Hansard, 2004-03-09

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2004) To (2004) Mr K Shanmugam 09 Mar 09 Mar Mr Lee Yock Suan 16 Mar 18 Mar 21 Mar 03 Apr Mr Mah Bow Tan 17 Mar 25 Mar

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 89, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2004/2005 in the Committee of Supply.

In fixing these times, I have taken into account the motion which the Leader of the House proposes to move that Saturday, 13th March 2004, be a sitting day, and that the sitting times of the Committee of Supply be extended for each of the allotted days, which are subject to the approval of the House.

Additionally, I have notified Members that the sittings on the allotted days commence at 11.00 am, which means that the sitting times of the Committee of Supply will be extended by three hours for each of the allotted days.

The "guillotine" times I have fixed have been notified to hon. Members and will appear in the Official Report*.

*Cols. 915-920

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, an additional day, namely, Wednesday, 10th March 2004, be allotted for the debate on the motion for approval of the financial policy of the Government for FY 2004/2005 moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on 27th February 2004.

Many Members have indicated their desire to speak on the various issues raised in the Budget speech. Some Members have been extremely diligent, proposing no less than 28 measures on the population issue. So I think we need to extend the time to cater for all these proposals being put up.

Resolved,

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, an additional day, namely, Wednesday, 10th March 2004, be allotted for the debate on the motion for approval of the financial policy of the Government for FY 2004/2005 moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on 27th February 2004. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [27th February, 2004],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2005." - [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak and to share my views on the Budget speech delivered so eloquently by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

Economists generally predicted that the world economy is in the midst of synchronised recovery and all the major emerging economies in Asia are likely to be buoyant through much of 2004. The expectations are that China will remain the big industrial growth story, despite likely R&D revaluation. India will continue to grow in the software and service areas. Singapore and the rest of ASEAN will find growth niches. Taiwan and Korea will emerge as investors. It is heartening to note that we are looking towards a cyclical growth in the Singapore economy. But when I read the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance, I note that the Government is still concerned that the structural problems in the economy remain.

I support the Government's pro-business stand in this year's Budget. The business sector fully supports the Government's key pro-business initiative to cut the corporate tax rate by 2% to 20%. However, it is disappointing to note that there is no corresponding cut in personal tax when the top rate stays at 22% and any further reductions are mothballed till an economic recovery is more certain. The maintenance of the

personal income tax regime signifies that there is not going to be an attempt to encourage spending and consumption, except for the cut in the price of car ownership. And as every entrepreneur will remind us, business prospects are important or may be even more important than tax cuts.

The Budget does reflect positive changes for entrepreneurs, especially with the $100,000 exemption of chargeable income for a new company which applies to each of the three years falling within the Year of Assessment 2005 to 2009. The Budget proposal to exempt foreign source income for individuals is a good move to attract the large pool of resources currently residing out of Singapore to be remitted back home. This will have an enhancement effect on the local wealth management industry. Whilst these are encouraging moves by the Government to boost the local business activity, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the above pro-business changes are enough to create a vibrant business climate in Singapore and attract not only creative local but also foreign entrepreneurs to set up business here.

Please allow me to identify a few areas where further enhancement may be needed.

First, on corporate tax. The question I would like to ask the Government is whether the 20% tax cut is the end of the road. Is this the target the Government has set itself to achieve or the limit that it would accept? Would the Government consider a further cut to 17.5% corporate tax rate to be competitive with Hong Kong, or even to consider the 12.5% level to be in line with the corporate tax rate in Ireland? Hong Kong companies have the advantage of being the gateway to the enormous Chinese market. Despite its economic woes over the last few years, Hong Kong-based companies are now

riding the wave of the spill-off of the economic expansion in China, and they also enjoy a favourable and simple tax regime.

Personal income tax is at 15.5%, though it will be increased to 16% in the coming financial year. In Hong Kong's case, there is no capital gains tax nor is there a tax on dividends or interests. Hong Kong has no sales or value added tax. In Ireland's case, the pro-business regime has brought enormous economic benefits of attracting new and creative entrepreneurial activity than any other countries to-date. Singapore's effective corporate tax collection is lower than the 20% that we announced, due to the tax holidays and pioneer status given to MNCs.

In the early days of our economic development and our attempt to attract more MNCs to Singapore, the provision of pioneer status and tax incentives was a very important key tool to attract these enterprises to Singapore. But as we move towards a regime whereby we want to promote entrepreneurialism and we want to have a more entrepreneurial economy, then it is time that we reviewed the pioneer status and the tax incentives accorded only to MNCs. This system penalises other companies because we are all supporting pioneer companies. In order to create a more entrepreneurial Singapore, we need to have a simple and transparent low-tax regime that uniformly applies to all companies and not only to pioneer status given to selective MNCs. I believe a simple and a low-tax regime would do its part to encourage not only MNCs but also other entrepreneurs and SMEs to set up their base in Singapore.

The pro-entrepreneur initiative articulated by the Finance Minister is a welcome change and is a good intention on the part of the Government. The question most of the start-up entrepreneurs that I have spoken to asked me is

whether that is enough, or that is relevant. As most of us know, very few enterprises make money in the first three years and, if they do, there is no reason why we need to cap their tax incentives at $100,000. In fact, many entrepreneurs out there have asked whether the Government will review the three-year limit and, say, extend the tax holiday to seven years to make these tax incentives more meaningful to new enterprises. The business sector really applauds the Government's move to cover all set-ups under the Enterprise Investment Scheme which really gives opportunities to other budding entrepreneurs like BreadTalk.

Before questioning if this is enough, can we also look at the Irish example because, in addition to the tax incentives, Ireland has put together many grants and other schemes to help start-ups and new enterprises? An important part of the Irish incentive package is the availability of grants towards initial start-up costs. Cash grants are given towards the cost of fixed assets, and these are available to companies to help defray the cost of setting up the operations. Fixed assets are eligible for assistance, including site purchase and development, buildings, new plants and equipment. Of special interest is the employment grant which is specifically geared towards companies which create employment but do not need to invest heavily on fixed assets. These grants are non-taxable. An amount will be approved for each job created. Ireland has given generous grants and made these available towards the cost of major training initiatives by companies, so that companies can substantially upgrade their skills base. What they also have is that grants are available for the development and expansion of an R&D facility. The cost available for the grant includes expenses for the acquisition of sites, premises, plant and equipment, wages

and salaries, materials, services, consultancy fees, feasibility studies and technology acquisition.

Would the Government consider giving tax deductions for investments and not failure as an incentive for a less risk-averse investment climate? For example, in the United Kingdom, individuals get tax exemptions upfront, even if companies fail. If Singapore were to have enough angel investors to fund new and exciting business enterprises, could we allow angel investors to claim for tax losses for the full amount of investment losses? A more supporting tax regime will be required to create a more vibrant new business investment climate in an entrepreneurial Singapore. With these tax changes, we can hope to attract high net worth individuals to reside and invest in Singapore.

The creation of a vibrant and enterprising Singapore will require mindset changes as well as physical policy changes. We need to highlight a more consumption model in our economic planning and encourage more private sector initiative into how we manage our enormous national savings which are now channelled primarily through overseas investments through GIC and Temasek and other Government-linked companies. There also needs to be more institutional shift to encourage entrepreneurialism. We note that the Finance Minister has proposed a deficit budget this year, and the business sector hopes that he will continue to promote a deficit budget for years to come.

Our Constitution promotes prudence

and conservatism in our fiscal policy. This is really very useful for Singapore in the years where we have double-digit growth. When the economy slows down and when the economy is mature, we do not see an era where we have double-digit growth again. I would like to request that the Government review and re-appraise

the Constitution which forces such extreme fiscal conservatism and promote a period of internal generated growth.

I hope we are not the generation which is accused of selling the family jewels, as I talked about encouraging more aggressive fiscal policies. But in an era where there is intense competition for talent, new enterprises and innovation, I think the need for a change in institutional mindset needs to prevail.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the economy is recovering. All indicators point upwards. Companies are starting to hire again. Confidence of the people is slowly recovering. Consumption is picking up in all sectors: housing purchases up, home improvements up, travel up. Everything is up. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. There is a feeling in the air that good time is just around the corner. While the common man might have short memory, the Government should retain the institutional memory of the lessons learned in this most severe recession we have just endured. In this respect, the Government's decision to cut the budget by 2% per year for two consecutive years is noteworthy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, following its usual practice, the Feedback Unit conducted three pre-Budget Statement dialogue sessions. In these sessions, the participants did not provide any new ideas or suggestions. Generally, the sentiment was for the Government to hold the ship steady. Keep the cost of doing business down. Reduce land cost. And, as usual, the plight of the SMEs in obtaining finance is also raised.

On the personal tax arena, most contributors emphasised that the middle class needs some relief as the lower income groups have been the focus of Government largesse in the past.

Generally, while people harboured some wishes on the Budget Statement, they were not expecting too much. They knew that the tax revenue is down and the Government's budget is in deficit.

A refreshing suggestion was made by an accountant to do a total review of our tax regime system-wide as the current one was based on an entrepot economy of Singapore in the early 1900s. Our economy today is much more diverse and complex. We are trying to develop a vibrant wealth management industry. Doing so would require a different tax regime. Exempting an individual's foreign sourced income is necessary in this context. I am glad that the Minister has finally accepted this recommendation after this proposal has been repeatedly raised in a wish-list in feedback sessions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has reduced corporate income tax from 22% to 20%. Tax reduction is always welcome. However, this would primarily benefit existing companies that are profitable. It still leaves the rest of the companies which are trying to break-even in the cold. These companies would have benefited more from lower costs of doing business, such as statutory levies, taxes and fees. With the expiration of some of the tax rebates, in fact, for these companies, costs have gone up again. Thus, it is regrettable that the Minister did not continue some of the cost reduction measures like property tax rebates. It would have been more welcome if the Government could have brought about a permanent reduction of these costs, instead of just providing a temporary relief.

Sir, the Feedback Group on Finance and Small and Medium Enterprises has called for measures to help SMEs to increase their access to financing. I am glad that the Minister has finally agreed to a measure through securitisation. We

look forward to greater details on how SMEs could operate under the new scheme.

I am also heartened that the Minister addressed the middle-class squeeze by reducing the ARF from 130% to 110%. This is indeed a much welcome move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in addressing the future of Singapore, although he did hold out a vision of Singapore as a Land of Opportunity, the Minister's primary focus on the future is on the declining birth rate of Singaporeans. He informed the House that measures to encourage more women to have babies would be implemented once the inter-ministerial committee headed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang has finished its work before National Day. Many speakers before me have touched upon what these measures could be and I would not dwell into them, except to say that we should not stop there. We should look into the future, into what Mr David Lim called the "emotional aspect" and what Mr Ang Mong Seng called the "family value".

Sir, I believe that the number of children a couple would have is largely determined by the value the couple placed on family. If they grew up wanting a larger family, they will have a larger family despite all the financial burden. If they grew up placing greater importance on creature comfort than children, they would have one, two or, sometimes, zero children. Thus, to redress the declining birth rate, we must inculcate the correct values of on our people from young. There are really no quick fixes.

The intrinsic burden of having children is well illustrated in the "Cashflow" game designed by Robert Kiyosaki of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" fame. It is a board game much like Monopoly with the roll of a dice to determine the number of steps one's chip

moves on the board when your turn comes up. The game is designed with the objective to teach players money management concepts to enable them to get out of the so-called rat race. As a wage earner, one gets out of the rat race when one's unearned income exceeds one's monthly expenditure. Sir, my wife was very much taken up by the educational value of the game and got everyone in the family to play the game. In this game, the player learns to invest in rental properties, stocks and shares so that the unearned income will go up. Sir, the spoiler in the game in getting out of the rat race is the cost of bringing up children. Whenever one has the misfortune to draw a card indicating that a new baby was born in the family, the chance of getting out of the rat race gets very much worse. When the number of children exceeds three, there is practically no chance of getting out of the rat race no matter how high is your income. After a few games, even my 9-year old son would groan whenever he draws a baby card and say, "No, not again, another baby." Sir, this is what we got when we did not pay attention to the inculcation of family value in our youth and focused on the material incentives in motivating our people in the past.

Sir, in real life, whether we are conscious of trying to get out of the rat race or not, we intuitively link the cost of bringing up children with our personal financial well-being. From a dollar and cent point of view, in modern day concept, it is true. This being the case, I urge the Committee led by Mr Lim Hng Kiang to consider how we can address the value system of Singaporeans - how to inculcate the love of a bigger family in our young people. Of course, Sir, this would take at least a decade to show effect. As a society, we must take a total approach to this problem. True, by all means, introduce measures, financial incentives needed to turn the situation around but we should not forget the long-

term measures as well. For instance, we might get MOE to include a pro-family concepts in our moral education and National Education curriculum.

Sir, the Minister also commented that the economic uncertainty since 1998 also contributed to the plunge in the total fertility rate. The experience of many of our unemployed in the age group of 50s now with teenage children still in school would surely put a damper on our younger people in having children. To turn around the declining TFR, we must instill confidence in our people about the future of Singapore.

While it is true, Sir, that our economy is recovering, I suspect this recovery in the manufacturing sector, at least, feels like a rebound and not a solid recovery based on concrete fundamentals. The rebound of business activities is probably due to an increase of the utilisation of the existing capacity in our plants and equipment. I see that, concurrently, the hollowing out of our manufacturing would continue unabated as China continues to impress with its manufacturing prowess. In the IT sector, India is the rising star. Have we downsized sufficiently to once again be attractive for foreign investors? The marketplace would tell us soon enough.

Sir, I believe that this recovery is giving us a breathing space, a temporary relief from the unrelenting global realignment of production capacity for best return on investment. It is paramount for us to make use of this breathing space to transform Singapore. To me, Sir, just cutting costs alone, be it in Government or in private sector, is not the way forward. The logical conclusion of just cost cutting while leaving everything unchanged is to bring us down to the same standard of living as our lower cost competitors. This is not something even the most ardent cost-

cutters, like Mr Inderjit Singh, would want.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it invigorating that the Minister has held out the goal of transforming Singapore into a Land of Opportunity. This is an exciting vision. I hope he will find another occasion to flesh out this vision. Furthermore, this vision energises every segment of the society, rich, poor, young or old. It must be a Land of Opportunity for every Singaporean. It should not be a Land of Opportunity just for the talented or the rich.

Sir, what would constitute a Land of Opportunity? Whatever the definition, I find it difficult to acclaim that ours is a Land of Opportunity if our economy were to grow at an anaemic 2-3%, the long-term sustainable level of a mature economy. I would interpret the Land of Opportunity to mean that we must transform our society so that our economy would be humming along nicely at a 7% or 8% annual clip.

Sir, at the moment, it seems to me that our economy has lost its forward momentum. Like a car with one of its wheels spinning

in a slippery pothole, it would be hard for the car to move forward on its own steam without an external push. Today, we have a first-world standard of living, a first-world cost of doing business without the depth and width of the knowledge and technology that underpin the strength of a first-world economy. As our competitors adopt our economic strategies, we found ourselves behind the 8th Ball.

Sir, it is not always so. In fact, Singapore has become a model of other resource-constrained societies. In the March 2004 issue of National Geographic that features on Armenia, Singapore was repeatedly held up by the Armenians as a model for the landlocked country to develop a viable and dynamic economy.

As others look towards us for inspiration, where do we look in turn? What is the model for us?

Sir, we have tried to emulate the industrialised countries to develop our own intellectual properties in R&D. Despite all the money NSTB has disbursed to IT R&D, we have been less than successful in that area. Today, the focus of A*STAR is on life sciences. What were the problems that we had run into? In short, problems of a small population size, lacking economy of scale because of the miniscule domestic market. I suspect we would continue to have minimal success if we were to emulate the paths taken by economies much larger than ours. Our population base is just too small.

Sir, how do we become a Land of Opportunity? I do not have the answers, but I believe we need to think out of the box in several areas.

Firstly, we need to review whether Singapore is destined forever to have a very small population. The last Government planning target I recall reading in the newspapers was five million. If that were the case, we cannot even compete or compare with a city like Hong Kong or Taipei, not to mention Shanghai or Beijing. All of us grew up with this mindset that Singapore is a small country. We have limited land. We do not have sufficient water. To achieve a measure of self-sufficiency, we set aside close to one-third of our prime land for water catchment. Because of these constraints, yes, we will always have a small population.

There are many limitations with a small population, least of which is our mindset. I will give one example. For instance, because we believe that we cannot produce sports champions from

such a small population base, we do not even try. What is the problem with this mentality? This mentality seeps through the population and, today, we have young Singaporeans who would not even try when they perceive that they are faced with insurmountable hurdles in whatever they pursue. I was shocked when a HR manager told me that when it sought interns among the students in a MBA programme in Singapore, all the applicants were PRC or Indian students. No Singaporean students even attempted, because they have already concluded that they would not be good enough. Maybe we did a very good job of convincing ourselves of the superiority of foreign talent. But not even try? That is the depth of our lack of self-assurance, our lack of self-confidence. Clearly, Sir, this is a mindset we must get rid of.

Sir, so long we depend on rainwater and water from Malaysia to supply our drinking water, there is indeed a limit to the population we could support on the small land area of our island. Thanks to former Prime Minister Mahathir, we were forced to take the dramatic decision to recycle our sewage water as NEWater. When Prime Minister Goh took a swig of the NEWater and the population followed at many National Day dinners, I believe we had broken this mental constraint on our own potential. Now that we are prepared to accept NEWater, we are indeed liberated from the stranglehold of limited water supply. This being the case, Sir, we could support a much larger population in Singapore. In my mind, we could probably double our population to eight million. If we could accept this as a planning premise, we would be talking about a very different Singapore.

Secondly, we could have exploited our strength as a safe and peaceful oasis in a world of turbulence. Our competitors in the economic arena would not be able to replicate this in their countries. We could leverage on this reputation to develop into

a fun city where high net worth individuals could come to have fun and recreation. Here, we are only limited by our own imagination. Looking at others, I am particularly impressed by the United Arab Emirates, where they have recently developed two fern-shaped islands. Sir, this is an impressive leap of imagination for a desert people. On these islands, most of the waterfront properties are taken up by wealthy westerners whose lifestyles are very different from the Arabian culture and religion. Yet, the people of UAE are able to accept having areas in their country where an international lifestyle could be maintained without the rest of the country having to give up its traditional values. Could we have done the same? In our recent sales of Sentosa Cove, could we have emulated UAE and opened the sales to an international clientele resulting in a very, very different Sentosa Cove? Could we have changed our mindset to transform Sentosa island into a resort for the rich and the famous?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are just two possible scenarios. I am sure if we put our best minds together, many more great ideas challenging our conventional wisdom will surface. Some of these will be really exciting.

Sir, if we could double our population to eight million, say, in 15 years, the population-induced growth alone will return Singapore to a growth-oriented society. To achieve this, we cannot depend on organic growth, as we cannot even have enough babies to replace ourselves. Therefore, our people must be open to a larger influx of foreign-born in our midst. True, we have to balance the interests of citizens with those of immigrants. But, as a society, we would benefit tremendously from the energy and drive of immigrants. We must plug ourselves into the world and transform our country more in the mould of Dubai, Luxumberg and even Monte Carlo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we need a vision that is bold and imaginative to liberate ourselves from the limitations we place on ourselves. I support the Minister's goal to transform Singapore into a Land of Opportunity. It is paramount that we take the right steps at these crossroads, so that our children can have a bright future.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget Statement presented by DPM Lee, the Minister for Finance. I would like to offer my views on the issue of procreation.

Manpower is the foundation of nation building. That Singapore, a small country with a small population and lacking in natural resources, has been able to achieve economic growth is due mainly to the development and optimal use of its manpower resource. Hence, we must ensure that we have enough manpower resource to sustain our economic growth, and enough taxpayers to support our various social and healthcare programmes.

However, many young people do not want to get married and have babies. Even those who want to have babies would come out with a lot of excuses to say they dare not have babies, would have fewer babies or have babies only at a later stage. By then, their reproductive function has already degenerated. Thus, we find people who want to have babies but are not able to conceive.

The fall in the birth rate cannot be attributed to one single factor. The approach to solving this issue should, therefore, be a multi-faceted and long-term one, in order to turn the tide around. Many people have talked about the factors for the fall in the birth rate. The family planning of the past has been too successful. The then slogan of "The more babies you have, the less you have to share" was indelibly engraved in the

minds of the last generation of Singaporeans.

Moreover, economic prosperity, the world trend, the emergence of individualism and hedonism tend to make many young people unwilling to get married and have babies. Take a look at the present day media, such as the TV programmes, movies or fashion magazines. None of these makes any attempt to encourage people to get married or have babies. They are all devoted to topics concerning lifestyle, fashion and the pursuit of physical pleasures. They do not encourage the setting up of families. As Dr Wang has said, there was this board game called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" that promotes materialism but discourages people to have families. Given the context of such culture and social ethos, that our birth rate has been plummeting is not surprising.

