Hansard, 2005-03-08

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 (2005) To (2005) Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 08 Mar 08 Mar 14 Mar 17 Mar Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 09 Mar 14 Mar Mr Arthur Fong 09 Mar 12 Mar Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong 10 Mar 11 Mar Mr Sin Boon Ann 21 Mar 23 Mar Mr Chay Wai Chuen 27 Mar 15 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day].

(cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [7th March, 2005].

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Estimates to be reduced by $100." - [Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad].

Question again proposed.

Research Scholarships

Sir, according to the 1st February 2005 issue of the Straits Times, in an article entitled "A*Star's million-$ stars", A*Star offered 73 scholarships last year for study in biomedical-related fields, of which 43 were for the full eight-year programme, each costing approximately $900,000, which is about $40 million, and the rest were for post-graduate studies only. These scholars are paid a salary during the course of their post-graduate studies, according to this article.

Quoting Mr Philip Yeo from an article of the 4th January 2003 issue of the Straits Times, entitled "Ph.D pool to be expanded with new scholarships", he said, "This is an investment in our future. Eventually, they [the scholars] will become a key attraction to multi-national companies to move their high-end research projects to Singapore."

Sir, the availability of research expertise, such as Ph.D talents, is only one of the many factors that will influence a foreign MNC's decision in moving their high-end research projects to Singapore. Each MNC will have its own individual needs and requirements, which include political/economic environment, logistics factors, tax incentives, industrial factors,

infrastructure, etc. Hence, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

First, the Minister has earlier in the House on 28th February explained the cost breakdown of the $900,000 investment in each young scholar. However, the Minister has not replied on whether it is justifiable to commit and invest $900,000 on each scholar. How does the Ministry justify this investment? What is the cost benefit analysis of this investment?

Second, does the Ministry consider the many risk factors involved in this investment, namely:

After the 8-year period, the research climate and labour market might have changed so drastically that there is no avenue for the employment of these scholars;

the risk of these scholars failing their courses and having to repeat an entire semester and increasing the length of the scholarship period; and

the risk of the foreign scholars refusing to take up Singapore citizenship upon graduation, or the scholars might migrate to elsewhere after finishing the bond.

Third, will it be more cost-effective to use the same amount of scholarship to train more A*Star scholars at NUS and NTU?

Fourth, is it justifiable to pay each scholar a salary during his post-graduate studies at the taxpayers' expense? Sir, Ph.D scholars are not productive assets and do not earn any cash returns for the country while doing their studies.

Hence, the caption of this article which was published on 3rd March 2005 which the Minister earlier replied in this House should really read as "Each talent

costs $1 million" instead of "Each talent is worth $1 million bill".

Sir, first, let me thank Members for their thoughtful comments. I would like to address some of the key issues raised and then I will ask my Minister of State, Mr Heng Chee How, to help me out in dealing with some of the specific queries and suggestions put up.

I think that there are a few things that we all agree during this discussion. First, I think all of us agree that it is very important to nurture our local enterprises. Enterprises create wealth and jobs, and Singapore's economic success hinges on competitive enterprises. Enterprise development is therefore a very key focus of our economic strategy.

Dr Ahmad Magad, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Dr Tan Boon Wan, Mr Lawrence Leow, Mr Inderjit Singh and Miss Penny Low have all commented on the need for the Government to better assist and grow the Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). I agree that we should help the SMEs, and indeed the Government has been putting a lot of effort and resources to this end.

Members have also asked for a single Government agency to champion the cause of the SMEs, and that such an agency be given more resources. Let me, first, explain how we help our local enterprises to grow and convince Members that we are indeed doing quite a lot already.

First, how do we grow our local enterprises? There are three dimensions in our strategy, from the general to the specific. The first dimension is that we foster a pro-enterprise environment, so that the enterprises can develop and grow. Second, we provide broad-based assistance programmes, and enterprises can then tap into these programmes

depending on their needs. The third dimension is that we develop vibrant industry clusters, and focus the needs based on the specific requirements of the industry clusters.

On the first dimension of fostering a conducive environment for businesses, we do so by keeping our taxes low, by cutting red tape, by providing excellent infrastructure, as well as developing an educated and productive workforce. Singapore is currently ranked the third best business environment in the world, and the top business environment in Asia by the Economist Intelligence Unit. We discussed how to maintain and improve on this during the debate on the Budget. I assure Members that we take this exercise very seriously and will continue to make sure that we maintain this competitive position.

The second thrust of our enterprise development strategy is to provide broad-based assistance to enterprises so that they can build up their capabilities and expand their market.

The Government has in place various programmes to help companies gain access to financing and upgrade their productivity and efficiency, as well as develop core capabilities in key areas such as technology, distribution, manpower training and branding. These programmes cater to the different capability needs of the enterprises at various stages of their business life-cycles, from starting up to venturing overseas.

Just to give Members an example, over the past five years, some $600 million has been devoted to SME assistance - about $200 million in interest subsidies for $3.3 billion worth of loans extended to SMEs, and about $400 million in the various technical assistance and capability development programmes. This $600 million does not include the cost incurred in delivering these programmes by our various statutory

boards and agencies. It also does not include the tax incentives given to local enterprises. We estimate that more than 26,000 SMEs have benefited from these programmes over the past five years. As Members can see, the resources devoted to the SMEs are not small, and the number of SMEs that have benefited from these programmes are also not small.

Dr Ahmad Magad, Mr Inderjit Singh and Miss Penny Low spoke about the demand side for the SMEs. Dr Ahmad Magad suggested that the Government should actively encourage its agencies to buy the products and services of local enterprises. The Government has indeed simplified its public procurement rules to make it easier for SMEs to compete for Government tenders by removing the track record requirement, and also by allowing SMEs to jointly bid for contracts. This will give SMEs a fair chance in supplying to Government. However, Government procurement is not a significant component of domestic demand. If Members look at the Government expenditure, if we take away the expenditure by MINDEF, if we take away the expenditure in the development programmes, the amount of money the Government spends over and above manpower cost is really not very significant. When I was in the Ministry of Finance, most of the contracts that came up to the Ministry of Finance were really joint procurement for IT services. This is a big item for Government. If we strip away all these, the Government does not procure very significantly from the domestic market. In fact, I would argue that the private sector accounts for the bulk of domestic demand, and therefore we welcome the business community to take the lead in promoting the purchase of products and services from the SMEs. I think the local business community can band together and mount a "Buy

Singapore" campaign and the Government will support this campaign.

We all know that our domestic market is small. So to grow their businesses, many Singapore enterprises will need to venture overseas. Several MPs have asked how we can better help local companies tap overseas market opportunities. Mr Heng Chee How will later elaborate the various initiatives that we have put in place to help companies internationalise, including take advantage of the many Free Trade Agreements that we have signed.

The third thrust of our strategy is helping local enterprises to grow into vibrant industry clusters. In developing industries in Singapore, we have always adopted this cluster approach. EDB not only anchors the "queen bee" MNCs and the large local enterprises in Singapore, but EDB also actively develops around these "queen bees" a community of supporting industries comprising mainly the SMEs. This cluster approach creates opportunities for local companies, as well as strengthens the competitiveness of our industries.

Let me give Members an example. The hard disk drive industry in Singapore started with Seagate's arrival. EDB worked closely with Seagate, our first "queen bee", to identify and nurture local suppliers to support its operations. This spawned the development of our precision engineering industry and, in turn, attracted more hard disk drive manufacturers to Singapore. Today, not only are we the world's top producer of high-end hard disk drives, we also have a strong supporting industry with an annual output of $4.5 billion, and strong capabilities to support process and product innovation in Singapore.

Many companies in the disk drive supporting industry are local players. Success stories include First Engineering, Jurong Tech and Metalform, and several

of them have since grown to be sizable public-listed companies. In fact, over time, we have also nurtured our own local "queen bees". One good example is Venture Corporation Limited. From a start-up founded in 1984, it has grown to become a leading global electronics services provider, offering world-class manufacturing technology and testing capabilities. Today, top Fortune 500 companies like Agilent, HP, IBM and Motorola have chosen Venture as their strategic partner for their long-term manufacturing needs. Venture has helped strengthen Singapore's position as a leading electronics hub, create spin-offs for the logistics sector and promote the growth of the local precision engineering industry.

I think we can illustrate with other examples. One of the best examples that I can think of is our marine engineering industry where the "queen bees" are our local shipyard companies - Keppel Corporation and SembCorp Marine - and around it there is a whole cluster of local SMEs providing supporting capabilities and, in turn, making our whole industry one of the most competitive in the world.

While we have put in much effort to develop our enterprises, I agree with Members that we can and, in fact, should do more. Here, I would like to highlight two key directions that we are moving towards in our enterprise development efforts. The first is in response to Members' suggestion about a single agency. Even though we may not have decided on a single agency, I agree with Members that our approach and our assistance programme to SMEs should be better integrated and should be more seamless. That is our first strategy.

The second strategy is that when we are dealing with the SMEs, I do not think a one-size-fits-all approach works. Therefore, we will modify our approach to work through the industrial associations,

because every industrial sector has its own characteristics, and it is more sensible for us to look at the needs of the industry sector and work through the industrial associations.

On the approach of making sure our assistance is integrated and seamless, we have made several changes. The two key agencies dealing with the SMEs are SPRING and IE Singapore. We have made an assessment not so long ago and we have decided to keep them separate with specialised roles to look after the many diverse needs of our many SMEs.

12.15 pm

Notwithstanding all this, let me make it clear that SPRING is the overall champion for SMEs. I am indeed very happy to hear from Mr Lawrence Leow yesterday, coming from ASME, that he recognised and indeed had seen SPRING to be the "de facto champion of SMEs." SPRING recently underwent a corporate restructuring exercise to refocus its mission to "enhancing the competitiveness of our SMEs". Mr Inderjit Singh is on the Board of SPRING, and I am sure he will be able to contribute to SPRING's new focus on its mission. And I would like to assure all Members here that SPRING will be given the right level of resources to carry out its mandate effectively.

Let me explain why it is not possible to have a single agency. Let us take the example of the food industry. We work closely with the food manufacturers in Singapore. There are about 300 such companies which are SMEs. SPRING is the focal point, and it gathers all the other agencies to support the food manufacturing industry. In fact, the key agencies that the food manufacturers have to deal with are AVA, NEA, WDA, and so many other agencies over and above SPRING and IE Singapore. Therefore, to envisage a single agency

that can totally meet the needs of the SMEs is not realistic. I think our approach of making sure SPRING is the champion and it coordinates all the various Government agencies, so that we give a coherent and integrated package for each industrial sector, is a more workable solution.

Let me give a few examples of how we are approaching this closer collaboration of the various agencies.

The first example is the BrandPact programme which will be launched next month. This is a joint initiative by IE Singapore and SPRING to assist local enterprises in building up their capabilities in branding. They do so locally as well as overseas. Going forward, we can expect more of such joint programmes and initiatives. By breaking down inter-agency boundaries, we hope to address the enterprises' needs in a more customer-centric manner.

Another initiative that we are embarking on to serve SMEs better is the Enterprise One Stop service that Miss Penny Low has enquired about. Let me give an update on this. SPRING has recently concluded a survey of over 400 SMEs in January to better understand their needs, and what they want out of this one-stop centre. It will conduct a pilot test of the service with a select group of SMEs some time in the middle of the year, before launching it by year-end.

