in several other countries that have had to reverse course.
So, it is not a crazy idea. It is just that we have to be honest about the risks and find ways to help people address their needs, because I agree there is a need. Life is unpredictable, as the Member said. If you are medically unable to work, we will make sure that you are able to draw on your CPF. Find every way in which we can help people stay at work and save for longer, because the monumental challenge that we face in every maturing society, every ageing society, is helping retirement savings stretch throughout life. It is a huge challenge. And we are doing it through the CPF system as well as through the Government Budget, with the advantage of an AAA government that gives assurance that this will be continued.
That is the big challenge. So, the Member has not proposed a crazy idea at all. But as Ms Chia Yong Yong has said – what was the term – she has great unease about it.
I think basically, we have to take lessons from the rest of the world. And we only learn what happens many years after we have introduced schemes. In Denmark, it took 30 years before they reversed course, and with great political difficulty, but they are doing it with both opposition and government agreeing that they have to do it. So, when it comes to
Page: 58
flexibility and choice, we should make haste slowly.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, I just want to seek a clarification. When the Minister said that they reversed course in Denmark, what does it mean? They are not going to continue with early retirement? Because from what I know, they have early retirement at 60, and what is going to happen is that they are going to peg the early retirement to life expectancy. So, it moves. By 2022, it moves. It means early retirement age will probably be 62, 63, and not that they are reversing and they are not going to allow early retirement. They have a normal retirement and they have an early retirement. It is just that early retirement currently is 60, but they are going to peg it to life expectancy, so it moves after 2022.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I am not the Danish Finance Minister and I do not want to get into a detailed discussion on Denmark. But let me assure the Member that they realised that their early decision made in 1979 to allow for early retirement was a mistake; they realised that it is going to impose a cost on the individual as well as the rest of society and they are phasing it out. For those workers who are already benefiting from it, it is not being phased out. But for future workers, it is being phased out. And that is the trend that is being taken in several societies.
Every society is trying to find a way in which the pension age, the pension drawdown age, as well as the retirement age, can move up. And it is not as if it solves all our problems. Some individuals will be in difficulty, because all pension schemes have to deal with trade-offs in retirement. Some individuals will be in difficulty and we have to find ways of helping them. But do not compromise the basic features of the system. Find ways of helping them. And in Singapore, we can do it, we can help them.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.\" (proc text)]
Page: 59
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mdm Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately. With the earlier commencement time, the revised \"guillotine\" time for Head N – Ministry of Foreign Affairs is 5.25 pm today. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure. The revised \"guillotine\" times that I have fixed will also appear in the Official Report. [Please refer to Notice Paper on Guillotine Time.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 1 of 2015","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, contained in Paper Cmd 1 of 2015. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY2015 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 466 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a sitting, the reduction of Question Time and Parliament's resolution to extend Sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members, both from the back and front benches, to adhere to their time limits, as I will be very stringent in my time-keeping.
\tPage: 60
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head N – Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head N (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Madam, I beg to move,
\"That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Madam, at the S Rajaratnam Lecture given on 17 October 2014 by Emeritus Senior Minister (ESM) Goh Chok Tong, he highlighted three objectives that have shaped Singapore's foreign policy over the decades. They are: (a) Preserving Singapore's sovereignty; (b) Enhancing peace in Singapore and the region; and (c) Expanding the international space that Singapore has, which is what I am going to speak about.
Key to all these objectives is the underlining strategy of relevance and international self-assertion.
Madam, the survival record of small states in this history of human civilisation is, simply put, not good. The city states of Greece no longer exist. Small states in ancient China in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States eras did not last for more than 300 to 400 years, at best.
Mr Bilahari Kausikan, our former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and now Ambassador-at-Large, said in a recent lecture on 27 January 2015 that for a small state to survive, it must be relevant. And for it to be relevant, it must be successful and extraordinary. I agree with this concise if not terse observation. This is because, as he noted, the world will probably get along fine without Singapore as an independent and sovereign country.
In the same lecture, Mr Bilahari also said that he was told that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had once said that \"small states are a political joke\".
I know this is kind of hard to stomach and kind of a massive wet blanket as we prepare to indulge in some joyful celebrations as we approach SG50. But it is the kind of hard and
\tPage: 61
stark truth that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has often talked or written about.
The good news is that no-one takes Singapore as a political joke anymore. A strong economy, a credible Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and our role as a transport, finance and trading hub mean that we are relevant. But relevance has to be revisited, reassessed, and cultivated constantly. Norms of relevance for a small state always changes because the world around us is always changing and small states cannot dictate what makes it relevant to others.
One of the concepts of staying relevant is soft power. The concept of soft power is not that new. It was first coined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye in his 1990 book, \"Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power\".
He said, and I quote,
\"A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because the other countries – admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness – want to follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics, and not only to force them to change by threatening military force or economic sanctions. This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.\"
Madam, soft power can be simply described as getting people to do what you want by attraction or co-optation rather than coercion or payment. ESM Goh had mentioned that one of our three foreign policy objectives is that of expanding international space. I believe growing soft power helps to enlarge this international space significantly.
An often-quoted example of a country having lots of soft power is South Korea. Their soft power is embodied in their serials, pop music, food and travel destinations. Another example is that of Britain. Although the British Empire is no more, British soft power is evident in its educational, banking and sporting institutions. The British take their soft power so seriously that in May 2013, their Parliament actually appointed a Committee on Soft Power to examine and report on the use of soft power in furthering the United Kingdom (UK)'s global influence and interests.
Another but older example is that of China in the Tang Dynasty, where its cultural and linguistic influence over Japan remains firmly embedded till today despite it never having conquered Japan.
\tPage: 62
I think Singapore has quite a large amount of soft power. We just do not really think about it or give ourselves sufficient credit for it.
One obvious example is our Singaporean food. The crowds that gather at Singapore festivals abroad are not just Singaporeans. There are many foreigners who love eating our food, whether in Singapore or abroad. Do not underestimate the amount of soft power in a humble plate of Singapore chicken rice or a bowl of laksa served in London or Sydney.
Another obvious source is that of successful Singaporeans in the entertainment scene. Dick Lee, JJ Lin, Kit Chan, Stephanie Sun and so on. They have embellished the image of Singapore and increased its soft power.
Another element of soft power is in our air connectivity: our Changi Airport hub and Singapore Airlines, SilkAir and even our budget airlines.
Madam, notwithstanding our size, our tourist destinations, such as Botanic Gardens, Gardens by the Bay, the Integrated Resorts (IRs), the Night Safari and the Zoo and so on – they also contribute to our soft power. Even our clean streets, or, as the Environment and Water Resources Minister will point out, our \"cleaned streets\" is a source of soft power as well.
Our hospitals attract many patients from the region and the world. While some may criticise and say that this takes away precious resources that can be used to help Singaporeans, our well-designed and well-run hospitals, our world-class doctors and nurses, and even as Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said – a thing as basic as our safe blood supply, contributes to Singapore being a regional medical hub. And being a medical hub that people from all countries flock to for medical treatment is also a great reservoir of soft power.
In the area of education, our reputable world-class public universities that attract talent from the region and abroad, both in the form of academic staff and students, are also bastions of soft power. Our meritocratic system, aided by the prestigious scholarships we give to young people from around the world, adds to our projection of soft power as well.
And here, I know some parents and students will disagree with me. Even our Maths syllabus and textbooks, now used by many schools in faraway places, such as schools in the United States (US), also contribute to our cause for more soft power. Yes, a Singapore mathematics textbook used overseas is also a symbol of soft power.
\tPage: 63
Madam, I can go on and on. But I will stop here. I think, as a small state, we cannot escape from the frailties and realities of being one. No one owed us a living in 1965 and no one owes us one either now, or 50 years later. We need to stay relevant. We need to be successful and extraordinary. This will require extraordinary human endeavour on our part, as Mr Bilahari also said.
But it is also true that some norms of relevance will evolve with time. Soft power is a rapidly evolving norm of relevance and success. Maybe MFA can consider setting up a Directorate of Soft Power to look into and quietly manage the soft power that Singapore has. But having said that, this Directorate will have to be nimble, subtle and work with great finesse. As Joseph Nye also said, \"the best propaganda is not propaganda\".
Madam, as we celebrate SG50, perhaps it is also time for us to take stock and reflect on how we can expand our international space, enhance peace and make more friends through quietly managing and promoting our soft power.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): The Indonesian Ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1996 once shared that when he was assigned to Singapore, he was told that he was going to a country where he was going to work among friends and that his mission was to further improve the existing relationships for the benefit of both countries. He also revealed that the Indonesian Chancery in Singapore is the biggest mission in the world for Indonesia – a sign of the importance placed on Singapore as well as the role that Singapore plays as a confluence of relations with other countries.
Dato' N Parameswaran was High Commissioner of Malaysia to Singapore from 2003 to 2008 at the height of some of the testiest relations between both countries since Separation. He referred to his period of service as being his toughest diplomatic assignment, but cherished the people of goodwill on both sides of the Causeway who were keen to see better relations between Malaysia and Singapore.
Indonesia and Malaysia are our closest neighbours in the region and we share much of our recent history. The past, however, was not always pleasant, from Konfrontasi to Separation, and to some of the hangovers from the 1960s.
Yet, in the last 50 years, relations between Singapore and our two neighbours have progressed rapidly. This is perhaps testament to the importance of personal contact and
\tPage: 64
camaraderie between leaders from both sides, something which Dato' N Parameswaran summarised in the Malay idiom, \"Tak kenal maka tak cinta\", I do not love what I do not know.
Building the personal ties and having the personal touch make a difference in diplomacy. We have made good progress with relations with Malaysia: the railway land issue, Pedra Branca, overflights, for example. With Indonesia, our ties may have been fraught due to Konfrontasi, but since Indonesia recognised Singapore in 1966, we have also progressed by leaps and bounds. Singapore remains Indonesia's biggest foreign investor in 2014.
Singapore also continues to play our part as a good neighbour. With recent incidents, such as the Asian Tsunami, the Bali bombings, MH370, as well as the most recent 2014 Malaysian floods, the relationships are not without road bumps, however. From time to time, Singapore was still a convenient bogeyman. Recent accusations of Singapore stalling on the development of the Mass Rapid Transit Link, of being too much of a complainer of the haze, the naming of the KRI Usman Harun, are just some examples to show that foreign relations are often a careful balancing act.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote in his memoirs of the abang-adik relationship, but he emphasised very strongly that when non-vital interests were at stake, Singapore is prepared to humour those who see themselves as our abang, or elder brother. But not when the adik has legitimate interests to defend.
As we mark 50 years of our relationship with Malaysia and 49 years with Indonesia, we have come a long way. While we treasure and should maintain good relations, there will be challenges. How we keep on an even keel and continue building on the strong bilateral ties between our two neighbours will have implications, not just for us but for the wider region as well.
As Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has mentioned, we are a small state. But although we may be a small state, we have to build an equal and mutually beneficial relationship on the world stage with our neighbours and other regions as well.
Therefore, I would like to seek the Ministry's update on the progress of our relationship with our two biggest neighbours and how we can continue to maintain mutually beneficial relationships with one another.
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Madam, ASEAN, formed in 1967, will celebrate its 50th anniversary in two years. It has played a significant role in promoting the habit of
\tPage: 65
cooperation among its member countries and developing a common strategic outlook, especially in the earlier decades, with the original ASEAN 5.
Strengthening ASEAN was a top priority for the ASEAN leaders in their underlying drive to build a level of strategic stability and power balance in the region. They overcame their differences to ensure regional stability and prosperity.
Since the grouping's expansion to 10 countries, however, there have been concerns whether ASEAN could be as united, given the diverse levels of development and strategic outlooks. In recent years, some countries were also distracted by internal political problems and leadership changes, while others were caught up with rising tensions over the competing territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Hence, there were doubts expressed in some quarters if ASEAN could focus on its integration agenda, maintain its centrality in the region and fulfil its dream of establishing an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by the end of this year.
Unless there is political will among ASEAN leaders to put ASEAN as their top priority, I am worried about its future as bigger powers seek to exert their influence over this region.
The AEC is an important project, not only in terms of the economic benefits, but also from the strategic point of view. Closer economic integration within ASEAN will not only raise living standards but also contribute towards greater regional stability and resilience.
ASEAN countries can leverage on the bigger market of 600 million people to attract international investments and power global growth, thereby strengthening the grouping's bargaining position in dealing with the international community.
The AEC can also narrow the income gaps that remain between the original ASEAN members and the new, through building a more deeply integrated ASEAN economy nested into global markets.
Viewed from these angles, the AEC project is very important not only for the growth of ASEAN, but also for managing economic and geopolitical uncertainties. These are major issues. However, I am not sure if many people in the region, not even in Singapore, understand what the AEC is about or how it benefits or impacts them. It is important for Singapore to also do its part to explain to the people and businesses, so that they can buy into this important project and not view it as just another pronouncement from ASEAN, nothing to do with them.
\tPage: 66
Madam, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions: What is the state of ASEAN today? How is Singapore's relationship with the member countries, especially with Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos? Can the Minister give an update on ASEAN's community building and integration efforts? Is Singapore ready for AEC and how does it plan to plug into it? How does AEC benefit Singaporeans and what will it mean for them in terms of jobs and opportunities? And finally, what are ASEAN's future plans once the AEC is established in 2015?
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, 2015 is a landmark year for ASEAN and in particular, progress towards creating an ASEAN Community under the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) blueprint. In the blueprint, ASEAN nations and peoples are supposed to develop a common identity and build a caring and sharing society.
I first raised the topic of the ASCC four years ago during the 2011 Committee of Supply (COS) debate. During that debate, then Foreign Minister George Yeo indicated that this year, 2015, was to be an administrative red line drawn across all the plans for ASEAN integration – political, economic and socio-cultural. Specifically on the ASCC, Mr Yeo had indicated a hope that \"the importance of ASEAN would be more deeply felt by our citizens, especially the young, and we need a multi-pronged approach, including lessons about ASEAN in schools, sports and cultural activities and greater use of ASEAN symbols. In addition, Mr Yeo highlighted the flying of the ASEAN flag alongside the national flag at overseas diplomatic missions of ASEAN members, and possible campaigning for ASEAN to host the FIFA World Cup in 2030.
I would like to ask what progress Singapore has made on these fronts since 2011. Will the Ministry also indicate what other moves are in place for Singapore and ASEAN countries to more fully realise the vision laid out in the ASCC blueprint and to address the recommendations made in the 2014 mid-term review of the ASCC blueprint?
Prof Tan Tai Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, Singapore's relationships with its neighbours are broad and multifaceted and the majority of the engagements seem to hover around high-level exchanges between leader-to-leader, government-to-government and military-to-military.
There was some discussion in the previous debates about the role of cultural diplomacy. In February 2014, a question was raised about promoting Singapore's cultural and creative assets as part of Singapore's cultural diplomacy to extend soft power – which we had just
\tPage: 67
heard a while ago – and influence overseas.
Perhaps, with SG50, we will need to take stock of how well we have done on these fronts and to map out a strategy which features cultural diplomacy as a platform for Singapore's public diplomacy.
I would like to ask: does Singapore have a cultural diplomacy strategy that is integrated with our overall foreign policy, economic development and takes full advantage of the public-people-private sectors? Cultural diplomacy can help to create a foundation of trust and shared interests with citizens of countries. It can create enduring relationships with foreign societies beyond changes in governments.
Cultural diplomacy must focus on a wider society-facing remit to embrace neutral platforms for people-to-people contact which will serve as a flexible vehicle for rapprochement with countries where diplomatic relations have been strained or are absent. This is our best insurance against misunderstanding, hatred and terrorism targeted at our small city state and our values.
At the core of cultural diplomacy is diplomatic talent. Public and cultural diplomacy can be skilfully executed only if officers are willing to spend sufficient time overseas. MFA should actively recruit young people with the requisite language skills into the diplomatic service and who are prepared to invest in understanding foreign cultures.
I would like to mention the British Council, the Goethe Institute and the Berlin Institute for Cultural Diplomacy as examples of cultural diplomacy institutes that have been very effective. The Berlin Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is Europe's largest independent cultural exchange organisation which hosts programmes that facilitate interaction among individuals of all cultural, academic and professional backgrounds from across the world.
I would like to give two specific suggestions for cultural diplomacy.
First, expanding the scale of cultural exchanges among our youths. As youths are the future of our countries, it is essential for the next generation of Singaporeans to have opportunities to start engaging and interacting with their regional counterparts from young. The National Youth Council has been at the forefront championing these youth exchanges for a while and I would like to argue that these engagements should be expanded so that more youths can benefit from them. The exposure and engagement will help young Singaporeans and our neighbours to forge vital friendships and appreciate the dynamics of our regional environment.
\tPage: 68
Second, understanding our shared history and heritage. Singapore shares a long and rich history and heritage with the region. As findings from recent archaeological excavations would reveal, Singapore has a rich history as a thriving maritime port in the Malay Archipelago dating back more than 700 years. It would be useful for our agencies to work with their regional counterparts to showcase the connectedness of the region before European imperialism carved out the region into different parts. This form of historical consciousness would help all of us to better appreciate a widely known yet not so well understood part of our shared history.
With the above initiatives in place and greater attention paid to people-to-people engagement, the mutual trust and understanding forged between the people of Singapore and our neighbouring countries would go a long way in ensuring peace and stability. We will have a good chance of building a strong regional community.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Madam, Singapore thrives as a trading and financial hub for our region. As such, regional stability has always been vital for our continued growth and prosperity. Scholarly studies by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies have mentioned that there may not be much that ASEAN can do to bring about peace between the two major powers. But it is also arguing that it is vital for ASEAN to stand united, be resolute in preventing major power rivalry from spreading into our region.
Relationships between and among major powers, such as the US, China and Japan, have an impact on regional stability. But the deep distrust has been undermining relationships. The Sino-Japanese conflict over their interpretation of World War II history, along with territorial disputes, further complicates matters. China has, in recent times, demonstrated a greater assertiveness over its displeasure towards Japan. It has even taken steps to organise a high-profile parade this year to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. Leaders of major countries involved in the war would be invited, along with other countries in the region, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement recently. President Xi Jinping is overseeing the event, including the military parade, a reception and an evening gala dinner.
I also note the US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman spoke at an event in Washington recently on an upcoming meeting of the Foreign Ministers of China, Japan and Korea. She pointed out that lashing out at each other is not only going to fuel nationalism. I quote the senior US diplomat: \"It is not hard for a political leader anywhere to earn cheap applause by vilifying a former enemy. But such provocations produce paralysis, not
\tPage: 69
progress.\"
The territorial disputes in the South China Sea are still open sores which have not healed. The US has expressed its commitment to take on a greater interest and presence in the region. President Barack Obama has reassured his Asia Pacific allies about Washington's strategic shift towards the region as he sends a strong message to a rising China with a vow to \"deepen our engagement using every element of our power\" in his policy speech during his visit to Australia last November.
In view of all these events, what is MFA's assessment of the state of Sino-US and Sino-Japan relationships? What effect will they have on the regional stability in ASEAN? How cohesive is ASEAN's stand on the issue of China's territorial claims? We are also in a unique position where we are able to adopt a more objective, neutral and fairer attitude towards this matter. We have good bilateral relations with all countries and we are not a claimant state. We have had the honour of participating and even hosting several regional dialogues and summits. What other roles can Singapore play in ensuring a regional architecture that is conducive for peace, stability and growth?
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang): Madam, the US and China are the world's two largest economies. They are also very important partners for Singapore.
The relationship between Singapore and the US is a close, broad-based and long-standing one. Singapore continues to enjoy robust economic, defence as well as political ties with the US. For instance, the US is our largest foreign direct investor. The US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was also the first FTA that the US signed with any Asian country.
Singapore also enjoys strong and substantive relations with China, ranging from economic to people-to-people ties. For instance, China is Singapore's largest trading partner. We have established two government-to-government projects in China – the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-City. The year 2015 is also significant for bilateral ties – it is the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and China.
In this context, what is MFA's assessment of the state of Singapore's relations with China and the US respectively? How can Singapore grow these two relationships further?
The US-China bilateral relationship is often regarded as the most important bilateral relationship in the world. Even slight changes in the balance of this relationship will have deeper ramifications for us. Singapore, as a small country, seeks to maintain its relevance to
\tPage: 70
both powers. But while MFA has always stressed Singapore's neutrality, it is not always possible to be perceived as neutral.
What can MFA do to reinforce the sense of neutrality of Singapore's position?
At this juncture, I would like to thank and commend MFA for always quietly working in the background and doing the important but unglamorous work of advancing Singapore's strategic interests. One such important initiative is the annual Shangri-La Dialogue.
The 2014 Shanghai-La Dialogue gave an illuminating insight into the state of US-China-Japan relations. Important speeches were made by Mr Hagel, Mr Abe and General Wang during the dialogues. In light of Singapore's status as a trading and financial hub, the relations between and amongst major powers in the region would have an impact on Singapore's continued growth and prosperity.