People say that child-bearing is a matter of personal preference. But I feel that it is not only the bounden duty of everyone to procreate, but it is also the moral obligation of every citizen towards his family, parents, society and the state.

Mencius said, "Among the three instances of unfiliality, the worst is having no descendants." This saying is still relevant in today's society. Many old people complained to me that their children did not want to get married or, if even after they were married, they did not want to have babies. They are disappointed, as their hope of spending time with their grandchildren has come to nought. Is this not an unfilial act?

Not having children will result in the rapid ageing of the population, thereby causing economic downturn and threatening the survival of the nation. Is this not being irresponsible to the nation?

Every common man is responsible for the well-being of his country. A person who is not willing to have babies will be a liability to other people, because they would have to support them in their old age. Is this not an irresponsible act towards others?

We cannot use just financial incentives or loans to induce procreation. The problem should be approached on a multi-faceted basis. As many Members have said, I think we should go all out to promote family values to proclaim the serious consequences of not having children. Such a message could be transmitted through television serials, highlighting the joy of having more children and having them early, as well as the sorry plight of a childless old couple and the grave problems faced by an ageing society. Through such dramas, the message could be vividly brought to the audience and to tell them what the consequences would be if we do not have babies.

At the same time, the Ministry of Education should also inculcate pro-family and pro-procreation values among the students, right from Primary One, as suggested by other Members as well. But mere preaching is useless. The Government should walk the talk by providing practical measures to help people to get married and have babies earlier. I feel that the Government should consider this.

To encourage couples to have more babies and to have them early, I propose to have the incentives linked up with the age of child-bearing and the number of babies born. Mothers who have more babies and have them at an earlier age would have better incentives. For example, a mother who has a baby before the age of 25 will enjoy better incentives than a mother who has a baby after the age of 25. For the second and the third babies, the differentiation may be fixed at

the age of 30. Birth order should also be made a criterion. A mother giving birth to a second baby enjoys better benefits than one giving birth to the first baby and so on.

When DPM Lee raised the issue of extending maternity leave, there were heated responses from the various walks of life, including employers and women folk. Employers feel that the extension of maternity leave would add to their cost, especially to the small companies which employ only a few workers. If a woman employee gives birth, then she will be granted leave for a few months. Mothers themselves feel that too long a maternity leave would disadvantage themselves. They would be discriminated against and their service may not be renewed or their promotion hampered. Instead of extending the maternity leave, we could consider allowing maternity leave for more babies, so that the mother would also benefit from the birth of the third, the fourth and the fifth child as well. I hope the Government would consider this.

Employers and employees should also have the flexibility to decide on matters of maternity leave. For example, the two-month maternity leave could be extended to six months if the employee could work half a day, so as to cause the least disruption to the company.

There should be more support for infant childcare. After their birth, the mothers will have to go back to work. So, looking after their babies is a problem. The present allowance for each child on childcare service is $150 and this amount has not been raised up to now, and this applies to designated full-day childcare centres only. I think the Government should raise the amount substantially, especially for the infant-care centres. Flexibility is also called for in matters of childcare allowance because many children are being looked after by

grandparents, nannies or maids and so such allowance should be paid to them too. To prevent abuse, each maid or nanny could be paid an allowance for not more than two children. We should also encourage employers to set up childcare centres at places of work to make it convenient for parents to send their children there without much hassle. During lunch hours, they could go there and look at their children. Companies that provide such childcare facilities should enjoy double tax relief. As for childcare services provided by VWOs, most of the capital cost should be borne by the Government, as mentioned by Dr Lily Neo yesterday. I support her appeal to give greater assistance to VWOs in running their childcare centres.

One frequently heard pretext for not having babies is the pressure that our children have to bear under our education system. However, after a detailed analysis, we found that the bulk of the pressure comes from the parents who force their children to attend one kind of tuition class or another - all kinds of classes - dancing class, music class, calligraphy class, etc. So we have to address this misconception on the part of parents.

For those who are not able to conceive, they should receive assistance. Those who cannot conceive should be given financial assistance to seek medical treatment. The expenses for such treatments are generally high. Those who want to have babies at later stages of life will find problems in conceiving. Therefore, they should be allowed to use their Medisave to pay for such treatments. If medical treatment does not help, then we should simplify the procedure for child adoption to make it easier for them to adopt children here or from abroad. At present, they have to go to foreign agencies to get children adopted. Therefore, MCDS should set up

a one-stop centre for child adoption to assist those who would like to adopt children.

Those who insist on not having babies should be responsible for their old age needs. If they decide not to have children, then we should make sure that these people be responsible for the provision of their old age needs so that they will not be a liability to the nation.

Our early policy on family planning heavily penalised mothers who have more than two children by way of preventive maternal hospital charges, low priority in school admissions and placement in childcare centres. While we should refrain from punishing those who choose not to have children, we ought to make them prepare for their old age, eg, by making them contribute to an account known as "Preventive Eldercare Account" so as to prevent them from being a liability to other people. The money in this account would provide for their needs when they are in their old age.

Apart from encouraging couples to have more babies, we should also look at other means to increase our manpower resource. We should continue to allow foreign talents to come here and hopefully, they will become our citizens one day. We must make sure that they can integrate into our societies. In this respect, differential treatments between PRs and citizens should be substantiated. There should be some form of compulsion for permanent residents to become citizens. For example, a timeframe of five years should be laid down for a permanent residential status. If at the end of five years, after enjoying all the privileges of a PR, they do not take up citizenship here, they should lose their PR status. Of course, we will continue to welcome them to stay and work here. In this way, we will get rid of those who

want to become just PRs and not citizens, while at the same time enjoy all the privileges conferred on a PR. In addition, we should make full use of our manpower resources by getting rid of retirement age. As long as people are physically and mentally fit, they should be allowed to continue working.

Mr Speaker, Sir, should the Government want to launch a campaign to have more babies, I propose to use this slogan, "One is no good, two is no better, three is all right, four is nice, five is most reliable."

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

This year's Budget is a pro-business budget, particularly with the reduction in corporate tax from 22% to 20% which would cost the Government $800 million. Besides this tax reduction, there are a number of initiatives to help the business community. The way I and many workers view this year's Budget is one which is positioned to enhance our competitiveness and attract more investments. We hope all these will translate into ensuring job security and more employment opportunities for workers. I believe that this year's Budget and earlier initiatives, such as CPF cuts and wage restructuring, are very strong signals to the business community of Singapore's desire to remain a competitive place for their investments.

Having done all this is not enough. The Government must ensure that Singaporeans benefit from the efforts and Government's initiatives. Here, I wish to make the following suggestions:

First, employers should make every effort to train and employ Singaporeans in available jobs and newly created jobs. The Government and its agencies should proactively train Singaporean workers,

especially in jobs coming from newer investments and in the service industry where there is a shortage for workers, especially in the IT and nursing services, rather than allowing employers the easy way out by engaging foreigners. Tax incentives in future should be targeted at companies which employ majority Singaporean workers or other Government assistance should be given to such employers to incentivise them to employ more Singaporeans.

Next, allow me to touch on the newly introduced "S" Pass for foreigners. Here, I wish to highlight several feedback I have received from many Singaporeans:

Many Singaporeans are worried that the introduction of the "S" Pass will further erode their chance of getting a job in a bleak job market.

Many are of the view that employers may opt for all foreigners as they do not have to pay CPF and other benefits when they hire foreigners.

Sir, even though there is a cap of 5%, it is still very worrying, especially in a bleak job market, where many Singaporeans still remain unemployed. The Government should take note that the "S" Pass is targeted at those earning $1,800 per month. This is close to the median level salary in Singapore. Currently, many Singaporeans who have lost their jobs in the middle level have great difficulty in getting back their job. The introduction of "S" Pass would further add to their woes. To make matters worse, outsourcing and best sourcing have made many Singaporeans lose their jobs. A number of these outsourced or best sourced jobs have gone to foreigners.

Here, many Singaporeans I have spoken to wish that the Government would closely monitor employers who engage foreigners rather than

Singaporeans. The Government could make it difficult for such employers to hire foreigners by saying this, "I am not suggesting that we should totally stop hiring foreigners. Neither am I against foreign talent. But we should not do it to the detriment of Singaporeans." What needs to be done is that the number of foreigners employed and their dependants who also seek jobs in Singapore should be maintained at a level at which it would not affect job opportunities of Singaporeans.

Next, I wish to move on to a hotly-debated subject in this House. In this year's Budget, the Government has given its strong desire to address the issue of falling birth rate amongst Singaporeans. Earlier speakers have given many suggestions and I agree with most of them. I would not want to dwell on it, but I am concerned with some of the suggestions.

The suggestions of granting six months' maternity leave and giving fathers parental leave are all very ideal proposals. I, too, wish this could be possible. But, realistically, as a trade unionist, I get very worried about its consequences. I am very concerned for our female workers. After going for six months' maternity leave, they may return to realise that their jobs have been out-sourced or best-sourced, and they have to look for another job, or permanently stay at home. As for the male workers, the employers already show their unhappiness when their workers go for their National Service training, and if we further add that with long paternal or parental leave, the companies may just pack up and leave Singapore. The whole family would then be in serious trouble.

Sir, in Singapore, many are dual-income families for economic reasons. So whatever we do, it should not affect the employment of the male or female worker. Just to illustrate a point, even Government-linked companies strictly follow the Employment Act which states

that employers need not have to grant paid maternity leave if the employee has worked less than six months for them. Now, this is the harsh reality of the business world.

Sir, with all these constraints, what are the solutions? The solutions and funds needed for it must come from the Government to address a critical long-term issue of the nation. Yesterday and today, hon. Members of this House have give a number of suggestions. I am sure Minister Lim Hng Kiang and his committee would consider them seriously. I wish to add two more suggestions. But before that, let me mention the feedback from a number of our young union members who have got married recently. Their reaction is that they are, of course, definitely passionate about having children, otherwise why should they get married, they asked me. They are definitely passionate, but besides being passionate, they need money to take care of their family. And cost is a critical factor, whether we agree or not. That is one of the important factors in raising a family and a child. If you look at our 2-child policy, even the Government has always said, "Stop at two. If you can afford more it, have more." Affordability is the critical issue. By passion alone, we cannot raise a family or, by compassion, family values. That is all critical, but beyond that I think you need to actually provide some financial assistance.

It is good to have quite a lot of foreigners to come and live here and work with us. But that would not actually substitute our own Singaporeans having their own babies and making sure the nation continues, because this is the culture that we have built up for nearly 30-40 years. Foreigners would never come and fill up the gap completely. They may fill it up temporarily. So we should not totally rely on them. There

were many suggestions made. Yes, of course, we can encourage more foreigners to sink their roots in Singapore. But I think it is equally important for Singaporeans to have their own children and make sure the nation progresses further. And that is very critical.

In this context, I have two suggestions to make:

Let us just not focus our attention on the childless couple, or the couple with one child, and the better educated. We should broaden the net and encourage all Singaporeans to have three children.

We should grant monetary assistance as follows: (a) $500 per month for the infant care of the 1st and 2nd child to the mother, grandparents, relatives or friends who look after the child; (b) $300 per month for the childcare subsidy of the 1st and 2nd child, either to the mother, grandparents, relatives or friends who look after the child; (c) $300 per month for the infant care of the 3rd child; and (d) $200 per month for the childcare of the 3rd child. The childcare subsidy could be given till the 12th birthday of the child. Sir, these suggestions may cost the Government a considerable amount, but then it is for a very worthy purpose, that is, our long-term survival as a nation, and it is similar to what we spend for defence of our nation.

Sir, before concluding, I wish to thank the Government for raising the Skills Development Fund salary ceiling from $1,500 to $1,800, as this would benefit more workers. I am equally glad with the $100 million allocated by the Government into Medifund. But this alone is not sufficient. The Government should take every step possible to reduce healthcare cost so that Singaporeans by and large could manage their own healthcare cost. In this context, the introduction of a nation-wide health insurance is critical.

Sir, workers in the 50 and above age group are grateful to the Government's gesture of topping up their Medisave account. But, at the same time, many low-income Singaporeans were saddened that a number of rebates given last year were not further extended this year. If the economy continues to do well, they look forward to the Government announcing some rebates or benefits during the National Day Rally speech by the Prime Minister.

Sir, I support the motion.

Order. Hon. Members would like to acknowledge the presence in this House of Minister Arun Shourie from India. [Applause].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, while last year's budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, Budget 2004 seems to focus on production - produce jobs, produce entrepreneurs, produce a vibrant wealth management industry and, of course, produce babies. All these are to be done via broad-based cost-cutting measures as well as allocation of funds to meet specific needs. I shall again tackle it using the 3P approach - public sector, private sector and people sector.

On the public sector, I recognise the success and efforts of the Government in setting up the Cut Waste Panel, the ZIP and the Pro-Enterprise Panel. A lot of the wastages that have been talked about in this House have been addressed quite adequately. Hence, the 2% cut across all

Ministries, except the Ministry of Defence, is another step in the right direction. After all, the private sector corporate austerity programmes have already been in place for some time, and anything less austere in Government spending will look conspicuously inappropriate. However, I also hope that the 2% budget cut will apply to the frills and extras, like glossy and colourful hard-bound annual reports that are mass distributed, posh offices, unnecessary layerings and so on. It should not translate into a 2% drop in service standards or increased costs to the public, eg, in charging information which were previously given free. And, as my colleague, Mr Leong Horn Kee has mentioned, it should also not result in a cut in community-related projects.

Although some manpower may need trimming, extra efforts must be exercised to help retrain or redesign works so that those retrenched will not end up adding onto the tens of thousands who are already unemployed. In fact, soon after the announcement of the 2% cut, the Singapore Zoological Gardens also announced a retrenchment of staff. Could these people be retrained to perform other duties? For example, many of them are not only knowledgeable about the animals they look after, or the functioning of a zoo, they are also passionate about it. They can be retrained to become 'knowledge guides' and give our zoo an added dimension of being a truly learning journey. Many people are willing to spend thousands of dollars out in the African safari, not only because it has got beautiful sceneries, but because the experience of being in the wild is accompanied by highly proficient guides who transform that visual experience into a unique learning experience. It is also a value-added service and an experience which they will continue to talk about over the years. We should go beyond retrench and retrain to restructure our economy and seek to grow people in their

areas of expertise and passion. Only then can we bring out the best in our only resource.

On the private sector entrepreneurs, the move towards a broad-based approach in germinating entrepreneurs is a laudable one. It recognises that an entrepreneurial culture is only possible when it is broad-based. Outstanding entrepreneurs and even future MNCs can only come about with a critical mass. The measures put in place, however, need to be more robust. It is almost a cliché to talk about the high cost of doing business in Singapore. Start-up costs are equally daunting. I heard about a retrenched professional in his 50s, who looked south, to bring bread back to his family. Armed with S$29,000, he started a 3-storey seafood restaurant in Bintan, complete with a sizeable living quarter and a separate office. He caters to the day tourist trade and his revenue can already cover operating costs. Contrast it with the cost here, he would probably not have even successfully bid for a coffeeshop with S$29,000, let alone start it up. While in the past, those who were retrenched or less educated but were hardworking might have a chance in the informal economy, especially during those days where the hawker centre stalls and HDB shophouses were allocated at greatly discounted rates, this chance no longer exists. Most of these business opportunities, especially where rentals are concerned, are available only via tender.

I was shocked when I first found out that the monthly rental of the first and only coffeeshop in Punggol 21 costs more than some of the shops along Orchard Road. At more than $100,000 a month rental, even such traditional industry is out of reach for the average and is certainly not for the faint-hearted or shallow-pocketed. We need to seriously reconsider the process and method of our

pricing policy, especially where rent is concerned. We need to continuously look for ways to bring down business costs. In addition, I also hope that the $100,000 start-up exemption announced during this Budget be allowed to be carried forward for a specified number of years to the extent that it is not used in the start-up years. After all, few start-ups make money in the first three years.

Many of my colleagues have expounded on entrepreneurs and their related issues and so I thought, in this debate, I would like to move on to the wealth management industry. It is one industry that has enjoyed specific mention this year. Let us recognise that a lot of funds and old money are already concentrated in places like Switzerland, Luxumberg and other tax haven jurisdictions. It is not likely that they will shift to Singapore. But with the rapid rise of China and India, as well as the advent of technology, new wealth is created in Asia and it is wealth that is looking for a secure environment. This is our window of opportunity. Recently, Singapore was rated the least corrupt country in Asia by PERC. By comparison, the other two wealth management destinations in Asia, being Hong Kong and Tokyo, were rated approximately seven times more corrupt than Singapore. Our stable social and political environment, transparent Government policies, good corporate governance, sound banking infrastructure, IT and airline connectivity make Singapore an excellent environment to produce and preserve wealth. Singapore has the opportunity to position and develop itself into a financial wealth management hub of Asia. To do so, the legislation and incentives need to be streamlined and laid out unequivocally - to provide clarity and directions to a few groups of people. They are the product manufacturers, administrators, distributors and clients. A strong infrastructure could also be developed expeditiously. On the policies and recommendations, many of the

current announcements and existing regulations are upbeat in policy intent, but foggy when executed. More certainty is needed in order for us to grow this industry.

One of the announcements which came as a surprise, but a much welcome surprise, was the tax exemption for foreign source income. While the exemption is a significant positive step, the question remains with regard to the distinction between foreign investment and foreign business income. This implies that investors may not immediately deploy assets onshore until the distinction is clarified. What does the IRAS consider to be investment income and what is considered to be the gains or profits from a trade, business or profession? Also, what information would be needed to be disclosed on the tax return in relation to offshore income? I urge the relevant authority to spell out in detail how it will make this distinction. The Government could look at examples in Europe, such as the Netherlands, where statutory safe harbour boundaries are put down quite clearly. The exemption of offshore income emphasises the bias against onshore income. Certain investments onshore are exempted while all investments offshore are exempted.

If there is any uncertainty as to onshore tax treatment, the investment will most likely be moved offshore. Also, until the legislation is clear, investors may not invest onshore except in relation to the existing tax free list.

Working on the list itself, I would also suggest the use of a white list versus the current, so to speak, black list. In fact, the use of a list can only ensure that Singapore remains a follower in relation to product development. Until a product is tested in the market, it is not possible to know whether investors will take to the product. One element of the acceptability of a new product is also its tax treatment. If the tax treatment depends upon the

product being on a list, one cannot approach the market until one has been able to obtain an indication as to whether or not the product will be added to the list. This takes time, expense and creates a delay. In view of this, I am advocating a white list which will, I believe, increase the variety and desirability of onshore choices for onshore investors and create a greater degree of tax certainty.

It is also necessary to attract offshore money. Obviously, the pool of offshore funds is a lot bigger than onshore funds. Hence, attracting family offices to Singapore is a function of further nurturing and growing the wealth management industry. It is also a function of recognising that delicate tax structures should be established in order to avoid the flight of capital to competitor jurisdictions such as Switzerland.

Next, on the infrastructural development of our wealth management expertise and outsource support services. The Wealth Management Institute launched last year will help to develop our pool of expertise to service not just the big mutual funds and boutique funds but also the family office and consultants servicing wealthy individuals and families. I urge the Government to provide more support to a wider range of wealth management training. Together, our wealth management managers and consultants constitute the supply side of the infrastructure equation.

In terms of backroom support services, this is a necessary area of growth, especially for boutique funds which do not have economies of scale to set up their own back office. Instead, boutique funds need to outsource their backroom functions - functions like compliance, risk management sytem, anti-money laundering and regulatory services, fund administration and even representatives of trading software platforms, which are usually

headquartered in US or Europe. Currently, Singapore is lacking a critical mass of these providers. We need to develop such outsource service providers to support the wealth management universe. Further consideration should be given as to targeting types of outsource service that would maximise the benefit to the fund management industry and enhance Singapore's reputation as a leading and supportive centre for the industry.

Next, I would like to move on to the people sector. A lot has been said in this House regarding the various measures to increase the birth rate. I think at the core of a united nation is indeed a united family. I observed that at the height of SARS, many families became closer, as they took temperatures for each other, and reminded each other of hygiene habits and, in fact, they spent more time together. Perhaps in times of uncertainty, our traditional Asian family values emerge to remind us of what and who are closest to our hearts. Perhaps the fear of SARS prevented us from stepping out and forced us to face each other a little bit more at home. Perhaps, if SARS was prolonged, we might even experience a little baby boom! Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps!

However, a rapidly aging society and falling fertility rate are no laughing matter. It will lead to greater pressure on the Government to spend more on social security, medical and long-term care benefits. Families produce the workers, managers and entrepreneurs of tomorrow. Families nurture the children who are our hope for the future. We all know that. Yet, why is the virtue of child-bearing devalued as we move up Maslow's hierarchy? To arrest this trend, we need to approach the problem holistically. We must recognise that in recent years, for many Singaporeans, the choice to have children weighs heavily. They look at their

careers, their aspirations and the costs of bringing up children. When they do their economic sums, some may be persuaded to delay or decide against having children. These considerations are real and important in any policy discussion.