Knowing that we have this large client base of more than 110,000 SMEs, Enterprise One Stop will therefore have to rely heavily on technology to deliver its services. The primary mode of access will be through a web-portal. Nevertheless, it will not merely be a virtual one-stop centre. This will be supplemented with a call centre and also face-to-face consultation services for SMEs with more complex issues. More importantly,

Enterprise One Stop will be backed by a network of Government agencies, which will work together to provide quick and easy access to information, as well as to help resolve issues that SMEs face.

The second approach that I mentioned is to work with the industry associations. We have always been working closely with the business chambers and the various industry associations. We believe that these private sector organisations, being in close touch with their members, are in a better position than the Government to reach out to the SMEs. They are also better able to identify the problems that their members face, and to deliver assistance and help their industry upgrade.

As Mr Lawrence Leow mentioned yesterday, SPRING is collaborating with the key business chambers and trade associations to set up Enterprise Development Centres (EDCs). These EDCs will provide advisory and consultation services to enterprises. The Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) will launch the first EDC at the end of this month.

Let me illustrate how we have worked with the various industry associations. We have worked closely with the Food Manufacturers' Association and with people in the precision engineering sector. The latest example which we can illustrate is the Singapore Furniture Industries Council (SFIC). As Members know, when the furniture manufacturers in Singapore face competitive pressures, many of them have to relocate overseas, because the cost structure in Singapore is just too high. And they banded together and went to Kunshan in China. They negotiated with the local authorities for a joint package. A total of up to 25 of their members were prepared to relocate to the same industrial estate. So far, I believe more than 14 have already set up operations there.

So this is an illustration of what Mr Lawrence Leow mentioned yesterday about co-location in a Singapore industrial estate overseas. We can do so Singapore-wide or we can do so through the industry associations. I believe doing so through the industry associations is a better vehicle because the needs of the various industries are different. As the Singapore Furniture Industries Council has illustrated, this is one way in which we can relocate overseas and, as Mr Lawrence Leow described it, "hunt or work in a pack".

The SFIC has also collaborated with the Government in its plans to set up the International Furniture Centre in Sungei Kadut. In this International Furniture Centre, they will house export showrooms, a design resource centre with prototyping facilities for young designers and a learning centre to train workers and various grades of executives.

Generally, I think we need more proactive industry associations like the SFIC. SPRING and IE Singapore will be jointly launching a programme soon to help the industry associations build up their capabilities, and to take the lead in implementing programmes to upgrade and improve their industry. We, therefore, welcome industry associations that are ready and willing to step forward.

The second area that I would like to touch on is this whole issue about the future of our manufacturing sector and the role that R&D will play in our plans to upgrade the manufacturing sector.

Mr Alex Chan is concerned about the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector, especially the electronics industry. Let me reaffirm that even as we grow our services sector, manufacturing will continue to be an integral part of our economy, contributing 20% or more to GDP over the next few decades. This

intention to keep manufacturing as the key sector of our industry is not something new. It has always been an integral part of our economic strategy. Recently, I was very gratified when I met the Dutch Economic Minister, and he told me that Netherlands also wants to keep between 20% and 25% of their economy in manufacturing. So this is not a unique strategy. I think many economies see the value of keeping manufacturing as a very important part of their economy.

So, let us look at the electronics sector. I think we have gone through a whole series of restructuring exercises in the electronics sector. There have been a spate of electronics companies relocating to other lower cost countries in recent years. But these are mainly in the area of commoditised products like radio, low-end PCs and low-end consumer electronics assembly, the most recent of which would be Maxtor's relocation of low-end desktop drives to China. For the higher end products, we continue to hold our own against stiff global competition, for example, in high-end server drives where we still command more than 50% of the global volume. Companies like Maxtor intend to maintain Singapore as their manufacturing hub for high-end drives. We remain an important electronics manufacturing hub - we have in Singapore the world's top three wafer foundries, top three semiconductor assembly and test companies, three of the world's top four hard disk drive manufacturers and four of the world's top five electronics manufacturing services.

We have also seen expansions and new investment commitments in the electronics sector. In December last year, ST Microelectronics announced that it will invest another S$2 billion by 2006 to expand its production capacity. Seagate will invest another S$200 million in a new media plant and will develop and manufacture its state-of-the-art one-inch

drive for the global market here. SMEs in the electronics industry have also put in new investments. Autron Corporation Ltd, a regional integrated supplier of assembly equipment and services, will set up a S$50 million new Global Solutions Centre here. Home-grown Eastgate Technology is also setting up a new plant which can produce 1.5 million mobile-phone organic LED displays a month.

In fact, an independent report by Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) in January this year concluded that the "doomsday scenarios over the last few years indicating that the manufacturing sector is dead in Singapore and that most activities were all going to move to China and other emerging markets are clearly unfounded." In fact, our Revealed Comparative Advantage Index shows that our global market share in key electronics and electrical goods sectors is now rising. The CSFB's report also said that CEOs and other corporate executives from around the region have indicated that they want a diverse production base, and Singapore remains one of the top destinations for outsourcing and investments.

However, with intensifying competition, we need to stay ahead, and we need to continuously upgrade our electronics and other manufacturing sectors. To do so, we will have to move up the technology ladder and go into more sophisticated manufacturing. We also need to promote the full value chain of activities here - from R&D to design, production, supply chain management and regional and global headquarters functions.

Let me now turn to the cost of doing business in Singapore in order to remain internationally competitive.

I think Members would note that over the last few years, we have taken several measures to make ourselves more cost competitive. We have cut our corporate taxes. We have reduced the employers' CPF contribution rates. We have lowered industrial land rentals, and we have improved the flexibility in bringing in foreign workers. Also, by our competitive adjustments to the electricity market, the efficiency gains have caused electricity prices to fall by 11%.

Mr Chiam See Tong asked about the high cost of piped natural gas from Malaysia and Singapore. Today, we have three gas importers. Senoko Power Ltd imports from Petronas, Malaysia, for its own use. Both SembCorp Gas Pte Ltd and Gas Supply Pte Ltd import from Pertamina, Indonesia. These are commercial companies and their gas sales agreements were commercially negotiated. However, as their gas prices are indexed to High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO), so whether the gas that we get is cheap or expensive will depend on this high sulphur fuel oil index.

Mr Chiam quoted the article where it was indicated that our gas costs about 35% to 40% higher than what the Koreans were able to negotiate. There are several reasons why the Koreans were able to negotiate a very competitive price for their contract. First, it was a very big contract. They were talking about a 10-year contract

with a value of US$20 billion. So once you negotiate a big contract like that, I think you have more bargaining leverage. Second, their contract was from LNG suppliers. And, again, when you are able to negotiate with several or many potential LNG suppliers, you have more bargaining leverage and can get a better price.

12.30 pm

In Singapore's context, we have to recognise that we only have two

suppliers, either Malaysia or Indonesia, and these supplies come in the form of pipelines which require quite a heavy investment upfront. So these companies that negotiated have to take these factors into consideration. Mr Chiam noted that the Government is looking into the viability of setting up a LNG terminal in Singapore. This would bring in more potential suppliers and we think that this would give us greater leverage to bring in more competitive prices for our gas supplies.

The next area that I would like to cover is the importance of R&D in the upgrading of our manufacturing. As we move into the next phase, a strong R&D base will give us the intellectual wherewithal to undertake more sophisticated and higher value-added manufacturing in Singapore and anchor key projects here.

Members would have known the various R&D facilities that we are able to attract here over the last five years, as we develop our R&D capabilities. We do so through the science and technology (or S&T) plans. Prof. Ivan Png asked about our S&T 2000 and our S&T 2005 plans and their outcomes. Basically, we are moving into the next stage. In the early stage, when we were attracting MNCs to set up manufacturing base in Singapore, our main attraction was the availability of skilled manpower, engineers, technicians and mechanics. As we move to the next phase of the brain industry, our new competitive advantage must be in the higher level of talents that we can attract and this would mean more research scientists and engineers.

If you look at the progress that we have embarked on, I must confess that we are a relatively latecomer in the R&D scene. In 1995, we barely spent 1.15% of our GDP on R&D. Through our various S&T efforts, the gross expenditure on R&D has risen to 1.88% in the year 2000, and then to 2.15% of GDP in

2003. I think Dr Tan Sze Wee has given the figures for the other developed countries. And Members will observe that we are on the lower end of this R&D scale. In terms of the manpower development, we have also made some improvements in the number of research scientists and engineers per 10,000 labour force. This has increased from 48 in 1995 to 66 in 2000 and further to 79 in 2003. About half of our research scientists and engineers are postgraduates.

Members will agree with me that if we want to upgrade our economy, one of the key strategies we must pursue more vigorously is our S&T capabilities and our need to raise the level of expenditure on research, and target this research expenditure in selective areas where we can take full advantage and build up our competitiveness. So last year, the Government set up a Ministerial Committee on Research and Development, headed by DPM Tony Tan. This committee was formed to review the strategic direction for R&D in Singapore. From its deliberations and visits to research organisations, both locally and overseas, the committee has identified a few areas in our R&D landscape which can be improved upon. For example, in niche areas of strategic economic importance to Singapore, we need to deepen and broaden our research capabilities. We also need to help our local enterprise enhance their competitiveness by improving their technological capabilities. In addition, we need to intensify our efforts to further engage the private sector in R&D.

The Ministerial Committee will conclude its study in June this year and its recommendations will set the broad strategic directions for Singapore's R&D landscape for the future. MTI would then use this to draw up the science and technology plan for 2006 to 2010. The S&T 2010 Plan will identify the plans and

programmes that we should undertake to carry out the R&D strategies for our economy. In preparing the S&T Plan, there will be extensive consultations with the various Ministries, universities, research bodies, economic agencies and industries. The plan would be made public in due course.

Let me just summarise what we are planning to do. First, we need to raise the level of expenditure in S&T. That is the only way to compete. In the past, we have been fairly frugal, in fact to the point of being stingy in developing our R&D capabilities. Now, we realise that if we want to compete, we have to be bolder and be prepared to invest more. But we have to make sure our investments are better targeted, that means, (1) if we want to set up and build up the research institutes in Singapore, we cannot do everything. Therefore, we have to identify certain areas where we are likely to have a competitive advantage; (2) we should not do it all by ourselves in the Government. We should work with the industry. If the industry is prepared to put in the money, I think that points the direction of where we should be investing and, therefore, our programmes in R&D will be directed towards gearing the industry to also spend and invest more in R&D; and (3) to build up the talent and the people to be able to support the R&D effort.

As I mentioned at the last sitting, it is not inexpensive to train research scientists. It costs about nearly a million dollars. But it is an investment that we have to do. Prof. Ong Soh Khim listed out all the risks in our investments. I must say that we have to take these risks. If we do not invest and build up our talent, we cannot expect people to set up R&D facilities in Singapore. So the Ministry fully supports A*STAR's efforts to build up this flow of talent. A*STAR has done

a very good job in identifying these people to take up a research career. If at any point, especially after the first degree, we find them unsuitable or they do not perform well, then of course they will not continue to the PhD segment of their studies. But this is something that we have to do.