In this context, what is MFA's assessment of the state of major power relations and the effects on Singapore and the region?
The Chairman: Ms Ellen Lee, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Madam, on the South China Sea, more than a year ago, the Philippines decided to take China to the tribunal under the auspices of the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea. The Chinese refused to take part in the proceedings, insisting instead on a bilateral approach to settle the dispute over a vast, oil-rich area. Since then, Vietnam has said that it would not rule out taking China to the tribunal as well, following China's move of its largest oil rig into the waters contested by both. What is the Ministry's response to the situation?
On North-East Asia, despite strong concerns voiced by China and South Korea, Japanese Prime Minister Abe led his government to approve a re-interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to give more powers to its Self-Defence Forces. In Japan, there are voices that oppose his move as the change is deemed illegitimate. What is the Ministry's stand on this? Is this an indication that despite Japanese Prime Minister Abe's meeting with China's President Xi Jinping after the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) where both sides sought to prevent the tension between the two countries from worsening, the
\tPage: 71
Northeast Asian tension remains tense as before?
On another note, ISIS has threatened to attack Taiwan 101 after its recent execution of a Japanese reporter which was blamed on the Japanese government's refusal to give in to its demands. Does this indicate that the ISIS threat will add even more tension to Northeast Asia or will it encourage a more collaborative approach to a common enemy?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, recent years have seen an escalation of tension over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. China has been increasingly assertive in its claims to islands that are hundreds of miles from its own borders but within the Exclusive Economic Zones of our ASEAN neighbours – Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. China also claims waters within its self-declared \"nine-dash line\" demarcation which envelops almost the entire South China Sea. To assert its claims, China has been building airstrips and facilities and reclaiming land on and around these features. As The Economist put it: \"The extent and speed of China's building boom on the disputed islands flout the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties that signed in 2002 with ASEAN.\"
Singapore is not a claimant to any of these disputes and has maintained that these disputes can only be settled by the parties directly concerned. I appreciate that Singapore seeks to build friendly relations with all countries, including China. However, I am concerned that China's extensive and robust territorial claims may, now or in the future, infringe on freedom of navigation and overflight for vessels and planes travelling to and from Singapore. This could impact our trade with the world, which is vital, and also our security.
The Minister has said before in Parliament that only a united ASEAN can credibly play a central role in engaging major powers towards the common goal of promoting regional peace, stability and prosperity. I would, therefore, like to ask: should the actions of China in the South China Sea infringe on the freedom of navigation and overflight for ASEAN members, including Singapore, what will Singapore do on its own, as well as in solidarity with ASEAN, to respond and protect our interests?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit \tTimah): Mdm Chair, over the years, Singapore has built up and maintained very good relations with key regional partners, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea. For example, Singapore and Japan share many common interests on regional and international issues, including the security situation in the Asia Pacific region. Singapore and the Republic of Korea also enjoy broad and deep ties anchored on strong
\tPage: 72
economic cooperation.
This year also marks the 40th year of diplomatic relations between Singapore and the Republic of Korea. I would like to seek an update from MFA on the state of Singapore's relations with Japan and the Republic of Korea.
Going down south to Australia, 2015 is also the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Australia. Australia was among the first countries to recognise Singapore's Independence in 1965. For the past 50 years, Singapore and Australia enjoy warm and substantive ties in a wide range of areas, such as trade, investment, defence, education and environment. The two countries signed FTA that comes into force in July 2003. I would like to seek an update on Singapore-Australia relations and how the relationship can be further strengthened.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, Singapore and India have traditionally had good bilateral ties and fostered partnerships in trade, defence and scientific research. Recent developments and collaboration between Singapore and India have been positive and show promise of greater things to come. One example is the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding in December 2014 to prepare the master plan for and develop the new capital city in South India's Andhra Pradesh.
Would MFA provide an update on Singapore-India relations and what are some future plans that Singaporeans can look forward to, specifically in terms of business, employment and skills training opportunities?
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, you have three cuts. Please take them together.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Thank you, Chairman. The situation in the Middle East is dynamic and extremely volatile, changing even up to many times in 24 hours. It represents a complex and intricate network, with even new political systems emerging.
The long-drawn Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process continues, or perhaps a better description is the multiple long periods of \"stand-still\". The Iranian Nuclear programme is still looming in the background, despite multiple high-level checks conducted over the years. The Al Qaeda threat continues to simmer, whilst the Arab Spring series of protests leads to serious destruction and humanitarian crises. The latest rapidly progressive situation being
\tPage: 73
the ISIS situation. With its widespread network and savvy new media and social media presence and tactics, it appears to be gaining extreme traction worldwide.
Can I have an update on the region and, in particular, the threat posed by the enlarging ISIS network? How is Singapore monitoring our students and business personnel who live or travel to the region?
The EU has been a long-term partner of Singapore's on many fronts .Trade has been one of the major areas of collaboration. Central to the relationship is that it will provide prosperity and security to our people and for us to also rethink and review the balance of national interests.
New collaborations in the areas of cyber and maritime security, humanitarian and disaster relief, as well as the global challenge of addressing extremism are also on the cards. President Tony Tan's recent high-level visit to the UK also reinforced some of our bilateral and multilateral collaborations and groupings.
Can the Minister give us a brief update on Singapore's relations with Europe as we are celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations? How does the EU fare in the area of trade diplomacy with Singapore and Asia in the larger context?
Singapore, being a small country with a lack of natural resources, is always looking at greater partnerships and engaging emerging and new markets globally, for alternative resources and alternative sites. This also helps in nurturing bilateral and multilateral relationships between us and the leaders of the next generation in these countries. Of late, Singapore has launched more visits, engagements and partnerships, and even collaborations with countries in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
Our bilateral trade quantum is also increasing with these parts of the world. Of particular interest, when engaging these emerging markets, would be the areas of renewable energy, green technology and also sustainable development.
Can the Ministry update us on further developments and collaborations, including perhaps new FTAs or memoranda of understanding (MOUs)? Can we also have an update on
\tPage: 74
the European Union-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which was started to deepen economic, cultural and political cooperation? How about our Air Services Agreement with the five Latin American countries, namely, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Uruguay and Paraguay? What has been the quantum in the increase in people and trade traffic? With the evolving interest in these regions, is Singapore also planning more student and people-to-people exchanges?
Mr David Ong (Jurong): Mdm Chair, many of us here in Singapore may not be very familiar with the goings-on nor the growing significance of the northern polar region. However, developments in the Arctic, thousands of miles away, can have profound impact on us here in Singapore.
The impact of climate change in the Arctic is attributed to extreme weather, such as the longer than usual dry spells and massive rainfall in Singapore. As ice caps are melting irreversibly, scientists predicted that the sea level is set to rise in Singapore by close to a metre by the end of the century. This will erode our coastal borders and land mass.
The development of the Arctic Shipping routes and some term it as the next \"Silk Route\" – is able to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific. Whilst the transpolar sea and the northwest passage posed navigational challenges due to thick multilayer ice, harsh weather and complex straits for now, the Arctic shipping routes, however, remain a real possibility. With melting ice sheets and better ships, such as the Double Acting ships and stronger ice breaker freighters, the opening of these sea routes would have profound impact on our trade, shipping and port industry.
What is the Ministry's political assessment of the developments in the Arctic? How can Singapore's role as a permanent observer in the Arctic Council help deepen its diplomatic ties with nations in the Arctic and further represent Singapore's interests?
The Chairman: Mr Alvin Yeo. Not in the Chamber. Order. I propose to take the break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
\tPage: 75
at 3.18pm until 3.35pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.35pm.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Madam, I thank the hon Members for their comments.
I thank Mr Sitoh Yih Pin for his statement on our international strategy. He highlighted two key tenets of our foreign policy: one, the realities that small states must contend with; and, two, the importance of maintaining Singapore's relevance in the world.
At SG50, it is useful to restate the realities that have shaped our foreign policy: one, our small size – the lack of a hinterland and natural resources; two, our multiracial, multi-lingual society; and three, the evolving geo-political situation, featuring competition between major powers.
In this context, three imperatives have driven our foreign policy engagement since 1965. One, the need to protect our independence and territorial integrity; two, the need to maintain our relevance in the international system; and three, the need to assert our right to chart our own destiny as a sovereign nation.
It is useful to recall what our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in 1966, and I quote, \"A foreign policy for Singapore must be one as to encourage, first, the major powers in the world to find it – if not in their interests to help us – at least in their interests for us not to go worse\"; and he added, \"We must always offer to the rest of the world a continuing interest in the type of society we project\".
That remains valid today.
At the 2009 S Rajaratnam Lecture, Mr Lee again said, and I quote, \"Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection. We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued survival and
\tPage: 76
prosperity as a sovereign and independent nation. Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted.\"
Over the last 50 years, we have developed strong and sustainable partnerships at the bilateral, regional and international levels, created international space – economic, political and strategic – that we need to advance and defend our interests.
I agree with Mr Sitoh's observations on the uses of soft power to enhance our relevance in international relations. We have been doing so. He specifically suggested that we set up a secretariat to monitor this. I can assure him that in my Ministry, this is one of the key priorities from the Minister downwards.
Our relevance and soft power come from our success. No one will pay us attention if we are a failed state. So, we have to ensure that we are relevant internationally and we must remain exceptional. But we neither seek nor claim to be a model for others. But because of our success, people come to study our governance model and economic policies. We must also remember the support from our friends around the world who helped us to where we are today. We learn from others. For that, we should, where we can, give back to the international community what we can.
The Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) is the primary platform through which we share our development experience. And over 80,000 public service officers from around the world have come to Singapore to study our programmes.
Our relevance in international relations is only, of course, a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. We need to be relevant so that others will engage and cooperate with us. That will allow us to work with others to advance our national interests and shape and strengthen the regional architecture. That is particularly crucial in ASEAN. We need a stable, peaceful and prosperous region for economic growth.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about our role in ensuring a regional architecture that is conducive for peace, stability and growth. Specifically, Ms Irene Ng made a number of comments, as a sharp observer of international relations, a very nuanced observer. She asked about the state of ASEAN which is a very big question, ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN's future plans after 2015. I will try and answer them as well as I can. Prof Tan Tai Yong asked about progress in ASEAN.
As Members will be aware, strengthening the regional architecture, with ASEAN at its core, has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy. We work closely with other ASEAN member states to preserve ASEAN Centrality. We try and keep the regional architecture
\tPage: 77
open and inclusive. A strong and united ASEAN provides a framework to maintain peace and stability.
ASEAN creates a neutral platform for key stakeholders and major powers, in and outside the region, to engage in dialogue and to maintain peace and cooperate in various sectors.
We also work closely with our ASEAN neighbours to build and maintain a cohesive, prosperous region. Again, not an end in itself, but as a means to creating a better livelihood for all our people.
As part of the regional integration efforts, the ASEAN Community will be established by December 2015. A key focus is the AEC. Ms Irene Ng asked about the benefits of the AEC to Singapore. The AEC will integrate and transform ASEAN into a single regional market. It will mean a freer flow of goods, services, investments, skilled labour and capital within ASEAN.
There remain, however, issues to be sorted out. It is by no means something that is a clear and easy strait. There have been questions raised about the AEC possibly leading to job loss, whether our SMEs will be at disadvantage, whether foreigners will be privileged over Singaporeans.
There is some misperception here. Let us think about this. Singapore grew at an average of 3.6% over the last two years. Thirty percent of Singaporeans go to university every year. About 46% go to polytechnics and a substantial number of the rest go on to some form of tertiary education. Almost 100% of the cohort, we try and make them highly skilled with good education. We want to grow those skills even further. Our graduate population as a percentage – polytechnic population, the population with skills from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) as a percentage – are all increasing. But Singapore itself is a very small market. We need access to a larger market.
We have to be well-connected to the region to prosper and create jobs for our people. Look at ASEAN. It grew at about 5.3% annually in the recent past, outstripping Singapore's growth; some of the countries within ASEAN grow even faster. Taken together, the countries of ASEAN form the seventh largest economy in the world.
An integrated ASEAN will benefit every ASEAN member country, including Singapore. Every ASEAN country will benefit in its own way through the AEC. For us, the AEC provides our people and companies with greater opportunities across ASEAN. You look at it in terms of the individual, professionals, people with skills, people with qualifications from across different sectors – ITE, polytechnic, university – will have a broader market. If you look at
\tPage: 78
our companies, likewise, they will have a broader market.
Let us put it another way, look at MNCs. All those people working in MNCs in Singapore, their jobs are dependent on the MNCs being able to export out of Singapore. Singapore itself is not enough of a market. So, the greater the market, the more the benefits for a highly-educated, highly-skilled population that exists in Singapore.
And we enjoy a unique position within ASEAN. We are a centre for capital. We have a safe, stable and secure environment that is conducive for business. There is rule of law. Singapore can become the New York of ASEAN. Our choice is to be plugged into the AEC and benefit from it, or erect walls and prevent our companies and our people from reaping the benefits of integration. Are we better off with only our small domestic market or do we want to be part of the seventh largest economy in the world? As a centre of the seventh largest economy of the world!
ASEAN has signed eight Mutual Recognition Agreements. These agreements facilitate the movement of skilled labour in the following professions: accountancy, architecture, dentistry, engineering, medicine, nursing, quantity -surveying and tourism. But those who seek jobs must meet domestic regulations and standards set by the national professional bodies. The risk for us is not that the AEC will come into full force; actually, it is the reverse, that there will be various hurdles set up by the different countries or their national bodies that prevent our people from fully benefiting from this integration. Integration has got to benefit everyone.
Madam, the integration and community-building efforts cannot stop on 31 December 2015. We are looking beyond 2015. We are working with our neighbours to develop the Post-2015 Vision for the ASEAN Community. That is expected to be ready at the end of the year under Malaysia's chairmanship.
We need to continue to promote a greater understanding of ASEAN to our people, especially the young, on how ASEAN can be more meaningful to them.
Over the years, ASEAN has cooperated to improve the quality of life of its people. We adopted the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) blueprint. That blueprint aims to build a people-centred and socially responsible ASEAN Community. Ms Sylvia Lim had a number of questions on that.
\tPage: 79
At the ASEAN level, the ASCC addresses the following broad areas for cooperation: human development, social welfare and protection, social justice and rights, ensuring environmental sustainability, building the ASEAN identity and narrowing the development gap. There are about 339 action lines in the ASCC blueprint. They are being implemented through various activities undertaken by the ASCC sectoral bodies. The ASEAN Secretariat tracks implementation of the ASCC blueprint. Unlike the AEC with tangible targets, the 339 action lines in the ASCC blueprint seek to achieve aspirational and qualitative objectives. For example, the promotion of a sense of community among ASEAN citizen; there are specific items identified as action items, but the ultimate objective is aspirational.
Specific to what we do, in the context of young people and the youths of ASEAN, there have been a number of activities that have been undertaken: ASEAN+3 Youth Caucus, ASEAN Professional Youth Volunteer Corps, ASEAN Youth Humanitarian Seminar. Given the various levels of economic development, different ASEAN member states would naturally have different development implementation priorities. For example, some ASEAN member states focus on education and healthcare, whilst others focus on security.
Singapore has actively participated in and supported the activities that focus on youths, for example, the ASEAN Youth Competition on Arts and Human Rights held in 2014 which aimed to raise awareness of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration amongst the youths in ASEAN. We have given all of these activities publicity, both on the MFA website and I have put it on my Facebook page. For those Members who are interested in what foreign affairs does, they can follow me on Facebook.
As regards FIFA and 2030, ASEAN has directed the Youth Ministers to go and study the possibility of hosting the World Cup in 2030. It is a complex undertaking. It is still being studied because, not least, you need to coordinate the 10 countries and see how the events can be held across 10 countries. So, that is being studied.
We will continue, together with the other ASEAN countries, to look at how we can bring across this concept to ASEAN, to the individual on the street and the young people. And at the Foreign Ministry level, our Ambassadors-at-Large have been supportive of youth initiatives in order to raise awareness of ASEAN. For example, the Singapore Polytechnic Annual Youth Model ASEAN Conference.
Prof Tan Tai Yong spoke about the need for exchanges within ASEAN. I agree with him that there is a need for these exchanges to go beyond the political and institutional level. There is a need for closer engagement to extend also to the people-to-people level.
\tPage: 80
In December, we will host the Eighth ASEAN Para Games for the first time. We will welcome over 1,000 athletes with disabilities. The Games will serve as a platform to enhance inclusiveness and promote ASEAN solidarity.
Under the ASCC blueprint, we will explore concrete initiatives to strengthen people-to-people linkages and promote understanding of ASEAN. And, of course, we will work closely with our ASEAN colleagues and Dialogue Partners.
Mr Alex Yam has sought an update on Singapore-Malaysia ties. He has also asked about our relations with Indonesia under the new administration.
Madam, our relations with both our immediate neighbours are stable and good. Relations with Malaysia have made steady progress over the years. Our Prime Minister and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak have had many good meetings.
They have made good progress on many fronts. The Next Leaders Retreat will be in Singapore on 5 May. Malaysia and Singapore are working together on key projects, including the iconic projects in Iskandar Malaysia, the High Speed Rail and the Rapid Transit System. We also help each other in times of need. The upcoming Retreat will be another step in keeping up the positive momentum.
With Indonesia, we also developed a positive relationship. We look forward to President Joko Widodo's introductory visit to Singapore. The Prime Minister met the President at his inauguration last October and he had a private breakfast in Singapore last November. We look forward to maintaining a strong relationship with the new administration. And of course, we are always looking into ways to expand mutual cooperation. We are Indonesia's largest foreign investor. There is potential for us to do much more together. We will also explore strengthening collaboration in areas such as defence, environment and people-to-people links.
We will continue to maintain our special relationship with Brunei. His Majesty, the Sultan of Brunei, visited Singapore last year. Both sides reaffirmed the excellent state of bilateral relationships. Both are committed to exploring new areas of cooperation. We are focused, in particular, on expanding links between our younger leaders and youths on both sides.
We have also broadened and deepened our relationships with the rest of our Southeast Asian neighbours.
\tPage: 81
With Thailand, we continue to enjoy excellent relations. The current government has promised stability. Thailand is ASEAN's second largest economy. It is important for us that Thailand succeeds. This is in Singapore's and ASEAN's interests. We wish Thailand well. Prime Minister Prayut is expected to visit Singapore for a Leaders' Retreat this month. We look forward to working with Thailand. We want to strengthen Singapore-Thailand relations and promote ASEAN's interests.
Let me now turn to the broader region – US, China and Japan. Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Ellen Lee, Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the situation in the broader Asia Pacific region, including relations among the US, China, Japan, as well as the situation in the South China Sea.
There have been positive developments in the relationships in the countries in the Northeast Asia region. Tension between Japan and China has subsided somewhat after the meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Xi Jinping last November. The situation between the two countries, however, remains fragile.
Good, cordial relations between the major powers are important, because that will help foster regional economic development and prosperity. We welcome Japan's desire to play a more proactive role in the region to contribute to regional peace and stability. This should be broad-based and not just focused on security.
Meanwhile, the risks of conflict remain in the Korean Peninsula, as well as the South and East China Seas.
The Code of Conduct in the South China Sea has been ASEAN's consistent goal. Over the past year, there have been a number of developments. These developments have lent urgency to the need for a COC to be concluded between ASEAN and China.
China has indicated its willingness to work towards a COC. It most recently repeated its commitment at the 17th ASEAN-China Summit. Singapore will work closely with ASEAN member states and China to expedite negotiations on the COC. Meanwhile, we continue to urge all parties to refrain from actions that could escalate tensions in the South China Sea.
Mr Gerald Giam expressed specific concern about China's, as he put it, extensive building on reefs, islands and the militarisation of those reefs and islands. He asked about the threat to freedom of navigation and pointed out that that is a serious risk for us. I thank him for these comments because if freedom of navigation is impacted, for us, it is an economically existential issue. It is as simple as that, because we have two major arteries: north-east, north-west. North-west through the Straits of Malacca; north-east through the
\tPage: 82
South China Sea. Our external trade is three to four times that of our gross domestic product (GDP), and free flow is, therefore, vital to our very existence as a sovereign state.
His question is what will we do if China threatens freedom of navigation – what will we do as Singapore, and what will we do as ASEAN. At this stage, that remains a hypothetical question, because China has confirmed at its highest levels – Prime Minister Li Keqiang himself and through various other official platforms – that China guarantees freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
The question is also hypothetical for another reason because we cannot presuppose, one way or another, whether China is entitled to build on these islands and reefs, because that is a circular question. It depends on whether China owns those islands and to what extent it has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and to what extent it has territorial sea and whether these are islands which are capable of generating either territorial sea or EEZ. Those are questions on which we take no position. They are to be sorted out among the different claimant states and subject to international law.