I did a door-to-door visit on Sunday and upon every household that I met, which has children and young couples, I asked them if they wanted to procreate. They told me that life is running on a spinning cog wheel with the need to oil it all the time; that life has become more technical and more demanding of time than ever before.

Singaporeans are busy bees. We battle the high cost of living, battle with time, battle with stress and even battle with guilt - the guilt of not being able to spend time with our loved ones and friends. This intense battle is exacerbated by the advent of technology, which ensures that work follows us home, via e-mails and handphones, and even the short-cuts and non-English e-mail language and SMS language are fast gaining acceptance, as full spellings of words and sentences are deemed a waste of time. With the focus on work and catching up with the Joneses, there is insufficient time to be good spouses, concerned parents and active citizens. This is a clear and present reality we must cope with.

However, we must not lose sight of what is urgent and important for our long-term survival. We will have no future if we focus only on the present. And the future is clearly in encouraging procreation, and cultivating them to become good citizens. The present is that we must help families balance work and family life, and create an environment that encourages procreation. This is not just tax incentives or monetary rewards, but also more flexible work arrangements that require a mindset change on the part of employers and childcare arrangements to

help parents cope. For us to succeed, we will need to overweigh family values and underweigh materialism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that underlying all these is, in fact, a shift in the value system over the last 30 years or so.

I remember that in the not so distant past, we had less to eat and wear, but we had more children to show. Children were a sort of status symbol and, hence, the more the merrier. Today, it is the reverse. Having a child is seen as a cost that even the well-to-do are unwilling to afford. Hence, while in the past having children is an automatic next step, today, we analyse and analyse the cost until we become paralysed by it. It is now an option and not a value proposition.

The value transmission chain is broken, I suspect, when the extended families in kampongs were broken. In almost all families then, the generation of elders are the natural advocates of pro-family and procreation values. Their pleasure and joy at the announcement of a new marriage or the arrival of a new baby in the extended family are great encouragement for young couples to procreate. The extended family is a natural walking advertisement and reminder transmitting pro-family values. This is evident during Chinese New Year, where the pressure would be on singles and childless couples, myself included. Today, there are tours and escapades to help ease this pressure. We need to reconnect this value transmission chain - not so that I myself will be under pressure, but to solve the real issues of caring for the young. Many modern grannies these days also want to have fun. We need policies that will encourage the re-formation of extended families.

I would like to give a couple of suggestions here where HDB is concerned. It is quite a unique situation in Singapore where marriage and

procreation are sometimes tied to housing policies. While there are incentive schemes to encourage newly-weds to live near their parents, this scheme suffers from two inherent deficiencies. First, many newly weds prefer new flats which are directly purchased from HDB at market subsidised rates. Currently, the CPF housing grant of $30,000 to encourage young couples to live near their parents is applicable only to first-time applicants and applies only to HDB resale flats. Our matured parents already living in HDB flats cannot sell their flats and apply for the grant to live near their young married child.

Second, the advantage of proximity is not heightened until the arrival of the first child. By then, either the the flats in mature estates are not available or the young couple has yet to fulfil the 5-year occupancy rule. I have received many requests for help by my Punggol 21 residents, and Sengkang residents as well, who are unable to obtain 4-room flats for their parents as these flats have been exhausted and what remain are bound by the ethnic quota. In other words, they are in a Catch-22 situation. I hope the relevant Ministry can do something about this.

The erosion of pro-family values is evident in the rising rate of divorce. At the centre of this debate is our social aspiration for the 5 "Cs", meaning credit card, career, car, condominium and certificates. We have problems as long as child bearing ranks after these 5Cs.

Ideas about children and the role of each spouse should also be discussed prior to marriage. Too many couples leave these issues to be negotiated until after marriage. The fact that married couples are off our radar screens until they turn up at the doorsteps of our courts means that the family care programmes available today may be too late and too little for many couples.

In fact, a Research Bulletin from our Subordinate Courts suggested that the birth of the first child was a major transition that caused disruption and conflict between parents. Too many families were not coming through this transition intact. I urge the MCDS to work with various agencies to identify couples at risk before they land up in courts. A good opportunity is to get parents waiting in the queue at polyclinics for their babies who are getting their innoculation to simply fill up a survey form to describe the state of their marriage, stress level and whether the mother suffers from post-natal blues. The information gleaned from such surveys can help to identify couples at risk and channel them for counselling before they break up.

Again, as I have said, there have been quite a number of suggestions given by Members of this House on measures to help mothers and, in fact, fathers to cope with the weight of procreation. So, I will not dwell on them except to emphasise that all these measures and facilities, like infant care and childcare, should form a part of an unbroken continuum of family care and social support infrastructure.

Next, I would like to move quickly to the cost factor. The cost factor has been mentioned many times, both by my residents whom I have spoken with, as well as by Members of this House. My sense is that the cost factor, real as it may be, is only as important in relation to the social value that they have. Having said that, I would still like to see the Government helping not just to subsidise the cost per se but to lower the cost of having babies, and also extend some of the current tax incentives.

First, the baby bonus under section 42A of our Income Tax Act which applies only to the second and third child. My question is: why such a restriction? This

means that in the case of twins or triplets, the mother would be deemed to have automatically exhausted her entitlement and, by some stroke of miracle, no longer require any more maternity leave or cost subsidy should she be pregnant again.

Another is the tax rebate for graduate mothers which applies to graduates up

to 28 years old. Data from the Department of Statistics showed that graduate women are, on average, marrying at 27 to 28 years of age. This means that half of our graduate women will not be eligible for the tax rebate at all! And more if they do not conceive immediately after marriage. I urge the Government to urgently review this age criterion.

We must also address the cost equation of declining fertility due to late marriages and genuine infertility. After all, it was cited that Singaporeans have one of the lowest sperm counts in Asia. During my MPS, I saw a young couple who were graduate professionals with stressful work environment. They love children but could not conceive. They were only 32 years old, and were turning to IVF. The success rate of IVF, I understand, is low and the cost is about $9,000 per treatment. They would like to have three children and, by simple calculation, it would cost them about $81,000. At present, only a maximum total of $4,000 per treatment and a lifetime ceiling of $12,000 may be withdrawn by a woman from her Medisave account to pay for IVF treatments. Given that more couples may be turning to IVF, I urge the Government to review the maximum withdrawal allowed from Medisave for IVF treatment. Do not penalise them; help them.

Next, I would like to move on to the aging society. While we speak a lot in this House about the slew of pro-family and pro-marriage proposals, we must not also forget the singles who have

contributed to Singapore and are most vulnerable in their golden years. Recently, a 52-year-old single lady, Miss Tay Huang Huang, came to me for help. She works three-quarters of the day and hurries home to look after three elderly siblings who are also single and suffering from stroke and mental handicap. The 52-year-old herself suffers from depression due to her stressful home environment. She has not been able to find a home that will accept all four of them. She is worried that, with age and a deteriorating health, she may not be able to look after her siblings. In fact, she may not be able to look after herself! With advancement in medical science , which is also expensive, she is also afraid that she will outlast her resources. She is feeling both desperate and helpless.

Miss Low, you have two minutes left to wind up your speech.

I recount her story here to highlight the fact that with an aging society, her predicament may become more common sooner than later. This issue will not only affect those who are not married, but also those who are widowed or divorced. Do we have any solutions that are being drawn up?

I urge the Government to beef up the Medisave account and liberalise its use for purchase of private and national

catastrophic illness insurance. By this, I mean the major illnesses such as heart attack and cancer. I understand from the Health Facts Singapore 2003 that the principal causes of death in over 50% of cases are cancer and heart attack. In many cases, the sums in an elderly person's Medisave account are not sufficient to meet his long-term medical needs. Often, he will have to dip into his children's Medisave accounts as well. But this merely delays the problem from the current generation to the next. What happens when the child grows old? The better solution is the pooling of risks via catastrophic illness insurance. I support the concept of co-funding, but I should emphasise that it should not be restricted to the coverage of hospitalisation and medical costs alone. It should also cover the loss of income, which is especially important if the person is the sole breadwinner.

It is also clear that the CPF is insufficient to meet the needs of the aging population. Very few people are disciplined savers who can put money away over time. Some form of compulsory arrangements can be encouraged, whether in the form of portable pension schemes or company sponsored pension schemes. Encouraging employers to set up pension schemes would need some pushing from the Government itself. It would be able to stimulate a demand for quality fund management capabilities.

Order. Your time is up, Miss Low. Dr Chong Weng Chiew.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the economic prospect of Singapore this year has improved. We are all hoping that the economic recovery this time around could be sustained successfully. I firmly believe that with the concerted efforts between the people and the Government, we should be able to overcome the obstacles before us.

The financial policies and the Budget announced by the Deputy Prime Minister are prudent and have far-reaching implications. This Budget is pro-business and it has also focused on helping the lower income families, eg, topping up of Medisave account for the senior citizens and more allocations for Medifund. I support this Budget.

However, our Singapore people should learn to be more self-reliant and be less dependent on the Government. In fact,

many Singaporeans are making efforts to improve themselves. They understand that ultimately, they will have to improve their skills so that they can get a good job and not wait for the Government's allowances to help them. I hope that the Government will set up more incentive schemes to encourage our people to upgrade themselves.

As our market is limited, the entrepreneurs have to venture overseas. Only then can the companies have the opportunity to grow. Being unfamiliar with the new territories, the SMEs have to face a lot of obstacles. Our Government should continue to help them. Today, in the international market, the competition is very intense. The various governments, including the USA and Europe, are actively helping their local businesses to win over overseas markets and contracts. If our Government does not step up our efforts to support our local enterprises with more active and realistic actions, our engine of growth would have lost its momentum.

Recently, I talked with some of my friends who are doing business in China. They told me that the various foreign government organisations doing business in China have very close relationship with their local businesses in their own homeland. USA, Japan and Taiwan are good examples. If one company wins a big contract, they will sub-contract to their own people, to their own businesses in their own land. In comparison, the relationship between GLCs and the SMEs needs to be improved. Our GLCs should also respond to the Government's call to lend a helping hand to our local SMEs. We should encourage our GLCs to have better rapport with the SMEs. They should lend a helping hand to the SMEs so that they could have the chance to show their strength. This would put them in a better position to venture overseas.

The Government agencies should also conduct seminars to encourage Singapore business to work closely together and to avoid treating one another as competitors. It is said that at home, you depend on your parents, but outside you have to depend on friends. If we cannot help ourselves, then who is going to help us?

Going overseas for our business, of course, will bring some pressure to our families. I think the Government should help to alleviate this burden. For example, we can build more Singapore international schools or also give some grants for our businessmen to defray some school fees for their children. Without their support, the people in the SMEs would not be able to maintain their very heavy cost of living in other countries, and many of them will sacrifice the opportunity to venture overseas.

On the other hand, our local entrepreneurs should also improve the attitude in their work and service, and also their desire to upgrade themselves. Compared to Hong Kong, I think we lack flexibility and we do not have the urgent desire to succeed. The Hong Kong people of five years ago were entirely different from what they are today. Five years ago, the Hong Kong people may be arrogant and their standard of Mandarin was not very good. When we spoke Mandarin to them, they could only understand half of what we said. But, today, their service attitude is much improved, and they can speak Mandarin very eloquently.

Let me now talk about our future generation and our education system. Let me share one story with you. A duck was showing off to the fish in the pond. He said, "I am the most talented among all the creatures. I can run, I can swim, I can fly. Don't you think I am very talented?" The fish smilingly replied, "Yes, you can run, you can swim, you can fly. You have this multi-talent which other

animals do not have. But just think about it. When you run, you cannot run fast; and you cannot even catch up with the dogs and the cats. Talking about swimming, you cannot swim as far as I do. As for flying, you are the slowest and the lowest-flying among all the animals that fly. Do you still say you are the most talented?"

From this story, we can see that specialty has a lot to do with excellent performance. In our society, we have cultivated many multi-talented people, but we should also cultivate some specialists. In order to face the challenges ahead of us, we have to restructure our education system. That is why I hope that the Ministry of Education will give our children more room to develop their talents and skills. I have no quarrel with the setting of basic grade requirement for the core subjects and I also support the bilingualism policy. But, as we all know, children learn at different paces. Therefore, I urge the Ministry of Education to change the streaming system so that every child would be able to decide on the pace at which he learns each subject, so as to avoid putting him into boxes marked "fast", "medium" or "slow" speed, just for administrative convenience. As it is said, we want quality and not quantity. So, in whatever we do, we will have to take this into consideration.

Take the learning of Chinese. For example, I come from a Chinese school. But when I became a Member of Parliament, I discovered that my command of the Chinese language leaves much to be desired. Therefore, I engaged a teacher to help me improve my Chinese. Nowadays, a lot of Singaporeans have some basic knowledge of Chinese. But when they go to China, they discover that their command of Chinese is very limited. When they were talking business, I would say that they are no different from those who know no Chinese at all. I have also come across some businessmen who

came from English schools who are now regretting that they did not spend more time learning their Chinese during their school days.

Therefore, I urge our Government not to further lower our standard of Chinese. I fully agree with Prof. Koo Tsai Kee. We should encourage more Singaporeans to have a better command of Chinese. China's expanding market and rapid economic growth should be an impetus for the economic growth of Asia and even the whole world. So if we do not catch up, we would have lost our opportunity of being the bridge between the Chinese and English-speaking people, and this opportunity once lost would not come back.

We have emerged from the ranks of a developing country and are attaining the status of a developed country. Our education policy and our teaching of Chinese language should also be improved to meet the changes and market demand of the international economy.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. After studying DPM's Budget Statement, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the points addressed in the Minister's speech before moving on to deal with the procreation concerns and how we can help (in our own small way) to build a future of hope and opportunity for Singaporeans and our children.

First, the Skills Development Fund. Currently, the SDF's annual expense is $120 million for 600,000 training places. We are told that it is expected to rise by $56 million to $176 million by FY09 for an increase of 166,000 additional training places. A simple calculation shows that it costs around $200 to train a worker currently. However, the training cost per person is expected to go up to $337 for

the additional 166,000 persons. This is an additional 68% increase. Can the Minister explain why such a drastic jump in the expected training expense? And will the raised salary ceiling to $1,800 add to any additional business cost?

Second, the new category of "S" Pass. Sir, I am sure that this new "S" Pass will definitely increase the supply of skilled manpower from other countries to our various industries. With the job market still stagnant and not growing, I, together with many other Singaporean skilled workers, am concerned that the increased competition from the extra supply of skilled foreign workers, introduced from the "S" Pass, is going to depress wages and salaries further. This will make life harder and tougher for our Singapore workers who are already struggling with CPF and wage cuts. How then to plan for more children?

Third, the importance of sound public finance. Sir, I support the Minister's position on maintaining fiscal prudence. A balanced budget, a trim and efficient public service make for steady growth and sound philosophy of governance. This must be encouraged. The Government should slowly reduce its presence in the economy, market and society. The budget, revenue and expenditure should gradually decline in percentage terms with reference to a growing GNP figure. This will put more money in the hands of our citizens to live a more comfortable and balanced life.

Fourth, the Minister said that MOF will reduce the Ministries' budgets by a percentage equal to the Productivity Growth Rate (PGR) to encourage Ministries to improve their productivity. Sir, I do not know how the productivity growth rate is calculated. But I am sure that if a Ministry's budget will be cut when their productivity rises, then no

Ministry will want to improve on their productivity and see their budgets being cut. I think there is a wrong assumption here. The plan may not work. The Finance Minister may need to warn that he will cut the Minister's and the Ministry's senior officer's salary if productivity does not increase instead. This will put more pressure on the civil service staff to improve on their budgeting and PGR, thereby adding to a reduction in the allocated budget for the Ministry.

Fifth, I am happy to hear of the Minister's plan to permanently cut the budgets of almost all Ministries by 2%. Although I had earlier called for a 10% cut at last year's Budget debate, I am still satisfied that the call has been taken up for a 2+2% cut over two years. This will place less burden on the Government to raise revenue from the people. Although some MPs before me are concerned about this 2% cut on the provision of service, I am confident that it is a non-issue as the civil service is not as lean as it could be yet. There is productivity to be gained that is not achieved yet. If the civil service can afford to suggest six months of maternity leave, it hints that the civil service is not lean and still has fat to trim. There may be excess head count to be considered.

Sixth, a small deficit at less than 0.5% of our GDP is nothing to worry about. Depending on how the US economy is expected to perform next year after its Presidential election, the Government should not be too intent to balance the budget by FY05. There may be a greater need to be expansionary if the US economy falters and there is no alternative engine to stimulate growth. The back-to-back deficits should not be a cause for concern - as revenue may turn out to be stronger than projected and past experience has shown that the fiscal position tends to err on the side of caution. The FY04 budget may turn in a smaller deficit, or even a surplus, as

revenue and investment returns improve while expenditure is capped.

Seventh, the divestment of non-core assets. Sir, money was asked from the budgets in the initial years of Singapore's growth to set up Temasek Holdings, EDB and all the other statutory boards and strategic businesses. Now that some of these businesses and companies are being divested for very handsome and profitable gains, what happens to the money? Where is the money? It should not stay in the books of Temasek or the statutory boards, but should rightfully go back into the Government's revenue calculation as an exceptional item. As an example, thanks to Mr Ooi Hong Leong, the Government made a 110% return on its NatSteel holding in 15 months. All these profits should be channelled back as investment returns to the Government's revenue stream, that is, the budget.

Eighth, in the same way, budgets are being set aside in the various Ministries as grants or transfers to statutory boards and other bodies to acquire land and property from the Government. If such grants to the statutory boards for the purchase of Government properties are classified as budget expenditure, then land and property sales revenue should similarly be classified as Government revenue. This is only fair and proper since it is in effect a book-keeping exercise - a transfer from the Government's left hand to its right hand. In this way, the pressure to raise taxes and revenue from the people will be greatly eased, and the Government can afford to be a lot more generous to its citizens, especially to those that do National Service, either in the Armed Forces or in reproducing for our future.

Ninth, building a strong society. Sir, what makes a strong society? No doubt, stable families, social cohesion, racial and religious harmony, secure homes and streets make for a stable society and an attractive place to live, work and play.

But it is not enough. A strong society is where different members of the society can agree to disagree in a systematic, fair and democratic manner. We are coming along slowly, but it is still a long way to go. Until Singapore has established strong alternative political institutions for the people to have a genuine choice, and the genuine practice of the democratic principle, we are far from being a strong society. In that respect, more efforts have to be made for fair play and upholding the democratic principle.

Tenth, concerning the rise of university tuition fees, we are told that the proportion of each cohort entering local universities will rise from 21% to 25% by 2010. Therefore, more will go into university and more money is required to subsidise our children's university education. Sir, this is good news and nothing to be frightened of. It is the aspiration of every parent for their children to get into university. It is like participating in the race and the ultimate price is for those parents whose child has been successful in getting a place in the university. Therefore, how can the Government break faith by asking successful parents and students to pay a higher burden of the tuition fee now? This is sending a wrong and conflicting message to parents. On the one hand, the Government wants us to have more children. On the other, it is telling us that the university education fee for the unborn child is going to rise, and not telling us by how much. This promotes uncertainty and will not encourage procreation. The Minister talks about increasing the duration of maternity leave but is totally unmindful of the grievous effect of this announcement on procreation.

Eleventh, having adequate money for retirement. Sir, while the policies will help the working generation to plan for retirement for themselves and their families, I want to talk about another

issue, that is, to encourage and allow aged parents to rent out their whole flats, even if they have not finished paying their mortgage or have lived there for less than 10 years. This is to allow them to opt to stay with their younger married children, or allowing their children to rent out the whole flat and to stay with the parents. The rental income will help to pay for the mortgage instalment while any excess is extra money for living and retirement planning. This will put less stress on the family, and also help to build stronger three-generational bonds as aged parents can help to take care of the grandchildren, if any.

Twelfth, I support the Government in delaying the cut of top-end personal income tax to 20%. There is no hurry to give rich people working in Singapore (earning high income) better treatment. As was said in last year's Budget debate, people who work here and earning good money earn it because the system here allows them to do so. It is the job they are holding on to that pays them well and makes them stay here, not the lower tax rate that attracts them to stay here. Cutting their tax bracket will only make the rich richer, while the middle income get squeezed further.

Lastly, I would now like to touch on the procreation issues. Many MPs had addressed many aspects of this issue yesterday. I would now like to add my views.

Mr Speaker, Sir, parents here want the best for their children, nothing but the best. And if that is not attainable, they will rather not have any. If we, as citizens, are not happy with our given lot and purpose in living, and that the prospect does not look any brighter, no amount of incentives, childcare subsidy, baby bonus or maternity leave is going to help persuade young couples to have

more children. This is especially so for the educated and ambitious ones. Only those with a non-materialistic value system, or living within a strong family community or religious network, will be more persuaded to have children and more.