Let me round up with a few specific responses. First, the Economic Development Assistance Scheme (EDAS). Prof. Ivan Png asked about the return on investment on the EDAS. Let me clarify that EDAS is not an equity fund and therefore there is no ROI. The EDAS is a range of programmes which comprise both grants and loans. Therefore, we do not use ROI to measure these programmes.

Let me just summarise. As we go into the next stage of our economic development, it is very important for us to make sure we build up enterprises in Singapore, both local and foreign. That is the key to generating wealth and employment. The SMEs play a very important part in our strategy. We have a range of programmes. I am sure we can do more.

Both Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Lawrence Leow suggested some adjustments to the financial schemes that we have for the SMEs, even though we are extending practically about $600 million worth of assistance to SMEs. I am prepared to review these schemes to make them more effective. And I welcome the suggestions by Mr Lawrence Leow to make them both flexible so as to be able to be more effective to the wide range of SMEs that we face out there.

Can I now ask Mr Heng Chee How to help clarify some of the other issues raised by Members?

Sir, I would

like to thank Members for their comments. Minister Lim Hng Kiang has earlier talked about the broad strategies behind enterprise development. I will now share more details.

Miss Penny Low asked for an update on the SME21 Plan launched in the year 2000. The vision of SME21 was to create vibrant and resilient SMEs that would enhance Singapore's competitiveness and economic growth. Three goals were set for the year 2010. First, we wanted to treble the number of SMEs with sales turnover exceeding $10 million from a figure of 2,000 to 6,000 by the year 2010. According to the plan, we should have 4,000 such SMEs exceeding the $10 million sales mark by the year 2005. I am pleased to report that we have achieved that amount in early 2004 with more than 4,200 SMEs generating turnover in excess of $10 million. Second, we wanted to quadruple the number of local SMEs with e-commerce transactions from 8,000 to 32,000 by the year 2010. This target was surpassed by 10th March 2002 with 33,000 SMEs having done so. Third, we wanted to double the productivity of the retail sector from $28,000 to $56,000 by the year 2010. In 2002, the value-added per worker in the retail sector was $30,600. Preliminary figures for 2003 had indicated only slight improvement, due to SARS and other reasons. We will continue to address the key challenges of the retail scene and monitor the progress.

Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about Government's assistance to HDB retail shops. Both the Prime Minister as well as the Minister for National Development have addressed the situation in this sector of the HDB retailers, particularly those in older estates, and the challenges that they face. With the change in consumer demographics and emergence of suburban malls, such retailers cannot continue to operate the business as they have done in the past and they need to look for new

ways to improve. For example, Tampines Street 11 is one HDB neighbourhood where the Hawkers and Merchants' Association has decided to collectively do something to address their common problems. With the help of SPRING and the grassroots organisations there, they will be forming a management company that will oversee the overall marketing strategies for their neighbourhood. They aim to improve the trade mix, boost traffic flow into the neighbourhood and upgrade the latest retail skills of their members. These include training of financial management and selection of products that appeal to customers.

These activities are 50% co-funded by SPRING under the Domestic Sector Productivity Fund Scheme. And I welcome fellow Members to encourage and help the Merchants' Association in your respective constituencies to participate in this programme, and you may apply to SPRING for assistance.

Most of the initiatives under the SME21 Plan, such as the Singapore Quality Class, or SQC, programme and the Technology Incubator Programme, or TIP, have been implemented. Other programmes have since evolved. In particular, we have stepped up efforts to promote entrepreneurship through the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE). We have also intensified efforts to help our companies internationalise through the formation of IE Singapore.

Let me now move on to another aspect of entrepreneurship, namely, access to financing. Here, I would like to mention the role of ACE. ACE is a private-public sector partnership to champion entrepreneurship in Singapore. We have members, like Mr Inderjit Singh and Dr Loo Choon Yong, amongst others in this movement. One key area that ACE has been focusing on is to improve the access of startups and SMEs to financing. This is an issue that Dr Tan Boon Wan

and others have raised. Over the past few years, the Government has worked with ACE and the private sector to enhance existing schemes and to launch the new ones to make funding more accessible. I agree with Mr Inderjit Singh that it is timely to review and simplify the schemes to make it easier for local enterprises. We will support ACE in the exercise to redesign and simplify the schemes

for SMEs.

12.45 pm

Basically, the various schemes fall into two broad categories, namely, equity financing and debt financing.

In the area of equity financing, the Government has two schemes to co-invest with third-party investors. The Start-Up Enterprise Development Scheme (SEEDS) was introduced for innovative technology start-ups in 2001 and was extended to non-technology companies last year. The Growth Financing Programme was started in October 2003 as a follow-up investment scheme after SEEDS. It provides equity financing for the development of products, processes and applications.

Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about the performance of SEEDS. Since its inception, SEEDS has supported 124 technology start-ups. To date, 13 of these start-ups indicated that they have posted profits, and 12 start-ups managed to secure a second round of private sector funding. SEEDS was extended to non-technology companies last year. It has already helped two innovative start-ups. One of them is this company called Fuzzy Billies, which is an F&B outlet specialising in bread-based products that come in different shapes, flavours and colours. The other is Play! Entertainment, which rents out movie DVDs through automated dispensers that are equipped with

biometric fingerprint authentication for member registration and identification.

Dr Tan raised the concern that SEEDS is inadequate for many bio-technology companies. So far, seven bio-technology companies have obtained more than $1.8 million worth of SEEDS equity funding. Admittedly, this amounts to a small portion of funds that bio-tech companies may need. SEEDS is a broad-based scheme to support innovative start-ups in general, and is not meant for the development of specific industry clusters. For bio-tech companies, they may also tap on other grant or financing schemes, and I will talk a little bit more about that later on in my speech.

Mr Inderjit Singh suggested reviving the Business Angel Fund (BAF) or equivalent in order to encourage and enlarge angel investments. The BAF programme was discontinued at the end of 2001, shortly after the SEEDS programme was implemented, and the reason for that was that the feedback from the third-party business angel investors and entrepreneurs at that point was that they found SEEDS to be more attractive. Notwithstanding that, in the overall area of trying to improve access to financing and the role of angel investors, if not under the precise conditions of the BAF, I think we would still encourage discussions.

Besides co-investing directly into companies, we also seek to encourage investments in start-ups and SMEs through tax incentives and facilitation.

The Enterprise Investment Incentive Scheme (EII) allows investors to offset their investment loss against their taxable income. The scheme, which was formerly known as the Technopreneur Investment Incentive (TII), was renamed and extended to non-technology companies in 2004. In total, 75 companies have been granted either EII or TII status.

ACE is also facilitating the setting-up of an Over-The-Counter (OTC) private-equity exchange. The OTC market will create a platform where shares of unlisted SMEs can be traded, thus allowing SMEs more access to equity financing. Some private sector companies have come up with specific proposals and, we understand, are in the final stages of consultations with the MAS.

Moving on now to the second category of assistance which is debt financing. Much has been done on this front. For example, the Local Enterprise Financing Scheme (LEFS) and the Micro Loan Scheme have provided more than $3 billion worth of loans to 10,000 SMEs since 2000. We have also in recent times introduced the Loan Insurance Scheme, the Variable Interest Loan Scheme (V-Loan), and the Loan Securitisation Scheme. These are other avenues of loan financing for SMEs. At the backend, they are structured differently, with a common purpose to increase the amount of loan financing in the market. ACE has been very proactive in offering proposals to address gaps in the financing landscape, and we will continue to work very closely with ACE to look into these and other suggestions.

Mr Lawrence Leow suggested that LEFS adopt a flexible risk-sharing ratio between the Government and the financial institutions, with corresponding sharing of loan budget and interest earnings. As Mr Leow mentioned, the 80/20 risk-sharing ratio was part of a temporary enhancement to LEFS made during the economic downturn from 2001 to 2004, to encourage the financial institutions to continue lending to SMEs. As the economy rebounded, the ratio was reverted to 50/50 from 1st January 2005, to ensure financial prudence on the part of the financial institutions in approving LEFS loans. Mr Leow has suggested a variable risk-sharing loan scheme for LEFS. My

Ministry will look into this, together with the overall review on access to financing.

Mr Inderjit Singh asked about Government support for private sector volunteer groups that help to promote entrepreneurship. Currently, we fund and provide secretariat support for ACE. ACE involves private-public sector partnership, and it is an effective umbrella body through which to engage other entrepreneurship interest groups. One of the areas that ACE will be looking into is how it can better engage and work more closely with other non-profit organisations to promote entrepreneurship. ACE supports the SCCCI's Entrepreneurship Education Programme and helps to invite entrepreneurs to be speakers. ACE is also a partner of the Spirit of Enterprise on the upcoming "StartUp" reality TV series, and that will showcase the entrepreneurship journey of eight start-ups. The series will be aired at the end of March. I suppose after "Singapore Idol", this will be our version of the "Singapore Apprentice".

Apart from addressing financing issues of enterprises, another important thrust is to help Singapore-based companies access the global market. Since the formation of IE Singapore in 2002, we have made more concerted efforts to help such companies grow and to internationalise successfully.

Dr John Chen asked about the type of Government support for Singapore companies venturing overseas. IE Singapore supports companies through a "3C" framework - Connections, Competencies and Capital. Last year, IE Singapore helped some 30,000 companies through its various services and activities. I will highlight some of the key initiatives under each of the three Cs.

"Connections" involves connecting our businesses with overseas markets. In 2004, IE Singapore increased its outgoing business missions and trade fairs by over

50% to 248. Destinations included new markets like Brazil, Uruguay, Iran and the Eastern China provinces to enable Singapore companies to reap early-mover advantages. I am glad to say that SMEs with less than $50 million worth of turnover made up over 70% of the participating companies.

IE Singapore also organised 13 "reverse missions" which benefited some 430 companies and brought about $4 billion worth of potential sales. A reverse mission is an innovative strategy which brings key buyers, like LG and Siemens, to Singapore-based companies. Given its success in 2004, IE Singapore will step up its reverse mission efforts this year.

Through the iPartners programme, IE Singapore also assists Singapore-based companies with complementary businesses to form strategic alliances to venture overseas. In 2004, IE Singapore approved three iPartner alliances comprising 19 companies. An additional nine alliances involving 47 companies are in the pipeline. They are expected to generate close to $660 million worth in sales when fully realised. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested that the more successful GLCs hand-hold SMEs through joint ventures when going abroad. This has taken place. For example, CET, a subsidiary of ST Electronics Limited, is spearheading a consortium of smaller companies, namely, RUSC Systems Engineering, iFocus, and Applied Systems (Singapore) to market and implement jointly developed train communication systems in China. So, I suppose the question is: how do we further expand on such efforts?

The second "C" is Competencies. This involves helping our companies develop capabilities in branding, design and international manpower development.

Dr John Chen touched on the lack of branding expertise among local companies. Through the programme called "Branding for Internationalisation", IE Singapore assists internationalising companies to understand their branding needs, identify opportunities, and bridge the gap between brand awareness and investment. Support is given by co-funding consultancy costs for brand strategy development and by organising training workshops to build internal capabilities.