Given that all those scenarios are hypothetical and given that China's assurances on freedom of navigation have been given at the highest levels, our task is to focus on the Code of Conduct to make sure how parties interact with each other, when they engage each other in the high seas.
If, for some reason, there are issues of freedom of navigation, what is currently available are platforms for ASEAN and Singapore to engage China at the highest levels. ASEAN provides a platform – I earlier talked about ASEAN +1 and ASEAN + 3 – and a variety of other platforms have been set up where these issues can be discussed with China and taken up at the Leaders' level, at the Foreign Ministers' level, at the senior officials' level. Those are the very purpose of the platforms to discuss these issues.
At the same time, it is important to remember that the ASEAN-China partnership is a broad-based one. It is not restricted to the South China Sea. It is much broader than that. China is either the number one or number two trading partner for almost every country in ASEAN. China is the largest investor in most countries in ASEAN and, if not the largest, then the second largest.
If you look at how the regional architecture is developing, what China has done, in terms of its relationship in the last few years, look at mainland Southeast Asia. It is being criss-crossed with the infrastructure, often financed by Chinese capital and built by Chinese
\tPage: 83
companies, which integrates mainland Southeast Asia effectively with southern China. The mainland Southeast Asian countries welcome that. It increases their economic vibrancy and the whole region is becoming integrated economically. Beyond that, China's relationship with each of the ASEAN countries is being upgraded to a very high level. Some of it is based on economic diplomacy; some of it, for example, as in our case, is based on long relationships and mutual understanding.
In addition, China is also the engine or motor that drives some of the very important regional initiatives, for example, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that is being set up which will finance a large number of projects in the region. On the sea, of course, there are the developments that Mr Gerald Giam has mentioned. There are other developments as well.
The changes are happening very quickly, and the response to these changes depends really on the countries involved. Some of the countries, if you take Cambodia, Laos, they have no claims in the South China Sea. They see the benefits of these changes; all of us see the benefits in these changes. As we take a view, it is important that we understand what the changes are. It is a situation where, if you do not keep your eye on the ball and you come back to it two years later, the picture looks very different. And the countries and their alignments look very different.
We will do our best to achieve a balance. But we keep making the point, which sometimes sounds boring, but we are a small country. We try to keep relations on an even keel, and we take over as coordinator of ASEAN-China dialogue relations at a very interesting time, later this year.
Madam, we have limited influence over major power relations. But over the years, we have created a small, niche role for ourselves. We have done this through our active promotion and participation on regional platforms. These platforms involve the major powers. We try to be an honest broker in dealing with these issues in our relations with the major powers. We work closely with like-minded countries to encourage the constructive engagement of the big powers in our region.
In the context of the strategic balance in the Asia Pacific, I also want to mention Australia. We enjoy strategic convergence with Australia on key issues. We are working towards a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP). The CSP will be launched later this year by Prime Minister Lee and Prime Minister Abbott.
While we enjoy excellent relations with our partners, there are global challenges. These can complicate not only relations between nations, but also affect our own people. I can,
\tPage: 84
therefore, understand Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Ms Ellen Lee's queries. They asked about the threats posed by the expanding ISIS network and its impact on the region.
The expanding ISIS network is a serious threat to global security. We are not immune. ISIS is really the latest manifestation of the forces that inspire religious radicalisation, extremism. We face risks in the form of terrorism arising from returned fighters as well as sympathisers of ISIS. All countries in the region have a strong interest to work together to address this. We have taken a clear, unambiguous position. We have condemned the actions of ISIS. We are doing our part to support the international coalition against ISIS.
In Asia, countries have also taken a firm stance against the actions of ISIS. They are taking steps to address the threat of extremism. They have done this both domestically and through international cooperation. In this context, Singapore will be organising an East Asia Summit Symposium on Religious Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration in April this year. This is to share best practices among member countries on tackling extremism. It is in the interest of all countries in the region to work together and deal with this threat.
Madam, there are fundamentals, strategic imperatives that have shaped our foreign policy. These fundamentals and strategic imperatives will continue shape our foreign policy in the years ahead. We have to find ways of staying relevant. We must continue to nurture and build on existing partnerships networks, deepen regional integration. To achieve this, maintaining a premier foreign service is crucial.
In terms of resources, MFA's staff is our greatest asset. Given the increasingly complex external environment, there will always be competing demands for the time and attention of our officers. They will continue to give their best even in times of resource constraints. However, inevitably, one has to recognise that there is a limit to what can be achieved when there are severe constraints. As an organisation, we will continue to try and prioritise, allocate our resources effectively, and our officers will try to protect and advance Singapore's interests on the global stage. Minister Grace Fu and Senior Minister of State Masagos will answer the other questions.
The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Thank you, Madam. Ms Irene Ng had asked about Singapore's relationship with ASEAN countries. Minister Shanmugam has covered Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Thailand. I will now cover the other ASEAN neighbours. Our relations with them are strong as we continue to deepen our relationships and support them in their development and integration into the ASEAN Community.
\tPage: 85
Myanmar is in the midst of significant political and economic reforms. Singapore continues to invest in Myanmar's development as we strengthen our links with the government and people for the benefit of both countries. For example, we have been working towards the establishment of the Singapore-Myanmar Vocational Training Institute in Yangon later this year which will contribute to Myanmar's efforts in developing skilled labour.
With Vietnam, we continue to implement our Strategic Partnership on the basis of mutual respect, trust and ensuring a balance of benefits. We celebrated 40 years of diplomatic relations with Laos in 2014 and will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Thailand and Cambodia this year.
Singapore also stands ready to assist our neighbours during difficult times. President Tony Tan visited the Philippines last year and made a special visit to Tacloban, an area devastated by Typhoon Haiyan. He also handed over Singapore's contributions to the Philippines' relief and reconstruction efforts.
On the United States and China, Mr Ong Teng Koon had asked about the state of Singapore's relations with the US and China, including how we can further grow these relationships. Both the US and China remain key partners for Singapore and for many of our neighbours. They have important roles to play in ensuring continued stability and growth in the region.
Singapore's political, economic and security ties with the US remain strong and substantive. Prime Minister Lee and Minister Shanmugam made separate visits to Washington in June and May last year and met President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry respectively.
Our relationship with the US is underpinned by strong institutional frameworks and processes that have been established over the last decades. These include the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) that frames our defence partnership and cooperation, and the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) which continues to be the cornerstone of our economic relationship. In fact, the US is our top foreign investor. More recently, MFA and the US State Department conducted our Third Strategic Partnership Dialogue in Washington in February this year. We will also be renewing our Third Country Training Programme to deliver more impactful joint technical assistance to the ASEAN region in 2015.
China – China's growth and prosperity bring benefits to the region. It is the top trading partner of many ASEAN countries, including Singapore, as we have heard from Minister Shanmugam earlier. Our relations with China continue to be excellent, with regular high-
\tPage: 86
level exchanges and robust economic and people-to-people cooperation. President Tan, Prime Minister Lee, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh, as well as Deputy Prime Ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam visited China in 2014. Singapore also hosted visits by Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi, Guangdong Party Secretary Hu Chunhua and Zhejiang Party Secretary Xia Baolong, among others. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of Singapore-China diplomatic relations and there will be an exchange of State Visits to commemorate the occasion. The Singapore Day will be held in Shanghai in April this year, reflecting the size of the Singapore diaspora in China.
Singapore's cooperation with China has evolved to keep up with the times. Following our experience with the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-City Project, we are now looking at working together on a third government-to-government project in China's Western Region. We are also exploring new areas of cooperation in finance, social governance, food safety, sustainable development and environmental protection.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked for an update on Singapore's relations with Japan and the Republic of Korea. Singapore and Japan share a close and multifaceted relationship and we cooperate closely on many issues of common interest. Singapore-Japan relations are further strengthened by frequent meetings between Prime Minister Lee and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In fact, they have met six times in the last two years. In 2014, Prime Minister Lee spoke at the Nikkei Conference in Tokyo while Prime Minister Abe delivered the keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue. We have also maintained good relations with the Republic of Korea and will commemorate our 40th year of bilateral relations with a State Visit to the Republic of Korea by President Tan later this year.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked for an update on Singapore-India relations and how this may, in turn, have an impact on business, employment and skills training opportunities for Singaporeans. Our relations with India are long-standing and warm. We are working with Prime Minister Modi's government towards elevating our relationship to a strategic partnership which will further deepen political and economic relations.
As part of the commemorative events celebrating the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and India, President Tan made a State Visit in February this year, and President Mukherjee will reciprocate with a State Visit to Singapore later this year. Prime Minister Modi is also scheduled to make a visit to Singapore.
Singapore and India are cooperating at both the central and state government level in India, in areas where we can add value, such as urban solutions and skills development. Our
\tPage: 87
companies are working with the Andhra Pradesh state government on the master planning of the new capital city, as Member Dr Intan has brought up. This project will position Singapore businesses to take advantage of downstream opportunities. We are also sharing our experience in vocational training with the Rajasthan government. Through such capacity building projects, we will, in turn, promote the Singapore brand name in India and beyond.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about our diplomatic relations with various European Union (EU) countries, as well as Singapore's collaboration with new and emerging markets, such as Eastern Europe. We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of relations with key European partners this year, namely, France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. To mark the occasion as well as to celebrate SG50, we are organising commemorative events in Europe, while the European missions and communities in Singapore have also initiated various activities.
Over the decades, we have developed broad-based and substantive relations with Europe. We continue to explore ways to deepen ties through the exchange of high-level visits and regular interactions across many sectors. Recent visits include President Tan's State Visit to the UK in October 2014 and Prime Minister Lee's visit to Germany and Spain in February this year. President Tan is also scheduled to make a State Visit to France in May. On the economic front, the EU is Singapore's third largest trading partner and the largest contributor of Foreign Direct Investments into Singapore.
To further strengthen our economic linkages with Europe, we are working on the ratification of the EU-Singapore FTA (EUSFTA) and the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (ESPCA). At the same time, we are also growing our strong links in vocational training. For example, Germany, together with Switzerland, is a key partner and learning model of the SkillsFuture initiative to develop pathways for applied and continuing education and training in Singapore.
Singapore engages Central and Eastern European countries bilaterally, but also within the framework of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). On the sidelines of the last ASEM Summit in Milan last October, Prime Minister Lee met several leaders from the region to discuss, among other things, economic opportunities in each other's regions.
Notably, our leaders visited Poland, Hungary and the Slovak Republic in 2013 to develop linkages and to raise awareness of the economic opportunities of using Singapore as a gateway to Asia. We are looking forward to welcoming Hungarian President János Áder when he visits in April 2015. We remain concerned about the situation in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko visited Singapore in December last year and briefed our leaders on developments there. We have taken a strong stand against Russia's military intervention in Ukraine because we believe that all countries, big and small, must abide by international
\tPage: 88
law. This is especially vital to small countries like Singapore. We hope that a lasting resolution can be reached to restore peace to the region.
With Russia, the annual High-Level Russia-Singapore Inter-Governmental Commission has been a useful platform for Singapore to highlight our positions on issues directly to Russian leaders and engage the different regions in Russia.
On Australia, Minister Shanmugam mentioned briefly our relations. Let me add that this is the 50th anniversary of Singapore-Australia diplomatic relations, and also in response to Mr Liang Eng Hwa's request for an update. This is the 50th anniversary of Singapore-Australia diplomatic relations. They are amongst one of the first countries to recognise our Independence in 1965 and a key partner with whom we enjoy a close and multifaceted relationship founded on strategic convergence. There is bi-partisan support in Australia for good relations with Singapore. Both countries are taking this relationship to the next level by launching a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) this year, which will further broaden and deepen existing cooperation. The CSP will consist of a substantive 10-year work programme to strengthen collaboration across the key pillars of Economics and Trade; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security; and People-to-People exchanges.
In addition to nurturing good bilateral relations with our partners, Singapore also actively engages them through the various multilateral fora.
This year not only marks Singapore's 50th year of Independence, but also the 50th anniversary of our membership in the United Nations (UN). The UN itself is celebrating the 70th anniversary of its establishment. Through the UN, we continue to play an active role as a responsible and constructive member of the international community. Negotiations are ongoing at the UN for the Post-2015 Development Agenda to be adopted this year. To show our continued support, we are looking for ways to share our experience and contribute to the Development Agenda, including through a new initiative for technical cooperation.
We have consistently been active at the UN as convenors of the Forum of Small States and the Global Governance Group. As the co-chair of the Group of Friends for Sustainable Cities, we will share at the UN our experiences in developing sustainable and liveable cities. This year, we are organising the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum in June which will be held in New York City. We have also raised awareness of major urban challenges, such as water and sanitation issues, through events like World Toilet Day. In addition, the 21st Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in December also needs to adopt a new global agreement on climate change. Singapore participates actively in the negotiations as we want to see a balanced global agreement with universal participation, where all countries, big and small, contribute to climate action in line
\tPage: 89
with their national circumstances.
In addition, we continue to grow our diplomatic space through participation at other fora like the G20, and even in non-traditional areas, as we have heard several times in the past, like the Arctic Council. While we are not officially a member of the G20, which groups the largest economies of the world, we have been invited to participate in the G20 Summits, including the one to be held in Antalya, Turkey, in November 2015.
Mr David Ong asked what Singapore's role was in the Arctic Council and how Singapore's interests are expressed and protected. We became an observer to the Arctic Council in May 2013. This has allowed us to closely monitor developments in the Arctic that may impact us. This has also opened up new opportunities for us to deepen our engagement with Arctic states. As a low-lying island, we are concerned about the melting ice sheets and changes in sea levels. Our participation at the Council will inform us in the development of climate change adaptation strategies.
The melting of Arctic ice has enabled longer navigational seasons along the Northern Sea Route during the summer months, enabling ships to reduce travel times between Europe and Asia, compared to the traditional route through the Suez Canal. This translates to cost savings and faster voyages for shipping companies. Nevertheless, there remain many challenges, such as the presence of sea ice and icebergs, limited mapping of the Arctic Ocean and harsh weather conditions to operate in the Arctic.
Senior Minister of State Masagos will now speak on our engagement with emerging markets in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa, as well as on our technical assistance and consular services for Singaporeans abroad.
The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Chair, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the situation in the Middle East, as well as how Singapore monitors our students and business people living or travelling in that region. She had also asked about Singapore's collaboration with new and emerging markets, such as those in Africa and Latin America.
The security situation in the Middle East will remain fluid for the foreseeable future. The Syrian conflict rages on with more than 200,000 deaths and this could further foment instability in the region. The situation in Yemen is also of concern, given the disintegration of the central government and fighting between armed groups. ISIS will continue to be a significant threat which the global community must grapple with. MFA will continue to closely monitor developments in the region which may impact Singapore. Having said that, we should not over-generalise the same concerns across the whole of the Middle East as
\tPage: 90
each region and country is unique in its own right.
Bilaterally, Singapore will continue to actively engage the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. There has been a major leadership transition in Saudi Arabia and we look forward to working with the new leadership under His Majesty King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to boost bilateral relations. Our ties with the GCC are also sustained by institutionalised bilateral platforms, such as the Singapore-Qatar High Level Joint Committee and the Singapore-UAE Joint Committee. We are also working to facilitate the implementation of the GCC-Singapore FTA, which came into force in September 2013. In addition, we will be commemorating 30 years of diplomatic relations with Oman, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait this year. As fellow small states, we share a certain affinity for one another and can cooperate for mutual benefit.
We also welcome the continued interest from the Middle East on our developmental experience. We continue to receive regular requests for study visits to Singapore and participate in our Technical Assistance Programme, which I will touch on later. Egypt, for example, is keen to study our experience in developing our ports and maritime industry as the Egyptian government embarks on the Suez Canal Regional Development Project. Others, such as the Palestinians, have sent delegations to look at our anti-corruption efforts and education system. When I visited Ramallah in October 2014, I assured the Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of Singapore's continued support for its capacity-building efforts. They welcomed this warmly.
With regard to safeguarding the safety of Singaporeans overseas, we would like to clarify that we do not \"monitor\" or pry into the movements of Singaporeans travelling abroad. Instead, our Missions proactively reach out to and work closely with overseas Singaporean communities, not only in the Middle East region, but in every part of the world, as far as we can, on a regular basis, to build a comprehensive safety network. In times of emergency, these communities play an important role in coordinating and relaying public safety messages to Singaporeans in their country. For example, PERKEMAS, the student association in Cairo played an integral role in coordinating our emergency efforts on the ground and proved integral to our successful execution of the assisted departure exercises of our students from Cairo in 2011 and 2013.
Let me touch on Turkey. Besides the emerging markets in the Middle East, Singapore is working closely with Turkey to broaden and deepen our ties. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made an official visit to Singapore in January 2014 when he was Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister made his first official visit to Turkey in October 2014 where he signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement with his Turkish counterpart. During the visits, both
\tPage: 91
countries affirmed their commitment towards achieving a high-quality and comprehensive Singapore-Turkey FTA. I am pleased to add that good progress has been made on the negotiations to date.
Turning to Africa, there have been numerous positive developments that have opened up a window of opportunity for our private sector to tap into. During my visit to Kenya and Tanzania in 2014, I was impressed by the rapid economic growth and pace of development that were taking place throughout the continent. We will continue to take steps to institutionalise our engagement with Africa and to preserve the gains that we have achieved so far. For instance, the Third Africa-Singapore Business Forum saw 181 participants visiting Singapore. In addition, we played host to the First Sub-Saharan Africa High Level Ministerial Exchange Visit in August 2014 that was attended by seven countries.
Our account in Latin America continues to grow, as highlighted by the forthcoming State Visit by President Tony Tan to Mexico this month and our healthy engagement with the Pacific Alliance, a key trading bloc to which Singapore is an observer. These are new areas of growth and opportunity for Singapore businesses. We are also exploring the feasibility of collaborating with Mexico and Chile to train officials from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Mdm Chair, let me touch on the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) that has trained many government officials from all over the world. It is our primary platform for extending technical assistance. Indeed, over 170 countries have benefited from this programme for the last 23 years. I am happy to share that we expect to receive our milestone 100,000th participant this year. Through the SCP, we share our experiences in real settings in governance, economic development, sustainable urban development and port management, just to name a few.
Insights into our unique experience in planning, development and renewal of our beautiful island, are prized highly by many nations, keen to learn as they, too, embark on urbanisation and development.
A significant part of our technical assistance continues to be focused on enhancing the human resource of our ASEAN neighbours. This is our way to make sure that we make a meaningful contribution that will help to build a resilient and integrated ASEAN Community.
In the year ahead, the SCP will also roll out new programmes to meet rising challenges and changing needs around the world. For example, we are offering a new suite of leadership programmes aimed at tapping on the collective experiences of senior foreign officials to address salient challenges affecting governance, women in leadership, education, urban planning and judicial processes. New programmes on social and family policies will also
\tPage: 92
showcase Singapore's progress in advancing the needs of women and children.
Mdm Chair, I now move on to consular services for Singaporeans, which are very important priority for MFA. Against the backdrop of external uncertainties and higher numbers of Singaporeans travelling abroad more frequently, MFA's challenge is to meet Singaporeans' growing demand for prompt and effective consular services, as well as to manage more complex cases efficiently with our limited resources in MFA.
MFA is committed to doing what it can to help Singaporeans, especially those in distress. When a tugboat sank in Jingjiang earlier this year, officers from our Consulate-General in Shanghai immediately rushed to the scene to provide assistance to the Singaporean next-of-kin who had sadly lost their loved ones in the tragedy.
MFA currently operates 49 Overseas Missions. Over the years, we have established a network of 30 Honorary Consuls-General in various major cities. In countries where we do not have any diplomatic representation, we cooperate closely with our ASEAN countries to render assistance to our nationals.
MFA will continue to improve its work processes, leverage on technology and increase our outreach efforts in order to provide better consular assistance to Singaporeans. In this regard, emergency preparedness is an important priority. To ensure a high level of readiness within MFA and within the Government as a whole, simulation exercises and reviews of our contingency plans, as well as the training of officers, are regularly conducted.
The above notwithstanding, MFA has to be judicious in our efforts. We are a small Ministry. We cannot afford to deal with requests that will divert attention or limited resources away from Singaporeans who require genuine assistance. Singaporeans can help by taking precautions and remaining vigilant, both at home and abroad. They should also observe local laws, purchase comprehensive travel insurance and take care of their passports and other important belongings.
Singaporeans should also try to keep track of MFA's travel notices and advisories, which can be readily accessed via our app, MFA@SG, which they can download to their smartphones. The app also allows Singaporeans to eRegister so that we can get in touch with them in a major crisis.
The Chairman: We have a little bit of time for clarifications. Anyone wants to seek any? If there is none, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Page: 93
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Madam, I thank our Members for their contributions and our Ministers and Senior Minister of State for their responses. With that, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $444,279,100 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $45,000,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
\tPage: 94
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head J (Ministry of Defence)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Madam, I beg to move,
\"That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Madam, 2015 marks both SG50 as well as SAF50. Last month, MINDEF kicked off the first in a series of commemorative events with SAF50@Vivo. I would like to begin by asking the Minister for Defence to share with the House his thoughts on the significance of SAF50 and what the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) intend to do to honour the contributions of our SAF pioneers?