This has all to do with the value system of our society and the young couples. If work and career are valued as more important, then why have children? If holidays are deemed important than the inconveniences of having a baby around, why do they want to have children?

If the opportunity cost is high, why do they want to have children? If the dream condominium is still a distant dream, they will totally forget about having children. The Government and the media, as lead influences in our society, have sent us a wrong message all these years: cars, careers, condominium and cash are more important goals in life than having the last "C", ie, children. Only when some or all the other valued items have been attained or will be attained will the idea of starting the next big project "C" get some consideration. By then, it is too late, as most women and couples are past their fertile age.

If I may observe correctly, most Ministers and high-income earners often have more than one child, some three, four or five. Why? Is it not because they are happy with their life, existence and achievements? But can we say that of the rest of society, those living in 1-room, 3-room, 4-room HDB flats, especially the young and the ambitious? Many feel like slaves slogging from day to night, short of time, short of money. Life is a constant struggle for many. If so, why do they want to bring another life into this Singapore to suffer their same fate? Their prospect does not look any brighter.

If the Government wants our society to reproduce itself, it must send the right and consistent message that strong

families with children is as important as anything else. The Government must show that it supports and values its citizens as individuals, and not as a digit and statistic in the production process. If citizens are constantly made to feel as a statistic, a burden on Government finance, a stress on future budgets, then citizens do not feel valued and cared for, why then would they want to reproduce their young to suffer the same fate?

The correct value system of appreciation must be shown. The Government must not shirk its social responsibility to the citizens for fear of rising subsidies. It is high time that the Government assumed greater responsibility for healthcare and education and stopped talking about subsidies for these essential services. After all, is this not what the taxpayers are paying for? Constantly planning to raise healthcare cost, education cost, transport and living costs while constantly stressing our vulnerability of losing our number one status to competition to our neighbours does not help to build confidence in Singapore's future prospect. If young couples are not confident about the future, how can we expect them to be confident about providing the best for their children?

Finally, Sir, I would like to offer some points for the Government's consideration to make living easier and to attract young couples to have children.

As some Members have suggested, have a 5-day work week so that young parents will have more time together and with their young children.

Encouraging more flexible working schedule for young parents and the ability to do work from home through the use of Internet technologies. This is more beneficial than the six months of maternity leave being considered. As any

career-minded woman is concerned, there may be no job left when they return after six months.

Give new mothers and young parents six years of maid levy fee waiver, so that they can employ a personal helper to take care of the newborn, them and the house. This is definitely better and more highly valued than having cash or baby bonus incentives.

Give outsourcing contracts to ex-staff who become self-employed and work from home, so that they can better take care of their children. They need to be encouraged with contractual work while remaining committed to raising families and children.

To conclude, Sir, this is a prudent and mildly expansionary Budget. Overall, the Government remains prudent in its expenditure. This is also expansionary in view of the 2% point cut in corporate tax rate. This Budget will strengthen Singapore's current recovery path. In particular, a lower corporate tax rate will make Singapore an even more competitive business and manufacturing centre. I believe, Sir, with the review that was in place and this Budget that is being put before us, there is more hope for our future.

Sir, with this, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Budget Speech, DPM Lee outlined the Government's strategy for building a strong society. He highlighted four areas of focus:

Achieving excellence in higher education;

Keeping healthcare affordable;

Building the next generation; and

Ensuring adequate finances for retirement.

Sir, I would like to share my views on these areas.

Firstly, higher education. Indeed, our people are our strength and our most valuable asset. The Government has consistently adopted an education strategy that allows our people to realise their potential to the fullest. Subsidies were granted generously to finance our education programmes from pre-school to tertiary education. This strategy has served us well.

Therefore, I am concerned when DPM mentioned that a review would be carried out on the subsidies given to tertiary institutions. I feel strongly that we should be cautious in this review and that it is perhaps not the right time to raise fees in the short term. There are three reasons for my concern.

Firstly, a higher fee may encourage more Singaporeans to study overseas. This would run counter to our efforts to increase university enrolment. Over time, this may also lead to an increased outflow of talent, if some of these Singaporeans decide not to return.

Secondly, degree holders are naturally expected to enjoy higher income. This will translate into higher income tax payable. Therefore, it will be a double jeopardy for them if they are required to pay higher fees for their education.

Thirdly, the economic recession in recent years has already stretched many Singaporeans, and it would be an added burden if they have to shoulder higher fees for their higher education.

I sincerely hope that the Government will take into consideration these factors

in reviewing the subsidies for the tertiary institutions. Perhaps, greater efforts could also be put in place to review the operating costs of these institutions to ensure cost effectiveness. And if eventually the fees are to be raised and the loan scheme is to be introduced, I would urge the Government to ensure that the repayment terms do not overstretch the young graduates who may be trying to start a family and a career.

Next, keeping healthcare affordable. Healthcare cost is one of the greatest concerns of Singaporeans, especially among the older generation. The Government has given assurance that healthcare will remain affordable here. There was a proposal to introduce means testing in healthcare services, especially in the hospitals. Means testing may be a good way to channel our limited resources to those who really need them. However, I would like to urge the Government to proceed cautiously and to consider several factors.

Firstly, we must assure people that the Government is not taking this opportunity to reduce overall subsidy as a means to reduce the budget deficit.

Secondly, the criteria for the means testing must be transparent and fair. Household income should not be the only criterion. There should also be some flexibility when there are special circumstances, such as handicapped members in the family.

Thirdly, a tiered system is preferable rather than an all-or-nothing system. This is already the case for some of the Ministry's existing subsidy schemes.

I would suggest that greater public consultation be carried out before means testing is introduced into our system.

Next, building the next generation. I would like to spend a bit more time on

this issue, although I am not going to propose another 28 suggestions because many speakers before me have already done so. They have made many useful suggestions, and I am sure the Government will consider them carefully and come up with a comprehensive package by National Day.

I was a little bit concerned though that there was a proposal to give special consideration to women with higher income. While I understand that they need to make greater sacrifices and therefore may need greater inducement, I disagree though that women who earn less or are unemployed deserve less help. The lower income family would need as much help, if not more, to cope with the cost of raising children. I would suggest that we should provide the same incentives, regardless of the income status of the mother.

Sir, while these financial incentives will help make it easier for couples who want to have babies, I believe it is ultimately very much an issue of the heart. Many young people today ask, "Why should I get married? Why should I have children?" They are worried about the responsibility. They are concerned about the opportunity cost, and they are reluctant to give up their lifestyle. Maybe they are missing the most important element in all these debates. I believe there is such a thing called love.

I am not the romantic kind of guy, but I am a pretty traditional one. I remember during my time, we never had to consider whether to get married or whether to have children. We just fell madly in love. We wanted to spend the rest of our lives with that special person for reasons that cannot be explained. Then, we wanted to celebrate our love by making babies. There is a Chinese term for children which I thought was very appropriate. Children are called "ai qing de jie jing", which means they are products of love. They

are the glory of love, they are the celebration of love. And we want to share our love with our children. Were we worried about the future? Were we worried about the cost of bringing up our children? Sure, we were. But our love and the desire to share that love overwhelmed our concerns and we boldly took that first step forward. Sure, there were problems and difficulties that followed. But these challenges add colour and richness to life. If you ask parents today, I am sure few of them would regret having babies despite all the difficulties. And I can see Dr Tan smiling!

Therefore, instead of focusing on all the difficulties and run the risk of overstating these difficulties, it is perhaps important for us to step up our efforts to promote family values among our young, especially when they are still in school, before they are caught up in the rat race of the society. We must help them see beyond themselves and appreciate the joy and fulfilment brought about by having a family. Without this change of heart, without this element of love, we will not be able to reverse the trend. It is like driving a car. We have an excellent engine, whether it is a Toyota or Lexus - like Mr Khaw Boon Wan likes to refer to - we have the best driver, the best lubricant and even a full tank of fuel, but when we turn the key, the car does not start. The reason is that there is no spark in the spark plug. Perhaps, we should add that spark in the car. So, I am suggesting that we should introduce an annual campaign to promote family values. Call it the Spark Campaign or Love Campaign. This will help to add spark into the lives of our young people.

As DPM pointed out, even if we do everything right, it is almost impossible to reach the replacement rate of 2.

1. Therefore, other than producing Singapore babies, we must also bring in permanent residents and then convince them to become citizens. Many of my friends are

permanent residents. When I asked them about their reasons for not taking up citizenship, the reasons given are quite varied. Some of them are here purely for the employment and have no allegiance to Singapore, and there is no need to talk about citizenship. Others have family members who are still in their home country and they could not sever the ties totally. A number of them, however, find the process of gaining citizenship rather painful, especially the younger ones who may be liable for National Service.

I would, therefore, urge the Government to review the process of conversion from PR to citizenship to see if it can be simplified. Lower the threshold so that more will become citizens.

Other than making babies and converting PRs to citizens, we must also stem our losses through emigration. I am pleased that the Government will be reviewing the privileges for citizens versus PRs. Indeed, there is a need to make the distinction more substantive and meaningful. To fuel our economic growth,

we need to attract foreign talents to work here and we have to make it easier for them to gain employment pass and permanent residence. However, we need to balance that with the need to preserve the rights of our citizens. We need to create value for Singapore citizenship. However, this value must go beyond dollars and cents. To be impacting, it must go beyond their pockets and reach their hearts.

Let me share with you an experience which I had with a joint venture company in China. Before we could acquire control, employees of the company were paid fixed wages pegged to the local market practice. After we acquired control, we introduced the foreign management know-how. We started the performance-based wage system. It all

sounds very well. And, as a result, productivity improves and employees take home a much higher pay package. That is good. However, our local partner made a comment that set me thinking. He said that in the past, the employees in the company had a strong sense of loyalty to the company. They worked hard because they felt that the company was their home and the company took care of them. Now, with the performance-based wage system, they work hard because of the higher pay. There is a paradigm shift among these employees. The positive factor is that they will work harder for the higher pay and this will continue to work for as long as the company remains profitable and able to pay. The negative effect, however, is that they will readily hop to another job so long as the other job pays higher.

Therefore, to create value for citizenship, we must go beyond financial values. We must create emotional values too. This too is an affair of the heart. I hope to talk more on this during the Committee of Supply debate.

Lastly, in ensuring adequate finances for retirement, the Government has introduced changes to the terms of CPF withdrawal to ensure adequate finances for retirement. However, many Singaporeans are not poor per se but their wealth is tied up in assets, mainly in the real estate. They are truly in a cashless situation. I believe the key is to find the way to unlock these assets to free up cash. I would like to propose to the Government to consider offering shorter lease flats or rental flats to the retirees so that they could realise some of their cash for their retirement needs.

Private pension scheme is another way to ease the retirement burden and this could be considered further.

To conclude, Sir, we are at the beginning of the economic recovery cycle.

We need to allow our economy to deepen its roots so that it can grow in a healthy and sustainable manner. The Budget aims to do that. At the same time, we must work towards building a strong society to ensure our survival as a nation, not just as an economy.

We, as a family, must make sure that the strongest members among us will continue to thrive and help bring the rest along. We must also make sure that the weakest among us are not left behind, but are given a helping hand. This spirit of kinship, of interdependence and of mutual help is what made us successful so far and that same spirit will continue to be crucial to our success in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, the most striking motif of Budget 2004 is the manner in which it lays out the critical social issues that loom in the not-too-distant horizon. Hence, I would venture to call it the nation-building budget. But the Budget is also an acknowledgement that the Government has no magic wand to wave. At the end of the day, there are many trade-offs that have to be made.

Let me, first, deal with two of the more mundane but nonetheless important short-term aspects of the Statement. Then, like those before me, and I am sure, those after me, I would like to say my piece on the subject on everyone's lips - making babies.

As a woman MP, I feel compelled to lend my voice to this great Singapore baby debate, knowing full well that I am really going to sound like a broken record, if only to impress upon the Government to give weight to our - that is women's - perspectives on this issue.

My first point relates to the Government expenditure trimming. Is this prudent practice or practising prudence? Increasingly, the economy drive the

Government started some years back seems to be shifting into higher gear. Government expenditure for almost all Ministries will be trimmed by 2% for Year of Assessment 2004 and further next year, if appropriate, to instill financial discipline. It is interesting that this is being implemented at a time when there is widespread belief that the global and domestic economies are recovering.

That is a clear recognition that public sector profligacy is a temptation that needs great effort to resist. I think of the gargantuan budget deficits which USA is now grappling with to finance their Iraq war effort, battle terrorism and boost consumption by cutting taxes, and I shudder to think of the long-term consequences that this may have on the mighty US economy and the rest of the world. Unlike many countries, Singapore has generally acted prudently - some would say, too prudently - in its public finances.

However, I would urge the Ministries to ensure that the standard of service delivery to the public will not be affected by such cuts. More importantly, in their drive to protect their own bottomlines, Ministries and statutory boards should not resort to raising fees, because this will place a heavier burden on individuals and private sector businesses. Nor should they compensate by reducing best sourcing projects to the private sector.

Indeed, I am quite confident that the outsourcing of non-strategic projects to the private sector will yield cost savings and help towards achieving the 2% expenditure cuts. Therefore, while the Government should be practising prudence in its financial affairs, it should not allow their practice to be too prudent.

My next point relates to the middle-income squeeze. Individuals are generally disappointed that there was no cut in the personal income tax rates or any other

income tax reliefs, as well as no announcements of any further rebates for utilities and HDB service and conservancy charges. Many, though not expecting much, were expecting at least some form of tax incentives or rebates as the economy was just beginning to recover.

Moreover, the impact of this recovery has been quite localised in some industries, for example, some sectors in manufacturing, and has largely not filtered through to the economy as a whole. Workers' pay cuts have also generally not been restored and this is painful for many families. Analysts and businessmen alike believed a cut in the personal income tax rates could help stimulate domestic consumption demand and put the recovering, but perhaps still somewhat fragile economy, on an even firmer footing.

On top of this lack of "goodies" for individuals, the advance notice that university fees are set to go up, the introduction of means testing for healthcare subsidies, as well as the recent announcements of the deadline for the implementation of a flexible wage system, have brought on concerns, especially for the lower-middle and middle income groups who may be at the margins of disposable income. For this group of people, there may be the feeling of a middle income squeeze. Some assurance is needed here that the Government will take these concerns into account when the policies on means testing and university fee revisions are deliberated and implemented.

There is also some fear that the new "S" employment passes for middle-level skilled foreign labour with a minimum salary of $1,800 would compete unfairly against our local labour and nudge them out of some jobs. The MOM and WDA must assure workers that the "S" pass

holders are only for industries where there is a shortage of relevant skilled workers. They should keep up efforts to help our workers, particularly the older ones, find jobs and remain employable.

My next point on building the next generation. This year's Budget acknowledges that our twin problems of a declining birth rate and an aging population could deplete our most valuable resource and thereby threaten our economic survival. We have neither land nor natural resources to speak of. What we do have is our people. Hence, we need to focus on what DPM Lee calls "building the next generation".

I am particularly pleased that DPM Lee did not simply entitle this part of the Budget "making babies", because, in truth, the issue is not merely about having enough people to fill the slots in our production lines, or meet the Ministry of Manpower's projections on the number of PhDs we need to achieve our goals for growing the biotech sector. These, we can, to some extent, import. Instead, we need to produce many crops of young Singaporeans who are able and willing to take up arms to defend our country, to feel a bond for this place we call home. In a nutshell, we need to build future generations of Singaporeans, born and bred here.

The enormous amount of sometimes conflicting opinions and proposals that have been received goes to show that there is no quick fix nor a one-size-fits-all solution. This vexing issue has challenged our finest minds ever since the problem was first highlighted by the then PM, SM Lee, more than 20 years ago in 1983. Despite various measures introduced in 1987 and 2000 to arrest the birth decline, our 2003 TFR at 1.26 is even lower than the 1.6 TFR of 1983.

Yet, an MCDS' survey on the social attitudes of Singaporeans in 2001

indicates that the vast majority, ie, 84% of Singaporeans, agreed that it is better to get married than to remain single, and 89% agreed that married couples should have children.

Common reasons cited by Singaporeans for this baby strike range from more women choosing to remain single, opportunity cost of a career versus motherhood, emergence of the 24/7 work culture, forcing employees to work even longer hours and therefore have little time or energy for bedroom exploits, job insecurity due to erosion of the concept of lifelong employment, lack of infant-care facilities, and many people's favourite bugbear, the stressful education system.

Like numerous other working mothers in Singapore, I have also experienced many of these concerns. I struggled with the decision of starting a family after I got married and deferred motherhood for six years as I had wanted to focus on my career first. I feared that I could not cope with both having children and a career and I also wanted to further my studies. Nonetheless, I had my first child at 31, after seeing how proud my friends were of their children and the family, love and bonding they shared. My husband and I have never looked back on that decision since. Now we have three children. We could have more if I had started earlier.

Raising three children and having a career have not been easy. But I have been very fortunate because my husband has always shared the responsibilities of child-rearing with me and my parents are able to help me look after the children. I know that many other working couples may not be able to rely on their parents and may face a host of problems arranging for suitable childcare.

Therefore, as is widely acknowledged, a holistic approach is needed. We need the fiscal incentives to prod couples to have more children, and we also need the

physical and social infrastructure to facilitate child-minding. But deeper than that, we need a change of mindset that puts the family - in the fullest sense of the word, and not merely referring to husband, wife and children - at its rightful place in the social psyche of our nation.

This third aspect of the "baby blues" problem is what I wish to deal with and that relates to changing minds and creating life.

Let me talk about the 3Rs - re-distributing gender roles, re-balancing worklife and re-assuring the singles.

First, redistributing gender roles.

The issue of procreation is linked to the larger issue of gender roles facing women and how Singapore society perceives them. Due to societal and cultural norms still held by many Singaporeans, signals from the Government which speak of a patriarchal and male-dominated society and our own drive for self-actualisation as a result of better education, Singaporean women are torn between demands of work and their duties as wife, mother and daughter.

Sometimes, subtle or not-so-subtle discrimination which women face at the workplace adds further stress to us and, in fact, helps to compel women into an either/or situation - either a career, in which case, marriage, child-bearing and child-rearing can wait, and all the while the biological clock is ticking away, or extended motherhood, and the Singapore workforce is thereby impoverished by the loss of women who choose, even if temporarily, to leave their jobs to fulfil their other calling.

As women become increasingly more well-educated and more join the workforce, there will be more women earning more salaries than their spouses. Hence, the notion of a patriarchy is

becoming more and more irrelevant. Instead, the notion should be one of shared responsibilities between the husband and wife in all aspects of family life, including child-rearing, which should not fall squarely on the wife, just as the joys of parenthood are not exclusive to the mother.

It is, therefore, timely that the Government should look into harmonising policies on medical benefits for women in the civil service and citizenship rights of children born to a Singaporean mother but non-Singaporean father. The justifications for these policies have basically been that we are an essentially Eastern Confucianist and patriarchal society where the husband is recognised as head of the household. These policies should be harmonised so as to signal the equality or parity of treatment of both sexes and the Government's support for the family. Moreover, as we seek to increase our birth rates, should we therefore not send signals to show that we welcome the foreign-born child of the Singaporean women with foreign husbands just as we do if it is the father who is Singaporean.

To further reinforce the message of shared responsibilities of men and women in parenthood and offset the concerns of discrimination of women due to extended maternity leave, fathers could be given longer paternity leave, up from the current three days to, say, at least 7-10 days. Even Japan, a traditionally patriarchal country, has funds set aside by the Government to encourage fathers to go on leave as it recognises that the willingness of men to help care for the child and do household chores will affect their wives' desire to have children.

One concern some of my male parliamentarians have shared with me as to why longer paternity leave or some other permutations will meet with

resistance from the Committee on Procreation, is that this will add to the current leave employers will have to give to our NS men for reservist training and thus again add to employers' cost. My rejoinder will be that if making children is now considered as crucial as fighting for the country, surely one solution could be to look at offsetting at least part of the extra days of paternity leave from the reservist training period. Additionally, tax incentives, such as child relief and maid levy, should not only be made more attractive but also allowed to be taken by either the husband or wife so that it is not only working mothers that can benefit.

Let me share that it takes much more courage and sacrifice for the women to decide not to work in order to look after their children and this should again be applauded and not penalised. In sum, parenthood and not motherhood should be promoted so that women would truly feel that there is gender parity and need not have to vacillate between career or child-rearing. They can opt for both if they desire.

Secondly, re-balancing work life. One of the victims the stresses of a fast-paced and competitive environment have claimed is the low fertility of Singapore couples. Even those who wish to conceive may find either time has passed them by because they have focused so much attention on growing their career just to keep up with their peers, or that they face stress-related biological difficulties.