Sin Hwa Dee FoodStuffs Industries is an example of a company that has forged ahead in its branding efforts with assistance from IE Singapore. Founded in the 1970s, the company has since come a long way. It embraces branding as a key strategy to differentiate its products from its competitors, and to create appeal in both local and overseas markets. Sin Hwa Dee has done well and has won several awards, including the Most Distinctive Brand Award in the Singapore Most Promising Brand Awards 2002 and Singapore's Superbrand. Today, the company continues to dedicate between 6-8% of its sales revenue to branding.

Sin Hwa Dee has shown that a strong branding image is vital in both domestic and overseas markets. Therefore, on Miss Penny Low's point that there should perhaps be a "Buy Singapore" campaign, we believe that a more sustainable approach would be for our companies to strengthen the appeal of their products and services, and we will work together with them on those.

The third "C" is Capital. Dr John Chen asked about the Government's support for Singapore companies in trade expositions, especially for the cost of rental of exhibition space. The International Marketing Activities Programme (IMAP), administered by IE Singapore, contributes towards the participation fees, cost of space rental

and stand construction. In 2004, IMAP supported 32 trade associations and chambers in over 95 activities, benefiting some 1,400 companies resulting in $260 million of overseas sales.

Besides IE Singapore, STB has also been organising trade participation at key overseas travel shows, like the ASEAN Tourism Forum Travel Exchange. They have also been leading industry partners on trade missions and road-shows, especially for new markets and segments, like the Singapore Medicine road-show ongoing in the Middle East.

For SMEs setting up offices overseas, Mr Lawrence Leow would be pleased to know that IE Singapore provides fixed interest loans through its Regionalisation Finance Scheme. Such loans are available for SMEs to acquire fixed assets on the condition that these projects generate economic spin-offs to Singapore. IE is also developing a programme to encourage the use of trade credit insurance, which is a point that Dr John Chen touched on. The aim is to enhance our companies' risk management capability and their access to financing.

Let me now move on to Free Trade Agreements. Mr Inderjit Singh asked how successful our FTAs have been in helping local enterprises penetrate the global market. To date, we have concluded bilateral FTAs with the United States; European Free Trade Area, which consists of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Iceland; and New Zealand, Japan, Australia and Jordan. Many more are in the pipeline.

These FTAs have enabled our local enterprises to be more competitive in tapping the global market. Specifically, FTAs led to an increase of 11.8% in Singapore's domestic exports to Japan and a 40.6% increase of exports to Australia in 2004. Over 200 local companies have benefited from lower

tariffs resulting from these two FTAs alone. For example, this company called GN Packaging Industries, which exports 40% of its plastic packaging materials, now enjoys 5-10% tariff savings in the Japanese and Australian markets.

We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our FTAs. Moving ahead, we will proactively engage the private sector and the chambers to solicit inputs for upcoming FTAs and to review existing agreements. This is in order to realise the value in these FTAs. We will also be stepping up our efforts to increase the awareness of FTAs and how to take advantage of them through various channels.

I now turn to R&D programmes under MTI. Public funding for research is strongly driven by economic considerations, with the end goal of enhancing Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness. To be effective, we must concentrate on developing our R&D capabilities, maximising the opportunities to commercialise intellectual property (IP), and building up the pipeline of high quality researchers who can adopt and adapt new technologies to generate further growth.

Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about our R&D expenditure for FY03 and FY04. In FY03, A*STAR spent $395 million on R&D at its 12 public research institutes, and contributed $98 million to extramural research collaboration with external parties, such as our universities and hospitals. It spent a further $271 million on manpower development and broad-level programmes. In FY04, A*STAR spent $480 million on R&D at its research institutes, $70 million on extramural collaborations, and $149 million on broad-level capability development.

1.00 pm

In response to Dr John Chen, we actively seek to commercialise technologies and intellectual property

created by our public research institutions. This ensures that the new knowledge created will be used to spawn new economic activities

and generate growth. A*STAR has a commercialisation arm called Exploit Technologies. Exploit Technologies actively markets the A*STAR's technologies and capabilities to the industry through trade shows and conferences, roundtables and company visits. Technology offers are also posted on Exploit Technologies' website. Over 80 cutting-edge A*STAR IP and technologies have been made available to companies. These have helped companies develop new products, move up the technology value chain and fuel business growth. Some SMEs have also leveraged on the licensed technologies to enter new markets and establish business opportunities with MNCs.

Exploit Technologies adopts a flexible and pro-SME approach in licensing its IPs for companies. It is prepared to waive or defer upfront licensing fees; and in turn, the enterprises have to commit to investing in developing the IP, and use the IP to generate economic activity in Singapore. Exploit Technologies also facilitates the creation of spin-off companies with A*STAR technologies, and actively engages the local venture capital (VC) community to assist potential spin-offs in fund-raising. It has a small fund that provides financial support to its spin-offs in the early or seed stage.

While a framework to encourage technology transfers and start-ups is necessary, equally critical is the development of a deep reservoir of well-trained R&D manpower to receive and create economic value out of such intellectual capital. Hence, a very important part of A*STAR's mission is to build up a strong pipeline of top R&D talent for industry. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked whether it is a worthwhile

investment to send our young people to top universities overseas to get the training and exposure. I think the answer is yes. Singapore has reached where it is today because we have a deep and enduring commitment to investing in our people. We provide public scholarships so that our best and brightest have the best education possible, and in turn, when they return, they contribute back to society. It is the same for A*STAR's scholars. They will come back after their Ph.D and they will make up the pool of high calibre research talent that will underpin our economic transformation. The tangible and intangible benefits of investing in our young will benefit Singapore many times over and, ultimately, will determine our continued growth and prosperity. Like what Mr Lim Hng Kiang had also elaborated earlier, we are now competing in a different league and in a knowledge-based economy, we have to invest in this. It is not a question of whether it is something that is worth doing, it is something that we believe we cannot afford not to do.

In addition to sending scholars to top overseas universities, A*STAR also has a Graduate Scholarship Programme with NUS and NTU to provide local Ph.D training for Singaporean undergraduates which could be followed by a one to two-year overseas post-doctorate fellowship. On the issue of nationality, over 80% of A*STAR scholars are Singaporeans. Foreign-born scholars are given Approve-in-Principle (AIP) Permanent Residence status and are required to take up Singapore citizenship before the completion of their Ph.D programme. In this way, we again tie back the benefits to Singapore.

The Biomedical Sciences (BMS) sector is a good example of how we have focused resources to build R&D capabilities and human capital to develop a new industry. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked about our BMS R&D expenditures and the

sources of funding available to private biomedical companies. The Government provides support to both public and private R&D in the BMS sector via A*STAR and EDB. In FY 2003 and FY 2004, A*STAR spent $226 million and $287 million respectively on biomedical research. This is complemented by EDB's co-funding of private sector's R&D, through its Research Incentive Scheme for Companies (RISC) and Innovative Development Scheme (IDS). These two schemes provide funding support of up to 30% of project costs, and can be tapped by research-intensive BMS companies and start-ups, in addition to any SEEDS funding they may have qualified for.

The Biomedical Services Group (BMS Group) in EDB also strives to promote Singapore ventures and the commercialisation of indigenous research. Last year, EDB's investment arm, Bio*One Capital committed a total of $95 million in investments in 16 projects. 90% of the investments were made in Singapore-based companies to help build and grow the companies, and in overseas projects with linkages and activities in Singapore.

The BMS group started the Proof of Concept Scheme in 2003 to provide pre-seed funding to support the development of early ideas that are patentable, and which could lead to new start-ups or licensing deals. Bio*One also has an Innovate 'N' Create scheme which provides seed funding to nurture home-grown biomedical start-ups. For example, there is this new company called ProTherapeutics that was seeded under this scheme, jointly with Exploit, to commercialise the delivery of protein-based treatment drugs. The BMS group also supported the formation of BioSingapore, which is a trade association representing the interests of local BMS enterprises. BioSingapore will play an important role in helping local BMS companies engage the financial community.

Sir, I have three points of clarification. On the part of IP, the patent which was raised by Dr John Chen, I would like to know how many IPs have been registered. What is the percentage that has actually been commercialised?

The second question I have is, just now, the MOS has stated that it is something that we have to do and not whether it is justifiable or not. I would like to know how many scholarships have been awarded in 2002 and 2003 in the biomedical-related area. How does A*STAR project the research trend? As a researcher myself, I know research is dynamic. It will not remain the same after eight years. Can A*STAR safely say that after eight years, the biomedical-related area will still be a hot area?

My third point is on the foreign scholars who are obliged to take up Singapore citizenship upon graduation. Could I have the statistics on how many of these foreign scholars who have since migrated to elsewhere after taking up citizenship here?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not have with me the figures of the patents. I will revert to her with the information.

She asked whether or not it is worthwhile to invest in our people and given the changes in the research climate, it might be wasted if the people, having learned something, find that, in the end, the tides move in a different way. I would say, first of all, as elaborated by the Minister, Singapore's research is not just to throw money everywhere. It is trying to see in this area that we are going to compete in, how do we place our investments in such a way that will build on our strengths and what are the areas that we have a competitive advantage in.

In this way, although there are no guarantees, we try to minimise our risk. But that we cannot eliminate. And it is the same, whether you pursue a Ph.D or you take up a skill in the ITE or the polytechnic, there is no guarantee that, in future, there will always be a need for it. That is why we are saying, let us be prudent and focused on what we should invest in, be bold, and once we have decided, let us go forth. Because if you do not have that, how do you go and compete with the other countries, talking to these companies and so on, to set up business over here and make ourselves into a hub and build that virtuous circle? So we have to be able to provide that together with all the other things that the Member has talked about in terms of infrastructure, stable Government, and so on. That is the reason why I believe that, notwithstanding the fact that there cannot be guarantees in this area, since we know that the next lap for us cannot be doing commodity-type, like electronics, we have to go up. When we go up, then let us scope it up, and let us invest.

On the other conditions of A*STAR scholarships and trying to make sure our investments are not taken advantage of, by giving in-principle PR for non-Singaporeans so that they can take up citizenship, these are well-known. These are really very explicit conditions to make sure that we treat the use of taxpayers' money very seriously. So every intention of ours is aimed at putting the money to generate growth, with all the benefits accruing to Singapore as far as we can plan for.

I did not anticipate the Member's question on how many scholars have migrated, but I can provide that information for her later.

Just a point of clarification and some

additional questions. I am actually heartened to hear that the Ministry has acknowledged that in the landscape that we are competing globally, the expenditure for R&D has to increase to compete in the next phase of our economic growth. In fact, I am looking forward to the R&D report coming out in June. The new thing I am going to be interested in looking at is the involvement of local enterprises in the whole R&D landscape of Singapore as well.

I would like to just ask the Minister for clarification with regard to two points in my questions that I brought up in the COS. One is the point I brought up on the SEEDS grant for start-ups for biomedical companies, of which $600,000 under SEEDS is actually quite limited. You basically only have the money to buy the equipment, and that is it. You cannot even start anything with $600,000. That ceiling was the feedback that I received from Bio-Singapore, the trade association, that we cannot use a one-rule-fits-all. We may have to review that for biomedical companies because it is a very high capital industry.