Madam, last year, I encouraged people to sign up as an SAF Volunteer in this House. I am happy to hear from SAF that since then, some 800 persons have applied to be SAF volunteers under the SAF Volunteer Corps, or SAFVC Scheme. Around 50 successful applicants will begin their Basic Training as early as next month.
We should be happy and proud that so many have come forward to take part in the SAF-VC and to share in the National Service experience and make their own National Service commitment.
Madam, National Service is almost as old as the nation itself. It began when then Defence Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee moved the Second Reading of the National Service (Amendment) Bill in March 1967. He also announced that 9,000 males born between 1 January 1949 and 30 June 1949 would be called up for National Service. By mid-April 1967, more than 90% of the 9,000 males eligible for National Service had registered.
You may think this was Singapore National Service Version 1.0. I think many in this House, including myself when I found out, will be surprised to know that this is actually National Service Version 2.0.
National Service 1.0 began as early as 1952, when the National Service Bill was tabled on 4 March. At the Second Reading of the Bill, then Acting Colonial Secretary Andrew Gilmour explained to the Legislative Council that the main purpose of the Bill was to give the Government the power to introduce National Service whenever necessary in order to meet the defence needs of Singapore and to ensure that the responsibility of defending the Colony could be spread fairly among the population.
Page: 95
The National Defence Ordinance came into effect on 1 March 1954 and the colonial Government then tried calling up 1,000 youths through a ballot after some 24,000 eligible persons were registered. This attempt did not go smoothly as some 500 Chinese High school students demonstrated against the new law on 13 May 1954. They clashed with the Police. This incident later came to be known as the National Service Riots of 1954.
Madam, what is the main lesson we can learn from the failed Nation Service Version 1.0? The first and main lesson is that people who perform National Service must believe in defending something that belonged to them. The Colony then belonged to the British, not to the youths who were called up.
As Second Minister for Defence Chan Chun Sing said weeks ago, \"The most powerful weapon that Singapore and SAF have is not something that we buy overseas, not something that we can build, but something in our hearts. It is the desire and the willingness to fight for our independence, to remain independent so that we can determine our destiny for years and generations to come\". National Service Version 1.0 failed because the most powerful weapon, the heart, was not there. Version 2.0 succeeded because we were independent and our heart was, therefore, in the right place.
Many will also believe that the SAF-VC scheme is also SAF Volunteer Corps Version 1.0. Actually, it is not even Version 2.0 but probably Version 3.0. Version 1.0 can be found when the People's Defence Force (PDF) Bill was passed on 30 December 1965, shortly after Independence. Three months later, some 3,200 males had volunteered to join the PDF. This was before National Service was introduced in the form as we know it today. But given our small population, a volunteer PDF cannot adequately meet the defence needs of Singapore and, hence, Dr Goh had to introduce \"modern\" National Service Version 2.0 in 1967.
And even when we introduced National Service in 1967, there was also a Volunteer Scheme of sorts that started in tandem. Many skilled individuals volunteered to help to kick-start the SAF's development of capabilities. One example is the SAF Medical Corps which began in the 1960s with many volunteer doctors and nurses who need not have done National Service. The Medical Corps is now a professional branch of SAF, highly trained and equipped to perform difficult missions in many parts of the world, as we have seen when they are deployed in many disaster relief and rescue missions.
Madam, but its leadership began as a largely volunteer one. Many of them are now in their 70s and 80s, and some have sadly passed on. The Minister of Defence will be familiar with some of these giants in the medical field, such as the late Dr Jimmy Choo, Dr Earl Lu and Dr Richard Yung, our previous Permanent Secretary and Director of Medical Services, Dr Kwa
Page: 96
Soon Bee and many others. I hope that even as MINDEF honours our Pioneer National Servicemen as part of SG50, we also remember these pioneer volunteers that helped to shape SAF in its formative years.
Madam, let us now also revisit what is the stated mission of MINDEF and SAF.
\"The mission of MINDEF and the Singapore Armed Forces is to enhance Singapore's peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy, and, should these fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor.\"
Logically, the first mission of SAF must be to act as a deterrent. Would-be aggressors are deterred from attacking us because of a strong SAF. The second mission of SAF is the terrible task of destroying our enemies as quickly and comprehensively as possible when war starts.
As opposed to soft power, which I had talked about earlier, SAF is the rawest and most obvious form of hard power we have. But it can also be a tool for soft power.
Diplomacy is soft power in action. As stated in the mission of MINDEF and SAF, diplomacy helps to enhance peace and security. The SAF has done this many times in the past through our overseas missions. Examples include helping our Thailand and Indonesia neighbours during the 2004 Tsunami, earthquake relief efforts in New Zealand in 2011, the flood relief efforts in Kelantan, Malaysia, late last year, as well as our Navy helping Indonesia in the recent tragic Air Asia QZ8501 crash in search and rescue.
These are important missions where our SAF has contributed significantly in many ways that are beyond the obvious. These missions contribute to better mutual understanding, respect and trust. Countries and armed forces that go through hardship together and, hence, understand, respect and trust each other more are less likely to go to war with each other. It is in our self-interest to be a good neighbour. It is part and parcel of the SAF mission of engaging in diplomacy so as to secure our peace and stability.
At this juncture, I would like to ask if the Minister for Defence can share with the House the experiences that the SAF has learnt from its overseas missions.
Page: 97
Of course, there are limits to how much or how frequent we can deploy our SAF assets in such missions. The first restriction or precondition is that other countries must welcome and invite us, as we make the first effort to offer our assistance. The second consideration is that as a largely conscript army, we must be conscious that we do not expose our National Service boys to unnecessary and great risk.
Even so, I would encourage the Minister for Defence to consider putting MINDEF and SAF on a more pro-active footing. We may not even need to wait for a crisis or disaster to take part in humanitarian efforts. As we celebrate SG50 and the hallowed institution of National Service, and as SAF develops and matures, it is also time to actively develop the third stated mission of MINDEF and SAF – which is diplomacy.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Dr Lim Wee Kiak, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Madam, Singapore's security is inexplicably tied to our relations with our neighbours. It is, therefore, important for us to understand our neighbours' military and defence abilities and plans. In recent years, there have also been talks of an arms race going on in ASEAN. Perhaps largely fuelled by territorial disputes, some countries in the region have begun to import more arms, submarines, in particular.
What is the annual growth of our neighbours' defence budgets in absolute and in percentage terms over the past few years? Does the Minister think that there is an ongoing arms race going on in the ASEAN region? Should we be concerned? What is the state of our bilateral defence relationships with our immediate neighbours?
Additionally, what confidence-building measures has MINDEF taken to forge good, enduring defence relationships with our neighbours? I am heartened to note that just recently, Minister Ng Eng Hen has signed a Letter of Intent with Malaysia's Minister for Defence to enhance cooperation on military and defence matters. We need to develop trust and understanding between neighbours. I believe we can look forward to similar levels of affirmations and friendship with other ASEAN neighbours in the days ahead.
Madam, major powers like the United States (US) and China play an important role in the security and stability of our region. In recent years, both countries have increased their military presence in this region and particularly in the South China Sea. The US will reportedly
Page: 98
deploy four warships to Singapore by 2018 and this has been envisioned to be on a rotational basis.
The days of the Cold War would seem to be gradually warming up from Europe to Asia. I envisage it is a matter of time before the Russians start eyeing this region. They have been courting China and India so as not to be left out in the cold, except that, for now, they are pre-occupied with events in Europe.
There is a criss-cross of defence arrangements between individual ASEAN countries and the US, and certainly among ASEAN countries as well. What are the implications of this growing military presence of the US and China on the strategic defence arrangements and architecture in our region? Should we expect to host a greater foreign military presence in the near future in our region? How will this affect our defence diplomacy within the region and with the major powers that we host?
Maintaining and advancing defence relationships with the major powers are important for security and diplomacy. Joint training, in particular, will be mutually beneficial and highly enriching for our own defence forces, and I hope we can seek to achieve more of such arrangements. How has MINDEF continued to advance our defence relationships with the major powers?
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Chairman, the measure of a responsible member country in the international community is its willingness to share the burden of international and regional security. Singapore is physically small, and a \"little red dot\" as we are called. But since Independence, we have been consistent in our efforts to do what is in our interests as well as within our means to collaborate on security and humanitarian initiatives sanctioned by the United Nations (UN). Last year was singular in the number of terrorist, epidemic and climate issues that confronted the world.
What impact do these have on the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF)'s role? Can MINDEF provide an update on its contributions to international and regional security, for instance, fighting the ISIS threat, countering piracy in regional waters and providing disaster relief?
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, despite long-running talks about implementing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and even an agreement over a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, there remains no binding arrangement to manage and reduce friction in East Asia's maritime domain. In fact, there seems to be
Page: 99
persistent friction over the South China Sea.
The issues have the potential to affect regional stability and Singapore's continued prosperity. Singapore needs to navigate carefully among the different positions of the US, China and our neighbours. MINDEF's defence diplomacy and outward engagement in conjunction with other agencies can have important consequences for Singapore's national security and interests.
I would like to better understand how MINDEF's current and planned defence diplomacy efforts could bring concrete benefits to Singapore's national security.
The Defence Minister spoke about the need to tackle the hard security challenges and to deliver concrete outcomes at last year's Shangri-La Dialogue. There, he also discussed the ASEAN Defence Ministerial Meeting-Plus framework, and further highlighted a Bruneian plan for a government-to-government hotline and a Vietnamese proposal for a \"no first use of force\" agreement. Would the Minister provide an update on these proposals, how they concretely aid our national security, and how the Government has responded?
Beyond these proposals, what other initiatives is MINDEF currently undertaking? How does MINDEF intend to reduce uncertainties, enhance understanding and improve coordination in the region and beyond through defence diplomacy, apart from conferences and meetings?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): In November last year, the Minister announced that MINDEF would be joining a US-led coalition against ISIS by contributing a KC-135 Aerial Refuelling tanker, and an imagery analysis team to the war effort. The Minister clarified earlier this year that SAF has sent a needs assessment and survey team and a liaison officer to facilitate planning and coordination between SAF and coalition forces.
In view of the evolving nature of the threat, I would like to ask the Minister whether Singapore will seek to contribute to this international effort in areas where it has specific value-add capabilities. For example, we have religious rehabilitation as a more unique contribution, apart from hardware and analytical capabilities that can also be contributed by other allies.
Secondly, I would like to enquire how MINDEF plans to manage the prospect of Mission Creep, leading SAF to commit more in-theatre forces in the fight against ISIS, than is the case
Page: 100
currently.
Finally, I would like to find out what the Ministry is doing to work with our immediate ASEAN neighbours to develop an ASEAN response to the ISIS threat, thereby promoting confidence building and military-to-military cooperation between our neighbours with the attendant benefit of a more united and safer ASEAN, in addition to the promotion of greater security integration between ASEAN member states, particularly, our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Madam, our defence budget for FY2014/2015 hit a record high of $12.56 billion. This marked an increase of 3.2% from 2013. Arms spending alone was $12.2 billion last year, compared to $8.6 billion in 2004.
Our defence expenditure has increased steadily by about 4% a year since 2008. The steady spending on our defence is necessary for our national security, which is becoming ever more important. Terrorism has become a very real issue, and tensions between countries all over remain a concern. Besides continuing to maintain good ties with countries, Singapore needs to continue building up its own defence capability and security in order to deter would-be aggressors.
Looking across the Causeway, our neighbour, Malaysia, had recently announced that their National Service programme for 2015 would be suspended as part of measures to cut costs. While our budget for MINDEF has sometimes come under criticism, not spending enough on our national defence and, hence, compromising our national security is unthinkable.
While Singapore may have the highest defence spending in Southeast Asia, other countries in the region of Asia have also increased their defence spending and any cut-down on Singapore's spending seems likely to have implications.
Madam, I understand that our defence expenditure includes investments in human capital, operating and development expenditure, and investments in new capabilities. Could MINDEF provide an overview of how spending is allocated across these three areas?
I have spoken in my main speech about MINDEF being a crucial public space in Singapore. Can the Minister tell me if MINDEF has a way of tracking the social capital it has built up over the years? And if not, can it explore a way of doing so? I am always amazed at the reunions – involving the boys – that old school alumni have. Can MINDEF consider also
Page: 101
providing support for such efforts and perhaps have them in camps? I think this would bring communities together and that is another way we can build a closer and more inclusive society.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Madam, MINDEF has been allocated the largest amount of expenditure for this year's Budget. And MINDEF is also the custodian of the largest amount of public land and public sector manpower. I believe the Ministry would have mapped out plans and strategies for the utilisation of these resources given to the Ministry.
I would like to ask what MINDEF is doing to ensure that these resources, both fiscal and manpower, are adequately and properly deployed. Can the Minister share with the House what is in the pipeline for the next five years?
MINDEF has always taken innovation and productivity seriously. In the past years, the Ministry has received regular recognition for cost-saving solutions and innovative ideas, and I congratulate the staff for these achievements. I would like to ask if the Minister can share some of the recent productivity measures that MINDEF is exploring and how successful these measures are.
Mr Pritam Singh: The Minister for Defence has previously stated in Parliament that in the coming years, the rise in MINDEF's expenditure will largely correspond with the rise in inflation. This year, however, MINDEF's budget for FY2015/2016 is 5.7% higher than the year before.
I recall the presentation at the COS last year by the Defence Minister on the likely shape of the SAF in 2030 with larger capacity Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs), next generation fighter aircraft and the intention to transfer more of the Army's traditional fighting units into mobile platforms as possible changes to the order of battle of the SAF.
Is the increase in this year's defence budget attributable to platforms that MINDEF intends to purchase in the years to come and, if not, how does the Ministry account for the rise in expenditure from the past year?
Page: 102
Secondly, in view of maintaining fiscal prudence at the national level, would MINDEF consider including more cost-saving measures as a key criterion for defence purchases, as exemplified by the announcement of the induction of the Aerostar, which was widely reported in the local media to have reduced MINDEF's operating expenditure footprint for the task at hand by 29%.
Finally, I would like to enquire about MINDEF's plans to operationalise the suggestion, most recently made by Malaysia as the current Chair of ASEAN, for the establishment of an ASEAN Peacekeeping Force. What is the current thinking of MINDEF about this idea?
The Chairman: Mr Alvin Yeo not in the Chamber, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, the SAF commenced its 3rd Generation Transformation in the early 2000s to ensure that it will remain a highly capable, relevant and respected defence force. The changes have been progressive and positive, preparing the force to handle challenges and eventualities in today's ever-changing climate, which remains volatile and fluid, day by day and month by month.
The developments have been in both the areas of hardware and also software, which definitely have to go hand in hand in any transformation process.
Besides investments in technology, machinery, weaponry, IT and also transportation, the training, growth and development of the personnel and also recognition are important.
Challenges of the future, such as our rapidly decreasing birth rate and ageing population as well as handling of emerging security threats will have to be dealt with as well. As we mark SAF's 50th year and move into the future, can the Minister provide an update on SAF's transformation plans to ensure that we continue to be an effective fighting force capable of handling any threats to our little red dot?
Mdm Speaker: Minister for Defence.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mdm Chair, first, let me thank Members for their useful questions and enlightened comments, many of which I share. This is a special year because as many Members have said, 2015 is the Golden Jubilee of our Independence as well as 50 years of SAF since its inception. As many Members of this House have pointed out, it is an appropriate occasion for us to look back, examine our roots and collectively see
Page: 103
what we have achieved and, more importantly, also look forward.
And if you look at our founding generation and what they went through, they went through three, I would say, bitter periods. First, was the British surrender of Singapore to the Japanese and the subsequent occupation; then, Konfontasi; and then, the fight against the communists. Just one challenge would have been severe but we have Pioneers who went through all three. For this reason, the bitter lessons that they learnt, forged in them an epiphany and the fierce determination that only with a strong defence could Singapore safeguard its sovereignty because, without this strong defence, Singaporeans would never be able to chart our own destiny.
As a small country with limited manpower, I believe that most Singaporeans today understand that this strong defence can only be built up and maintained with a strong and heavy commitment of financial resources and, above all, the efforts and sacrifices of our National Servicemen.
We have said it time and again, but it bears repeating: if Singaporeans cannot or do not defend Singapore, no one else would. And in this, our Golden Jubilee year, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the Members in this House to affirm our strong and continued commitment to defend our country.
Today, Singaporeans can have the quiet confidence that after many decades of steady investment into our defence capabilities, SAF is a strong and capable military, able to protect our interests and borders. Beyond SAF and our NSmen, the message of Total Defence, that we are as strong as we are united, has also taken root in the community.
Many Members – Mr Sitoh, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Assoc Prof Fatimah and Mr Pritam Singh – have asked how the SAF stands today and what it will be like in the future.
First, how does the SAF stand today. I think we can be confident objectively because we have consistently benchmarked the SAF with militaries from other advanced countries. We test our systems through realistic training and real operations. We have conducted four Exercise Forging Sabres in the United States in the last decade. And every year, we go to Australia to conduct Exercise Wallaby since the year 2000. There, we put our soldiers and platforms through rigorous and realistic test scenarios, including our unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and F-15 and F-16 fighters, Apache helicopters, high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) and naval ships. The exercise scenarios are complex. They require high levels of integration in every exercise. I am happy to report that after each exercise, our overall systems are validated and we learn important lessons to bridge the gap.
Page: 104
When I say that our overall systems are validated, it tells us that our command and control systems are responsive and coherent. We can close the loop on what we see and how we want to effect a response.
Beyond exercises, the SAF has also actively contributed to missions that have strengthened international peace and security as well as Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR). Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke about this.
We had some 15,000 Servicemen who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years, between 2003 and 2013. They were there a long time as part of the multi-national stabilisation reconstruction efforts. We have also deployed Servicemen to the Gulf of Eden to support counter-piracy efforts since 2009 and commanded three times the combined task force. Recently, SAF ships and aircraft were deployed for the AirAsia crash and there the SAF men on board the MV Swift Rescue located the fuselage. The Army was also deployed in Kelantan and, with water purification teams, they supplied potable water for Malaysian flood victims.
Whether it was for exercises or real operations, they validate our readiness and professionalism and they provide invaluable experience to our Servicemen and also enhance our ability to operate with our key partners. Through both of these exercises and real operations, the SAF has shown that it can move decisively as one integrated professional force and succeed in the mission and tasks assigned.
Members here have asked for an update on what else we are doing for the SAF. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about this for the next five years. We will continue upgrading the SAF's capabilities at a steady pace. From next year, the Navy will start replacing its patrol vessels with new littoral mission vessels. Similarly, the Army will use new Protected Response Vehicles. This is in place of the V200. Some older NSmen here would have used it. Others would not know what I am talking about, but the V200s are quite ancient, and so we will use the new Protected Response Vehicles.
Our Super Puma helicopters – Members of this house will be more familiar with those – have been in service for almost 30 years. They need replacements and we will carry this out over the next decade.
Beyond upgrading specific platforms, as Mr Pritam Singh mentioned, SAF needs to remake itself in response to a changing landscape from new security threats. This was eloquently put by Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef. Looking ahead, in our Golden Jubilee year for SAF50, what do we expect the SAF to be able to respond to, what is its core mission, how does it shape itself to respond to threats that threaten Singapore and Singaporeans? We
Page: 105
may compartmentalise, but threats that threaten Singapore and Singaporeans do not come with necessary clear labels. That is the core question we have to ask.
Externally, the SAF has to contend with cyber threats and the growing use of disinformation in warfare. And the landscape is emerging. In the recent UNIX Security Conference, which I attended last month, there were many sessions on \"hybrid warfare\", which integrates the use of conventional and unconventional tools of warfare by state and non-state actors.
What is hybrid warfare? It is a \"sexy\" term, but what is it? Singaporeans can understand it easily, because it is the exact antagonist of Total Defence which we started some decades ago. Hybrid warfare is an orchestrated campaign to fracture the solidarity of the target nation through undermining its defences in civil, economic, social, psychological and military measures.
I want Members to listen to the chilling words of the Chief of General Staff of the Russian Federation General Valery Gerasimov: \"The very rules of war have changed. The role of non-military means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.\"
Non-military means have exceeded the power of force of weapons. He continues, \"The focus of applied methods of conflict has altered in the direction of the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other non-military measures, applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population.\"
He continues, \"All this is supplemented by military means of a concealed character, including carrying out actions of informational conflict and the actions of special operations forces. The open use of forces, often under the guise of peace-keeping and crisis regulation, is resorted to only at a certain stage, primarily for the achievement of final success in the conflict.\"
Clinical but chilling. Why? Because this textbook description of hybrid warfare was played out with orchestral precision in the annexation of Crimea and the recent unrest in Ukraine, where subversion and subterfuge were conducted through flesh and blood provocateurs as well as through disinformation on social media to cause disunity and dissent among the target populations, before military force was applied.