Sir, I am greatly tempted to argue for a slower pace of life so that we can stop and smell the roses. But, I also know that there is a thin line between the loss of our competitive drive and the desire to have a more flexible life-style choice, because nobody owes us a living. Couples need to re-balance work and family life and employers can help to provide a more family-friendly work environment by being

flexible in their HR practices. Best practices would include things like alternative work schedules, flexi-time, part-time job, job sharing and such. Such flexi-work arrangements are not just beneficial to employees with young children, but also those with elderly to care for. With an increasingly ageing population, more and more we are having a workforce that is buckling under the strain of caring for both the young and the old.

Companies in the West which implemented family-friendly work practices have found that instead of hindering productivity, there has been lower staff turnover, reduced absenteeism, more motivated employees and enhanced performance. This has in turn enabled the company to attract a quality workforce and boosted profits. HP in the US reported that encouraging employees to work flexible hours has led to a turnover rate which is lower than the industry average, whilst at a Xerox customer operations site, there was reduced absenteeism when flexi-time was implemented.

The Straits Times dated 5th March 2004 reported that although the civil service has a number of family-friendly work practices in place, in the last five years, just 900 or 1.5% of the 60,000 civil servants have some kind of flexi-work arrangements. There may be some resistance from immediate supervisors unable to see the long-term benefits of a family-friendly approach because of short-term cost and disruptions. If the civil service were to become a model family-friendly employer to set the example and lead other organisations, then all civil servants who are in charge of staff must be convinced that the organisation will benefit from such arrangements. Private sector firms too need to be convinced of the merits of allowing flexi-work arrangements as these are hardly found in most private sector firms now, except the

MNCs. The Manpower Ministry, together with WDA and NTUC, could develop best practices, go on a publicity blitz and highlight case studies of how overseas and local organisations can successfully implement such work arrangements without suffering from negative impact. They could form a tripartite task force to work with companies seeking to develop such practices, similar to what was done for the flexi-wage system.

I would also like to ask the Government to seriously reconsider adopting the 5-day work week as one of its family-friendly practices, as many of my parliamentary colleagues before me have spoken on. When this was first proposed by the Remaking Singapore Committee to allow Singaporeans more time to spend with their families, build stronger bonds and improve their quality of life, it was opposed rather robustly on grounds that it would reduce our productivity and competitiveness which we can ill-afford. However, having a 5-day work week does not necessarily reduce productivity. Firstly, many manufacturing companies, as well as numerous other private sector companies, are already on a 5-day work week. My company, for instance, was on the alternate Saturday-off system, as we felt that clients may want to meet us on Saturdays. Three years ago, we implemented the 5-day work week as we felt that there was not much achieved staying open on Saturdays. Firstly, there was much confusion caused as some staff swapped their Saturdays for various reasons. Secondly, productivity was low on Saturdays as inevitably many exhibited the "weekend is here, time to go slow" syndrome.

Since we started on a 5-day work week, we have not suffered from any loss of productivity of business and, of course, staff are much happier. Additionally, it must be noted that a 5-day work week does not mean that an organisation

cannot remain open on Saturdays. For Government and other organisations that need to do so, a staggered 5-day work week could be implemented. I understand, for instance, that IRAS is already on a 5/5/6 schedule. With some effort and a little imagination, the 5-day work week can be instituted without loss of quality of service or productivity. With the 5-day work week and with other flexi-work arrangements, family members could spend more time with each other and perhaps our divorce rates, which have been increasing, could be reduced.

Finally, my third point, re-assuring the singles. In all the discourse about procreation and motherhood, we must not unwittingly discriminate against the singles. There is a need to assure our singles that they are an equally important part of our society and equally valued. Single women aged 15 years and above, for instance, form a sizeable portion of our workforce, 38%, or about 350,000 as at June 2003, of all employed women in Singapore. The absolute number is even higher than the number of employed single males aged 15 years and above, which is about 320,000. Assurances must be given that their concerns, such as some tax relief for looking after their aged parents, like in the form of foreign maid relief or family leave instead of maternity or paternity leave to look after the aged sick, could be considered. Singles, particularly women who are single by default and not by choice because they hitherto had been unable to find a suitable life partner, need help. At the individual level, the dilemma facing them as well as working women is not very different: how to balance work with their personal or social life?

At the national level, how to balance the need for manpower, or more correctly woman power, in the workforce with our drive to raise the fertility rates? I would

urge the SDU to continue redoubling its effort, even if the success rate is not very high. Each successful match gives the potential of at least one more baby. Perhaps SDU could start programmes even at the tertiary institutions, say, in conjunction with orientation and later perhaps a preparatory course for final year students on grooming, communication, social and interview skills to prepare them for their work and social life and allow them more opportunities to meet.

I also urge the Government to relook at rules to permit adoption of children and guardianship by single women. Perhaps there is concern that such children growing up in an incomplete family environment will grow up dysfunctional. But I believe the risk is worth taking in order to confer the joys of motherhood and satisfy the maternal instincts of single women who, for biological or other reasons, are unlikely to be able to find a mate and procreate. Indeed, the decision to have children is ultimately not about the incentives but rather the whole experience of parenthood. Mating and procreation are part of our DNA, ensuring the survival of a species. But beyond that, as any parent, myself included, can attest to, there is unspeakable joy in raising children. Caring for a baby, stroking his hair, watching him learn to walk, utter the first syllables, return from school with excitement at what the teacher has taught, watching him play with new friends, win a competition, eventually going through university, graduating, marrying and having his own children, this is, as one recent property advertisement would say, "priceless".

As can be seen from the multitude of sometimes divergent measures that have already been proposed both in and outside of this House, there can be no one perfect solution as there will always be trade-offs. There will be some pain to be borne by employers, employees themselves, and the state. To me, the path to more babies

must begin with the mindset change from all three parties in terms of their attitude towards women in the workforce, responsibilities of child-rearing and the perceived role of women in society. But above all else, Sir, I would like to stress that, even as the Committee on Procreation evaluates the multitudes of possible measures, I urge them to please listen to the women.

With this, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate.

I was away when the Budget Statement was delivered in Parliament a week ago. The reaction I received upon my return, when I asked about the Budget was, "What budget?" A journalist related that after DPM Lee finished his statement, she and her colleagues looked around at each other and asked, "That's it?" To the man-in-the-street, Sir, the message of the Budget is still as unclear as last year's. To them, the key word is: It is a pro-business Budget. Indeed, that was how it was reported in the media the next day. The only thing that they got out of the Budget is the hope that businesses would do well with this pro-business budget and thus their jobs would be secure, more jobs will come their way,

with the promise of more Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs).

In his Budget speech, DPM Lee also mentioned that Singapore remains competitive as a manufacturing location, especially for high-tech, high value-added activities. According to DPM Lee, last year, we attracted about US$7.6 billion in Foreign Direct Investments. Sir, to the man-in-the-street, it can mean two things: (1) Wow! That's a lot of money! But what's in it for me? More job optiions? Lower risk of retrenchment? No more pay cut? And (2) a question is raised: is this US$7.6 billion good? What was the

target set and was this figure below or above the target? Are we expecting better FDIs with the current fiscal policy and budget provisions?

Sir, as far as the man-in-the-street is concerned, this Budget is only for and about businesses, and the larger businesses at that, as pointed out by some of my colleagues in this House. So, will the Budget that is meant to benefit the businesses actually have the desired multiplier effect of bringing in the investment dollar and the jobs?

The first point I want to make is the Budget and its promise I: More investment dollar? Sir, we have heard much about how the new economies are giving us a run for our money in terms of their competitive labour and production costs. A report by the Asian Development Bank in 2003 titled "Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries" showed that our share of the FDIs coming to Asia is fast getting smaller. Amongst the South East and East Asian countries, we used to have about 23% of the FDI pie in 1991, similar to China's. But our share has been steadily declining to a low of 4.25% in 2000 and 7.7% of the pie in 2001. China, on the other hand, has taken almost half of the FDI pie in 2001, due for Asia. Sir, the above is a layman's interpretation of the figures. I stand corrected in terms of my interpretation.

But, Sir, I wonder if DPM Lee can share with us the Government's thinking behind the relationship between the Budget and our FDI position vis-a-vis the other countries in South East and East Asia. What is our target in terms of the FDI pie that we hope to capture with the various fiscal policies in this Budget and that of the previous or subsequent few years? Sir, we owe it to the people to give them hope and promise. We need to tell them that although this Budget is "pro-business", it is actually "pro-Singaporeans", as Singaporeans will

benefit from the multiplier and systemic effects. So, what are the promises that we can give the people with this Budget?

Secondly, the Budget and its promise II: More jobs? Sir, we have been plagued with the problem of unemployment for the past couple of years. Much has been done to our fiscal policy to arrest the problem. From direct pay cuts to cuts in employer's CPF, Singaporeans have been biting the bullet. Again, for this Budget, we are telling Singaporeans to be patient. Although there is nothing outright for them in terms of tax rebates, etc, the Budget is meant to increase our competitiveness, and the end product - more jobs for Singaporeans.

Sir, it is hard for Singapoerans to reconcile the above. To many Singaporeans, it is a simple equation - better things equal more jobs, fewer retrenchments, better take-home pay, lesser problems with monthly bill payments. But they are not seeing this.

The messages are rather confusing. They hear the Acting Minister for Manpower telling the press that we have a yearly shortage of 350,000 workers till 2009. Yet, they also hear of the over 95,000 unemployed Singaporeans with an unemployment rate of 5.4% as at September 2003. Despite this, they are hearing that more foreigners are needed to fill the jobs that Singaporeans are not sufficiently skilled in. Sir, some may conclude: "Yes, the jobs may be created from the Budget policies, but it is not for me. It is for the engineer, Mr Chong, from China perhaps, the IT professional, Mr Logan, from India, or the nurse, Ms Imelda, from the Philippines." Is that so?

Are the 95,000 unemployed Singaporeans the so-called structurally unemployed whose skills set is so bad that they cannot fit into any of these

350,000 jobs that the Acting Minister for Manpower talks about? Among the 95,000 unemployed, we have 15,500 who are degree holders, while another 8,500 who are diploma holders.

Sir, another related question will be: why are we bringing jobs that Singaporeans are not skilled for? Have we no choice? What is the hope that we are giving Singaporeans with this Budget? Can they look forward to something more observable?

Thirdly, outsourcing: the threat to white collar workers. Sir, DPM Lee also touched on MOF's decision to introduce "best sourcing" for new services policy. This also relates to the concept of "outsourcing" services to those who can provide the services at the lowest cost. If I recall correctly to a question by Dr Amy Khor on the impact of outsourcing on the Singapore economy and jobs, the Minister for Trade and Industry replied that we are targeting higher value-added jobs in the global outsourcing market. I suppose this suggests that we have the skilled manpower for these higher value-added jobs performed by trained white collar workers that will be outsourced to Singapore. But, Sir, I think the global trend is showing that the real theat for Singapore not only comes from competition for the lower-end jobs but also from the high-end jobs, ie, white collar jobs. Recent trends and studies in the US show that white collar jobs are increasingly coming under the threat of workers in India and China. If the workers in the US are facing the threat, we cannot assume that we are immune to this threat.

For jobs to stay in Singapore, we need workers, white collar and blue collar alike, who are either cheaper or much better, which gives the same end result, ie, higher productivity. Sir, a Business Week report dated 3rd February 2003 noted that China produces 322,000 graduates

and 41,000 post-graduates, and India produces 251,000 graduates and 63,000 post-graduates in just 1999 - that is more than a quarter of the total Singapore workforce. We are also hearing that all these graduates and postgraduates are asking for salaries that no Singaporean counterpart will work for.

Sir, at the end of the day, the issue is no longer just telling the aunties and uncles in the factories that their jobs are threatened. The larger issue is that everyone's job is threatened - the investment banker, the IT engineer, etc. How is the Budget addressing these issues? What can Singaporean white collar workers do to face up to the competition? What is in the Budget that addresses this growing threat?

Next, keeping the job, paying the mortgages and having children, a topic that has been much discussed in the House in the past two days. Another much anticipated announcement that never came during the Budget Statement was: what is in it for Singaporeans to have more children? A week after the delivery of the Budget Statement, I did my regular block visit in my constituency. Many of those whom I met were young couples either without children or having only one child. Their response to my question on when they will have their first or next child was interestingly similar - wait till August and see what the Government has to offer. Sir, yes, they may say it in jest or they may actually mean it. Whatever it is, it is quite sad that young Singaporeans will actually wait for what the Government will offer before thinking about having one or two kids. But, Sir, from the economic situation confronting them, we cannot really blame them.

While previously white collar workers can feel comfortable about their jobs and incomes, today, they face serious threats from counterparts in other countries.

Worse, these competitors are coming here through the "S" passes. We are now thinking of further financial incentives to attract women to have more children, ie, to help couples defray the cost of having children. I do not doubt that financial incentives will be attractive to these couples, but I would argue that there are more fundamental issues that will have to be addressed first.

Next, beyond the baby dollar. Sir, it is so interesting to note that whenever the discussion on declining fertility rate arises, the bulk of the related issues raised were about women, and often-times by women - women in the labour force, flexi hours for women, extended maternity leave, work-life balance. Career women have always been asked: how do you strike the balance? Who looks after and manages the children and household for you? It is as though the issue of declining fertility rate is solely a women's issue. Perhaps that is why we have not been able to reverse the trend - our minds have not been sufficiently reversed or, should I say, liberated. We must stop thinking that declining fertility rate is a women's issue - it is as much a men's issue! And I am not just talking about making babies! It is only up till recently that we spoke of paternity leave and child sick leave for men.

Sir, indeed, men must not think that pregnancy is a women's issue alone. A significant turning point in my life was when my wife and I met an American several years ago when we were living in the US. My wife was a couple of months pregnant at that time with our first baby. The American man asked how pregnant was my wife. She answered "five months", and his response was, "Oh, we are six months pregnant!" It took my wife and I a couple of minutes to figure out what he meant.

Sir, he owned the pregnancy and I suppose he felt psychologically pregnant.

His wife was very lucky. In the US, it is a norm for husbands to accompany wives to pre-natal check-ups. When I returned to Singapore, I do not see the same norm amongst Singaporean men. Perhaps it is slowly changing, but I am sure the pace can be boosted.

Sir, we must make sure that men play a more significant role in the equation. The marriage statistics recently show that our graduate women and our primary and lower educated men are remaining single. The Government is rightfully concerned about this trend. It has direct effect on the fertility problem.

Why is this happening? One explanation is that men, in general, prefer to marry down. Reason? Psychological comfort, ie, prescribed as the head of the household, they probably feel that they must be one up on their spouses, in education, if not in income. A sociological explanation to this rests on the concept of manhood and how comfortable men are with their manhood in their choice of a life partner.

Sir, this is one of the fundamental issues we have to address - men must be comfortable with their manhood and thus treat their partners as equals. As a Government, we must also recognise this. Family policies must treat men and women as equals. Only then, I think, will men recognise the critical role that they play in not only bearing but raising children. Only then will we send the strong message to our women folk that they should and will be supported when they bear our children.

When they ask: will their career be at risk? The answer will be no, because we will put in place a system that will not discriminate against women when they give birth. The risk is even higher if we go ahead with the proposed lengthened

maternity leave. Will they struggle in juggling the demands of being a career woman and a mother? The answer must be no, because their husbands will share the responsibilities of raising the children and be equally effective parents, more than just relying on foreign domestic helpers.

Sir, to achieve the latter, I have argued before in this House that we can no longer expect families to operate with gender specific roles. Roles exist in families and couples must be comfortable to complement each other in performing these roles. The environment in the family must be one that is mutually supportive for the couple. We can give them more financial incentives; we can make it easier for them to have child care givers. But we cannot ensure that they can support each other unless we send a clear message that child bearing and rearing responsibility is shared.

Sir, in his commentary in the Straits Times dated 27th February 2004 titled "What Singapore needs to boost birth rate", Janadas Devan argued that Southern European countries like Spain, Italy and Greece and East Asian countries like Japan have lower fertility rates compared to countries like the US, Iceland, New Zealand because the former still holds on to traditional attitudes towards women compared to the latter. He quoted Professor Lena Sommestad, an economics historian at Sweden's Uppsala University, as saying "birth rates are particularly low in countries that support traditional patterns of marriage and breadwinning." Singapore is currently in the same state. If we continue to hold on to the traditional patterns of marriage and breadwinning, we will continue the downward slope of declining birth rates of Japan and the other Southern European countries.

Socialisation and parenting the future generation. Sir, what we do today will

have significant effects tomorrow. The changes in our fiscal and tax policies today are meant

for a better economic outlook tomorrow. So too, will be the effects of what we do at home today. It will determine the family life of tomorrow. We must start re-examining the way we socialise our boys and girls. Today, we raise our girls to be educated, independent thinkers, able to stand tall with their male counterparts. We want them to be career women and succeed. Are our boys raised to appreciate and respect these aspirations that we have for our girls? Are they raised to treat their female siblings and friends as equals? How can they do so if they do not see their fathers doing exactly that? Men must begin to recognise the critical role that they play in raising their sons and daughters. Children will observe and model the behaviours of their parents. They will observe if dad will be around if mum is busy at work, or will mum be the only one there all the time, in sickness or in health.

Sir, the issue of reversing the declining birth rate is indeed multifaceted. Much has been said about cost. It is sad to think about dollars and cents when it comes to having children, most Singaporeans do take that into serious consideration. Many of the speakers before me have highlighted the serious financial constraint on young couples. Sir, we cannot blame them. We raise them in comfort and with high personal aspirations. We raise them - boys and girls - with the value that they must be educated, have a good career, have a good paying job, have an apartment of their own. But we also have to address the broader societal issues that affect marriage and family life if we are to address the problem of falling birth rates.

Sir, as a society, we must be clear of our social objectives. We must be clear about the position that women hold in society. We cannot send mixed signals

where, on the one hand, we raise our girls to be educated, career minded, and yet, at the same time, they have to be a dutiful wife and mother, while the men remain as heads of households and maintain the one-up position. It will not work. The women's movement has been very successful in bringing forward advancement of women in many spheres. But I fear our men are still lagging behind in catching up with their female counterparts. Our governmental policies must reflect our political will to change the needed mindset and for a new order of gender relationships.

Sir, indeed as Janadas Devan puts it, "What we need is a social ideology that not only approves of women having careers but also encourages equality both at work and at home." Certainly, there is more that we, Singaporean men, must do to advance this social ideology. We not only need to play our part in making babies, but also to assure our spouses that we will be there to raise these babies together, in a mutually supportive and respectful environment.

Sir, to conclude, I am sure my male colleagues would be wondering what am I doing standing here fighting for the right of women. To the women folk, I do want to share that men understand their issues too. Yes, the voices of the 15 women in the House are loud, or we can make it even louder with men supporting these voices. Sir, in the end, we are fighting for the rest of our children to be raised by both women and men.

Sir, I would like to focus on the emphasis placed in this year's Budget on solving the problem of the falling birth rate. I am sure that many married women will cheer at the raft of measures being considered from longer maternity leave, better childcare, more affordable childcare to more generous baby bonuses.

I would like to make three points. My first point is that such measures by themselves may not be enough to check the falling fertility rate if we do not make a decisive shift from our patriarchal system to a more gender-equal one. Indeed, the OECD experience does show that such policies have a clear positive impact on fertility only if combined with changes towards more gender-equal parenting practices, as has also been pointed out by Dr Maliki.

Sir, we often hear our policy makers say, sometimes with a deep sigh of regret, that the reason for our falling fertility rate is because our women are getting better educated and they are getting more active in their workforce, as if that is something that is not to be applauded. But it is instructive to note that, in many countries in the developed world which see even higher female participation rate in the workforce and even more higher educated women, the fertility rates vary, ranging from around replacement rate to those that are seriously below this level. Clearly, these two factors on their own - the higher education of women and their labour force participation - are not able to explain the level of diversity in fertility rates.

Other societal factors are also likely to be contributing to the varying outcomes. There is a big respectable body of research in the developed countries that suggests that falling fertility is related to the ways in which the society as a whole is organised and that family arrangements have a bearing on the issue.

In his paper published in the Journal of Population Research in the year 2000, a demographer, Prof. Peter McDonald, described two broad approaches to family responsibilities - the "male breadwinner" model and the "gender equity" model - that play a significant part in a country's

fertility rate. He found that, in general, developed countries characterised by the male breadwinner model, such as Italy, Spain, East Asian countries, like Singapore, will have a lower fertility rate than those characterised by the gender equity model, such as found in the Nordic countries. The male breadwinner model has policies that support the male-dominant family structures, such as those that place greater emphasis on the role of women in caring for dependants and that make the employment of women difficult. Social security and social insurance are also premised on the notion that the husband would be supporting the wife and the children. On the other hand, the gender equity model is based upon the principles of equal respect for men and women, equality of resources and capabilities, and places greater emphasis on providing services, such as childcare, services for the aged and flexible working hours that allow the women to continue working after childbirth.

Sir, it recognises that many women prefer to work after childbirth, not only for the money, but also to maintain skills, social contacts, personal satisfaction and to ensure longer-term security. Research based on the longitudinal data from the US national survey of families and households, 1987 to 1988, and 1992 to 1994, supports the idea that gender role attitudes of men and women have an important impact on family formation and dissolution. The research found that egalitarian men are accepting of working wives and sharing household tasks and egalitarian women are more likely to want children and to be more content in their relationship if they received more support from the men.