The second point is that, for the funds under the BMRC which is administered through A*STAR, can I seek a clarification whether private local companies are able to apply through BMRC for research work, which can be done in their own premises and through contract researchers in public research institutes as well? That is how the model is being played out all over the world, in my company as well. For example, we are part of a NIH programme which is from US and Australia, where we participate and apply for funding from the Australian Government through my Australian subsidiary as well. The main point is that you must understand the BMRC's funding fulfils a certain ---

Can I advise Members to make their clarification short or else we will have no time for further clarification?

The third question I want to ask is for the number of companies that have obtained SEEDS funding. The MOS has mentioned 124. I read in the round-up Budget speech that, it was 126 up to 2004, ie, last year, there were only two companies which got SEEDS funding. Does that mean there is a slowdown in the programme? If that is the case, why is that so?

Before I answer the question in detail, it is worthwhile for us to try and understand how do we envisage Singapore's economy developing, going forward. If you look at the economy today, we have one of the best diversified economies in the world. Manufacturing takes up about 25% of our GDP. Our traditional roles - trading, wholesale, retail plus the trade functions that we do - take up another 20%. Financial sector is about 11% and growing strongly.

Related to the financial sector, we have the business services sector, which is another 20%, both for local business services, as well as regional business services, RHQs, etc. Then we have the infocomm and transport services.

1.15 pm

By and large, we have a fairly diversified economy. Our best strategy going forward is to try and keep these diversifications. One of these diversifications is, of course, manufacturing, 20-25%. Even within manufacturing, we are reasonably well-diversified. But we have to recognise that we are a very small economy with a GDP of US$100 billion. We could not spread all our eggs so thinly that it would not get any core competence. So, it is a judicious balance that we have to take, between concentrating our effectiveness in certain key areas, but not so concentrated that we are vulnerable. Let us take manufacturing. We have electronics,

which takes up about 8-10% of the GDP and, even within electronics, we are fairly well diversified - semi-conductors, consumer electronics, infocomm equipment, computer and PC peripherals. Even that is quite diversified.

The second area that is now growing very rapidly is biomedical sciences. Today, it constitutes about 5% of GDP. Petrochemical constitutes another 5% of GDP. Over the next 5-10 years, I think petrochemical will be very strong. Then we have our traditional sectors - transport engineering, marine and aviation engineering, which constitutes another 3-4% of our GDP, and the others, furniture, food, printing - and so many other SMEs. So, even within manufacturing, 20-25%, we are fairly diversified. So where do you place - I would not say "place your bets" - but where do you develop your capabilities? We look at biomedical and we think this is an area that will be with us. Why? Because the population everywhere will be ageing and the demand for healthcare and biomedical services will increase. Today, we are spending 3% of GDP on healthcare. But other developed countries are spending 9% of GDP. In US, it is 15-17% of GDP. Therefore, the trend is greater expenditure on healthcare, and this is the area where it is worth our while to invest in capabilities and build up the talent pool. I would not say this is an investment that will definitely give us returns but, if you look at the landscape, going forward, if you have to develop your capabilities, I think this is an area where it behoves us to develop. We have done so since the year 2000. I must say that in just five years, A*STAR has done remarkably well in building up the biomedical sector to contribute 5% of our GDP.

Again, the strategy we take is a very diversified and sensible strategy. One, we bring in the pharmaceutical companies to do their manufacturing here. Two, we

build up an eco-system that allows new bio-tech companies to sprout out. This is not easy, but it is something that we are growing, and I think Dr Tan Sze Wee will realise the difficulties of growing bio-tech companies. Three, we try to anchor some of the research facilities of the big pharmaceutical companies here in Singapore. And, for that, our strategy is to have biopolis, which gives them the facilities to come in, plug and play, so that they do not have to invest so much in setting up the infrastructure. I think we have had several successes.

So when we look at the investments that we have put in, and the progress that we have made in five years, I think we have done reasonably well. Part of this is greater investment in R&D. If one looks back, I think we were a bit slow. If one looks at countries like Taiwan and others, I think they have invested more heavily in their people and research talent pool. I think we are a bit slow but, as I have said, we have caught up somewhat over the last five years, but I do not think we should be complacent. We still have a long way to go.

On Dr Tan's question about SEEDS and the grant being limited, I agree with him. Bio-tech research is a very expensive enterprise. If we want to encourage new start-ups in bio-tech, we have got to find a way in which the environment allows them to do so. But we have to be quite realistic. Most bio-techs, beyond a certain stage, have to be bought out by the big pharmaceutical companies, and they could latch on to big scale clinical trials and major production. I think that has to be the evolution process of the bio-tech companies. Therefore, we will look at the quantum of SEEDS. If $600,000 is not effective, we will have to see how this could be done.

Similarly, for the DMRC grants. Again, we have to be realistic. Clinical

research is a very difficult and long-drawn process and essentially it has to be done primarily in a hospital setting or in a specialist centre setting. But if this is too restrictive we will review the programme and extend it also to the private sector, especially if our private sector grows in capabilities and there are more private sector facilities or organisations that are able to band together and have a greater capability to undertake such a research.

So the number of scholars that we are providing nowadays, 100-150 A*STAR scholars, is not a very big investment. $40-100 million a year is a drop in the ocean. I think one of the conclusions which I hope will come out in the June review by the R&D Committee is to give us a boost in our R&D efforts.

On SMEs, in his response during the Budget Debate, the Prime Minister mentioned that, in fact, the Government is one of the major purchasers in tenders under $100,000 and SMEs are one of the major suppliers to the Government. I asked that the Government uses the public-people-partnership to outsource projects. I wish to ask again that the Government insists that all these PPP outsource providers use GeBiz for their procurement, because, when the Government outsources big projects, we do not want the opportunities for SMEs to become providers to the Government of goods and services to be closed out, because the outsource providers may not use such a transparent system as the Government is using now.

My second point is to thank the Minister for agreeing to publish the R&D 2006 Plan. That is a very good move. I only urge the Ministry, in planning R&D, to slice R&D into two parts. We must have pure R&D, as well as applied R&D. Let us not forget an important layer of R&D capability will be pure R&D, not necessarily tied to any particular industry

or project. This is of overall importance to R&D capability.

The R&D Committee, chaired by DPM Tony Tan, will cover the full spectrum of R&D, both the pure R&D undertaken by the universities and the other research institutes in the academic setting, as well as the applied R&D, which is really the responsibility of MTI, through our research institutes and collaborations with the industry. So it covers both areas. But we have to realise that in Singapore, our priority must be on applied R&D. That is my view because, whatever funds we have, I think a greater portion of that fund must be leveraged towards industry applications, economic development and generating jobs.

On the PPP, I accept Prof. Ivan Png's point. But let me again explain that the PPP that the Government promotes will be for some of the big projects. One of the best examples will be, say, an incinerator plant. I could not realistically see how that PPP project of an incinerator plant could be packaged, whether it is mandatory or not, that it makes itself available to local SMEs. As Heng Chee How explained in his speech, the best way forward for our local SMEs is to improve their capabilities, establish their own brands and compete, based on price, quality, competence and product delivery. To try and favour SMEs through a buy-local policy by the Government is not the way to go.

Tourism

Sir, Tourism Vision 2015 sets bold aims to double visitor arrivals, triple tourism receipts and add some 100,000 jobs to Singapore. I wonder how MTI intends to achieve this vision. To quote the Minister, "Where do we place our bets?" Sceptics would say, "Perhaps integrated resorts." However, having travelled to

some 45 countries, I ask myself what makes a place memorable. What makes me revisit it? Without a doubt, Eiffel Tower or Tower Bridge alone, will not lure me back. But it is the people, action and stories along the way that create the magic in the air. Does Singapore have that magic?

Sir, "Awe-struck by Chingay" was the Sunday Times headline that described our tourist experience. Lights, colours, sounds, festive cheers and, most of all, the kaleidoscope of races and styles coming together to celebrate a historically Chinese festival impressed tourists of our unity in diversity. Many wanted to learn more about Singapore's culture and racial harmony. People remember less of concrete skyscrapers, but more fondly of events and people. The event leaves a lasting memory with many stories to tell their friends and relatives back home.

Sir, this is the colour of our nation and our strength. Could we showcase this unique face of Singapore to the world? Should we capitalise on the very colours? In fact, could we go one step further and have a major fiesta every other month and make Singapore a cultural and fiesta capital of the world? With the $2 billion Tourism Development Fund, I urge that we develop Singapore as an international fiesta capital city, which leverages on our people, city energy, hub concept, location, already world-class infrastructure, travel safety, kaleidoscope of culture, food, shopping, and mix of old and new, to give tourists a uniquely Singapore experience and leave them wanting more.

In fact, the advantages of a fiesta capital concept is aplenty. In terms of economic contribution, I have distributed an addendum, and I quote two examples. One, the Edinburgh International Festival in Scotland - three weeks of sizzling music, opera and dance. It attracts 2.6

million visitors and generates some $419 million in revenue, producing some 2,900 full time jobs. The Oktoberfest in Munich, Germany, gives 16 days of beer, attracts some 6 million visitors and $1.9 billion in revenue, producing some 12,000 full time jobs.

It will also help us to product differentiate. In fact, what do tourists identify Singapore with? Perhaps we could ink Singapore as a unique fiesta capital in the minds of international travellers. It may also give us the X-factor that Minister Mah spoke about yesterday. More skyscrapers and mega-malls add only diminishing marginal utility. A fiesta could create a unique visitor experience, enhance the quality of life and encourage more people to come and live here. It could also help build community. Festivals pull people together and add a spark to their lives in the communities. It is a useful social bonding and community development tool. In total, our diversity in unity is a call for celebration. We need to theme our somewhat disintegrated event landscape and leverage on what we currently have to make our celebrations bigger, louder, last longer, in fact, romanticise them and involve tourists in our city action. This is what would leave them asking for more.

I have also provided another list of addendum as examples of existing festivals. A fiesta concept will raise our profile internationally as a cultural capital and add a buzz of excitement, colour and drama to the city that is enjoyed by both residents and visitors alike.

Integrated Resort

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government has by now received all the proposals from the potential investors. I hope MTI will, in due course, release some details of the proposals on the

integrated resort and the basis of its decision to proceed, or otherwise. However, before making the final decision, I would like to urge the Government to carry out a comprehensive study on the long-term social and economic impact of the proposed casino. The result of this study should be made public so that we are all aware of the implications and so that the issue could be addressed adequately.

While it is not a life and death issue, the decision on the casino will nevertheless affect many Singaporeans. Perhaps it is not a subject that requires a referendum or the lifting of the Whip, as it is a policy that is well within the Government's ambit to decide. However, I feel that it is an issue that has sparked much talk and debate among ordinary Singaporeans. It would seem odd that this subject is discussed everywhere else, except in this House. I think a full debate in this House on this issue is necessary. At least it will allow Members an opportunity to express their views and concerns and give the Government a platform to specifically deal with the issue involved.

1.30 pm

Sir, what surprises me was that after almost a year since the issue was first raised, the Workers Party said a few days ago that it still did not have a position on this issue, according to media reports. Apparently, it held a forum recently to solicit feedback. Maybe they wanted to see which way the wind was blowing before forming its position.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, however, declared that his own stand was that it was better for Singapore not to have a casino. The question is: what if his party decides to take the opposite position? Is he going to change his stand against his own conviction? What intrigues me more is that despite not having a clear position between him and the party, he has decided that this

issue should become an election issue at the next general election. This is like deciding on the menu of the wedding banquet before deciding which lady he should get married to. In any case, if he thinks that this is a crucial issue - which I agree it is - why did he not raise it during the Budget debate or submit a cut on this subject? Sir, I think it is time for Mr Low to stop confusing everybody and take a clear position on this issue instead.