There is another example of hybrid warfare. This is the radicalising effect of Al Qaeda and then ISIS. Some Members have asked about ISIS and how we respond to it. But it is
Page: 106
another facet of hybrid warfare, if you look at it closely. And this time, by non-state actors.
Tens of thousands of foreign fighters have been radicalised by ISIS' false ideology and have headed for Iraq and Syria. They may carry out violent attacks when they return to their home countries.
The examples of Ukraine and ISIS have added urgency to many countries in studying their defences against such campaigns of hybrid warfare orchestrated by external adversaries. So, challenges, as we see them, are not neatly compartmentalised as we say. I understand Mr Pritam Singh's point when he asked, \"What is our core mission? When do you know it is mission creep?\"
It is a difficult question. But at the centre of it, if it threatens Singapore and Singaporeans, even if it comes in uncommon or unconfined labels, we will have to respond to it.
The concept of hybrid warfare is as old as war itself and that is why we launched Total Defence in 1984. What is new is the amplification of disinformation due to social media. No country, including Singapore, is immune to disinformation war and SAF will have to raise capabilities to detect and counteract such threats in the cyber and infomation domains.
Beyond hybrid warfare, the unrest in Ukraine and its impact on the rest of Europe hold other salutary lessons for Singapore. Let me describe to you what was last year's mood at the Munich Security Conference. This was in 2014. Last year's conference was centred on peace after War World II, 70 years of peace. There was an air of celebration, and rightly so. The Cold War had ended. Russia was integrated into Europe and the global economy. The European Union (EU) had expanded and more states were joining in, not only to the EU but even asking to join NATO. There were even questions asked about the relevance of NATO. So, there was an air of festivity, actually, last year.
Indeed, for the last decade, many countries in Europe had reduced defence spending to \"reap the peace dividends\". Some had even scrapped or suspended military conscription, their version of national service. Then in March last year, just two months after the Munich Security Conference, the unimaginable occurred – Crimea was annexed. Alleged rebels attacked and seized key buildings and military bases in key cities in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and these rebels include \"little green men\", masked unidentified soldiers armed with Russian equipment. At the same time, Russia assembled a sizeable force at the Ukrainian border, which senior Ukrainian officials estimated to comprise over 80,000 troops
Page: 107
and 270 tanks, amassed at the border.
Decades-old formale treaties and pledges were broken, basically torn up, not worth the paper they were printed on. Fundamental assumptions about peace in Europe were overturned. And this year's Munich Security Conference, when I read it, there was a phrase that was declared deafeningly \"Peace in Europe is broken\"; all within the span of one year. The impact on small states in Europe is even more ominous and threatening.
A recent Financial Times article last month, on 25 February, was headlined \"Russia fears lead Lithuania to reinstate military draft\". The small Baltic states, of which Lithuania is one of them, are the closest geographically to Russia. The article continued, \"Lithuania is reinstating military conscription in a dramatic move that underscores the anxiety among the Baltic states about Russia's intentions\".
These states are concerned that what happened to Crimea will occur to them and they are no longer confident about their future. Lithuania had, in fact, just suspended their form of national service only in 2009; that is, six years ago, because it assumed that the neighbourhood was safe. Now, Lithuania is frantically trying to raise a bigger army. Earlier this year, the Lithuanian government issued an instruction manual to schools and the general public on what to do in case of an invasion. The Baltic states are scared stiff that what happened in Crimea and Ukraine could also happen to them. Lithuania is not very big – three million people but much larger than us.
Singapore, like the Baltic states, is a small country. I think we do well to heed the cautionary tales from their experience. Never take our peace for granted. It can only be purchased through the collective commitment of our NSmen and all Singaporeans. Never weaken the strong defence that we have built up over the years through neglect or complacency. The time to build up a strong defence is during peace. A strong deterrence is Singapore's best defence. All these you have heard and time and time again.
When danger is upon you, as it is precipitously for the Baltic states, it will be too little and too late to build up a defence. And contrary to expectations that peace and stability that one enjoys today will last, things can go wrong very quickly. As I said, in one year, the mood is completely reversed.
As long as we have the support of the Government and our people, the SAF will discharge its responsibilities fully to protect our home and its people. The SAF will be very clear-eyed about our potential threats and challenges. We do not assume any neat packages and we are remaking ourselves to be more effective in the future. Some Members mentioned Singapore's demographic trends, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, in particular, over
Page: 108
the long term. Yes, the SAF will have to operate with a leaner manpower pool without any loss of effectiveness. Whether it is measured by the ability to manoeuvre, fire-power, new capabilities, the restructured SAF, even though it is leaner, will be more potent and versatile. And we have been able to do this because we have used advanced technologies.
We talked about productivity and defence spending. When it comes to productivity, I will tell you that the SAF feels it the most acutely, not only because we want to, but this is the reality that we face with a shrinking NS pool. It is forced upon us. Our manpower supply is not as elastic as the civilian side of the house. So, each time a new platform is planned, in fact, one of the key questions is: how can I do it with fewer people and, if not as effective, more effective?
For example, our unmanned aerial vehicle systems can already stay airborne for more than 24 hours. On land, the army uses robots to defuse explosives in some situations. It is also studying the use of more unmanned ground vehicles to conduct security patrols, for example. Out at sea, unmanned surface vessels may, in the future, patrol our congested waterways. If we can do it without manned ships, why not? These advanced technologies have greater precision, endurance and use less manpower and allow us to remain potent with a leaner force.
The SAF will further leverage new technologies to respond to security challenges, whether it is external, internal, whether they come in neat packages or are amorphous. New units for cyber defence are being raised. Better capabilities using infocomm technology, robotics and artificial intelligence are in the pipeline for testing and integration into the existing systems.
But even with the most advanced technologies and equipment, we constantly remind ourselves that our people remain our greatest and indispensable asset. It is. And many Members of this House have said so and I agree with you that our people are, ultimately, what makes the difference – the strong fighting spirit of our soldiers, airmen and the sailors as well as the quality of leadership that will allow the SAF, as Mr Sitoh rightly pointed out, to deter aggression and, when that fails, prevail over potential aggressors.
We must continue to sustain this strength into the future. We cannot build an effective force without capable and committed Servicemen, particularly NSmen, who form the bulk of the SAF's fighting force. We are implementing the recommendations by the Committee to Strengthen National Service. Second Minister Chan Chun Sing will elaborate on this but just let me highlight two significant proposals that are progressing well.
Page: 109
First, we said that we will reduce the waiting times for NS enlistment to not more than six months after the completion of their post-secondary education, and we are on track.
Second, the SAF Volunteer Corps has attracted many responses and we are on track to take in this inaugural batch this year.
While NSmen form the backbone of the SAF, we need to ensure that we have adequate SAF regulars to train units and build capabilities. I announced during the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) that we are stepping up recruitment for more trainers and, again, we are on track to double the number of regular trainers at the Basic Military Training Centre from the middle of this year. The SAF is also recruiting more women as regulars, as more opportunities open up in different vocations because we use advanced platforms.
A number of Members here have asked questions on defence spending – Mr Seah Kian Peng, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Pritam Singh. They are very observant and they have asked whether we have noticed that defence spending in Southeast Asia has gone up. Indeed, it has. Southeast Asia's defence spending has increased, as a block, by about 150% in nominal terms over the last decade. It translates to an annual growth rate of about 11%. China's defence spending has more than quadrupled over the same period.
Defence spending in Asia, as a whole, has continued to rise. We are monitoring this trend closely. We are not responding to it in sharp rises because, as we have often said, we want to avoid sharp increases or dips in our defence spending. Despite this general trend, our approach is still to plan long term, maintain our defence expenditure steadily. As Members have said, over the last decade, our defence expenditure has grown by 4% nominally, on average, and more or less kept pace with inflation.
Mr Pritam Singh asked why this year it has jumped by 5.7%. I will respond to that by sharing that when we plan, we plan over a longer-term horizon, not year on year, but over a five- to-10-year period. It allows us to make sure that you do not adjust suddenly, whether it is manpower training or platform acquisition. It is actually also productive. By that, I mean that because you plan over a longer-time horizon, it allows you very smart opportunity buys. We do not buy a platform when it is just new. Even if we buy a new platform, we watch for it, when the price comes down, and before it is too few and production goes down and the price goes up again. It allows us to plan when to acquire.
I thank Members for reminding MINDEF that we need to be prudent in the use of our resources. We are aware that we spend the largest proportion as a single Ministry, and we will be prudent. The default for MINDEF and SAF is to upgrade existing platforms rather than
Page: 110
buy new ones – that is a default – unless only new equipment provides clearly superior and needed capabilities.
Let me give an example. We recently upgraded our Mine Counter-Measure Vessels. We did not buy new ones, we upgraded them, because they are more productive and can integrate with unmanned water systems. As a result, the mines can be cleared up to five times faster.
Not only with financial resources, but I take the point from Members, including the point made by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, whether we have been prudent in our land use. We recognise that land in Singapore is precious and, therefore, we use technologies to intensify land use. Some Members may have visited but, if you have not, we would like to arrange a visit to the Multi-Mission Range Complex.
For some of the men in this House, you would remember the old SAF Training Institute had a number of ranges. It was flat, but what we did was we put them all together in high-rise and there are seven ranges in one. In the same space that is occupied by one, there are seven ranges. You would remember during your SAF days that you had to wait till night to do night shooting. Now we just switch off the lights and you can do the night shooting. Another example, and this is a big one, is the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base (PLAB) into an expanded Changi Air Base East and Tengah Air Base.
MINDEF and SAF proactively and carefully studied this option because we knew that land was precious. As a result, we will free up 800 hectares of land for alternative use and, beyond that, remove the height restrictions on developments around PLAB. We are very conscious and, where we can, we will intensify, relocate, and this includes training for SAF soldiers overseas. But – and it is an important \"but\" – I will tell Members of this House openly, there is a minimum required to house our defence assets, to train our soldiers in Singapore and to ensure the defence integrity of our defence capabilities.
Let me say that again – there is a minimum. It is not just, \"You have so much, this is so much land, can you squeeze within a single plot?\" Beneath a certain size, we lose the coherence of the defence system.
I welcome the questions by Members on the external environment because, even as we focus on the SAF internally, we have to pay attention to our geopolitical environment and defence ties with other countries. Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Ellen Lee, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Low Thia Khiang talked about this. Mr Low asked, beyond the Shangri-La Dialogue and
Page: 111
ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM), what is Singapore doing and how much more can Singapore do.
Sometimes, I wish that we could do more than we want. But we are a small country and we need to build strong partnerships to bring about a more secure regional environment. We never over-stretch our perception of our own size, potency or force. At the end of the day, we say it and say it time and again so that it becomes trite, but it is true – we never forget we are a small country, we are a red dot, a small one; we hope a shining red dot, but it is still a small one.
And so, we have to build strong partnerships and, in the 70 years after the end of World War II, the US' presence in Asia has promoted regional stability and prosperity. For this reason, that is why Singapore facilitates the US' presence here. We allow them to use PLAB and Changi Naval Base for transit. The second US Navy Littoral Combat Ship arrived in Singapore recently, rotating through its deployment.
In addition, our close relationship with the US affords us access to high-end defence systems, as well as the training space in the US. I talked about the high mobility artillery systems. Some Members who were previous artillery chaps would know how many men it needed to set up the artillery. It was a slog and you have to respond. About 12 men, they tell me. But now, the new systems, from the US, operate with three men in front of the truck – 70 kilometres, high precision, shoot and scoot.
Our defence relations with China are excellent and we acknowledge China's desire to play a peaceful and constructive role in this region. Reflecting this close relationship, Chinese Defence Minister Chang Wanquan and I jointly issued a press release during my visit there in November last year to enhance our defence interactions and to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Singapore-China diplomatic ties this year. We had joint exercises. It was quite a sight to see People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops on one side and SAF troops on the other charging up the hill, taking an objective together. The Chinese do some things quite in style. They have large operating training grounds where you can sit and see the mass. We do not have that; we do not have the space. It was a very good interaction.
We actively engage our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia. We share many common interests to build understanding and mutual respect. The SAF was among the first to assist our neighbours in the search for MH370 and QZ8501, as well as provide assistance during the floods in Malaysia a few months ago. Our defence relations with both countries are strong and we frequently interact military to military.
Page: 112
Indonesian Defence Minister Ryamizard chose Singapore as his first stop among ASEAN for his introductory visit in January. Recently, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak pointed out, I hosted Defence Minister for Malaysia Hishammuddin and we signed a Letter of Intent together. And we will do more with Indonesia and Malaysia – they are our closest neighbours. We will step up our coordinated naval patrols with Indonesia, Malaysia and other littoral states because there is piracy and sea robbery in our regional waters.
As Mr Low Thia Khiang said, the ADMM and the Shangri-La Dialogue are important platforms. They allow us space beyond which small countries find hard to give voice, to put things on the table, to ask questions that concern our collective security; and also, importantly, to encourage militaries from all these countries to build understanding. Without understanding, there can be miscalculations and misunderstandings.
I will tell Members that the militaries of Northeast Asian countries rarely speak to one another. They do not meet. That is not healthy; and can be actually very dangerous. And it is very dangerous. When Brunei hosted ADMM, we encouraged Brunei to hold 18-nation exercises, and we helped, supported and facilitated. Just imagine 4,000 troops from 18 countries, the Chinese sent their Peace Ark, the Indian sent their ships, Japan sent their ships; and they were deployed across -decks. Soldiers from different countries, including the US, went to one another's decks of ships, and exchanges built. At the very least, it built some understanding, even more than that, for some, it built trust. It reduces the risk of miscalculation.
It may not be headline-grabbing. We may not be able to issue headline news every time we meet, but that would be unrealistic. Defence diplomacy is slow; sometimes, it is laborious, just like most diplomacy. We should not mistake it to think that because we are just meeting and there are no \"announceable\" outcomes, that you are not being productive. Patience, slow cultivation provide us more space; it actually wins friends and builds that understanding.
It is important to reduce tensions in the South China Sea because it is in our backyard. In May next year, we expect ships, aircraft and personnel from ASEAN and our \"plus\" partners to participate in another major exercise on maritime security and counter-terrorism. We have something which is extra; we can get the militaries to exercise together. That is what we are trying to push. This practical cooperation is timely and relevant, especially in the face of increased terror threats from ISIS. Mr Pritam Singh asked if ASEAN can issue something in common – and he is right. It is very useful. This is what the Chairman, Malaysia, wants to do. Members would have read the newspapers and would know that Malaysians are in Iraq and Syria. Indonesia's Chief of Defence came to Singapore and he said that he was worried what the fighters would do when they come back to their homeland. It is a real and present threat. It is a core mission for our security forces.
Page: 113
This is what we do at the Shangri-La Dialogue as well. Last year, we had 26 ministerial-level delegates and participants from 35 countries. We do not expect to have \"announceables\" and deliverables every year. But when they happen, it can be quite impactful. The combined patrols in the Straits of Malacca – a few years ago, the Straits of Malacca was put in the Lloyd's List's risk category equivalent to war-risk zones. Insurance premiums had gone up. You had to pay as if you had ships going through the same risk as in the war-risk zones. At that time, Prime Minister Najib was the Defence Minister and he mooted this idea in the Shangri-La Dialogue of combined maritime-air patrols, eyes in the skies, and, subsequently, joint Malacca Straits patrols in your own sovereign waters. It brought piracy down and Lloyd's delisted the area.
We will do more and play a constructive role in regional security as Members have asked us to. That is why we have set up the Information Fusion Centre and the Changi Regional HADR Coordination Centre – this is something that Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked. He asked if we could accelerate our defence diplomacy. I am happy to update that China, France, Thailand and Brunei have accredited liaison officers to this regional HADR Coordination Centre, while Australia and Laos have established operational linkages.
Madam, let me, finally, provide details on this year's National Day Parade (NDP). It is special but the NDP will also be very special. I know there will be questions asked later. Let me give Members some heads-up. It is a very significant year; in fact, our Golden Jubilee year. Looking back 50 years, Singapore has been blessed and we have much to celebrate together.
NDP 2015 will remember our historical roots; we will remember from whence we came. That is why we are doing it at the Padang. We will recount our collective achievements as a nation and look forward to a shared progressive future for all Singaporeans.
So, appropriately, the NDP will take place at the Padang. Why? Because that is where our first NDP in 1966 took place. Read Mr Lee's account of that particular parade in his memoirs, stirring account, of challenges, what happened. We were thinking, as you know, every year, we have an NDP theme. What would be an appropriate theme for our Golden Jubilee? We have thought hard, the Organising Committee, and when I read to you the theme, you would say it is a good choice. The theme is \"Majulah Singapura\" – Onward Singapore. It reprises the clarion call to all Singaporeans, a call made to all Singaporeans when we were a poor nation at Independence, beset on all sides – whether they were problems of inadequate jobs, housing, education, basic necessities of life.
Listen to our debates in Parliament now. As they say, they are good problems. Just imagine Parliament then at our Independence – problems aplenty, resources very little, if any. And that was the context in which Majulah Singapura was a rallying cry to all of us to move forward as one people to overcome our challenges and more, and we have succeeded.
Page: 114
So, NDP will tell this story, as far as possible, to remind us from whence we came, to recognise the contributions of our Pioneer Generation and our leaders in nation-building.
There have been many calls – you can imagine the NDP Organising Committee gets many requests, suggestions and calls. One of them I feel particularly – it is important for us to try to accede to, to agree to – that is, to allow as many Singaporeans as possible to share in this historic 50th NDP, because the next Golden Jubilee will be 2065. So, this one, we really want to allow as many people as possible to share in that experience.
But you know the Padang, there is a limited number of people who can watch the show. But I am happy to announce that the NDP Organising Committee has changed the format somewhat so that as many people as possible can share in this moment on 9 August 2015. We want to make this Golden Jubilee Celebration special for as many Singaporeans as possible. What do I mean? With your permission, Mdm Chair, may I show you what I mean?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to Hon Members.]
Dr Ng Eng Hen: First of all, every Singaporean household, yes, I mean every Singaporean household, 1.2 million Singaporean households, whether in the HDB or private estate, will receive an NDP Funpack. So, even if they cannot come to the Padang or the areas around the Bay, which I will explain, they can watch at home, wave the same banner, slap the same clappers all over the island.
Second, we will open up discrete areas around the entire Marina Bay, so that more people can congregate and enjoy NDP15 in person. You look at the slide, you start at the Padang – its capacity is about 26,000. But we are opening up the floating platform where we had last year's NDP. That can hold 25,000. One Fullerton can hold about 10,000; the Promontory, 20,000; the MBS Event Plaza, 30,000; Gardens by the Bay, 40,000.
All in, we think the entire area can accommodate more than 150,000. And in some of these sites, we will place giant LED screens so that viewers can watch the show and all of them will be able to watch the aerial displays live and the fireworks. The fireworks for NDP 2015 will be largest ever, as well as the aerial display will the largest ever. I would not be a spoiler, but it will be spectacular.
There will be many sights to behold and for Singaporeans to remember. And where possible, the march-past, the contingents as well as the mobile column, will make their way to some of these locations around the Bay area.
Page: 115
The cost of the NDP at one site in previous years, which Members have asked about in this House, has been about $20 million. This includes the cost of logistics equipment for the rehearsals over a span of six to eight months: the four National Education (NE) shows, the preview shows and the actual show itself, which, in previous years, had about 5,500 participants and 25,000 onsite. The scale, of course, in NDP 2015 is much larger; many more folds than in previous years. There will be 7,000 participants, twice as many ticketed spectators; there will be the large crowds around the Bay and thousands of Singaporeans are expected to join in not only at Marina Bay but TV viewers – an estimated two million TV viewers at home. The cost of the NDP 2015 at the Padang alone is about the same as in previous years. But because of these additional sites, new facilities, it will increase the total cost of the NDP in our Golden Jubilee Year to about twice that of previous NDPs. So, it is about twice. In addition, the 1.2 million fun packs will cost an additional $10 million, part of which will be supported by corporate sponsors.
We are planning an NDP that allows all Singaporeans to celebrate together. But let me touch on two important points before the facilities overwhelm us.
First and foremost is safety. With large crowds expected, I would like everyone at the NDP to pay attention to their personal safety and that of others around them. We are working with the Ministry of Home Affairs, but we need members of the public to take personal responsibility, too. If everyone follows instructions, the risk of mishaps will be reduced.
Second, civility and cleanliness. Even as we celebrate NDP this year, even as we do it as one people to reflect on how much we have achieved together, we certainly do not want to diminish this by finding on the next day the whole of Marina Bay area littered. It will be a sad testimony to us as a people if you cannot even clean up after yourself. Organisers will provide more rubbish points, but I am flagging this out now, safety and cleanliness, so that it can enter our collective consciousness and aspirations for National Day.