It is useful to note that perhaps no country has moved further away than Sweden from the male-breadwinner model of the family towards a more gender equal one and that it has adopted family-friendly policies to a greater extent than any other

country. And it is also among the most successful in checking its falling fertility rate.

In Singapore, we are a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, the traditionalists among us cling to the idealised patriarchal family model. They want our women to return home and to produce more babies and that should be the priority and their main role. And the men should be the head of the household, and the household and the country will be at peace. The corporatists among us want women to work hard, be professional and productive at the workplace because we are short of skilled labour. We have invested in our women's education and training and we expect them to perform, to be professionals, to work shifts and to work weekends. The company's profits and the country's GDP must come first.

Sir, we cannot help but be conflicted in our own policy making and it shows. This incoherence can be detrimental to our childbearing and marriage rates. The present generation of young men and women do not see their future, in terms of the male breadwinner model of the family. If women are provided with opportunities nearly equivalent to men in education and employment, but these opportunities are felt to be severely curtailed by getting married and having children, then chances are that women will either not get married or restrict the number of children that they have.

The better way forward, I believe, is to provide families with better opportunities and choices both at home and at work, and let them structure their own personal relations at home. For some women, professional status and separate earning streams are very important. These families need ways to simplify or outsource many aspects of their home jobs. Others will want to spend more of their time on the family and will need to have part-time careers to facilitate the

roles they want to play at home. Many families will want one thing at one time and something else at another time of their life.

As the Government, we should not be dictating to families how they should structure their relations at home - who is the head of the household and so on. We should review and do away with all employment practices and policies that are biased against women or that uphold the male breadwinner model. It is neither helpful nor necessary. Other than the state, the workplace has also failed to adapt to this changing reality. Workplaces mainly have the structure they had when all employees were full-time males. They are intolerant of part-time employees, who often function without benefits and without reasonable career paths. They are also suspicious of parents who take leave to care for their family or who ask for more flexible hours. They see such requests as a lack of professionalism and commitment to the company.

Sir, changing the work culture as well as the work practices and expectations of corporate managers are critical. The clearest way we can send the signal is by making it a statutory right for parents of children aged under six to apply to work flexibly. Their employers will then have a duty to consider these requests seriously. Such a right already available in some advanced countries does not provide an automatic right to work flexibly, as there will always be circumstances when the employers are unable to accommodate the employee's desired work pattern. But it gives the right to the employee to apply for flexible arrangement and encourages the employer to find a solution that suits them both.

My second point is that we must also recognise the changing role of men. Although men are not as actively involved in day-to-day family life as women are,

there has been a substantial shift in expectations about this involvement, especially among the younger generation. Many young fathers especially tell me they wish to have more time with their children. Increasingly, I see more fathers accompanying their children to art competition and to family carnivals over the weekends and they will tell me, "Oh, my wife is busy because she is at work." But they have a good time, spending time with their children and taking the children out. I know of one marketing manager who quit his job for a year to spend time with his freelance writer wife and two young children. His wife described that one year as the happiest time for the family. But they would have preferred an arrangement where he could have worked part-time or taken a longer paternity leave so that they could manage their finances better. But such options are not readily open to men.

The civil service should set the lead by giving up to two weeks' paternity leave. Most men want to be more involved and saw barriers associated with the workplace, such as expectations of long and irregular working hours, inflexibility, constant traveling, as being the most critical factor in preventing them to be the kind of father they want to be. They are also reluctant to take family-related benefits for fear of being seen to be lacking in commitment to work.

Sir, there is an unhealthy belief in Singapore that you have to work unduly long hours to show commitment to the company. This sort of thinking must be debunked, especially in this information age. This idea that "longer hours mean better work attitude" is perpetuated by our stance against a five-day work week. As has been pointed out by some MPs before me, whenever we appeal for this, we were always told that it would send a wrong signal to investors that we are not

the hard-driving and hardworking society that we are. I hope sincerely that the Government will reconsider its thinking on this. As many have pointed out before me, it does not mean that offices have to close on weekends or at 5.00 pm, or it does not mean that we will become less productive or less competitive as a nation.

The Americans log fewer hours per week than Singaporeans, yet they lead the globe in productivity and competitiveness. All EU countries have legislated the five-day work week

and some of them, eg, Finland, the Netherlands, beat Singapore in the global ranking for world competitiveness. Asia's two largest economies have already moved to a 40-hour week, with Japan changing in 1988 and China in 1997. South Korea also moved to a 5-day week in 2001. And they are doing all right.

Finally, singles, a growing group. One reason often cited for staying single is the lack of time for relationships and for socialising as their hours get longer and their working hours get more irregular. Now, with the proposed maternity leave and flexible hours, the different arrangements for parents, the situation is likely to get worse for singles. Singles will have to cover for their married counterparts when their married counterparts go for maternity or paternity leave, child sick leave and so on. And with their married siblings focused on feeding their own growing brood, singles will also often have to take over the responsibilities of caring for their elderly parents or disabled siblings. The work stress on singles will be higher. Hours at work will get longer. Chances to socialise and meet a partner will become even slimmer.

Other than the 5-day week, which would also help singles lead a more balanced life, I would urge the Government to give more generous tax rebates to singles who care for their elderly parents and disabled siblings. This

group should also be allowed to claim the foreign maid levy tax relief. This would send the signal that the Government values the role they play in supporting the family.

Even as we help families to procreate, we must bear in mind the implications on the life of singles. Many do not choose to be single; many do not choose not to have children. In fact, if you talk to many single women, they would like to have children. In fact, just last night, I had a single woman who came to my meet-the-people session. She has adopted a child from an orphanage in China, and she has brought up the child as if it were her own. She said she does not want to get married because she has not found a man that she wanted to marry, and rather than have a miserable marriage, she would like to be the best mother that she could be.

In Singapore, in my dialogues with various singles, they also say they want to have children. Is it possible for them to adopt? I am not sure what the Government's position is on this. But, I think, if they can be good mothers and if they can provide a good childhood for these children, we should consider making it easier for single women to adopt children and not put them through so many hoops and make them feel a bit weird for becoming mothers to adopted children.

At the same time, I would urge the Government to also not overdo the campaign to send the message that everybody should get married and have more children. If we keep harping on this, the message to singles is that: "You are a failure, no matter what other achievements you might have accomplished in your personal or professional life, and that you are a misfit." If we make Singapore so unwelcoming to singles that they feel out of place, and the workplace so stressful that they burn out, the mobile professionals will just take off to cities in

the world which allow them to live as they want to, and then we will have another problem on our hands - that of a brain drain.

Sir, in conclusion, the way we are approaching the procreation problem today is rather like a gardener looking into his toolkit. There is this spade of financial incentives that worked well in this country, there is this changkul of childcare facilities that worked well in this other country, and so on, and then we use them to plant an apple tree in this hot and humid climate. My point is that it is not so much the individual tools that matter or what is in the toolkit that matters, but the climate, the nature of society as a whole. Clearly, we have to fix our climate to make it more gender-equal and more family-friendly, if we want to see more women getting married and having more babies. Dr Amy Khor ended her speech by saying, please listen to women. I would like to add: please listen to women as equals.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget can be looked at from many perspectives. Many describe it as pro-business, pro-birth, etc. But, to me, I think we should take a different perspective and look at this Budget on how it would affect jobs and the ordinary citizens of Singapore.

Many would say that this is just another pro-business Budget. It appears to be so. This year's Budget takes a very pro-business outlook and it is an indication of our intent. But it is a message, not an outcome. With the Budget, the Government aims to facilitate a sustainable growth to strengthen job security and generate more job opportunities for Singaporeans, so that we could continue to enjoy a fair share of the global economic development. So I would rather say that this is a pro-job Budget. We need to have such a budget and we also need all the Government departments to

go thoroughly into this policy to create more job opportunities for our people. Last night, when I was watching the news on television, I saw that the Prime Minister of Japan had used himself as a model in the advertisement to attract more business for Japan. So, for us to prosper, I think we should create more business opportunities for Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, the Chief Executive of Intel said: "Look at India, China and Russia. They all have very strong education heritages, and their emphasis is always on education. Today, they have 300 million people who are educated. If you see this increased competition for jobs, the immediate response to competition is lower prices, and that is, lower wages." His observation deserves our attention.

Globalisation is good at increasing the productive capacity of the world, but it has also presented us with some real challenges. The main challenge is how to make sure that there are enough jobs for everybody. If we go deeper into it, we could see that there are only two roads ahead of us. One is to look backward and hang on to what we think we are entitled to. The other is to recognise what has made Singapore and face the challenges squarely, try to develop some workable solutions and put in a concerted effort to put them into practice. I think we can only choose the second road, ie, to face the challenges squarely and try to develop workable solutions. If we look back at history, we will see that the issues we face today are quite similar to the kind of challenges the farmers went through in the late 1800s, the sweatshop workers in the early 1900s, and the manufacturing workers in the first half of the 1980s. In fact, what we see today is history repeating itself. We have to focus on creating new sources of job, wealth and

growth, rather than bemoaning our losses. As a union leader, I strongly support the Government's measure to make Singapore a more attractive economy to the investors.

As we are in a globalised labour market, one other hard reality that I am most concerned with is that the wages of many lower end jobs are too low today, even for the low-income workers. We have to find some ways to adjust their pay so that there will be improvement. I urge the Government to introduce further incentives and facilities, so that businesses could put in more effort to restructure or redesign their jobs for higher productivity, because it is only with higher productivity can our workers hope to enjoy better pay.

Beyond job creation, we also have to look at the impact of cost-cutting on Singaporeans. Whether at our workplace, in our workflow, in our wage restructure or wage reform, we would need to have a comprehensive way to look into the matter. We have to look into one very important aspect, ie, on the cost structure of the company. We need to have a full analysis of the job structure. Only then can we decide on what priority we have to take. For example, yesterday, Mr Inderjit Singh mentioned that in his company, the other business costs are the important ones. But we must also notice that, to many other companies, particularly those where the wage cost is more than two-thirds of their business costs, wage reform is very important. We have to take a more comprehensive view of the whole matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, basically, I welcome the Government's decision to reduce cost and increase output. But what I am concerned with is how is the Government going to cut cost and at the same time enhance effectiveness and reduce waste? It is not just a game of 2% reduction. We have to ensure that this cost reduction

will not affect the quality of service provided by the civil service, because the Government, being the biggest employer, has to show to the public that with its careful planning and outsourcing, the rice bowls of the civil servants are not jeopardised. Some people are already concerned that with the IRAS retrenching its staff, the time may come for the staff in the other Ministries who will face the axe too.

Another point that we have to put emphasis on is that the Government has always been asking workers in the private sector to change their mindset and face the changes. What I want to ask is whether or not the civil servants will do the same. Civil servants must be more effective and not just want to satisfy the requirements under the KPIs. They should also change their mindset, so that they could be really serving the people and be people-oriented. In fact, in many Government departments, there is already much improvement. Some Government Ministries have good interactive exchanges with the people. For example, the Traffic Police had, during the Chinese New Year period, handed out hongbaos containing pamphlets on careful driving so as to ensure the safety of everybody. Compared to what Mr Ong Kian Min mentioned yesterday, I think we are more advanced than the Australians and we could help our people to understand the changes in our policies. This is something we have to do.

I would like to raise another example to show you that in the whole process of reformation, we have to also require the civil servants of various levels to change their mindset. I would like to introduce one fable which was contained in this book called "Sketches from the Humble Cottage" by the famous Qing Dynasty Mandarin Ji Xiaolan: "A Mandarin died and was taken to hell where he reported to the King of Hades. As he was an honest and upright official in his lifetime,

he refused to kneel before the King. The King of Hades reprimanded him, saying, 'Although you had not accepted bribes and were not corrupt, you had accomplished nothing as an official of the imperial court. Everything you did, you merely went by the book. You only wanted to protect yourself and be non-committal in everything. You did not speak out boldly to uphold justice, neither did you show solicitude for the sufferings of the people. As an official, you were indifferent and incompetent. Therefore, you are also guilty.' " So he was dismissed and he was sent to samsara and became an animal. This fable illustrates the point that an official has to speak out for his people. He should not entrench himself in his position and do no useful work, simply following the IM for whatever he does. So, as a civil servant, you have to be flexible and take the benefits of the people at heart so that we could truly serve the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many Members have already debated on the issue of procreation. I think the cost of living is still the main concern. While people in general agree that incentives are helpful measures, it is important to look at the individual's bottom-line. We have to consider whether the Government should change our rules and regulations, so that our cost of living could go down, eg, transport policies and other Government regulations that affect our cost of living, whether they should be reviewed so that our people would enjoy a better living without having to pay more.

Another example was the home ownership scheme. For example, a young male graduate may only clear all his education loans, including university fees loan, by, say, 30 years old. Then he has to think whether or not he has enough money to pay the deposit for the flat, and whether his job would give him enough money to service the housing loan. All these pressures are something that we

have to look into. Look at it from another perspective. Can the newly-wed couple first start by renting a flat so that they do not have to commit themselves to heavy mortgage commitment the moment they get married. This will free them from the worry of how to service the mortgage loan every month, at least for the time being, and remove an obstacle to the starting of a family. I think if we want to encourage procreation, we have to look into this question of the cost of living.

But we are Asians, and our tradition is that we have our moral obligation to have descendants. So it is not a question of whether we want to get married or to have children or not. We cannot just look at the cost-effectiveness. When we want to decide on whether to have a family, we have to ask ourselves very seriously as to what is our target in life. We all want to have an enriched and full life. It is a question of life fulfillment. It is not just a number game, when we talk about cost and enjoyment. We ought not look at it as a profit and loss exercise, because we have to look at what is our target in life.

Everyday, when we come home, we look at our children. When they run towards you and the moment that they appear before you, you will forget all the tiredness and frustration in your work. No matter how busy you are, when you reach home, when your children greet you with a smile, you would feel that all the labour and hard work are worth the while. Look at it from this angle, and we can understand why people want to have children. Most importantly, if our people in Singapore do not know what is the joy of having a family, then no matter what incentives or grants you give them, they will not be motivated to have children.

Now, as a union leader, I will have to talk about maternity leave. Many people

say that the maternity leave should be extended, but I hold a different view. Many of my workers came to see me. They said that they are now worried about how long the maternity leave would be. They are worried that if the maternity leave is too long, they may lose their job. Take, for example, if you tell your employer that you are going to give birth to a baby and you are going on long leave, then during your maternity leave, will your employer be saying, "I am waiting eagerly for you to come back", or will he be saying, "even if you come back, I will not want you anymore"? So we have to strike a balance between these two extremes. That is why many of our female MPs say we should change this to paternity leave so that the father will share the risk of losing the job.

Now, the next point that I want to talk about is how to ensure that the retired people will have enough resources to help them in their own age. This is something that we have to look into very seriously. From my understanding, in Canada, they require all adult workers to set aside 10% of their monthly income for old age. But to us, in fact, under our CPF system, we have set aside more than 35%, but in the end, much of this is locked up in properties. For those who have purchased their dwelling with CPF money, unless they sell and downgrade into smaller accommodation after retirement, their remaining CPF savings will not be enough to meet their post-retirement needs.

We have to rectify this problem. We have to define what are our basic retirement needs because in some countries, they say that the minimum annuity is to peg their basic financial security to 20% of its last take-home pay. As to how to ensure that Singaporeans, including the self-employed, have enough Medisave account in their old age, that is something that we have to be concerned with, ie, whether or not we should require these

self-employed people, for example the taxi-drivers and the insurance agents, to set aside part of their monthly taxi takings or the commissions of the insurance agents to be deposited in their CPF accounts, like in the case of the employees whose salaries are deducted first by the employers for submission to the CPF Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, finally, I wish to say that no matter how much effort we put in, whether or not we have this concerted effort to build up a conducive investment environment to attract our investors, if we are not harmonious in our industrial relationship, we will not be able to succeed. I suggest that our very unique tripartite partnership amongst workers, employers and Government be upheld. This is one of the most competitive edge and a critical success factor which many countries in the world are lacking. We have to ensure that this successful factor be continued.

According to a Financial Times' report, labour strikes cost South Korean as much as US$2.13 billion in production loss in 2003 and foreign investments have plunged by almost a third. I hope the Government and the business community will not take our harmonious industrial relations for granted. This partnership must be preserved and built upon. It is a pillar that binds us - workers, employers and Government - to the future of Singapore so that this pillar will provide strength as we collectively face the challenges ahead.

Sir, I support the Statement.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.39 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the DPM and Finance Minister for a good Budget for businesses and for encouraging enterprise. However, I note that relief for the low-income Singaporeans, eg, S&C and utilities rebates, has not been renewed. These relief packages may be vital to the needs of those still suffering from the effects of the economic downturn. I believe that in moving towards a new era, long-term structural unemployment in Singapore will be hard to eliminate. We, therefore, must have the social safety nets to take care of those who find themselves in a difficult situation. In fact, ground feedback tells me that many middle-aged and lower-educated Singaporeans are still facing unemployment problems and are concerned about their future. I do hope that the Finance Minister will re-consider continuing at least part of the relief packages given last year for the low-income or unemployed Singaporeans.

Sir, like Mr Inderjit Singh, I believe that the effort to lower cost for businesses should be pursued relentlessly in order to preserve our nation's competitiveness. One measure that will ensure that our goods and services are not overpriced is open and fair competition. Lower prices improve our international competitiveness and improve our people's living standards through lower cost of living. Lower cost of living in turn will also soften the demand for higher wages, again leading to lower business cost. This is a "virtuous cycle" and a good environment for business, unless the business is one of those playing monopoly. In this regard, I strongly encourage the Government in its

move to enact a competition or anti-monopoly law. This law must have real teeth to compel companies who engage in unwholesome monopolistic activities like price-fixing and cross-subsidies, to give their customers a fairer deal. This is essential, especially in a small market like Singapore. Let me cite a few possible cases.

First, petrol and diesel. For a long time, the prices of petrol and diesel at the forecourts of various petrol companies seemed to be identical. It has been claimed that there was no cartel, nor a price fixing agreement among the petrol companies. However, it is hard to believe that there was free competition in the petrol and diesel business, especially in the light of gross profit margins of over 30%. To demonstrate that there was competition, petrol companies even "competed" by giving away "free" tissue paper and drinks. Yet, when the petrol price war started at Bukit Timah, discounts of 10% or more could be found, causing mayhem along a major trunk road. Another telling clue is when Comfort began selling diesel. Suddenly, discounts of 15% could be found for diesel in most regular petrol stations. If there was free and effective competition, could the additional high margins for the sale of diesel be sustained in the past?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that one of the strongest measures against any monopolistic practice is a low barrier of entry into the marketplace. In order to discourage a quick return to the old situation, the Government should allow independent small operators to enter the market with minimal red tape. This can be encouraged by increasing the number of white sites for petrol stations. Where it is safe, companies like supermarkets and hypermarkets should be allowed to sell petrol and diesel. Only with such

competition will we see the real fair price for petrol.

Second, telecommunication. With the liberalisation of telecom services, competitors to SingTel like StarHub and M1 emerged. However, one can question: how effective is the competition? In the mobile phone market, have prices fallen significantly? What are the operating and net margins of the mobile phone companies? To illustrate how much prices ought to fall when there is effective competition, let us take a look at IDD prices. After several years of effective competition, prices have fallen from several dollars per minute for a call to the USA to less than 40 cents per minute. However, for the domestic mobile services, have the per minute prices fallen by the same extent? Before M1 started, when SingTel was the monopoly provider, the price was 20 cents per minute. Today, mobile calls cost nearly as much. Prices have not fallen by the desired amount due to non-effective competition. The EBITA margin and net profit margin of M1 say it all. These are 45% and 20% respectively.

The Finance Minister is also correct to point out that competition in the last mile access has not materialised. IDA should re-examine the process of copper unbundling and wholesale prices to promote competition in the access to the last mile. We should also liberally allow, without onerous terms and conditions, many smaller players, even when each has a limited scope and reach, to obtain a FBO licence to provide services within a small locality. When there are sufficient numbers, they will collectively form effective competition to the bigger players.

Third, electricity. We are now in the process of de-regulating the electricity market. I hope that the lessons learnt from the liberalisation of the telecom industry are fully put to use here so that

we can enjoy the benefits from a competitive electric power market soon. Electricity prices may be a major cost item to some businesses and, hopefully, effective competition here will help lower their costs.

Sir, easier access to capital and lower cost of capital will also help businesses. The SEEDS programme run by EDB has been successful in providing much needed capital for promising start-ups. In the long run, this scheme can be self-funding, or even make a large profit as the SEEDS companies succeed. We should consider expanding the SEEDS programme. If and when profits are made when SEEDS companies list on the stock exchanges, we should allow EDB to plough back their profits to fund even more start-up companies.