Per Capita Income

Sir, I find it hard to reconcile the statistics given by the Prime Minister at the Debate on the President's Speech this year that Singapore's per capita income has risen over the last 10 years. Considering the fact that there is record unemployment, high number of retrenchments, constant pay cuts, CPF cuts and, at the same time, problems of those above 40 who find it hard to get a decent job, many Singaporeans, including myself, wonder how the Ministry of Trade and Industry had arrived at the reported statistical figures. I hope that the statistical calculations do not take into account the earnings of PRs, expatriate staff and foreign workers working and earning good pay in Singapore into the average income calculation and computation. Otherwise, we will be giving a false impression to our citizens that our income is indeed rising faster than imagined.

Finally, of what benefit or good in showing an increase in the per capita income to Singaporean men who have been retrenched and unemployed for more than half a year? What we need is finding more good jobs for them, not about how the average income of Singaporeans has risen because of foreign talent contribution to the GDP.

Sir, let me take Mr Steve Chia's question. First, he must

understand how to interpret statistics. When the statistics show that the incomes have risen, it does not mean that there will not be 3% people who are unemployed, and therefore their incomes have dropped. This is the per capita gross national income which looks at the average numbers.

The Prime Minister, in his speech on 19th January 2005, mentioned that the overall per capita income has increased since 1998, and indeed it has increased. The per capita income is a widely used benchmark in international comparisons. So we are using internationally accepted statistics and the method of measuring such statistics.

The per capita income is obtained by dividing the gross national income (GNI) by the population. Therefore, the gross national income which is the income receivable by all residents of the economy will include both Singaporeans and foreigners. Mr Steve Chia claimed that this will distort the numbers because it will include the high-earning expatriates. I think he will realise that the number of expatriates and people with employment pass is, in fact, a smaller percentage compared to the larger pool of other types of foreign workers. If anything, the foreigners' element of the calculation in Singapore's context would tend to drag the number down. Anyway, even if we exclude foreigners, the latest statistics show that the average income of Singaporeans in 2004 was 10.1% higher than in 1998. And compared to 10 years ago, the average income of Singaporeans has increased by 25.1%. As I have explained, this is the average number. We all realise that over the last five years, the unemployment in Singapore has risen. The latest number is 3.7%. So if we look at 3.7%, this means over 80,000 Singaporeans are unemployed, which means nearly 1,000 per constituency, and these are the people who come and visit us every other week, and all of us as MPs

realise that. But that does not change the hard facts of the ground, which is that the average Singaporean, the 90 over per cent who retain their jobs, have had good income. And for most of them, their incomes have grown even in the most difficult years that we faced in the last five years.

Let me now turn to tourism. I agree with Miss Penny Low that the targets we set ourselves for the next 5-10 years are very high targets. We want to double the number of tourist arrivals. We want to triple the tourist receipts and we want to make tourism an important component of our GDP. This is not an easy task but it is something that I think we can achieve. Why? Because the tourism flow in this region and for the world is growing. If we are intelligent and hardworking enough, there is no reason why we should not capture our share of that growth.

I remember many MPs have raised this, including Mr Tan Soo Khoon, and I agree with him that over the last 5-10 years, we have indeed under-invested in our tourism capability. Even though our tourism receipts and the tourist arrivals have been quite decent and remain fairly steady, as a percentage of GDP, the contribution of tourism has, in fact, dropped over the last 5-10 years. What we want to do is to try and redress this. I am not saying that it is an easy task but I think it is something that we have to do.

The suggestions that Miss Penny Low raised about having fiestas and activities, this is in fact a key component of what we plan to do. As I explained in the press conference some months ago, there are three elements. The first element which we cannot avoid is tourist attractions. We must invest in tourist attractions, and this means quite heavy investments. The second is events. We must have things happening in Singapore - some buzz -

so that when tourists come, they have something to look forward to. On the many suggestions that Miss Penny Low put out, we will look at them. In fact, STB is even more ambitious. STB sets for itself a target of having 52 events. This means that at every weekend, there must be something happening in Singapore. There must be some buzz. So the tourists who come just for the weekend will have something attractive to look forward to.

The third area is capabilities. We must develop the industry - the promoters, the event organisers, the guides, the waiters, the sales people. People must feel happy coming to Singapore and they must have a good and delightful experience when they come to Singapore. So these are the three key elements.

On the issue of the integrated resort, this is an issue which has been debated many times. There are a lot of views put out. We have had this discussion for over a year. I disagree with Mr Gan Kim Yong. In fact, Members have used this House on many occasions to express their views. And even though we may not have a direct debate, the Government has listened to these views and will be taken into consideration when we make our decision.

The Prime Minister has explained that we intend to make a decision before the middle of April. The Government has been elected to govern, and it has the full mandate to decide on many important issues. For example, the GST increase, the CPF contribution changes, all these are issues that, after having gone through discussion and taking into consideration the views of people, the Government then has to make a decision, and this is the same for the casino.

I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that the Workers' Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been conspicuously silent for this entire one year. Like him, I am a little

perplexed why Mr Low thinks that this ought to be an election issue. As Mr Low Thia Khiang knows, the election is not due until 2007. And if he is suggesting that we do not make any decision and wait until the election comes around and to treat this as an election issue, we have to wait at least another two more years. Mr Low Thia Khiang is a teochew. So I will use the phrase, by that time, mui sek already. In other words, the porridge would have been cooked. So the Government intends to make the decision. Whatever the decision, we will make a Ministerial Statement in Parliament and use the occasion to explain our decision, whether we are proceeding or not proceeding. This will then give the MPs the opportunity to state their views and also to seek clarifications on whatever the decision may be. So there will be an occasion for MPs to be able to clarify and express their views when we make the statement.

I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that even though Mr Low has been quiet all the time, that will be the occasion for him to state his views. I also notice that he has not filed any cut during the entire session of the Committee of Supply. And when he spoke on the debate on the Budget, this did not feature at all in his speech, but there will be an occasion for him to do so.

Consumer Protection

Sir, the introduction of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) in March last year is a major step for consumerism in Singapore. It helps shape both consumer behaviour and business practices, and bring about a consumer-friendly business environment. However, to enhance its effectiveness, as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), I would like to request that MTI review and consider extending the scope of the CPFTA.

First of all, the Ministry should consider extending the list of the 20 unfair practices. The unfair practices proposed to be added are:

Forfeit of consumer's deposit if a purchase transaction does not go through. Take the motor car industry as an example. In many car dealers' transactions, the current practice by dealers is to forfeit the consumer's deposit when the purchase of the car or transaction does not go through. Such an action should be deemed as unfair practice, as it unreasonably penalises the consumers.

Practice of asking consumers to sign blank or uncompleted forms. A common practice in the motor car industry when applying for financing on behalf of the consumers, for example, is to require them to sign a blank form. This, again, should be regarded as an unfair practice under the CPFTA.

The consumers also hope the legislation could protect them from unfair practices, when companies, such as travel agents, spas and beauty centres, which collect deposits or fees with no intention of providing the service but closing down immediately after having a special offer and collecting a substantial amount from the consumers.

Sir, besides extending the scope and the coverage of CPFTA, I would also like to ask MTI to consider setting a notice period of voluntary compliance agreement under the CPFTA. Currently, the CPFTA does not state any specific deadline or time limit for the traders to respond to the voluntary compliance agreement proposal put up by CASE or STB. We propose that a specific timeframe be mandated, eg, 10 days or two weeks.

1.45 pm

On the issue of opt-out practices, there is a common tendency for retailers

to adopt an opt-out practice for their transactions. This means that unless

a consumer specifically signals his intention to opt-out, he is deemed to have agreed or to accept the contract. Consumers see this as another form of an unfair practice, and we propose that the concept of opt-out practices for business transactions, except for national healthcare schemes, for example, should be included as unfair practice under the Act. Consumers should be given a right to exercise a choice.

On the issue of legislation of product liability, what I would like to suggest is that we would like MTI to consider how we could better safeguard the interest of consumers in this area. Currently, they are protected under the contract law, Sales of Goods Act and tort of negligence and duty of care. The loopholes of the above, in terms of legal ambiguities, are that under contract law, the consumer has to produce proof of the contract between the consumer and manufacturer. But most of the time, a consumer purchases a product from the retailer, and the retailer is only the middleman. So what I would like to propose is for the Government to consider other alternatives for consumers to seek redress by maybe looking into the examples of the English Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Singapore Brand

Sir, as the economy moves up the value chain, a premium can only be extracted from business activities, if innovation and branding occupy centre stage. Branding, however, represents a set of expectations and values which identify the product or a company. Hence, while we brand Singapore and Singapore companies and products, we would need a robust national accreditation scheme that builds trust and rapport between business entities and customers.

Trust therefore is key for any business relation. One such scheme is the revamped CaseTrust Scheme which belongs to a non-profit organisation, the Consumers Association of Singapore. Please allow me to declare my interest here as the Chair person of CaseTrust Advisory Council and the DP of CASE.

CaseTrust has repositioned itself as a national trust mark, and we have achieved some quick success. In fact, recently, CaseTrust has also attracted enquiries from as far as China and India. It is looking at the possibility of linking up with some regional accreditation scheme to cross recognise the Singapore brand as well. Local businesses would stand to benefit from an enlarged market and Singapore can, in fact, become a brand leader. This is really exciting. But this can only be achieved if MTI invests in the efforts via some methods of funding or facilitation like linking up with the regional and international markets, more direct marketing of accreditation schemes in countries where IE Singapore, EDB and STB have established offices and, in fact, to include a boost for our accreditation schemes whenever EDB and STB go on a roadshow overseas. Would the Minister support the path to building regionally recognised accreditation schemes, like CaseTrust, as the branding and co-branding for Singapore products, services, both in Singapore as well as overseas?

Warehouse Retail Scheme

Sir, I would like to declare my interest as I am working in the field of warehousing and retail.

The Warehouse Retail Scheme, as announced last year, essentially allows the use of industrial land for retailing. Industrial or warehousing land is a fraction of the cost compared to commercial land. For example, industrial land would be 50

cents to $1, whereas warehousing rent may be four or five times.

This scheme was introduced to facilitate many foreign retailers who have found it difficult to compete in the market for the kind of space to play out their so-called retail formats in Singapore. In countries with big land space, like US or Europe, the so-called retail formats require big areas and are, hence, located outside the city areas and started by locating at intersection points on main highways. The French word for crossroads is "Carrefour".

Under the Warehouse Retail Scheme, local retailers submit their proposals to SPRING while foreign retailers who have been here even for decades submit their proposals to the EDB. Naturally, the treatment is uneven. Many Members have expressed this view earlier. Foreign retailers are also granted land outside the announced patches. The Government has always said it believes in competition and transparency. With something so different as the Warehouse Retail Scheme involving the alienation of land and variation from announced policies, should the Ministry not ensure transparency and equality in treatment of all local and foreign owned companies in Singapore? This is particularly so when competition in this field is so intense.