Mdm Chair, with the strong commitment of NSmen and their families, employers and the community, the SAF will continue to safeguard Singapore's Independence and sovereignty on this SAF50 and our Golden Jubilee. We will do it so that our future generations may also enjoy the peace and security that we enjoy today.
\tPage: 116
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, our NSmen take their role in serving the nation and in remaining operationally-ready seriously and with pride. They have done well and contributed with all their hearts and minds. These include our Malay soldiers who have achieved honours and recognition in the SAF based on their own merits and abilities. They have been deployed to various vocations and units within the SAF and have done well.
The extensive deployment of our Malay soldiers in the SAF is, in part, due to the continuous effort of the Malay PAP Members of Parliament in engaging the community and the Government. I am glad the Government and the SAF have taken much of the feedback from the Malay PAP Members of Parliament and made positive changes over the years. I am confident that we will continue to forge ahead and progress in this regard as our NSmen and soldiers ready themselves operationally to defend Singapore.
[The Deputy Speaker (Charles Chong) in the Chair]
The implementation of the new three-station Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) has generated interest in the physical fitness of our NSmen which remain critical for the SAF's operational readiness and effectiveness.
Would MINDEF be able to update how it is helping in ensuring our NSmen remain physically fit and operationally ready? In addition, the safety of our NSmen remains a concern, especially among parents, even though MINDEF has taken steps to improve SAF's safety systems and make them more robust. Can MINDEF provide an update on its efforts to strengthen training and operational safety?
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Dr Goh Keng Swee said in 1976 that, \"The security of every society must always depend, more or less, upon the martial spirit of the great body of the people.\"
Our SAF is the representation of that martial spirit of our people. For the last 50 years, it has been a bulwark against aggression from external parties. While challenges have evolved, our need for defence is perhaps even stronger today than ever before due to the now asymmetrical threats.
Our demographic challenge weighs heavy on us as we seek to maintain a well-disciplined effective armed forces. It is with this that I firmly welcome the introduction of the SAF Volunteer Corps. I have asked for a number of updates in 2014 and welcome the
Page: 117
progress made with the launch of the SAFVC applications in October 2014.
SAFVC provides opportunities for the broader Singapore community to make their contributions to defence. Colonel Mike Tan, Commander SAF VC, in his invitation to volunteers, said that many work tirelessly to ensure the peace and security of Singapore, calling it \"a noble and onerous duty\".
Therefore, I seek the Ministry's update on the progress made in the recruitment of volunteers, the profiles and eligibility of those who have volunteered, as well as how training will be conducted. Have there been any challenges in the process and what safeguards are there to ensure that safety and security are not compromised?
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, the application for SAF Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) opened on 13 October 2014. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the number of applications received and accepted so far, and the estimated expenditure for SAFVC in its first year of operation.
I would also like to know whether deploying volunteers alongside our NSF, NSmen and regulars pose security risks for SAF. Will the security vetting be sufficiently thorough, especially with regard to the period of time when the applicants were residing outside Singapore?
Volunteers need only to do two weeks of BMT, seven days' qualification course training and are liable to be called up for seven days a year. Will the reduced training time be sufficient? Will it cause grievance for our NSmen? For example, the length of training that is required for a security trooper should be the same, regardless of whether it is performed by a volunteer or an NSmen. Otherwise, our NSmen will wonder why they need to spend more time training for the same role or whether every part of the training is really necessary.
The issue of equity in treatment between volunteers and NSmen is especially important. Volunteers are subject to a different rank structure, and how they are treated in camp must commensurate with their training and experience. Our NSmen are not going to take lightly to a volunteer \"legal specialist staff\" being treated in camp as if he is a fully-trained SAF officer or a \"medical trainer\" who has not gone through the usual Medical Officers' Course being treated like any other MO (Medical Officer) in camp.
If the Government sees SAFVC as a way of getting first-generation Permanent Residents (PRs) and citizens to play a part in the military defence of Singapore, it is important that the Government pays attention to these issues.
Page: 118
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang): Sir, through an Act of Parliament in 1967, Singapore's Defence Force, consisting of conscripts, was born and organised not without difficulty. The National Service Act requires that all able-bodied and healthy men at the age of 18 are to undergo two years of military life. There was initial resistance from the community. Understandably so, because it essentially meant taking male children away from parents for two years and subjecting them to the unknown perils of military life.
This illustrates the importance of support from the community for the country to organise a standing army. The need for community support and understanding becomes even more critical when our men graduate from full-time National Service training to reservist training. Calling on them and drawing them away from civilian life means disrupting their professional careers and affecting their employers' wherewithal.
The Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence (ACCORD) was established by MINDEF in 1984 as a channel for the community to provide feedback on issues concerning Singapore's defence. Members of ACCORD have played a significant part in building public acceptance and support for Singapore's security and defence needs over the years.
Although ACCORD has been a useful channel of feedback for MINDEF and on the SAF's policies and programmes, Second Minister for Defence Mr Chan's announcement at COS 2014 on plans to restructure ACCORD to strengthen community support for NS was both timely and a positive step forward, even as support for NS remains high.
Commitment to defence and support for NS from the larger Singaporean community have to be continually reinforced and strengthened, especially in times of peace. It would be too late to only do so in times of crisis.
The restructured ACCORD, with its three Councils, is aimed at strengthening engagement with stakeholders from businesses, educational institutions, families and communities on the importance of defence and the need for NS.
Can MINDEF provide an update on the restructured ACCORD and the progress made over the past year? In particular, can MINDEF provide an update on the work of the various Councils under the newly restructured ACCORD? How are these Councils intending to reach out to stakeholders, such as employers, schools and families?
\tPage: 119
Mr Alex Yam: Mr Chairman, \"The most dependable guarantee of our Independence is a strong SAF. A strong SAF, in turn, depends on the political will to make the effort and pay the price.\" These are the words of the Father of SAF, the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, in 1984.
Since the formation of the SAF 50 years ago, the defence of Singapore continues to be dependent on the will of Singaporeans to support the policy of having a strong armed forces and taking personal responsibility to be involved in our defence.
The global and local landscape is changing. Our challenges are evolving, too. External challenges have moved on from conventional warfare to asymmetrical threats. Internal challenges have also emerged, key of which is demographic changes in Singapore, a shrinking population and, thus, a shrinking base from which our armed forces can call upon.
The world view of Singaporeans has changed as well. To many, dangers to our sovereignty are less apparent today than in the past. Support for National Service, that rite of passage for Singaporean men, remains high, but we must guard against complacency.
We need to recommit ourselves to the defence of our country, to return to the spirit of our early Independence. We are a country lacking in a real tradition of soldiering and seafaring. Therefore, much more effort is required to re-emphasise the importance of the SAF to Singapore's long-term future.
In the words of Mr Lee Kuan Yew: \"Without a strong SAF, there is no economic future, there is no security.\"
How will the Ministry ensure continued commitment by Singaporeans to defence? What is the Ministry's reading of the long-term prospects? I, therefore, urge the Ministry to fully engage Singaporeans at this important milestone of SG50 and SAF50. There will be challenges but, as we have seen in our history, we can surmount them and come out stronger.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): During last year's COS debate, I had requested the expeditious resolution of the issue of the loyalty of Singaporean Malays. The request was made based on the Suara Musyawarah Report. I would like to highlight one of the practices that may have inadvertently given rise to the unhealthy perceptions about the loyalty of Singaporean Malays.
\tPage: 120
During a recent forum attended by the Minister for Defence, it was reported in The Straits Times that the Minister had been asked a question on perceived bias against Malays
in the SAF and the exclusion of Malays from the Navy. In his response to the question, the Minister had said that there was a practical issue of having halal-certified kitchens on board Navy ships.
It is truly disheartening to find out from the Minister's response that Singaporean Malays had, indeed, been excluded from Navy ships all this while. It is also very disappointing to find out that the exclusion of Singaporean Malays from Navy ships is a result of a practical issue. But what is most worrying is that the practice of excluding Singaporean Malays from Navy ships may be wrongly perceived by Singaporeans as evidence that there is bias against Malays in SAF and that there is an issue over the loyalty of Singaporean Malays to this nation.
It was also reported that the Minister had said that provisions have been made to allow Singaporean Malays to serve onboard Navy ships if they are willing to do so. This is definitely a most welcome change and I applaud MINDEF for taking a step towards a more inclusive SAF. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the possibility of ensuring that all Navy ships are equipped with halal-certified kitchens so that Malays will be allowed to serve freely in the Navy without any constraints. I urge the Minister not to stop there, but also to work towards making the entire SAF an inclusive and open organisation that is fair and just to all Singaporeans regardless of race, language and religion.
My final point is with regard to what the Minister had said during the forum about sensitive positions in the military. The Minister was reported to have said that a person is deployed in a sensitive unit in SAF based on his or her ability and beliefs, and not on his race. Again, I applaud the Minister and MINDEF for their laudable efforts to make SAF an inclusive and open organisation that is fair and just to all Singaporean service persons. However, I note that the Minister advised caution over the fact that \"people can be blackmailed\". While I agree with the Minister that we have to ensure that the people who are placed in sensitive positions in the military do not compromise our national security, I would like the Minister to clarify what kind of people does he have in mind and how can they be blackmailed?
Mr Alex Yam: Mr Lee Kuan Yew at the 2012 Temasek Society dialogue said, \"The SAF has done better than I hoped. That was because the generation that grew up, knew the stakes that were involved.\"
\tPage: 121
As the Minister has mentioned, 2015 is significant for two reasons: it is our nation's Golden Jubilee and also the 50th anniversary of the SAF. In 1965, we had the small luxury of still having the British forces stationed in Singapore. But with their accelerated pull-out in 1971, that meant that our early SAF pioneers had to build up a credible defence force in double quick time.
I attended the launch of the SAF50@Vivo with members of the SAF Veterans' League. It was a humbling moment to be in the midst of men like CPT (Ret) Shamsudin bin Shadan, an old friend who, despite his now mellowed years, still displays the tenacity and iron will of the strict Regimental Sergeant Major that he was in 1966.
I welcome and fully support the role of our SAF veterans and pioneers in educating and guiding the next generation of pioneers for SAF. I also look forward to more in SAF50 to commemorate this significant milestone. But more importantly, I hope that we can do more to recognise and honour our pioneers. Some of those who were in the earliest batches of SAF and National Service do not qualify for the Pioneer Generation Package. But serve they did. Would the Ministry consider any way to recognise these stalwarts similarly so that their sacrifices would not be forgotten?
Ms Ellen Lee: Chairman, the annual National Day Parade (NDP) has been entrenched in the lives of Singaporeans as the signature event in the month of August, alongside other events to mark the nation's birthday. Participants feel the tug of patriotism in their hearts and revel in the uniquely Singaporean flavour of this visual and aural feast by cheering loudly and singing national songs.
Expectations run high this year because it is our 50th birthday and our people have confidence in MINDEF staging a parade that will be remembered for a long time. Minister has just given to us a glimpse of what to expect at the Padang this year. Can Minister give us more information on what else can we expect for the National Day Parade?
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Listening to the Minister's sneak preview of the NDP, it sounds exciting, but I hope it will not become a grand spectacle, a multimedia concert or just a TV extravaganza with bells and whistles. I feel that this NDP should be unique and special in another way. It should be a real experience for everyone there and everybody watching. It should stir our emotions, inspire our imagination.
Sir, Singapore held her first national day parade in 1966 at the Padang. Although still reeling from the trauma of Separation and anxious over the country's survival, our Pioneers managed to muster the courage and imagination to put up a parade with the theme:
\tPage: 122
National Pride and Confidence in the Future. One of the highlights was the 19-minute march-pasts of 23,000 men, women and children. The march-pasts was held by six contingents of the volunteer force, People's Defence Force (PDF), which was just formed on 30 December 1965. The PDF, including its women's contingent, were on public parade for the first time. Also in the PDF's contingent were several Ministers and Members of Parliament, all wearing, for the first time, the uniforms of officer cadets.
Our founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, recorded in his memoirs: \"They put up a brave show and were cheered enthusiastically by those behind the saluting guys and by the crowds lining the streets as they recognise their sun-tanned Ministers and MPs in uniform, eager in their stride if lacking in martial bearing.\"
In his aural history, Othman Wok, one of the Ministers who marched in that parade, revealed that it was Mr Lee who had gone around persuading the Ministers and Members of Parliaments to take part in the PDF contingent.
The NDP, held at a low point when the people's morale was sliding dangerously low, boosted their faith in the country and its leaders. At that time, Singapore had just two infantry regiments, both under Malaysian command, and no regular army of its own to speak of. Our Pioneer leaders sweated blood to build up SAF from scratch. How far we have come today. Our SAF has proven to be a strong and credible military force and the pride of our nation.
As we celebrate Singapore's 50th year of Independence this year, let us not forget our Pioneer Generation, especially our founding leaders, who have struggled against mighty odds to get us to this point. In the spirit of honouring our Pioneers, we should involve the PDF volunteers who marched in the first NDP if they are still with us and are able to come. We should invite them and give them their due spotlight in our Jubilee parade, now back at the Padang where it all began.
There is also an extra Pioneer leader, whom we must honour: our founding Premier, Lee Kuan Yew. It is also right that we, as a nation, pay him a special tribute in this year's NDP. Without his strong and visionary leadership, without his determination and gumption, Singapore would certainly not be where it is today, a country free and strong, as we often sing in our community song.
I fear that if we let this moment pass, we would become desensitised to the notion of sacrifice and service, and take the tears and sweat of those who have gone before us for granted. To pay tribute is to show the grateful heart of the nation. If there is time for a nation to make room for remembrance and sentimentality, it is this NDP. Even if Mr Lee may not
\tPage: 123
want it or expect it, I feel it is important that we, as a nation, honour him during this special occasion.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he could consider making this a part of this year's NDP. I would also like to call for the new SAF Volunteer Corps, which is really a reincarnation of the PDF, to take part. It is to show a line of continuity between the Pioneer Generation and the new one and bridge the generation gap.
The Second Minister for Defence (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Chairman, the cornerstone of our defence is our commitment to defend what is ours. What we cannot defend and what we are not committed to defend will not be ours. This commitment depends not just on the generations of National Servicemen who have served in SAF. It also depends on all Singaporeans who may not directly serve in SAF. It further depends on all institutions and organisations in our society. To engender the commitment of our National Servicemen, we must train our Servicemen well, train them safely, be good stewards of their time and talents and, last but not least, to give due recognition to our National Servicemen where it is due.
Dr Intan asked about our fitness regime. Fitness is the basic building block of our National Servicemen's capabilities. We want our National Servicemen to be fit for their operational duties, for themselves, for their families and for the country. We have announced that, from 1 April 2015, the IPPT system will evolve to a three-station regime to make it easier to train and to encourage our NSmen to excel. Since last year, we have also provided our NSmen more time – 12 months – to train, prepare and meet their fitness requirements. We have since introduced \"IPPT in the Park\", to make it more convenient for our NSmen to access training. We have also trialled the use of iDAT and Fitbit for NSmen to take greater ownership of their own fitness training. We did all these to partner our NSmen in their fitness journey even as they meet their other family and economic responsibilities. All these measures will also complement the SAF's vocational fitness regime to prepare our NSmen and NSFs for their operational demands.
Dr Intan also asked for an update on our safety system. In the area of training safety, we have made various improvements to our training and medical systems to better take care of our National Servicemen. The SAF medical service is working closely with the National Health Systems to leverage each other's capabilities to care for all Servicemen and for all Singaporeans as a continual. For example, we recently opened the SAF Cardiac Fitness Centre and this is integrated with the National Heart Centre. Such collaboration would allow us to leverage each other's resources and benchmark the SAF's health and medical standards to the wider national system. From January 2015, the SAF has also put in place the Emergency Ambulance Service which works with private ambulance operators to allow serious casualties to be directly evacuated to hospitals while receiving treatment en route.
\tPage: 124
At the tactical level, we have leveraged the soldier tracker system to keep track of our soldiers on difficult terrain and small unit operations. This system is not just operationally useful; it also provides greater confidence to our evacuation system. The SAF is also working behind the scenes to evolve our work-rest cycle to better manage physical demands on our soldiers. This will regulate their physiological strains while achieving optimal performance in their operational duties. To reduce heat injuries, heat stress monitors have also been introduced to closely monitor localised weather conditions.
To be good stewards of our National Servicemen's time and talents, and, as part of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNC)'s recommendations, MINDEF and the Ministry of Home Affairs will be adjusting our pre-enlistment medical screening and administration schedule. Today, 45% of our pre-enlistees enlist within four months of graduation from their post-secondary education. In future, 90%, double what we have today, will enlist within four months; the rest will enlist within six months. This will impact more than 20,000 enlistees each year.
Let me now touch on time management. The learning style of our youths has changed. We must similarly evolve our training pedagogy. MINDEF will continue to widen the use of LEARNet to save an estimated 15% to 20% of training time to be reinvested into hands-on practice for our soldiers. We are also redesigning our training equipping system to allow our National Servicemen to focus more time on their training, rather than on administrative duties.
For example, we are currently building a new tactical engagement system equipping station that will come online this year. This new station will allow us to fully equip an infantry or armour battalion with the tactical engagement system for training within half a day, much less than the 24 hours required previously. For mobilisation and equipping, I have shared last year that what used to take 24 hours to equip a brigade size force will now take much less time than that. And the time saved can be used by the soldiers to conduct their refresher training as their commanders get their battle plans ready.
MINDEF also engenders commitment in our people by being good stewards of our Servicemen's talents and energies. SAF works on the principle of meritocracy, we deploy soldiers to vocations based on merit and that which best makes use of their capabilities, aptitude and commitment. It does not make sense for us to do otherwise because people are the most precious resource that we have.
MINDEF and MHA will continue to recognise our National Servicemen. The NS Recognition Award, or NSRA, will now evolve into the NS HOME Awards. \"HOME\" stands for
\tPage: 125
\"Housing\", \"Medical\" and \"Education\".
Previously, a National Serviceman would receive $9,000 to $10,500 across the three milestones in his NS journey. Going forward, he will receive an additional $6,000 for MediSave grants. From September 2015 this year, we will advance part of this additional grant to help cover our NSmen's MediShield Life premiums while they are serving full-time National Service.
Since implementation in September 2014, more than 56,000 National Servicemen have benefited and about $270 million has been disbursed under this scheme.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Alex Yam asked about the Volunteer Corps. Mr Chairman, let me now touch on engendering the commitment of Singaporeans for those who do not directly serve in the SAF.
Actually, to be frank, all Singaporean families contribute to SAF directly and indirectly. Generations of parents, spouses, girlfriends who have encouraged and supported their sons, husbands and boyfriends in National Service have contributed directly and indirectly to our defence.
Come March, another group of people will demonstrate their commitment to our defence in a different way. They will form the SAF Volunteer Corps, or SAFVC, as we call them, continuing the proud tradition of the Singapore Volunteer Corps way before the SAF was even in existence.
The first intake of the SAF Volunteer Corps will begin training in March 2015, and it is this month. Since recruitment started last October, we have close to 900 applicants. We expect to take in 100 to 150 volunteers this year. They are a good mix of Singapore Citizens and first-generation Permanent Residents. They will also serve in a variety of roles alongside our National Servicemen. What they bring to the table is not just operational capabilities for the defence of this country. As importantly, if not more, they bring a new dimension of commitment to defence of our country. Through their actions, they have demonstrated their willingness to go the extra mile to defend what is ours.
In response to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question, different SAFVCs will have different capabilities and they will be matched according to their capabilities where their deployment is effective and safe. We will also security-clear all SAFVCs, as what we will do for all our National Servicemen. No difference.
\tPage: 126
Mr Ong Teng Koon asked about ACCORD. Societal support forms the final pillar in our commitment to defence. Since last August, we have revamped ACCORD to form three Councils – the Employer and Business Council; the Family and Community Council and the Educational Institutions Council. This is to provide greater representation across different sectors in society and to tap their ideas and network to strengthen our commitment to defence.
Let me also at this juncture thank the three co-chairs – Mr Tony Chew, Ms Claire Chiang and Ms Indranee – and their many sub-committees who have worked very hard over the last few months to come up with the many recommendations that we have before us today. MINDEF has accepted all their recommendations for this year. We will progressively put in place the many good ideas that they have recommended.
Let me provide some updates on the Employer and Business Council while Minister of State Maliki will provide updates for the other two Councils subsequently.
The Employer and Business Council has recommended that we revamp the Total Defence Awards to recognise more people and organisations across different sectors who have contributed to the defence of Singapore. For example, instead of just recognising the employers and companies, we should also recognise the colleagues and immediate superiors who have been supportive and who have made a difference to the National Servicemen when they answer the call of duty.