Another way to promote the availability of risk capital is to give more tax incentives to angel or boutique funds. These funds make investments in high-risk early stage companies and we need more of them for entrepreneurship to flourish in Singapore. The proposed tax allowance for losses is a right step. Perhaps, in addition to this, a special low tax rate or tax-free status should be introduced for such funds. This will greatly help to improve access to capital and reduce cost of funds for entrepreneurs.

Sir, apart from telecoms, petrol, electricity and financing cost mentioned above, lowering costs of other items like land, water, healthcare, Government services and fees, should be looked into. While land costs are manageable presently due to the economic downturn, a return to accelerating prices like the mid-1990s will be harmful to our economy. We must also keep a watchful eye over our healthcare costs. It seems unbelievable that our public hospitals can suddenly lower charges for certain medical

services, sometimes by quite significant amounts when price comparisons were made public. Does this not imply that they were all charging more than they should for these items in the past?

The Government too must continue to play its part in lowering business costs. Annual licence fees for businesses can be streamlined and lowered. Instead of the inefficient and troublesome process of collecting every year, the Government should consider, like our driving licence, issuing a multi-year or permanent licence at a much lower cost per year. Mr Inderjit Singh lamented that our cut waste effort has not gone far enough. This is one example where we can cut waste for the Government and cut cost for businesses. It is a win-win approach.

Sir, I next come to the Education budget. My plea is: do not cut the Education budget. This is our investment for our future and Singapore's next generation. Without our people and a higher quality of life brought about by better education, what is there for SAF to defend? More, not less, money is needed in our schools and universities to improve standards. There is also a need to invest in better teachers, better teaching material, laboratory equipment, facilities, etc. All these need constant upgrading. Enrichment activities will also cost additional funds and these ought to be encouraged. As an example where improvement is needed, let me talk about the situation at the universities.

Much has been said about our aim to make NTU and NUS world class. However, I note that the student-to-staff ratio in Engineering, at both NTU and NUS, is over 25. Is this in keeping with our aim to make these institutions world class? In the 1980s, the target was a ratio of 10. What has happened to this target? How can we achieve "world class" status with a ratio like 25, 27 or even 30?

To improve, we need to spend more money. This brings me to the concern expressed by many on the review by Government to up the percentage of operating cost undergraduates have to pay. As it is, undergraduates are already paying 25% of operating costs. If spending is increased to improve standards, they will have to pay more proportionately. If the percentage is further reviewed upwards, the impact on students and their families can be substantial. Sir, we must bear in mind that universities do not only engage in teaching. Other activities include research and acting as a think-tank for the Government and the country. Moreover, in the longer run, graduates pay higher income tax and the Government is more than adequately compensated for funding the universities. These graduates also contribute to our economy, generating profits for the companies they work for and, hence, again more taxes for the Government. Thus, the Finance Minister's assertion that education at the university level benefits the individual students more than society is highly debatable.

Sir, my final topic is on procreation. Many reasons have been offered for not having children. I think primarily most couples avoid having children because either they do not want their lifestyle to be affected or they consider raising kids as stressful, especially in ensuring that their kids do well in school and later on in life. I agree with Members who argued that the decision to have children is more an emotional one than a financial one. However, we need both public education and financial help to address the concern of would-be parents and persuade them to change their mindset. Members who spoke before me have provided many suggestions on how Government can help. Let me add a few for the Government to consider.

One often cited reason for not having more children is the stress of the children's education. A common joke is that the mother has to take the PSLE

two or three times according to the number of children she has. Many parents cannot resist arranging private tuition for their children for fear that their children may not do well otherwise. This can cost several hundred dollars to a thousand dollars per child per month. To address this fear and to ease the financial burden, the Government could increase the amount of money in each child's Edusave account. This can then be used to pay for tuition organised by schools for weaker students. Such a measure will go a long way to allay parental concerns of giving their children the best possible education.

Presently, only the wife enjoys enhanced tax benefits for having children. Some have called for the benefits to be given to the husband as well since the wife may not be working or may have given up her job to ensure quality upbringing for her children. In fact, we should encourage mothers to look after their own children, if not full time, then at least part time. I suggest that tax incentives should be increased and be given jointly to the couple to be distributed as they see fit, instead of the mother, because child rearing is a joint responsibility.

Finally, the Government should encourage employers, with the Government leading by example, to allow more flexi work, work from home, and part-time work. Work can be measured, not by the number of hours an employee stays in the office, but by the output obtained from the worker. Such schemes will allow mothers the flexibility to earn an income and, at the same time, have enough time to look after their children. Many mothers will welcome this since it will allow them to be at home with their children some of the time without having

to totally give up their career. This will go a long way in reducing stress in raising kids.

On this note, Sir, I support the Budget.

Sir, the Minister has constructed a clear policy direction in this Budget. As per recommendations in the Economic Review Committee's Report in 2002, we have put forward incentives to make Singapore an attractive location for businesses to hub.

We have lowered the corporate tax as we had set out to do some time back, and we have extended tax reliefs to businesses that will set up operations here. It is anticipated that these same companies will create jobs for many Singaporeans. With 12,000 jobs created in the second half of last year, we can be expectant of more good news in this financial year once these new policies kick in on the back of an improving economy.

While we promote businesses, we thank the Minister for Finance for a highly prudent Budget. On the back of a recovering global economy, the window now exists to trim excesses that we cannot support if we want to stay nimble and flexible. This Budget starts the trimming of the fat right at home - each Ministry will receive a 2% cut in their budgets, with the exception of Defence.

Sir, the Minister for Finance had, in his Budget Statement, mentioned under the first of three pillars - Effective Government, the importance of good financial practices. I suspect that he had toned down but careful not to mute his caution about the importance of fiscal prudence in the face of spending pressures and tighter budgets. This is so that his cautionary note will not drown out the visible uptrend in the economy and the opportunity for Singapore to gather momentum in the coming year.

The Minister for Finance reiterated that we must never fall into the trap of budget deficits. So, I was a little surprised at Dr Gan See Khem's suggestion for the Government to promote more budget deficits.

The American Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say in February to the House Financial Services Committee. I quote, "Federal budget deficits could cause difficulties even in the relatively near term." He went on to caution that, "Unless the government get its financial house in order, the situation will grow more dire with the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers. Without corrective action, this development will put substantial pressure on the Government's ability in the coming years to provide even minimal government services while maintaining entitlement benefits at their current levels without debilitating increase in tax rates."

This, Sir, already is a "clear and present danger" that Singapore has to address and to keep at centre court at each Budget.

My analogy is to use a tube of toothpaste to symbolise frugality. Many will agree that it is difficult to put back the excess toothpaste that you have squeezed out of the tube. Money spent is gone. Live within our means, save enough to buy more toothpaste and use what we have prudently and to the best effect.

Sir, not many Singaporeans know that the Singapore Government continues to have one of the lowest operating budgets in the world - at 16.6% of GDP. Even so, Government has been prepared to give new start-ups some breathing space with tax breaks for the first $100,000 income for the next three years. The idea is to let start-ups focus on building their businesses perhaps by consolidating their

operations and channelling some of their profits back into their businesses. I look forward to reviewing the impact this will have on new start-ups and study the benefits and impact of the policy on their initial development, perhaps cut in the next budget.

Some cynics on the ground have fed back to me the futility of this measure as they question how many new start-ups are there that are able to make $100,000 in the first three years. This tax exemption may prove to be little in the way of tax revenue lost, good news for the tax boys but really not a big help to the start-up fellows!

My problem with this 3-year plan is that it sounds good, but I am not convinced of the real benefits ever reaching the intended group. Worse still, it may be an example of a well-intended policy ending up on the bandwagon of sceptics doubting the sincerity of the Government, however wrong the Government thinks the sceptics may be.

I join my fellow parliamentary colleague, Mr Ang Mong Seng, in a call to the Government to not only extend tax exemption for the first three years but to also tax at half rate or the going rate for the company's fourth and fifth year of business. Sun yen er chien, as he described it.

Sir, I also recommend that the Government could start by looking at beefing up assistance to the start-ups by extending the micro loan scheme to them as well. The Government could also make available to promising start-ups an early "incubation" programme by having experts who have start-up experiences share and guide such start-ups so that the chances of success and making through the first three years are higher.

Sir, on my next point, I would like to declare my interest as a banker. This Budget also makes Singapore much more competitive in the field of wealth management. Freeing up taxation of overseas deferred and investment income has been one of the challenges faced by the wealth management industry for some time. With this policy, many investors and Singapore tax residents may be more inclined to regard Singapore as a viable wealth management hub.

More Singapoerans are and will be travelling abroad to work. Foreigners are encouraged to set up base here and operate out of Singapore. They will be better able to deploy their earned income in a safe and established financial superstore or, more aptly, wealth management centre right here in Singapore. I am confident that we will see more positive developments in this area. I look forward to more such initiatives that will aid building a good base for the fund management industry that is crucial in the business of wealth management.

The Minister has made it clear that while we should have a guiding hand in the development of industry structure, it is not the intention of the Government to hand-hold businesses. Where support can be given, Government will continue to provide as much assistance as possible. However, the onus would lie with businesses to take the risks, innovate and, finally, stand on their own feet. This is, of course, the final outcome that we want. But is there room for us to give that extra gentle push in the right direction at this crucial state of the economy, where indicators are pointing to a recovery? Have we been too hasty in concluding that the current state of the domestic economy is keeping equal pace with the improving global economy? The roll back of the assistance rendered to them at the first sight of economic recovery may be too hasty.

The figures showing the 10% improvement in the retail industry includes car sales. Although car sales had dipped last year, it nevertheless masks the not-so-robust growth, as the 10% growth seems to suggest in the retail sector. "It's only when the tide goes out that you can see who's swimming naked," a famous remark by Warren Buffet, America's best known investor describing the masking of the retail sector growth.

We have heard from Members of the House how some of these costs in fees, charges and rentals have been contributed by the Government, whether directly or indirectly. Many of these businesses have already cut costs, and some to the bone. The rebates that have been or will be rolled back have been subsidising the costs that have been entrenched through the years, now that the businesses are left with the burden of the rock heavy costs when the tide changes in their favour.

Sir, small businesses have been part of the growth engine for Singapore since its early history. While we always hear about big businesses and how Singapore conglomerates are making headlines around the world, our small businessmen have been quietly contributing a significant portion of GNP.

The retail sector alone employs 90,000 people. I have heard anecdotal evidence to suggest that these retailers are not able to meet even their basic overheads, let alone make profits. There is a glut of retail space, and a poor retail mix. Now, I have heard that HDB will cut its rental rebates scheme from June this year. We also see the same pull back on property tax rebates earlier.

Sir, surely there must be some leeway to hold off on pulling back such assistance, if we want businesses to find their feet and begin to flourish in this

critical time of economic recovery. If we do not continue to help small businesses, then more of them will go under. In fact, about 7,500 businesses and companies ceased operations or closed down in the second half of 2003. If the same scenario extends to the retail sector, more people will have their jobs at stake.

It is even more frightening if we look at the profile of these retail workers where training or retraining may not do much to aid re-employment should they lose their jobs. I understand that most of these retailers are family held - on average, each of these family-held businesses employs four workers or family members. With 10% or 9,000 workers in the retail sector out of job, it translates to 1,200 families in trouble. This is a worrying prospect, and one which we must do all in our power to prevent.

Sir, let me elaborate with another example. In my constituency, there are about 13 coffee shops covering 105 blocks. Each coffee shop hires about 40 employees. These workers remain largely untrained because they work 10-12 hours to earn their meagre wages. Our training initiatives do not seem to reach this segment, as they do not have the time or, more likely, the capacity to be retrained. Assuming that they do accept the call for retraining, there is little support for them because if they do go for training, they do not earn their wages. For many of them, it is a hand to mouth existence and so opportunity cost for retraining is too high.

Sir, many of these workers, including the sales assistants in the retail sector, belong largely to the 12.6% of households in Singapore earning less than $1,000. While this Budget is pro-business and well conceptualised more for the larger businesses and the MNC types, it can still do more for the small businessmen. In the case of coffee shops, they need direct inducements to

help them through this crucial period of economic recovery.

They need assistance to either restructure the industry, and many of them are caught in a vicious cycle. If they close their business, they will lose their 3-month rental deposits which, I understand, can be about $100,000 in total for some areas. On the other hand, if they stick with their business, they will continue to lose money on a daily basis for the 3-year contractual term. It cannot be in the interest of Government to leave things completely to the market, but rather involve itself with the challenges of these small businesses.

Sir, while we have made it clear to businesses that want to set up here that we will welcome them with open arms, let us continue to find ways to support

our small businesses that employ a large segment of our working population.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I used an aircraft to describe Singapore's journey in my first Budget debate speech two years ago. We have certainly gone through some rough weather, as we dived, ducked, turned and climbed in the turbulent economic storms, we have managed to stay on course.

As we jettison the excesses that will allow us to fly safer and more efficiently towards the Land of Opportunity, let us be careful not to jettison along with the excesses the assistance that these small businesses and many retailers in our domestic market need.

As I have said earlier, and many of my parliamentary colleagues have also alluded to, much of the costs and charges is something these business have no control over despite already cutting other "excesses" in their respective businesses.

Sir, I support the Budget 2004.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

During delivery, the Budget Statement did not sound exciting, in fact, I should say it was disappointing as many of the usual rebates, allowances and reliefs were missing. It is an austere Budget with much less for the common man and woman. In reality, on closer reading, it is a most significant Budget Statement where disparate Government initiatives announced over a spate of time have been pieced together to unveil the platform on which we will drive into a changed world. It is a good roadmap.

The changing global economic landscape is a major cause of our immediate economic difficulties. The Government has introduced many changes in response but the results are still coming in. Many people thus wonder if the Government has things under control, if it knows what to do. In all fairness, the fruits of policy and strategic changes will take some time to be seen and felt. This journey is going to be tough and painful, as we have so far experienced and likely to be long. Our people must be patient and persevering for the fruits to be borne. However, it is useful for the Government to keep the people informed, to regularly highlight the fruits that are forming, ripening and harvested. The ability to follow the progress made will reassure us that our leaders have the situation under control. The Budget Statement has done an excellent job in this respect and I hope that this information sharing could be done more regularly.

Sir, as many of the previous speakers had stated, the decision to have a baby is a very personal one to be taken by the spouses. The responsibility for the decision lies largely with the people, not the Government. But it is not uncommon to hear the blame for the falling birth rate

to be placed on the doorsteps of the Government. However, the Government should help wherever possible by making it easier for the people to take the decision. This problem of a falling birth rate is not unique to Singapore. Most industrialised nations have this problem. So we have a serious situation in hand, one that is not easy to solve. Monetary incentives have been tried in these countries, but it has not been found to be a complete solution. Parents will tell you that they have babies not for monetary incentives, but for more deep seated and emotional reasons. It is without doubt that bringing up a child takes up a lot of effort and money. Making it easier for parents would help, but it is only one of the factors.

I am glad that a high-powered Committee has been set up to look into this issue. May I meanwhile convey three inputs, amongst many, that I have received from the public for the Committee to consider? Previous speakers had discussed these, but let me lend also my voice to them. A working mother would like the maid levy to be reduced for the period while her baby is too young to be placed in infant care. She needs the maid as both she and her husband are working. Another mother said that she does not need a long maternity leave, but she suggested that we adopt the European practice where a mother is allowed to work for four days a week for a period of one year after the birth of the baby. During this arrangement, the employer pays 80% of the salary while the Government contributes 10%. Yet, other parents lament the lack of affordable infant-care and childcare facilities, which are an alternative to a maid. They want the Government to facilitate and support in the setting up and running of more such facilities.

Sir, it is interesting to note that if the Government were to agree to all the

suggestions made for procreation and old age, this would complete the support given to a person throughout his life, from procreation to farewell. At the same time, we also have calls to the Government to get out of people's lives, to allow them more space for personal decisions, to live and act.

Sir, we must learn to take personal responsibility for our lives and those of our loved ones and also our environment. We must become a resilient people, depending on others only as a last resort. While enjoying the good life, we must at the same time be prepared for the worst. We must be like the proverbial prudent hardworking ant rather than the happy-go-lucky grasshopper. I gather that the Government has started us on this journey with the glaring absence of all the usual handouts and rebates that we saw in the past years. The people will miss all these, but this is a necessary step to wean our people away from the over reliance on the Government, so that they stay prudent when times are good. Among the people who came to see me to seek my help during the past years, not everyone was from a poor background. Several once held good well-paying jobs but were unable to cope with just a few months without an income.

Having said that, the Government should readily help those who are at risk, those who through no fault of their own had fallen onto hard times and are unable to help themselves. We also have a small island for a home and unless we make the effort to maintain it and to keep it safe, it will be difficult and expensive to make it a worthwhile place to live. With some 85% of our people living in flats, if we do not help the town councils to keep our estates clean, maintain and protect the common facilities, we will have to pay more to maintain our estates. My hon. colleague, Mr Ong Kian Min, Member for Tampines GRC, spoke in more detail on

the matter yesterday. I urge all Singaporeans to help take care of our environment.

Sir, it is important for us to live within our means. There is no need for us to spend more merely because we earn more. We should save what we do not need to use. Hence, while I agree that we can extract a "productivity dividend", we should also bear in mind that in doing, we need to consider and manage related issues, such as motivation. Why should a person be productive when he is being penalised for being so? Also, as many previous speakers had asked, where will the cuts come from?

Next, under the current uncertain situation, I support the additional expenditure for security. But the security forces should be prudent in spending, doing so only when necessary. The security agencies should ensure this.

Finally, I am also faced with a conundrum. In a famine, a fatter person has a better chance to survival than a lean one. This means that it is worthwhile for a person to eat a little more when time is good. One wants to be healthy, but one also wants some "looseness", some enjoyment in life. Hence, is there a place for some system inefficiency when the economy improves, when things are going well!

In conclusion, Sir, allow me to pay tribute to our community and grassroots leaders. The peace, unity and security that we enjoy today are due in no small ways to their efforts. Without them, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for us to readily overcome the SARS outbreak and the extremist threat. They were able to quickly reach out to the people and unite everyone to the common cause, to the common interest of Singapore. I thank them all.

Let me end here by reiterating my support for the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join in the debate on the Budget Statement delivered by DPM and the Minister for Finance. I hope to give my perspective and views on the matter.

Last few years have truly tested the leadership of this nation and Singaporeans alike. It began with the economic debacle of 1997, from which we emerged somewhat unscathed. On hindsight, the Asian financial crisis was not as unnerving as SARS was, in terms of its impact on our economy and the morale of our people. SARS shook and jolted us as a nation. Year 2003 will always be remembered as the year where the security of our health was threatened. Thankfully, with our discipline and diligence, we managed to avoid a nationwide outbreak. We look forward to a better year in 2004 and it has started promisingly enough for us humans, but I could not say the same for the birds and chickens.

Unemployment rates in Singapore rose to 5.9% in September 2003. This is partly due to the impact of SARS, which figures seem to indicate, contributed to nearly half of the decline in the GDP in the second quarter of 2003. On top of that, the war in Iraq set us back several steps. The war had a depressing effect on the consumer economy and investors' psychology. Simultaneously, on the home front, we had to deal with the threat of security and other tragedies that hit our nation. The general sentiment was one of gloom and doom.

Fortunately, Singapore's economy grew faster than originally expected towards the last two quarters of 2003, expanding on a rebound from the SARS outbreak and the recovery in the global economy. The good news is that our economy grew by 1.1% in the year 2003,

better than the initial estimates of about 0% or less. Generally, our reputation remained intact. Singapore is still ranked the second most competitive small economy by the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2003 and the sixth most competitive economy of the Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004.

Pleasantly surprised, the manufacturing and service sectors recovered from the Q2 slump of 2003. Since the containment of SARS in June, the services sector improved steadily. As for the manufacturing, a strong rebound in the US as well as the Japanese economy certainly helped. Nevertheless, Sir, not all is nice and rosy. The construction industry and the property market have been the worst performing sectors mainly due to the downsizing of the construction industry. We all know that the strong growth of property market in the 90s will not happen again in the near future. A good number of our citizens are now straddled with lifelong property loans and negative equity. I am seriously worried that this situation will have a long-term dampening effect and impact on our economy. So what can we do to ameliorate this situation? Many are still not aware of what hit them and from the MPS cases that I saw, many are badly affected by the slump in the property market.

Sir, through difficult times our workers have discovered that they must be lifelong learners. They must constantly upgrade their skills and knowledge to stay relevant and employable in this rapidly changing world. The experience of the recent past has also taught them not to be picky, where jobs are concerned. Singapore is and will face challenges from fast growing economies of China and India. The threat from China and India is a real one. One view is that companies producing goods that are more labour intensive will head for China while Singapore will attract

companies that want to produce higher end goods, with more technology content. Hence, the need for our people to build the necessary competencies to attract such companies.