Since there are so many anomalies administered by the two agencies up to now, and because so many retailers will be affected, I urge the Ministry to freeze this scheme and review the procedures and policies entirely and put up the designated land for tender to be administered by one agency.

Sir, I thank Mr Yeo for his suggestions. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act is principally designed to accord better protection to consumers by allowing them to seek civil redress against traders engaging in unfair

practices. The primary focus is on small consumers who may lack the expertise and the resources to fend for themselves against unfair practices. However, we recognise the importance of consumer protection, especially protecting the small consumers. We must be careful to do it in a way that does not load too much onto businesses, in terms of compliance cost. And indeed, in the entire exercise of enacting the legislation, this was a primary concern. How do we balance between safeguarding the interests of consumers and not imposing unnecessary and too high regulatory costs on businesses? And it is something that we would have to continue to reassess as we go along to strike a delicate balance.

As this Act came into force only on 1st March 2004, MTI is monitoring market developments to see how well it is working. This will help us review whether and how it needs to be fine-tuned. And we will certainly take into account the points that Mr Yeo has raised. We plan to review the Act after three years of implementation experience. Meanwhile, our immediate focus is to continue to support and work with CASE and other agencies to reach out to consumers and businesses to raise awareness and understanding of the Act. Because there is a lot in the Act that the consumers can actually use to already advance their interest and this should be fully realised.

I also commend CASE for its very proactive and effective role in educating consumers on ways to spot and avoid being shortchanged when they buy goods and services.

Sir, moving on to the cut by Miss Penny Low, Minister Lim Hng Kiang, in his speech, highlighted that the Government will help enterprises, core capabilities and branding and tap overseas market opportunities. Earlier, I have also listed the initiatives that IE Singapore has embarked on to assist companies in their

branding efforts. As Miss Penny Low rightly points out, the successful branding of Singapore products can enhance their identity in overseas markets and allow them to command a premium.

I also agree with Miss Low that the use of internationally recognised trust marks can help improve the branding of our products. In particular, trust marks backed by a robust accreditation scheme can encourage our producers to meet high standards and, therefore, strengthen consumer confidence in our products. The Government is and will continue to be supportive of organisations, such as CASE, that issue robust trust marks and aim to widen international recognition of these marks. STB and EDB promote the adoption of CaseTrust by education service providers and tourism establishments. CASE is also welcomed to discuss with IE Singapore to see how we can work together to enhance the branding efforts of internationalising Singapore companies.

Sir, finally, I move on to the comment by Mr Chay Wai Chuen. I thank him for the comment. The Warehouse Retail Scheme is aimed at encouraging companies to make a sizeable investment in Singapore by allowing greater flexibility on industrial land use so that companies can adopt an integrated business model for industrial and retail activities, and it is not limited to foreign companies. It is open to both local and foreign companies, as pointed out by Mr Chay.

For this scheme, there are clear quantitative criteria for evaluation and these will include annual turnover, direct employment created, total business spending on investment. The final approving authority for this scheme is MTI. So even though SPRING Singapore being the champion agency for local enterprises, it is the one that helps to

process such applications by local companies and EDB helps with those by foreign companies. Ultimately, all these applications are channelled to a common place, namely MTI, for common assessment and decision.

Therefore, I assure Mr Chay that all applications and proposals, regardless of their origin of the companies, that is, whether they are local or foreign, and regardless of which of these two agencies, whether it is SPRING or EDB, that help to process and move the applications forward, they are all assessed and evaluated in a consistent manner using the same set of evaluation criteria by MTI. We have a policy of ensuring that there is no preference treatment for any company and we definitely do not prefer foreign applications to local applications. So we evaluate them on common criteria.

Sir, on this issue of Warehouse Retail Scheme, as I recall, this was driven by a foreign company that was pushing for this scheme to be made available, and EDB was only championing this for the foreign company.

Back to my basic point about local agency championing local enterprises, SPRING does not have the same clout as EDB has in trying to push these things through, and I think this is probably the root cause of the problem. In the same token, when the Minister talked about SPRING being the primary agency that is going to focus on local enterprise support, I welcome this. But I ask again that we look at how the resources are allocated. Today, there are some resources, for example, certain research grants, innovation development scheme, certain equity funds that are primarily controlled by EDB, and SPRING could apply through EDB for local enterprises. I ask that these be reallocated so that SPRING, who is going to be the local champion agency,

will have the primary responsibility and control of these funds. It is only then that we can find equalisation of the treatment of foreign and local enterprises.

I really do not want to get into the details of all these. But let me assure Members that MTI treats foreign and local enterprises equally. We do not favour or discriminate either one of them. If you talk to the foreign companies, some of them will say that we discriminate against them, we favour local companies, which is the natural instinct of all countries. But I would like to share with everybody here that we treat everybody the same.

On the Warehouse Retail Scheme, if I may give the background, since this has been raised. In case other Members start forming opinions based on misperceptions, let us get the facts out. The Warehouse Retail Scheme is intended so that companies, whether foreign or local, can try out new business concepts, integrating warehousing with retail, and also distribution to the region. So it was proposed that, with this objective in mind, it is not for local retail. So we are not favouring foreigners coming to retail to Singaporeans, neither are we encouraging our local retailers to use this scheme to distribute to Singaporeans. The idea is to have a new business concept that amalgamates warehousing and distribution, not just to locals, but also to the region.

We originally wanted to allow such a concept to be tried out in industrial estates, away from the housing estates in Singapore where we already have an established retail distribution through the HDB shops. But, at the same time, we want to be flexible. And so when the companies propose other locations which are not in the approved areas, I think the various Government agencies try to be flexible and see whether or not we can accommodate them, and we found that

we were able to do so. So this does not prevent local companies from looking at other sites which fit this objective and coming to the Ministries, whether MTI or MND, to see whether or not such a concept can be tried out in areas beyond what we originally stipulated as approved areas.

So let me, again, establish the facts. It is not meant to favour anybody. The location which a particular consortium or foreign retailer selects is done on his own accord. We are quite happy if Singaporean retailers also identify other sites not from the original approved list, and which meet the objectives and have the approval from MND.

I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he agrees that the list of unfair practices is, in fact, not exhaustive. What I have been suggesting actually is not a major review of the mechanism. I think the mechanism is working very well and it is to protect consumers. The question is: why can we not extend the list to cover and protect more consumers for other unfair practices? I cannot understand why we need three years. Does it mean that we have to wait until

more consumers fall victim to unfair practices and to see more casualties before we make a move? Why can we not be a bit more proactive?

2.00 pm

Sir, I will try to explain it this way. Under the current Act, although there is an explicit list of 20 unfair practices, there are also other ways of understanding what an unfair practice is under the definition, and there is a provision under the current Act where a body, such as CASE or STB, can take up the case on behalf of victims or consumers who have been dealt an unfair practice by a trader through the civil courts and, before that, to actually offer them an option of voluntarily ceasing such

unfair practice. So, if you look at the provisions of the current Act, it allows you to already take action to protect the interests of these consumers, notwithstanding the fact that it might not be explicitly listed under the 20 practices.

For the additional instances that Mr Yeo has given in his list, we have also got to be careful in terms of evaluation. For example, the one on opt-out, even Mr Yeo himself also realised that there are occasions - he mentioned, eg, the national medical opt-out schemes - where it probably is justifiable and there are occasions where it is not. So, to have something like a blanket ruling to outlaw it one way or the other, sometimes you might actually create unintended consequences. So, each of these things, even if you want to go into them, they have got to be very carefully evaluated. Other instances where the person is, for example, given a certain condition of purchase and the question is really whether or not that person already knew that there was such a condition before he entered into the purchase and, if he did, again you will have to evaluate whether or not in that circumstance it should be treated as a case of cheating or unfair practice, or is it that a person entered into it knowingly and then subsequently regrets. So, these are the things that we would need to study rather than rush into.

As I mentioned earlier, the important point is really to educate our consumers for their protection, so that they know how to make full use of the provisions of the existing Act so that they can really protect themselves against these practices. Then, as we gain the experience of how things are working out, and at a suitable point, we will review all these, taking into account the points made by Mr Yeo.

Sir, I would like to thank Mr Gan Kim Yong for his interest on the Workers' Party, and the Minister soliciting views from me. In Mandarin, it is called shou cong rou jing.

Sir, the fact is that, whether or not I had spoken in this House or have moved any cut on the casino issue, obviously, the view at the forum is heard. Unfortunately, I had an interview after the forum on Saturday, but I think it was not aired, so perhaps the Minister may not know my view on the casino. And why the PAP chooses to bring out this issue at this point is perhaps because I called for the casino issue to be made an election issue, which I think made the PAP sit up.

Sir, the question is: why is it that the WP has not had any official position on the issue so far? I wish to clarify that we realise that the casino issue is not an easy issue, because of diversity of views. Also, we have to consider it from a pragmatic point of view rather than from the emotional position, which is very difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, we have had quite intense discussions between ourselves, both at the party level and at the CEC level. We also receive a lot of feedback from the public.

Currently, there is insufficient information or survey on what is the impact. We have a lot of surveys and studies done overseas but these may or may not apply locally. So, we are quite cautious in how to approach the matter. This is a matter of responsibility, being a political party. I have said at the interview, after the forum, that it has to be assessed in terms of cost-benefit analysis. If it is a matter of "we must have it or else we will have problems economically or in the future we might lose out", then I think we have no choice. But if it is a matter of "may or may not have economic benefits in the future", then why should we take the risks? And the question is whether it is a manageable risk. Mr Chairman, Sir, I

do not think it is a manageable risk in the future, and I have stated my position at the press conference that I am against it.

Yes, the party has not made a decision, because we are still discussing it and, after the consultation process, the CEC will make a decision some time in April. What happens if the party were to make a decision which is contrary to my belief? Sir, if I fail to convince the party of my position not to go ahead, well, I will have to follow the party line. This is party discipline. The same goes with the PAP. I think even the Cabinet is also split.

Now, let me move on to why I decided to say we should make it an election issue. Yes, the Minister has explained the PAP has the mandate. Yes, you have 75% of voters who voted for you at the last elections.

Mr Low, we have other clarifications to be made.

Sir, I wonder whether the 75% includes also the mandate for the Government to go ahead with the casino, which will have profound effect on the future of Singapore. The question is whether it is fair that you take the mandate and you say, "Ok, I have the mandate, and I can do whatever I want."

The other perspective is that whilst the Government has allowed people to discuss and encourage people to debate on the casino issue but, at the end of the day, there must be some avenue enabling the people to express whether they are for or against it. I understand that a referendum can cost a lot of money. Perhaps we can tie it in with the election as an issue and see how people vote. At least they get a chance to vote to express their views. So, a vote for the PAP is a vote for the casino.

The Minister said, why wait for so long because the election will not be due

until 2007. In Teochew, we say, muay sek liao! But my question is: what is the hurry? Are we going to run into economic difficulties if we were to delay the decision on the casino issue? If you were to go ahead now and decide, then people will say that perhaps you have already made up your mind to decide to go ahead with it, thereby you cannot wait any further. I do not see why we cannot wait.