Another example – we know that different industries and different sectors face different challenges in supporting the National Servicemen. Somebody in the trade sector will need quite different support from somebody in a factory. We also know that the challenges of the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the big multinational corporations (MNCs) are quite different. Hence, we will work with the respective trade associations and business chambers to revamp their awards and to recognise more from the different sectors and different sizes of companies.
The Employer and Business Council also recognises that many skills – especially leadership, organisation and management skills – picked up by our NSmen are invaluable to their business operations. The performance of our NSmen in the SAF also provides valuable signals to the companies on the potential, the energies, the capabilities and the commitment of their employees. Hence, MINDEF and the employers have agreed to work together to let the employers better know the talent and attributes of our NSmen, who are their employees, so that they can better appreciate the talent of their employees – our NSmen – and better make use of those talents within their organisations.
\tPage: 127
The Employer and Business Council has also recommended for MINDEF to work closer with the employers to keep them informed of their employees' upcoming in-camp training schedules. This will allow employers to better forecast their employees' work responsibilities to afford our NSmen peace of mind in preparing the discharge of their National Service duties.
The outreach done by the Employer and Business Council has also provided many employers fresh perspectives on the work of our National Servicemen. Many of them have given me positive feedback on what they have learnt about their employees – our NSmen – what they do in camp, the level of commitment that they demonstrate in their recall exercises and so forth. All these have generated a fresh sense of commitment towards our national defence because now our employers better understand how their employees – our Servicemen – work not just for their respective companies in peacetime, but also for the collective defence of our country, without which, their businesses would not be able to flourish.
Knowledge and understanding are the first steps in our societal support. We will continue to strengthen this partnership with the employers and businesses to provide the strongest support possible for our National Servicemen in the discharge of their duties to the nation.
Mr Chairman, the most powerful weapon of the SAF lies in the commitment of our people. I once met a young soldier from another country. His military did not have the advanced technology that we have. He knew that his military is not as capable as ours. But he looked me in the eye and told me that should anyone dare to come into his motherland uninvited and mean them harm, he will personally chase them out – even if he has only a bamboo spear in his hand. I respect this young soldier's spirit and determination. I think there is much that we can learn from this young soldier.
Yes, today, the SAF is a capable military and we can defend what is ours. But this capable military will come to naught if we do not have the gumption, will, determination or unity to defend what is ours.
On the other hand, if we can couple our advanced military capabilities with steely determination, if we can engender the commitment of our people, our entire society – our NSmen, all Singaporeans, businesses and social civic organisations – then I must say we have a formidable, if not invincible, defence machine.
Mr Chairman, let me now invite Minister of State Maliki to provide further updates on the work of ACCORD.
\tPage: 128
The Minister of State for Defence (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Chairman, ACCORD is an important platform that encourages ground-up initiatives to strengthen support for National Service. Minister Chan spoke about ACCORD and its renewed direction and structure to help deepen appreciation for our Servicemen. I co-chair the Family and Community (F&C) Council with the Senior Vice President of Banyan Tree, Ms Claire Chiang,
and the Educational Institutions (EI) Council with Senior Minister of State for Education Ms Indranee Rajah. Through these two Councils, we hope to reach out to schools and institutions of higher learning (IHLs) as well as strengthen family and community support for National Services. We have invited members of the community to serve on the Councils. Since being appointed, the members have worked very hard and have proposed many fruitful initiatives. Let me share a few of them.
The EI Council, for example, brings together members from educational institutions and other stakeholders to look at ways to strengthen support for National Service. For example, currently, NSmen can enrol for special enrichment and refresher modules before the start of their university studies. These programmes help ease NSmen's transition back to university, especially if they are embarking on a new course of study, and may also contribute to their university credits. The Council will explore how these existing modules can be enhanced to better meet the learning needs of the students and explore other efforts which could support our NSmen.
The members of the F&C Council have also engaged our communities to develop good ideas to strengthen support for NS and defence. Every year, during SAF Day, we receive strong support from merchants and businesses who provide discounts to our Servicemen and Servicewomen. Last year, a total of 151 retailers, in sectors ranging from fashion to food and beverages to electronics, came on board to show their appreciation to the SAF by offering discounts and deals. This was a strong show of support from our community. We want to encourage more visible and sustained ground-up support for our Servicemen and Servicewomen.
In this regard, we will collaborate with the People's Association (PA) and SAFRA to garner community and local businesses' support. PA is looking at how they can offer privileges for use of facilities at community centres to Servicemen and Servicewomen, including NSmen and NSFs. SAFRA is also looking at enhancing their membership privileges. We hope that, through their partnerships and networks with various merchants, they can offer more benefits and discounts to Servicemen in recognition of their service.
The F&C Council also felt that it was important to reach out to women and help them better understand national defence, given the important support they provide to their sons, husbands or brothers serving their National Service. The Council, therefore, recommended that we partner the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations and PA's Women
\tPage: 129
Integration Network to conduct sessions for mothers to share their experiences in supporting their children through National Service. We are also looking into conducting engagement sessions with wives of NSmen and young women.
Mr Chairman, the restructured ACCORD and its three Councils have taken a more proactive approach, compared to its predecessor. The members are actively leading in various initiatives and such ground-up efforts will have a significant impact on our outreach and engagement with various stakeholders to increase commitment to defence and support for National Service.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Alex Yam asked how we are intending to mark SAF50. I am pleased to report that the SAF has planned a series of SAF50 events this year under the theme \"Our SAF: Giving Strength to our Nation\". These events recognise and honour the contributions of all the men and women who have served in the defence of our country. Indeed, SAF50 is our way of saying \"thank you\" to all who dedicated themselves to preserving our sovereignty and defending our way of life, especially our Pioneers.
What SAF lacked in resources in the early years, our Pioneers made up for with their fortitude and determination. Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show some pictures of these Pioneers.
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: These Pioneers range from the soldiers of the 1st and 2nd Singapore Infantry Regiment; volunteers from the Singapore Volunteer Corps, Singapore Naval Volunteer Force and Singapore Women's Auxiliary Naval Service, and other volunteer forces, many of whom became members of the SAF when it was formed in 1965. These Pioneers were the early batches of officers, as well as National Servicemen who responded to the call after National Service was instituted in 1967.
Last month, we organised the first SAF50 public event – SAF50@Vivo. Held from 12 to 15 February, the four-day event attracted more than 87,000 visitors. While it had the usual displays of military hardware and fun activities, SAF50@Vivo was anchored on an exhibition that featured SAF stories. These were stories of our Pioneers, and their convictions and sacrifices. Stories of men and women who supported the SAF, whether from within the SAF or from the larger Singapore community. One Pioneer featured in our stories was LTC (Ret) Timothy De Souza. He was part of the RSAF's first aerobatic team in 1973. Another Pioneer was LTC (Ret) Syed Ibrahim. He was involved in Konfrontasi operations and later became an instructor who trained the first batch of our Officer Cadets.
\tPage: 130
Another of these stories featured Eliza Heng, a volunteer counsellor and a mother of two sons. She spoke of how, through National Service, her sons \"gained maturity in their outlook on life, and had become less self-centered and are more accepting of the little inconveniences in life\". I am very heartened that many Singaporeans connected with and learnt a lot from the stories shared at the exhibition.
Mdm Hani, in her 40s who visited the SAF50@Vivo said that the exhibition helped her to relate personally to our Servicemen whom she spoke to at the SAF50 booth. She said, \"Through them, I know what my son does and goes through during National Service\". Another visitor is Ms Theresa Chua, 24 years old, who said that the event reminded her that \"it takes the whole community to come together to defend and protect the welfare and sovereignty of our nation\".
I am gratified by these comments. They remind me that because of the SAF, we have common space for Singaporeans of all backgrounds to interact, train together and forge enduring friendships. As a result, we have built a deep pool of social capital that gives strength to our nation. Through efforts, such as SAF50@Vivo and the outreach efforts of the ACCORD Councils, we will continue to engage the community and groups such as women and schools, so that we deepen the social capital and goodwill that the SAF has built over the years. We will continue to commemorate SAF50 over the course of the year.
To expand our outreach, the SAF50 exhibition will travel to various public venues, including regional libraries across Singapore, till October 2015. Stories on the exhibition will be put up on the SAF50 website and in a commemorative book, as well as adapted into short videos. The commemorative book, which will be launched in July this year, will be a collection of more than 70 stories that will allow us to see the SAF through the range of lenses – from diplomacy, defence technology, operations, to family and community support, media and entertainment.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Alex Yam also asked if our SAF Pioneers will be involved in the SAF50 events. I am happy that many Pioneers came to the SAF50@Vivo exhibition and many others will be at other key events such as the SAF50 Parade, SAF50 Commemoration Dinner and SAF50 at Istana Presidential Garden reception. SAF Pioneers invited to these events include officers and warrant officers from the first batch of National Servicemen, first batch of officer cadets, Pioneers who served before 1965, and Servicemen who contributed to significant local and overseas SAF missions and operations.
\tPage: 131
Some of these personalities will include our longest serving Chief of Defence Force Brigadier-General (Ret) Winston Choo, legendary Regimental Sergeant Majors, such as Captain (Ret) Hong Seng Mak – also known as \"Tiger Hong\" – and Captain (Ret) Shamsudin bin Shadan, and many more.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
SAF formations and units will also engage their own Pioneers as part of their celebrations. Here, I also note Mr Seah Kian Peng's suggestion for MINDEF to support Unit Alumni Reunions. Indeed, we want to bring our Pioneers and previous batches of ex-Servicemen closer to our younger generation. They inspire us with their experiences, memories and motivations.
Mdm Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show a few more pictures of our Pioneers.
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: SAF Pioneers like Colonel (Ret) Goh Lye Choon, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Syed Ibrahim and Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Daljeet Singh were involved in Konfrontasi operations. They fought for their comrades, families and for the security of our country at a difficult period of Singapore's history.
We have Navy Pioneers like Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Jaswant Singh Gill and Senior Warrant Officer (Ret) Wee Cheng Leong who saw the development of the navy from its formative years to become what it is today. Major (Ret) Agnes Fong from RSAF was amongst the first batch of female officers. She later blazed the trail to become the first female commanding officer in SAF. They will continue to inspire us and the next generation.
Mr Alex Yam also asked how MINDEF engaged Singaporeans to strengthen the public's commitment to defence. Our starting point is a simple one. We believe that everyone has a part to play in defence. All stakeholders can and should take a personal responsibility in defence, whether you are a mother, employer, teacher or student. This is why we work through ACCORD where different stakeholders from businesses, schools and the community have come forward to contribute and demonstrate their support for National Service.
Besides ACCORD, we have also been actively engaging grassroots leaders, employers, trade union leaders, overseas Singaporeans, Permanent Residents, new citizens, women's organisations and others through visits to SAF units and other activities to keep them informed and updated on National Service and defence-related issues. We aim to be as
\tPage: 132
inclusive as possible.
In collaboration with MOE under the SAF-Schools Partnership Programme, 33 post-secondary education institutions have paired with 47 SAF units to co-organise activities, such as unit visits, for their students.
We need to keep up such efforts to engage our public, because Singapore's defence can only be as strong as our people's will to defend Singapore. This is why we launched the Commitment to Defence Ambassadors programme this year during the SAF50@Vivo on 13 February, through which, some of our Pioneers and ex-Servicemen will engage our younger Singaporeans and share with them our early struggles, experiences, and accomplishments in the face of adversity. I hope that these stories will inspire younger Singaporeans and give them the spirit and strength to do their part for Singapore.
Indeed, Madam, as we celebrate SG50 and SAF50 this year, we must remember the spirit and strength exemplified by our Pioneers. We must harness it and work towards building a more secure and prosperous future for Singapore.
The Chairman: We have some time for clarification. Anyone wants to raise any issue? Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, thank you. I have heard our Ministers speak about the commitment, the importance of the heart and also of how people have spoken about how they are very proud and committed to be soldiers. In my own experience, I have spoken with many people and it is refreshing to hear those who say positive things about National Service because the majority of the people I have spoken with have very negative views about National Service. Many of them are cynical and I have heard people who say, \"I do not see any reason why I should defend the country\". There are people who have said, \"We have not been trained well enough\".
I would like to ask the Minister how we would want to address those. I think we may have certain generations who have passed, but for the younger ones who are coming into National Service, how are we going to build up that heart of passion and love for the country, so that regardless of the people and circumstances, they will want to train because they believe in defending the country?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Madam, I thank the Nominated Member for the remarks. She is right. The SAF is a microcosm of society. You cannot expect everyone to hold the same view, same commitment. And I will tell you, as the betting average goes, we are fighting against the
\tPage: 133
trend.
We have a chart about the number of countries that have conscription over the last few years. It is coming down. In Asia, it is really Korea and us, because national service to protect your country is a difficult enterprise. And I would say to that, more an answer that is rose-tinted or even unrealistic, that you have to continue. We have tried in various ways – which the Second Minister and Minister of State have said – whether it is Commitment to Defence Ambassadors, or whether it is through our SAF50 exhibitions or our NDP which we talked about, it is a continuing process.
But I believe that on the whole, Singaporeans will defend Singapore when it comes to the crunch. I believe we have built enough goodwill and belief. I acknowledge what Ms Chia said, that there are those who feel that they do not feel that they have the heart or great commitment to defend Singapore; they exist. We will continue to work. But whether or not they do, each one recognises that you have to do National Service, and during the time that we have, we will continue to plod on and to continue to help them to understand why we have to defend our country.
Madam, with your permission, I also want to respond to some queries, since we have a few minutes in clarification.
One was what Member Irene Ng asked about in terms of whether those who marched in the first NDP will also be marching in our 50th Golden Jubilee. They will be slightly older now, but those that are around will, as she says in her words \"some of them will come back\". Indeed. And not only the first NDP contingent, but the first few, if not marching, then as spectators. The NDP Organising Committee thought that it would be useful to reprise or to bring back the old NDP marching contingents. So, there will be a vintage parade, which means nurses in their old costumes, policemen in their shorts. They would not be the people who marched in the first NDP; they will be younger ones but wearing the same costumes as the vintage parade.
But I agree absolutely with the Member that it is not just a show, and I agree with her. If that is all it is, then we have failed. We have to have a touch point, as the member has rightly pointed out, to explain or to impress on people, to celebrate together, to review what we have accomplished together as a nation and to look forward.
Another point that I want to respond to is the one by the Member Mr Faisal Manap. Let me thank him for his support for our policy on Malays in the SAF. As I have said and other Defence Ministers before me have said, the SAF's deployment of our National Service soldiers is based on their aptitude, abilities and commitment to Singapore. If you are
\tPage: 134
committed to Singapore and have the abilities, we will put you in the best possible position.
He asked some of the comments I have made in a session with Yale-NUS and Law. The context has to be correct. One question was asked, \"Can you deploy them? How do you deploy them when it came to sensitive positions?\" I made the point about security clearance, and that is routine for these positions. I think Members would find the SAF remiss if, for sensitive positions, we did not do our security clearance. You know what happened in other countries. Snowden is a classic example where your secrets are all out, and you put your people in danger. So, that is routine.
We will continue to commit to make sure that every Singaporean in National Service is put into the best use, as we have done in CSNS as we engage them. And with the support of Members of the House, I believe that we can continue to have a strong defence.
The Chairman: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, just to give my point of view. My impression was that when the Minister mentioned about sensitive areas, it relates back to my own personal experience that I had when I was serving in National Service. So, I would like to ask the Minister; is there any sensitive area that is actually out of bounds for the Malays, because I kind of assumed that the experience that I had may be due to that.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Madam, there are sensitive units within MINDEF that are out of bounds to Chinese, to Indians. Race is not a factor. It is an issue about commitment and, as you can well imagine, that they are even out of bounds to people who are senior, depending what is the sensitivity is. That is how you run militaries. You have to keep your secrets.
You know the slogan \"Loose lips sink ships\". Those who are in security understand it. And that is routine for militaries, for security agencies. It is common; it is applied; and we have to protect and make sure that the information we have is secure, and it is restricted based on security clearance.
The Chairman: Ms Irene Ng.
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: I just thought that I should make clear that when I said to involve the PDF volunteers who marched in the first NDP in this year's NDP, I did not mean to ask them to march. I meant to invite them and to give them the due spotlight so that they
\tPage: 135
will feel that they are being appreciated.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: We are inviting those that we can find. So, yes, some of them will be involved. But the larger picture is that we plan a good celebration that all Singaporeans can come together. The Member's point is that really, at the end of it, will Singaporeans feel as one, more united, more optimistic about the future, more determined to forge a better future for all of us? That we will need the help of all Singaporeans.
The NDP Organising Committee knows that it has a very onerous task and very high standards for it because there are many requests. They will do their best possible. But I would like us all to enjoy the NDP show come 9 August. And, as I said, make sure that after the NDP show, keep our streets clean, be safe, and I believe that if we put our minds to it and if we use that occasion to see how far we have come as a nation, to use that occasion to come together closer, and to use that occasion to look forward to our future, I believe that the NDP would have served its purpose. And I hope that it will serve its purpose.
The Chairman: If there are no other clarifications, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Yes, Madam. Once again, Madam, I thank our Members for their contributions and our Ministers and Minister of State for their responses. With that, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $12,691,000,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $431,000,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
Page: 136
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, I beg to move,
\"That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Madam, the past year has been a busy and challenging one for the Home Team. Among other things, we have introduced new laws on liquor consumption, remote gambling and aftercare for ex-inmates. The hearings of the Little India Committee of Inquiry (COI) were held and findings released, and the Ministry is in the process of implementing its recommendations.
But the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is not just about signature pieces of legislation or high-profile events. What matters most to all Singaporeans are the things we expect and often take for granted – low crime rates; safe and secure communities; speedy clearances at immigration and fuss-free travel; quick and effective response by the Police, Civil Defence and ambulances when things go wrong.
This is far easier said than done, but that is the expectation. How is the Home Team going to stay ahead of the curve? I would like to ask the Minister for his views on the key challenges faced by the Home Team currently and in the future. More importantly, are we prepared to deal with these challenges?
A significant question that keeps coming up is whether we have adequate resources, in particular, trained and experienced personnel.
During the COI, the then Commissioner of Police Ng Joo Hee gave evidence of the need for more Police officers. Following that, the Ministry announced that 300 more officers would be added to the Special Operations Command (COS). In a bid to attract and retain more talent, the Ministry has also implemented salary increases for Home Team officers and sign-on bonuses for SPF officers. How successful have our recruitment efforts been for the SOC in particular and the Home Team in general? I hope the Minister will share the relevant statistics and tell us what further steps, if any, the Ministry intends to take to recruit as well as retain good officers.
Apart from increasing our headcount, we need to make sure that our officers are equipped with the right training and skills. A lot has been said about this in the aftermath of the Little India Riot, and changes have been made or are currently underway to improve our response to large-scale public order incidents. But the right training and skills are also
Page: 137
necessary to tackle other kinds of crime, such as the rising incidents of cybercrime. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) recently reported that cases of \"cheating involving e-commerce\" rose by 1,149 cases from 510 in 2013 to 1,659 in 2014. And that is an increase of 225%. The number of \"Internet love scams\" and \"cyber extortion\" cases have also increased significantly. Cybercrime also takes many other forms, such as online sexual harassment and cyber-bullying, now covered by the Protection from Harassment Act. Given the increase of crime online, we need our investigative officers to be equipped with the requisite expertise and technological know-how. Could the Minister elaborate on how Police officers are trained to tackle Internet crime?
Resources are also critical in dealing with the growing terrorist threat. There have been many discussions about the seriousness of that threat, and whether MHA is equipped to deal with it. But the nature of the threat is such that it is impossible for MHA to deal with this alone, and no amount of additional resources will fill that gap. There is another resource we must develop and prepare and, that is, our people. How successful we are in meeting the terrorist threat will depend on how we respond to attacks. This is especially important, given the shift towards \"soft\" targets, such as innocent civilians. Should an attack occur, Singaporeans must know what to do and how to react so that they can help save their own lives, the lives of others, and ensure things remain calm.
Are our people ready? Will an attack divide or unite Singaporeans? We pride ourselves as a shining example of multiracial, multi-religious harmony, but there are other societies we can learn from. As the Sydney Siege unfolded and the religious affiliation of the gunman revealed, the majority of Australians responded, not with hatred, distrust or hysteria, but with compassion and solidarity. The Twitter hashtag \"#illridewithyou\" went viral as Australians pledged their support for those who might feel vulnerable taking public transport in religious attire. It was an amazing response, because it was exceptional.
In the event of a terror attack in Singapore, how will Singaporeans respond? Will we turn against certain nationalities or people of a certain faith? How is it that the Australians responded so well? And what can we learn from them? If the answer to all these questions is that \"we do not know\", then, obviously, more needs to be done because these are critical issues we must tackle today.
Resources will also be better employed if we are able to tackle the source of crime. And one large source is those being released from prison. Statistics released by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) in January 2015 show that the recidivism rate is the highest in nine years. To be fair, as these figures relate to inmates released in 2012, we cannot yet see the fruit of the new aftercare schemes for ex-inmates. These include the Conditional Remission System which came into operation on 1 July last year.