However, Sir, Singaporeans must climb the knowledge and technological ladder quickly. Because it is only a matter of time before the others catch up. Even as my colleagues and I lament about the unemployment and slow job creations, we know that there are jobs out there that are not filled because the workers that were displaced could not fill these jobs. Clearly, there is mismatch. So I ask these questions. How is this Budget going to help? Are there clear strategy and schemes to help the unemployed? What are the tangible and concrete steps to retrain and re-profile our workforce?

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to an OECD report recently, China ranks third after the US and Japan, in terms of R&D. This is quite alarming. Yes, the PRC has now leapfrogged ahead some of the developed and illustrious European nations, like Germany and France, in this respect. China is catching up rapidly, even in terms of so-called high-tech industries like computers, electronics and semiconductors. Clearly, we are losing the appeal that we once had. May I suggest that we take this opportunity of some positive development in the economic front to consolidate the position of Singapore and South East Asia. Thus, this year's Budget that some had touted as "pro-business" is welcomed.

Looking back from where we are today, I can confidently say that we have demonstrated our resilience as a people. As Deputy Prime Minister rightly put it, and I quote, "2003 was a tough year, but we emerged from it stronger" and, if I may add, we

emerged from it wiser, smarter, it made us work a little bit harder, it made us learn a little bit faster, and it turned us into small fighters!

The Budget for financial year 2004/2005 is in line with expectations. To avoid unnecessary spending is indeed the way forward. I hope this trickles down to the rest of the economy. Some sectors will definitely benefit from the budget policy more than others, such as the defence-related ones.

Generally, the majority of the Ministries need to tighten their belts, with the exception of MINDEF. The allocation for defence is kept at up to 6% of the GDP in the Budget. I wish the same can be said for education. I completely concede that protecting Singapore's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be the leadership's prime concern at all times. However, having said that, I also feel that educating the nation contributes to total defence in the long term. Education is the best tool yet to mould any nation. It should be on par in terms of importance. It is my ardent hope that, in future, education will not experience a budget cut. If I may quote John Dewey, who lived from 1859 to 1952, psychologist, philosopher and thinker on education, whose writings and thinking have profound influences on education in the US: "Education is a social process ... Education is growth ... Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself."

Sir, I am also pleased that the current Technopreneur Investment Incentive is to be expanded to include all forms of start-ups, not just high-tech ones, and is renamed the Enterprise Investment Incentive. The support for start-ups is no longer just for technology companies but encompass all other sectors. This is laudable. I can only hope more can be done in this area.

There are many small firms and start-ups, not necessarily in the high-tech

sector, which are in need of financial support. I encountered many in the course of my work, and they may have good business propositions and are prepared to venture, but their lack of financial resources has hindered their growth. Thus, this group of budding entrepreneurs will certainly welcome the Enterprise Investment Incentive, and I hope they will take the offer and move on successfully.

The improvement to the access of funds and periodic tax exemption will go down well with the budding companies. But it is still not enough. I think the Government and its agencies can do more to provide assistance where it matters and has the most impact, ie, by reducing operational cost.

I have also seen in recent years countries like China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, South Korea and many others starting up incubation centres and grooming their local entrepreneurs and talents. These incubation centres are growing like mushrooms in China and some of the countries that I have mentioned earlier. My observations had shown that both state and private sector are actively involved and working towards a common goal, that is, to ensure that these companies be the first to innovate and create. Are we doing enough for our entrepreneurs? If we are, can we do more to help them to compete?

I sincerely believe we can. Just like what we are trying to do for the "baby" problem, we should also tackle this dearth of home-grown entrepreneur issues head-on. We need to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak, and really help. Often enough, I hear start-ups lament about the so-called assistance schemes that are cumbersome and tedious. And I am not only talking about the application aspect. I have not even mentioned about the conditions and constraints to be met after you are granted with some of this assistance. I sincerely hope that we can

further improve the direct assistance to local start-ups and SMEs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have observed with interest the debate on the birth rate. I am happy that we are seriously thnking about some of the unthinkable and turning every stone to try to drastically improve the TFR. I must say some of the proposals and ideas put forward by my colleagues before me are good and worthy of serious consideration. Thus, I would like to lend my voice to the call for more efforts to improve the total environment for babies and families. I will not be too ambitious to ask for a reduction in the maid levy, but I would at least ask the Government to remain status quo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I once heard someone tell me that, in Singapore, it is easier to have a baby than to own a car. When I asked him for the reasons, he said that to own a car, you must go through many tests to acquire a licence and, subsequently, buy a car at an exorbitant price and pay all sorts of taxes. Yet, if we were to ask most young couples what would be at the top of their wish list, I will not be surprised if owning a car or condominium would be ahead of having babies and starting a family.

Mr Speaker, I agree that we do have a problem, and this problem is not new but it has become an acute one. Hence, our leaders do what they do best, ie, tackle a problem at its core, using means available to the Government. The theory is sound: remove the financial obstacle, create financial incentives and give rebates. Yet, what have we got to show for all of these after years of implementation of such schemes? Apart from the minor spike in 2000 for the year of the dragon, I think we have not improved the TFR. We are bothered by the plummeting birthrate of 36,000 last year, an all-time low since independence. It is serious. We need to - and I am borrowing a term from the papers - jump-start the system and

achieve the goal of 50,000, as we were told. Till now, it has all been about figures and numbers.

Could the current approach to this problem at hand reduce the subject of procreation to just that, ie, a birth rate that we are comfortable with? Therein lies my concern.

Take the case of the car driver that I mentioned earlier. He or she needs to be above 18 years of age and go through rigorous lessons before taking a driving test. And unless and until he or she passes the test, then will the person be given a driver's licence. But, to be married and be a parent, it is much easier. If you are at the right age, then all you need is to go to the Registry of Marriages, get yourself registered and you are married as man and wife, ready to start a family. But what is there to teach these young couples the importance of parenthood and the responsibilities that come with it? We should not, in promoting young parenthood, go to the point where we solve a problem but create another in the process.

Will the Government consider introducing a form of public education programme on the responsibilities of parenthood so that those who bear children will know that it is a lifelong commitment and they are mentally prepared for parenthood and not because of the incentives offered by the Government. If I may quote the poet and novelist Mary Ann Evans who wrote under the pen name George Eliot in the poem Romola in 1863: "Little children are still the symbols of the eternal marriage between love and duty." An all-out drive to encourage procreation without equally emphasising the accompanying responsibility of parenting is very dangerous. If a couple can financially afford to have a baby but cannot provide a nurturing environment for the child, should they still be encouraged to embark upon the journey of familyhood? Financial means

alone does not guarantee a nurturing environment. Who will mould our children and ensure that they will grow up and become useful citizens that do us proud? Can money alone without time do the job? Can money and six months ensure a safe journey to adulthood? What happens to the children during the impressionable years?

We need to be clear. We cannot afford the risk of undermining the important role of parenthood, de-sacralising something so sacred, the responsibility to the child as father and mother is great. First-time parents must be physically, psychologically and emotionally prepared and strong before embarking on this journey. Going back to the car analogy, since we need a licence to drive a car, maybe we need a licence to become parents too. And while you can always sell a car and scrap it, your children are yours forever. Our people must be made to understand.

In conclusion, Sir, I shall end by saying that 2003 has made fighters out of us. We fought hard to survive, and the fight is not over yet. The difficulties have made us much stronger, that much wiser, that much bolder, and that much smarter. Our skin is a little bit thicker now. And, for that, I am grateful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Budget debate.

I must say that this year's Budget is indeed encouraging, as it provides support on all fronts, covering the interests of both the business and the domestic sectors. It also addresses the way forward to ensure sound public finance.

From the Budget, it is clear that we have a Government which is very

determined to reinvent Singapore into a more competitive and entrepreneurial economy. However, coming from a local SME background, I feel that there are still areas where the Government could explore to bring about more value for money. These initiatives or changes need not necessarily result in higher spending by the Government. In fact, with a more engineered approach, we will be able to extract greater value for money. With this, I would like to raise the following five topics. As most of these topics are related to the private sector, I would like to declare my interest as CEO of Hyflux Ltd.

One, research and development initiatives in Singapore. I would like to touch on the subject of R&D because the local industries and SMEs are in need of a more supportive and conducive environment to allow them to tap into R&D initiatives by the Government. Senior Minister Lee once said that we must apply technology to capture new opportunities. I would also like to quote from DPM Lee's Budget principle and I quote: "We must also extract maximum value for money in what we spend." The Government has spent many billions of dollars over the years to boost our R&D capability in Singapore. For example, in FY2003, a budget of some S$1 billion was provided for Singapore to build up R&D human capital and foster world-class research. Of this, 80% was allocated for public sector research work in science, engineering and biomedical sciences. Only 20% was set aside to promote private sector R&D investment in Singapore under RISC which provides project-based grants to companies to support the building of R&D capabilities.

In the context of extracting maximum value in what we spend, it would be of interest to know how many of the R&D projects undertaken by the public sector have actually borne fruits. What are the

innovations that have taken place and what have been shared with the industry? How many start-ups or spin-offs did we produce that have resulted in bringing benefits to the society and the economy? What maximum value have we derived from spending some S$800 million each year by the public sector? We all know that R&D is a long-drawn and expensive process. Apart from developing human capital for the future, R&D must in the short and medium term serve the industry well so that the economy will become more vibrant. To be precise, R&D must give rise to commercially improved or new products and services so that the money invested is well spent. This can only happen when there is strong industrial orientation and active participation by the private sector. In Singapore, we have both the hardware and software, but we seem to be getting nowhere as far as R&D results are concerned. For example, we understand that R&D works by A*STAR have resulted in many patents but, in reality, there are only a few successful industrial applications.

As our resources are very precious, we must be mindful and be selective of the type of research programmes that we want to accord priority for, and their potential for industrial application. We also need to be able to move quickly and act fast. We need to exploit the new technology while it is hot. Nothing is worse than a technology that is past its shelf life and is overtaken even before it is launched. Moving quickly and acting fast means that we do not run at a pace dictated by the researchers based on their priorities or academic interests. We must also not be dictated by rigid rules set by the agencies, as they very often discourage participation by local SMEs or local enterprises. Technology is not like antiques, which may appreciate in value over time. Technology is of no use if it is kept in a safe. To reap greater value out of what we spend on R&D, and to create

more value-added entrepreneurship, I have two suggestions.

The Government must make a decisive effort to allow

easier access by local enterprises to the numerous good patented technologies tagged by some public agencies and institutions. The value of patented technologies would only be realised when they can be commercially applied. The private sector has often encountered difficulties in gaining access to these technologies due to bureaucracy and rigid rules set by the administrators. Adding to the problems faced by the local enterprise, researchers are often not in touch with the real world and most times, their performance is measured by the number of research papers they can churn out yearly.

Second, in going forward, the Government should encourage partnership between the agencies and the private sector to identify technologies available in the market that are already on the verge of commercialisaton. This would save us much time and R&D cost. With research and industrial orientation, coupled with business-savvy, appropriate technologies can be identified and commercial results can be reaped almost instantaneously. In Singapore, with our limited resources, we must take a different approach to R&D in that the direction of research and priorities should be dictated by enterprises and not by the scientists.

My second point is the issue of "S" pass for skilled workers. I am fully supportive of the good intention by the Government to allow the private sector to recruit middle-tier skilled workers by replacing the "Q2" pass with the "S" pass. This will definitely ease current restrictions on the employment of foreign diploma holders. However, I would like to urge the Government to be mindful of possible pitfalls of such a scheme. Let me elaborate. Firstly, the average starting

pay for a local polytechnic graduate is only $1,500. The minimum salary of $1,800 set for the "S" pass holders may raise the expectations of our local polytechnic graduates. This is certainly counter-productive to the drive by the Government for Singapore to be cost-competitive. Moreover, current skilled foreign workers, who are diploma holders, will certainly want to apply for the "S" pass and this will unavoidably put pressure on the industries as the employers will either have to pay higher cost of wages or risk losing the workers.

Secondly, the 5% quota set for the "S" pass holders may be too low to be beneficial to many companies. The number of middle-level skilled workers in any company is usually much higher than the senior management level. Such a low quota allocated for "S" pass holders is highly inadequate. While the local enterprises are waiting for Singaporean workers to change their mindset, they have to fight for survival in this competitive world. So instead, I will recommend that the allowable percentage of skilled workers be pegged to the nature of the industries, for example, an export-oriented company should be allowed a higher percentage quota as compared to a non export-based company. This is because companies that are export-oriented will have to compete globally. Their cost has to be competitive in order to survive. Hence, having a higher number of foreign workers will ensure better survival chances and profitability. These companies will in turn add to the economy and create jobs for Singaporeans.

My third point is on flexi-wage. I am fully supportive of the flexi-wage system as it allows us to be nimble and to react to varying economic situations quickly. Coming from the private sector, I certainly see this as a positive move. With such a

system, employers will be more likely to retain their staff during hard times. The Government has taken the first step to put all public officers under the flexi-wage system for some years now. This is an excellent example for the private sector to look upon. I am convinced that all employers are supportive of this scheme. However, for companies that are profitable, the workers will feel discouraged by such a system as it appears that their wages are cut unfairly when the company is performing well. This has also happened to my company. This is a short-sighted view by many Singaporeans and I believe this is also due to the lack of understanding for the flexi-wage system. In this regard, I urge the Government to do more to convince the workers to support this flexi-wage system.

My fourth point touches on preparing the grounds for best sourcing. To be competitive as a nation, there is a need for a change in mindset, not just for the private sector, but also for the public sector. This is essentially so as we move closer to greater private sector involvement in functions traditionally held by the public sector. I am very encouraged to see that the Government is placing emphasis on best sourcing, tapping into the private sector's capabilities for benchmarking, cost-competitiveness and greater service efficiency. In preparation for the move towards greater public-private partnership, the Government must take quick actions to prepare the public officers for the inevitable change. The private sector focuses on efficiency, accountability and, most importantly, the bottomline. Salaries are also pegged to performance and accountability, but certainly not the length of service or seniority. For example, in my company, some of my key sales managers earn more than the VPs. Why? It is because they are the ones who bring in business for the company and they hold greater accountability. They are paid for the results they show. I do not mind if my

sales managers take home a higher monthly salary than I, if they are able to excel in bringing in the business for the company.

I am glad to note that one of the key focuses of wage restructuring is to moderate the system of seniority-based pay structure. But I understand that in the current civil service pay structure, it is not uncommon to have subordinates drawing higher salaries than younger senior officers by virtue of age and length of service. If this trend is not corrected quickly in the public sector, it will be extremely difficult for this group of officers to accept the private sector's pay structure as more functions are best sourced. They will be retrenched and add further to the unemployment problem. For best sourcing to work, the private company must be able to recruit public officers whose jobs have been outsourced at competitive rates and not be encumbered with the public sector's pay structure.

My last point is on estate duty. Singapore has to constantly attract MNCs to invest here so that more jobs will be created. However, these MNCs will come and go, depending on changes in the economic climate. One of the ways for sustainable wealth creation is to attract wealthy foreigners to settle in Singapore, become Singaporeans and retire here with their wealth. In this regard, I would like to touch on the topic of estate duty.

This topic has been raised many times in past parliamentary debates. So far, the Government's move has been in small incremental steps to provide more opportunities for foreigners to keep their moveables in Singapore without fear of being subject to estate duty. For the locals, the Government has taken measures to provide a wider margin for estate duty exemption. Why not take a bold step forward and do away with estate duty for Singaporeans altogether?

By doing so, we will provide another key incentive for wealthy foreigners to take up citizenship here without fear of losing their millions or even billions to estate duty. Last year, the amount of estate duty collected was only about $70 million. This amount will move up or down depending on the number of rich who will pass on each year. This is not a huge sum and removing the estate duty altogether will not make a big dent in our pockets. In fact, I firmly believe that more wealth will be generated for the country if we do away with the estate duty. Wealthy foreigners, many of whom are founders of successful companies, would also be more willing to invest and take up citizenship in Singapore with their families. And when they settle here with their families, they will bring with them a host of connections that will further add to the economy. I liken them to anchor tenants in a shopping centre. The returns they bring will certainly be more than the amount we collect under estate duty each year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate.

When we go to the supermarket at NTUC, under the various sections, we can get 3-in-1 coffee - milk, coffee and sugar. On the baby issue, I would like to offer a 3-in-1 perspective because I am single, a woman who is a working professional, as well as a woman who is in the position of an employer or looking after employment.

4.11 pm

The policy is to encourage people to get married and to have more babies. At

the present time, the policy is being worked out by the Cabinet, who is male, and the target audience are Singapore women. When we are working out a policy of this nature, I would like to suggest three rules that we should bear in mind. Gentlemen, if I may offer the rules.

Rule No. 1 is that men and women think differently. I did not actually know this for many years until I was in my 20s. It used to puzzle me as to why I got into a lot of disputes with men about many things. But once I figured that out, a lot of the problems were taken care of and I had very little difficulty after that. Rule No. 2 is that what men say and what women hear is often very different. Rule No. 3 is what women say and what men hear is also often very different.

For purposes of this debate, I only need to concentrate on Rule No. 2 because Rule No. 3 could be a subject matter that will hold the entire debate by itself. The message that has come across since 1986 from the politicians to Singapore women is that they should get married and should have babies. In all honesty and good faith, the message that the men mean to convey is that we have a declining birth rate, we are concerned that our population will drop and we need to make sure that we have enough population to survive. That is what they meant. Let me tell you what the women heard. I know this because I was in university in 1986 and this was exactly what I heard.

I heard: your education does not really count; your purpose in life is to have babies and it is all your fault that we do not have enough children. This is what many women actually heard. I am not saying that it is anybody's fault. I am not saying that one side is right and the other side is wrong. I am just saying that we have to remember that there are differences. When the Government makes

a policy and communicates that policy to a target audience of a different gender, it must take into account that how they think is different and what they hear may be different from what it intended to say. So the way in which the Government conveys it is very important.

One aspect of the policy, for example, is that the Government would like to encourage better-qualified women to have babies. What you mean, I think, correct me, if I am wrong, is that "it will be a shame if you, having had all this education, do not have babies because you can contribute and your children will be part of the nation." That is what you mean. What the women have all heard is that you are putting a value judgement on the babies and the babies of the highly-educated women are better than the babies of the women who are less educated. That was what they heard. And that is why we have had a lot of resistance to the encouragement for women of higher education to have babies. What I would suggest is that when you put across the policy, bear that in mind and it would help a lot more if you get across the message such that the women receive the message that you believe that their babies are of equal value to the nation. Do not make them feel that one baby is better than the other because you think the mother is smarter. I think you might have a lot more success in our policy if you bear that in mind.

We should also bear in mind that for the singles, they do feel a lot of pressure because they get the sense that somehow it is not right for them to be single. Again, I do not think that is what the Government means or intends to say but that is what many of them are hearing. At the same time, they are contributing by way of income tax to the State budget, and they help to pay for various things, including subsidies for married couples. Some of them get a little twitchy about this.You must remember that singles are

a growing constituent and so it is important to make sure that they hear the right thing.

I also caution about encouraging people to leap into marriage just for the sake of marriage simply because marriage is a long-term commitment and it is very important that when somebody enters into the state that they do understand what they are getting into. It is important to also look at the divorce rate before one encourages people to just rush into it. I remember a few months back there was a report released by the Subordinate Courts and one of the findings was that, in many cases, the majority of the husbands were not aware that the marriage was in trouble until the divorce petition was filed. Again, I am not blaming them. I am just saying it probably goes back again to the difference in thinking because they did not realise that there was a problem.

Another thing that the single woman very often hear is: why are you so choosy? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I looked at the papers today and this was in the Today paper and there was a letter from a member of the public, a Mr Robert Ooi, and the heading was, "Impose disincentives on women to increase birth". He suggested that the Government could look into disincentives because he felt that all the encouragement had not produced any results and he said that if the carrot does not produce the result, perhaps the stick could be more effective. He said, "Women should give more thought to the country's long-term survival before the Government comes out with the stick in the form of disincentives or penalties, eg, higher CPF contributions or even an infertility tax should be levied on them." He concluded with this statement: "Like a donkey that refuses to budge in spite of all the carrots, what else but the stick can make it yield."

Madam, I just venture to suggest that on this question of choosiness, the most

polite way which I can put forward the ladies' position is that maybe it is not all the ladies' fault and sometimes we have to deal with certain attitudes which may be less than palatable. I would just ask the Government to bear that in mind again when they convey the message that the women are choosy.

I move on now to the next perspective, which is my perspective as a woman and as a working professional. I have nothing against marriage. Nothing at all. But, if I got married I do know that I would want to work and the reason why I would want to work is because it is part of me, it is part of my identity. I have spent these years getting educated for it, training for it, and I just enjoy my work. I would also not wish to put myself completely at the mercy of somebody else in financial terms. So, if I were married, if I were to have children, the single most important thing to me is not the money, not the subsidies, not the childcare centres - those are important things - but it would be that I had the husband's support because I would have to know that he would be there if I needed him to take on part of the role.