Page: 138
But it is not just about numbers and statistics. Every person sent to prison is a soul lost. It does not just affect that person, but those close to him or her, particularly their children. Rehabilitation schemes aside, for many ex-offenders, an integral part of turning over a new leaf involves finding meaningful employment. That will not just benefit the ex-offender and his family, but society as a whole. The Singapore Prison Service statistics indicate that the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) helped 1,865 inmates secure jobs prior to their release in 2014. But the same report also shows that there were 11,955 convicted penal releases and 1,350 DRC releases in 2014. So, the 1,865 who secured jobs really represent a small minority of those who did secure jobs after release from prison. I would like to ask the Minister what more could be done to help ex-inmates upgrade their skills and find work.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Madam, it almost goes without saying that Singaporeans have become increasingly connected to the Internet. A few simple numbers published by the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) illustrate this quite clearly.
Household access to Internet has gone up to 87% in 2013. The usage of individual Internet has risen to 72% in 2012. And the mobile penetration rate, which is the total number of phone subscribers over the total population, has increased to a staggering 156% in 2013. We are now fourth in the world on that score and higher than Hong Kong, the United States or the United Kingdom. These individuals carry not only just mobile phones but also smartphones which allow them to carry out a variety of transactions online.
This has been demonstrated by the increase in the volume and value of e-commerce in Singapore. It is predicted by E-commerce Alliance of Singapore that we will have e-commerce at the value of $4.4 billion in 2015 and an estimated 55% of these transactions will be cross-border in nature.
This, itself, has corresponded with the significant increase and rise in cybercrime of both large as well as small scale. We have seen a range of both petty online scams and extortions which target young or old susceptible individuals to well-organised pre-meditated cyberattacks which threaten the national and financial security of Singapore.
Again, the point is probably best illustrated by considering two published reports on cybercrime. The first, recently in January 2015 by the SPF and I think my colleague, the hon Member Mr Kumar, has cited some of these figures earlier. But it bears testimony that if you
Page: 139
marry up these rates with the high level of mobile phone penetration, you can understand why we say in Singapore that many Singaporeans are themselves susceptible to cybercrime.
What is more worrying, however, is the 2013 Norton Report which reports Singaporean cybercrime victims as having the highest average per capita losses worldwide in 2013, and that is about US$1,158. This is four times the global average of US$287 and twice the year before in Singapore. Further, the Report goes on to say that the direct financial loss in Singapore due to cybercrime had grown from US$944 million in 2012 to about US$1 billion in 2013.
The IDA's report also highlights that Asia has increasingly become targeted for cyberattacks as people here have become more affluent and technologically advanced. In that context and, in the midst of that environment, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) was set up and will be in operation from 1 April 2015.
In addition, I saw recently that Singtel has, in collaboration with the cyber security firm, FireEye, set up an advanced security operations centre. In that context, may I invite the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on this? Whilst we strive to secure Singapore and Singaporeans from cyber attacks, one also has to strike a balance between privacy and security. Would the Minister care to comment on whether these steps are becoming more invasive and intrusive into a private citizen's rights online?
I see a few other challenges and I will quickly outline them. First, in terms of resources, would the Minister be able to comment on whether there is a shortage of cybersecurity experts? That was the comment carried by The Straits Times in the newspapers when the CSA was launched a few weeks ago. Second, the nature of cybercrime is now transnational and borderless and international cooperation is necessary. Does the Deputy Prime Minister see a need, in fact, a challenge in obtaining international cooperation when it comes to fighting cybercrime?
Finally, apart from enhancing enforcement capabilities, what steps are being taken to promote public education and awareness which are often the first line of defence against cybercrime to facilitate better detection, deterrence and investigation?
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza is not in the Chamber. Mr Arthur Fong, you have three cuts, please take them together.
\tPage: 140
Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Madam, the horrifying siege in Sydney by the lone wolf action caught everyone around the world by surprise, not long after the attacks at the Canadian Parliament and also in Belgium. It could have just happened in downtown Orchard Road or busy lunch hour at Raffles Place. The risk posed by self-radicalised terrorists is worrying. A peaceful moment can suddenly escalate into a situation of national and international tension and attention.
The Chinese have a saying that it is most difficult to prepare for a hidden arrow. It is necessary for us to instil in our citizenry a practice of awareness and alertness on the need to be vigilant in this new normal. Of course, we have to temper the approach so that this new awareness and vigilance does not cast a pall of insecurity over our populace or, worse, sowing distrust and undo the harmony we have so carefully built over the years. I know it will be a delicate balance to achieve.
I share Home Affairs' Senior Minister of State Mr Masagos' perspective when he said at the launch of the Global Security Asia conference and exhibition that the community can be the \"eyes and ears against radicalisation\". The community can be the eyes and ears on things around them that seem out of the ordinary. I urge MHA to consider more public communication, education and programmes on how our citizenry can be galvanised and how the Home Team can imbue in peoples' mindset a culture of alertness and situational awareness in the context of anti-terror prevention.
The phenomenon of lone-wolf terrorist is a constant concern amongst security forces worldwide. They are harder to detect and the destruction and harm they can bring are in no way less than from an organised group of terrorists or known terrorist organisations. The capacity to instil fear amongst the people is very high due to the unpredictability.
The tragic incidents in Sydney as well as the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris are cases in point when the lone-wolf terrorist hit. They occur very quickly, catching everyone off guard. Security forces can only react after the fact. How can Singaporeans and our Home Team raise our awareness and sensing to prepare for this kind of terror attacks?
Monash University's Prof Greg Barton, Director of Centre for Islam and the Modern World, said that there is not much more that the Australian government could do when it came to preventing that incident. He said, \"Australia has already upped our security level to
\tPage: 141
\"high, agencies are well-resourced and we have well-trained personnel\". Yet, the attack by the lone gunman happened.
Just as we have made ourselves as Hard Targets against organised terror since 9/11, what other ways can we likewise do so for lone-wolf terror possibilities? Mdm Chair, I am of the view that deterrence through a display of our anti-terror resolve and measures, coupled with strong community participation, would serve the purpose of deterring would-be lone-wolf terrorists. In this way, any lone-wolf aspirant will think hard and have no doubt that they have little chance of succeeding against a citizenry and Home Team that is dialed-in to spot and stop them.
Would the Home Team consider displaying more of our anti-terrorism measures as well as enhancing community awareness and participation in addressing this brand of terrorism?
One of the post-mortem findings of the Little India Riot points to the inadequacy of staffing of the SPF. Notwithstanding, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Singaporeans want to see a stronger Police presence for peace of mind that it brings. The men and women of SPF are doing an excellent job despite the manpower shortage. They are making regular patrolling rounds of both Housing and Development Board (HDB) and private housing estates. They not only provide deterrence and ensure safety and security but had gone beyond the call of duty in many instances – I have heard some cases from my residents, such as informing car owners who had not secured their vehicles when it came to the attention of patrolling officers.
With manpower constraints, officers are stretched and this ultimately affects their operational reach. While I know that our Home Team officers' dedication is appreciated by many Singaporeans, many a time, when there are situations that are volatile and manpower or reinforcements of response teams are needed, the Home Team bears the brunt of criticisms and, worse, attending officers face the threat of safety or injuries.
Although SPF has been looking at force multipliers in the form of technology and changes or refinement to procedures to operate at a more efficient frontier, there are limits. Besides the effective use of community partnerships, what else can be done to improve the recruitment of Home Team officers so as to enhance our presence and increase mutual support for each Home Team officer? I understand that we have a good base of Voluntary Police Officers and they have been contributing to many operations. How else can we deploy them?
Page: 142
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza; not in the Chamber. Dr Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Madam, as our population ages and grows, as the nature of criminal and terrorist threats changes, as described by my colleagues, the resources of the Home Team will continue to be challenged. In particular, the most valuable and critical resource is the men and women who choose to serve as Home Team officers.
These officers continue to develop professional skills over their years in service, and the experience of a senior frontline officer is something that cannot be replicated nor automated. No amount of productivity initiatives will be a substitute for an experienced, well-trained officer.
What steps have been taken to improve recruitment and retention for the Home Team? In particular, how will older and experienced frontline officers be supported and encouraged to continue in their profession, as these are skills that cannot be replaced?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Madam, the number of persons cleared at checkpoints in Singapore in 2013 alone topped the 100-million mark. That works out to almost 300,000 per day, each day, every day of the year. That is a staggering number by any stretch. Improvements in transport and communications have made it easier for people, goods and funds to move across borders. This should be so, as we live and work in an increasingly globalised environment. We can only expect volumes of travellers and cargo handled at our land, air and sea checkpoints, which had been increasing over the years, to continue to do so. This upward trend will continue with globalisation and greater inter-connectivity worldwide, as more economies develop and transport links are being established.
While this inter-connectivity brings greater economic opportunities to Singapore and convenience to Singaporeans, it also heightens the security threats. These are real threats, as illustrated by the Woodlands Checkpoint breach which occurred in March 2014, shortly after a similar breach two months earlier at the same location. Thankfully, the offenders were apprehended. But this was brazen behaviour and, in some ways, we can also be thankful that not more damage was done.
We cannot afford to be complacent. To me, two factors stand out. First, the challenge of dealing with transnational crime, in particular, organised crime and drug trafficking and drug syndicates, which no longer operate solely within jurisdictions. Such syndicates have layered and complex structures with multi-dimensional and extensive networks. They
Page: 143
operate across jurisdictions.
Our immigration officers play a key role in the arrest and disruption of drug syndicates, protecting Singaporeans from the potentially devastating effects of drug abuse. In 2014, one of the success stories was the large heroin haul seized at the Woodlands Checkpoint. More recently, a large quantity of aramine tablets were seized at the Tuas Checkpoint by alert officers. Even more recently, boxes of illegal firecrackers were seized at the Tuas Checkpoint just before the Lunar New Year.
Second, there is an ever-growing threat of terrorism which we have to guard against. My colleagues have spoken earlier about it. Given the nature of global jihad, we have had to safeguard our borders against foreign terrorists who may attempt to enter Singapore to conduct attacks or use Singapore as a transit point to travel to other destinations.
In light of the above, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on the following: first, are our resources, both frontline and backend, sufficient to handle the increasing clearance volumes at the checkpoints? This relates not only to passenger clearances but also container cargo, inward consignments and parcels at the parcel post centre.
Second, what is the Home Team doing to enhance competency and capability, given the expected increase in passenger and cargo influx?
Third, in January 2015, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) announced the launch of the Integrated Checkpoints Command (ICC) to enhance border security designed to keep pace with the threats and changing operating environment. Whilst it is still early days, will the Deputy Prime Minister please briefly comment on the expected role of ICC in this arena?
Fourth, it should not be forgotten that whilst we need a high level of security and vigilance at our borders —
The Chairman: Mr Tong, please conclude. Your time is up.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes. It is important to ensure that we maintain that with a high level of technology. What steps are being taken to use and harness advances in technology to assist immigration procedures?
Page: 144
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have two cuts. Please take them together.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, many Singaporeans use the land checkpoints at Woodlands and Tuas frequently, whether to go for short leisure trips or to buy cheaper pharmaceutical drugs. At Woodlands Checkpoint in particular, the Government has indicated that 300,000 persons and 130,000 vehicles pass through each day. It is a very challenging operational task to coordinate the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies responsible for checkpoint security, namely, the ICA, Police, Customs, Central Narcotics Bureau, Land Transport Authority and the Auxiliary Police.
We do not know how many unauthorised entries of persons into Singapore have taken place. Even though the Government indicated that there had been about 25 cases in the three years up to 2013 and we know of the highly-publicised breaches in 2014, we do not know how many intrusions were undetected.
It was announced in April 2014 that a Ministerial level committee was commissioned to comprehensively review the security measures at the checkpoints and identify any systemic issues and rectify them. I have not read any statement issued publicly about what the committee has found or recommended. However, I note from this year's Budget Book that MHA's operating expenditure under its Immigration and Checkpoint Control Programme shows an increase of 6.5% mainly due to the enhancement of security measures at the checkpoints. May I ask if MHA can share any decisions or interim findings on the matter?
Next, Madam, I move on to Police use of technology and social media. Police forces have been harnessing technology to optimise their operations. Technology can enable policing to be sharper, faster, more convenient and also less resource-intensive and more cost-effective. In Singapore, the need for technology to augment manpower is very acute, as we have limited markets for recruitment. Already, there is a heavy reliance on Malaysians in all three arms of security manpower – the state Police, Auxiliary Police and unarmed private security. Whether we will eventually look to foreign manpower for this sector will be a highly-charged topic.
In a 2013 study by consulting firm Accenture, entitled \"Preparing Police services for the future: Six steps towards transformation\", it was noted that across 17 police services in 16 countries, three core trends in policing had emerged. First, citizen expectations were rising about crime reporting, emergency response effectiveness and public involvement in policing. Secondly, budgets for police were being cut, meaning forces needed to be more cost-
Page: 145
effective. Third, the criminal world was changing, becoming more organised, global, digital and operating across complex networks. To meet these trends, six transformational strategies were proposed, which included engaging citizens, empowering officers and optimising ways of working.
Using technology and social media can help engage citizens, aid investigations and gather intelligence. As for aiding investigations, the Accenture report cited several interesting social media success stories elsewhere. For instance, in 2013, during the Boston Marathon bombings, Boston police used Twitter for frequent and transparent updates to citizens, and the eventual capture of the bomber was aided by the use of social media.
As for optimising ways of working, another report surveying UK police forces noted that mobile technologies enabled sharing of real-time analysis and the capture of suspect information while it was fresh in the minds of victims and witnesses. Officers in the UK could record electronic witness statements and send back complete information to central databases in less than a minute, without having to return to the police station. In Belgium, the adoption of smart phones apparently reduced administrative processes per statement by 20 minutes, equivalent to 30 man days in a year.
Such technologies enabled officers to spend more time on the ground instead of devoting time to office tasks. The public, too, benefited, as they would otherwise have to travel at their own expense to police premises to be interviewed. Monitoring social media also enabled investigators to solve crimes when groups of interest discussed plans and movements.
While technology and social media clearly bring benefits to policing, there are some pitfalls. One is information overload, where so much data is being fed to officers that they are unable to interact meaningfully with it. The other concern is that police officers might rely so much on technology as to be \"de-skilled\", that is, instead of police working on the ground and developing skills and experience in searching for information, they manage \"by remote control\", blindly following information drawn from systems.
Has the Ministry assessed what manpower savings or cost efficiencies have been derived from such use of new technologies and how policing capabilities have been enhanced? What new initiatives can we expect and how will the Police guard against their officers being \"de-skilled\" by over-relying on technology?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, in 2013, a scandal broke out in the US over reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) had been
Page: 146
collecting telephone data of millions of its citizens and had access to the servers of several technology companies, including Facebook and Google, to track their customers' communications.
The scandal soon widened to Europe when it was reported that GCHQ, the UK spy agency, had tapped fibre-optic cables carrying global communications data and shared it with the NSA.
Both governments justified this mass surveillance in the name of national security and insisted they were lawful. But many people were upset that they were unaware that their private communications were being monitored. Some questioned their legality and the insufficient oversight by their courts and legislature.
Singapore is a technologically advanced country which places a high priority on security. Singaporeans who have been following these developments in the US and Europe may be concerned that they may be subject to similar types of surveillance here. The Personal Data Protection Act governs the collection, use and disclosure of individuals' personal data by organisations, but the Government is exempt from this Act.
I understand and agree with the need for some surveillance for legitimate security purposes to keep our country safe, but I have several concerns.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that surveillance on individuals, particularly Singaporeans, is done only for legitimate purposes, like security operations or criminal investigations?
How are the data and intelligence protected to ensure that they are not misused or leaked by those who have access to them?
Which of our laws authorise surveillance of individuals who are not targets of security operations or criminal investigations?
And lastly, what independent oversight, like the Courts or Parliamentary Committees, are in place to guard against abuse?
The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
Page: 147
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Madam, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow\". – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2015/2016 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mdm Speaker: So be it.
\tPage: 148
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen.]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.15 pm.
\tPage: 149
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Town Council Managing Agents and Rates Charged Per Residential and Commercial Unit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (a) who were the Managing Agents (MA) for each Town Council; and (b) what were the MA rates per residential unit and per commercial unit respectively for each Town Council.
2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development what were the contracted MA rates of the MA appointed in 2010 for the former Aljunied Town Council for residential units and commercial units respectively for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Not all Town Councils appoint Managing Agents (MAs). If they do, the Town Councils Act requires MAs to be selected via an open market tender. Before 2014, my Ministry had not required Town Councils to submit their MA contracts. As we did not have the pre-2014 MA contracts, the Ministry of National Development (MND) wrote to all Town Councils on 27 February 2015 to request submission.
Based on the submissions received, we have tabulated the requested information in Tables 1 to 3 below). The information for 2014 is included for completeness. We should highlight that all MA contracts charge a clean MA rate for each property type, with the exception of FMSS’ 2011 MA contract with AHPETC. Unlike other MA contracts, the FMSS MA fee comprises three separate cost components:
a) An MA rate of $6.37 for residential properties and $12.80 for commercial properties under the former Aljunied Town Council;
b) A separate MA fee to cover the annual staff cost of all existing staff of the former Hougang Town Council (HGTC) as per HGTC’s accounts as at 31 March 2011, which was $1,114,283.02, subject to adjustments, if any, based on the final audited accounts; and
c) An additional MA fee to cover the costs of new staff on a full reimbursement basis.
As AHPETC’s submission did not include the quantum of the three MA cost components, it does not allow MND to compute the effective MA rate for the whole Town Council for 2011 and 2012. However, based on the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) report on the audit of AHPETC, FMSS' 2011 MA contract had a contract value of $432,319.91 per month, or $5,187,838.90 for one year. This would give an effective MA rate of $7.87 per unit, without making a distinction between residential and commercial units. This rate is reflected in
\tPage: 150
Tables 2 and 3 below.
\tPage: 151
\tPage: 152
My Ministry did not have the MA contract that the former Aljunied Town Council signed with its MA, CPG Facilities Management. It is, in fact, in Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s possession. Based on the Town Council's submission, the MA rates for residential units and commercial units are tabulated at Table 4 below. As explained in para 2, while
\tPage: 153
FMSS’ 2011 MA fees appeared to be pegged to CPG’s second year contractual rates, they included separate MA fee components to cover the staff cost of all existing staff of the former Hougang Town Council, as well as the costs of new staff. This had effectively made FMSS’ 2011 MA fees 20% higher than CPG’s 2010 fees. The overpayment to FMSS has further grown, compared to other MAs. By 2014, the overpayment to FMSS was estimated at $1.6 million per year.
3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether there are plans to encourage more immersion programmes to be organised between Singapore and our ASEAN neighbours to encourage increased cultural exchanges within the ASEAN region.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises that an overseas experience presents rich learning for students. It provides opportunities for interaction with people of different backgrounds, helps develop in our students' cultural sensitivities and interpersonal competencies, and broadens the students’ world view.
In 2014, about 60% of our students’ overseas learning journeys were made to ASEAN countries. Many of these trips involved interactions with students in these countries.
In addition, MOE also coordinates various student immersion and school twinning programmes with our ASEAN neighbours. For example, there are 65 schools that are twinned with schools in Brunei, Malaysia and Thailand. There is also an annual ASEAN Student Exchange Programme. About 40 students from the 10 ASEAN countries gather for a one-week residential programme in one of the countries to share and learn about each other’s cultures, social and economic challenges, their aspirations for their country and how to contribute to the region’s collective progress.
\tPage: 154
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Information on Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many taxi drivers, including relief taxi drivers, are there currently; (b) of these, how many are active taxi drivers on the roads; (c) what is their (i) average annual salary; (ii) average educational qualification; (iii) age profile; and (d) how many have been formerly working in PMET jobs and switched to driving taxis.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: As at December 2014, about 98,000 Singaporeans held a Taxi Driver’s Vocational Licence. About 56,000 of them were registered with taxi companies. The average net monthly earnings, less expenses, of taxi drivers in 2014 was $3,173 for a single-shift operation, and $5,933 for a two-shift operation.
Of the employed resident taxi drivers in 20141, about eight in 10 were aged 50 and above, and over nine in 10 possessed non-tertiary educational qualifications. We do not have data on how many taxi drivers were formerly in Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technical (PMET) jobs.
\tPage: 155
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, MOM."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2635,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20150305/annex-RUS Slides (5 Mar 2015).pdf","fileName":"RUS Slides (5 Mar 2015).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2636,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Notice Paper on Guillotine Time","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20150305/annex-COS 2015 _ Notice Paper on Guillotine Time (B001a of 2015) (5 March).pdf","fileName":"COS 2015 _ Notice Paper on Guillotine Time (B001a of 2015) (5 March).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2126,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20150305/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang.pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}