Mr Low, do you want to give enough time for the Minister to reply?

I would like to tell the Minister: let the people have a chance to vote and to decide on what they really want for society and for the future. And I think you can wait. As the Teochews say: "hor leo tim toi, mun mun lai".

Sir, this is the first time in my many years here that I have heard Mr Low Thia Khiang going round and round, and I am not sure whether he has clarified the issue or he has made us more confused.

The reason why we are proceeding with a decision whether to proceed or not by the middle of April is already stated by the PM. We have had a discussion on this issue for almost a year. We have invited developers to come in. We have got 19 proposals, and we are on record to say that we will look at these concepts and then we will decide, and we intend to do so by the middle of April.

So, we have given people plenty of notice and I do not see any reason for us to postpone this decision by another two more years and make this into an election issue. Whether it can be an election issue or it will be an election issue, we would not know. It is up to the issues of the day when we go for elections. But the Government has to make decisions, based on information available to us, and this

Government has been elected to govern, and this Government will do what is necessary to make the right decisions for Singapore, having heard the range of views, both for and against.

My point earlier was that, while all this discussion has been going on for one whole year, the Workers' Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been conspicuously silent. Then they had this seminar, I believe, last Saturday or last week. I wonder how many turned up for the seminar. I wonder whether the Workers' Party has formed a position on that issue. Apparently not, from the explanation given by Mr Low Thia Khiang. Therefore, there is no reason for us to wait just because the Workers' Party has not made up its mind.

MTI will be looking at the proposals submitted. We will make an evaluation and we will put up our recommendation to the Government. The Government will assess it and decide before the middle of April. And, as I mentioned earlier, whatever the decision, we will come back to Parliament, make a Ministerial Statement on the decision whether to proceed or not to proceed, explain our decision, and give MPs the opportunity to state their views to and seek clarifications on the decision that would be taken.

I think that is that. Then we go on to other issues of economic development.

Miss Penny Low. Last clarification.

Sir, a further clarification.

No, Mr Low. You have had your chance. Miss Low.

Sir, two points of clarification. The Minister of State, Mr

Heng Chee How, mentioned that the opt-out scheme could be relevant in certain situations. I agree with that, where there is a social dimension to it. But where it is pure commercial interest itself, an opt-out scheme should not be allowed.

On my cut on the fiesta capital itself, what I was suggesting really was to give a boost to the festival industry and group some of these events that we are currently having, because they are too disintegrated and it is really difficult to identify Singapore with a particular culture or fiesta event itself. What we need to do is to really cluster them and give them an identity, whether it is monthly or alternate months.

I think we have many events. For example, the Singapore Arts Festival is growing in stature. But, beyond the Singapore Arts Festival, we are looking at other events throughout the year. The strategy whether to put them together or make sure there is activity every week, that is something that we have to examine.

Yes, Mr Low. You have one minute.

Sir, would the Minister agree to move for a full debate in Parliament on the casino issue, and would the PAP agree to lift the Party Whip so that its Members can vote freely based on their conscience?

I have already stated many times that we have one whole year of discussion. Members have used the opportunity here in the House and outside the House to give us their views. We have called for the proposals. We will make the evaluation and make a decision. After we have made a decision whether to proceed or not to proceed, we will make a statement, and then we will give MPs the opportunity to seek clarifications.

Yes, Mr Heng. You have 30 seconds.

2.15 pm

Sir, just to take up Miss Low's point. We will take the comments into account in our

review. But the main point is that we have to balance between protecting the consumer versus not overloading regulatory compliance cost on the businesses. It is how we always look at these two things and balance them.

Since Dr Ahmad Magad is not here, I have to put the amendment to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $421,430,240 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $4,568,451,300 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head L - Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. Dr Amy Khor.

Engaging Singaporeans on Environment Issues

Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources has, in recent times, launched various bold initiatives, such as opening up our reservoirs to the public for recreational activities and spearheading the 3P partnership by best sourcing its

NEWater and desalination plants to the private sector. Sir, I wish to commend the Ministry on this.

Singaporeans are increasingly aware of the importance of protecting our environment, not just for ourselves, but also for our future generations. This is evident by the increase in the number of Forum page letters on environmental issues as well as the activities of passionate groups, such as the marine conservation group, Blue Water Volunteers.

Nevertheless, Sir, the passion and the actions seem to be confined to these groups. The importance of preserving and protecting our environment has still not filtered down to the masses. While the percentage of the population participating in recycling projects has been increasing to its present level of 47%, the bulk of this participation comes from households in public housing estates. Only 20% of condominium homes currently recycle, whilst the participation rate in schools stands at only 30%. Moreover, one wonders how strongly the public cares for their living environment when you look at the amount of garbage that is thrown on the floor near the letter-boxes at the void decks of HDB blocks every evening, as well as the amount of litter that is left behind after major events like the Chingay. It was reported that two tonnes of trash was left behind on Orchard Road after the Chingay parade. This definitely provides work for our cleaners but our social behaviour contrasts sharply with countries like Japan where it is second nature to pick up and dispose of their own rubbish before they leave the event venue. Furthermore, even though the state of our public toilets has improved after the launch of the "Singapore OK" campaign, there is still much to be desired in terms of toilet hygiene and cleanliness when compared to the standards achieved

in many developed western countries like the UK and US.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

What steps is the Ministry taking to inculcate our young with environmentally-friendly habits, such as recycling, good public hygiene, responsibility not to litter, raise their level of awareness about green issues and get them interested in the environment? How would it reach out to the students in schools, especially as I understand from my children and those of my friends, that the standard of cleanliness of school toilets, especially primary school toilets, is embarrassing? How does the Ministry plan to raise the community's awareness of and participation in environmental issues and inculcate in them a sense of responsibility for the environment? Does the Ministry intend to open up more of its reservoirs for recreational activities? And if so, what types of activities as well as what measures will it take to ensure that the visitors do not litter or damage the ecology and foliage of the place?

Energy labelling, specifically air-conditioners and refrigerators, was introduced in 2002. But it remains on a voluntary basis. Would the Ministry be implementing mandatory energy labelling as well as expanding this to other appliances as this will allow consumers to make more informed choices, reduce energy consumption and enjoy savings? Why has Singapore not acceded to the Kyoto Protocol which commits 39 industrialised nations to reducing the levels of greenhouse gas emission even when it claims to be pro-environment and is committed to environmental sustainability?

Community Participation

Mr Chairman, Sir, our "Town Sparkles" Committee which I chair, and runs the programme for the 14 PAP Town Councils, has also addressed various issues on the environment, from dengue to good toilet habits.

We need to keep on pushing the public service messages and the support of all Government agencies. The National Environment Agency (NEA) and HDB are represented in our "Town Sparkles" Committee. However, what we hope is that there can be greater concerted effort by all agencies to push the public education messages across the heartlands.

Take public toilets, for instance. While there has been improvement from the past, we have to relentlessly push and reinforce the public messages to the masses - work with the coffeeshop association, work with the shop owners themselves, and with the community.

Littering is also an issue which needs constant reminders from the Town Councils, the Residents' Committees, the NEA and the schools. Junk mails thrown on the HDB void decks are not uncommon. Recycling is still not catching up with our citizens.

Our "Town Sparkles" campaign can achieve so much in addressing issues relating to living in a clean and healthy environment. We are only one of the many platforms to reach out. The Ministry should see what is lacking in its overall public education campaign. Why are people not paying as much attention to social issues like mosquito breeding, littering and recycling? Or should all the different campaigns or programmes be realigned and we have one big "Social Habits" programme?

There are two more group agencies that we can tap on their expertise, ie, the regulatory bodies such as the BCA, HDB and MEWR's various departments, such as NEA and the Drainage and Sewage Department. The other agencies that we can tap on are the civic groups as well as the professional bodies, eg, the various institutes of engineers, architects, estate managers, doctors and other civic groups besides the environmental protection groups.

Economic Opportunities in the Environment Sector

Sir, I applaud the Ministry's various initiatives to facilitate private sector participation and create economic opportunities in the environmental sector. The Design, Build, Own and Operate scheme for the NEWater and desalination water plants, the Hawker Centre Upgrading Programme and the 1,000 for 1,000 scheme where jobs in the cleaning sector has been redesigned, are notable examples of such efforts.

The revival of the Street Hawker Licence Scheme which allows hawkers, for instance, to sell ice-cream in designated areas, also shows the Ministry's responsiveness to public feedback. I would like to ask the Minister to consider relaxing some of the conditions imposed and expanding the area these street hawkers can operate so that whilst avoiding excessive competition in more popular areas, we do not make it so restrictive that it is difficult for the vendor to make a living.

I would also like to ask the Minister to revive the Newspaper Vendor Licence Scheme which I understand has been stopped since 1994. The reason apparently is that there were then too many such newspaper vendors. However, as the licence is non-transferable, natural attrition over time will automatically reduce the number. I

have seen quite a number of appeals to the NEA for the licence to be transferred to another person as the licensee no longer wishes or is unable to operate the stall. These have been rejected on the ground that the licence is not transferable and no new licences can be issued. As more than 10 years have passed, I submit that there are grounds to warrant a review of the number of licences issued as this could provide an extra avenue for those trying to find a means of making a living.

Recently, there have also been a number of letters to the press complaining about many karung guni men who take turns to rouse you from your sleep on weekend with their blaring horns. There have also been cases of karung guni men fighting over garbage and causing grievous hurt to each other in some instances. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry is looking into how these issues can be resolved.

Manpower Training in the Environment Sector

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to provide the outcome of the Ministry's "1,000 for 1,000" initiative which was launched in September 2003. Sir, this is the Ministry's job re-creation programme to attract local workers to work in the various cleaning jobs in the environment sector.

Sir, what are the key learning points which can be shared with the employers and employees involved in other job re-creation programmes? As we are all aware, the Prime Minister launched the NTUC's Job Re-creation Programme last Saturday.

Sir, a mindset change is required both on the part of the employers and employees. For the employers, they must be ready to employ mature workers who have the skills for the jobs and are fit and ready to work while for employees, they

must have the confidence to take the jobs and be ready to go for regular skills upgrading.

Sir, has the Ministry other plans to go beyond the "1,000 for 1,000" job initiative, perhaps a "1,000 for 1,002" for other job re-creation programmes which are available in the environment sector?

Water Resources

Mr Chairman, Sir, for many years, Singapore has been working for self-sufficiency in water resources. We have a breakthrough with NEWater and embarked on desalination.

I understand that our reservoir capacity has also been enlarged to contain and store more water. This has made us less dependent on Malaysia for supply of water, which has always been a point of friction between Singapore and Malaysia.

The Singapore Government has announced that it will not seek to extend the first Water Agreement when it lapses in 2011. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether there are any new initiatives to enlarge our water supply and capacity. Will he be able to assure Singaporeans that we will have a constant supply of water and our taps will never run dry?

What else is being done to ensure that we make the best possible use of our limited water resources? Once the Marina Barrage is constructed, what would the Ministry do to ensure that the water of the new reservoir will be kept clean and unpolluted?

Would the Ministry also work closely with the private sector to promote Singapore as a water hub and export our water processing technology overseas?

Deep Sewer Tunnel

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to talk about the deep tunnel sewerage system.

The centralised deep sewerage treatment plants, one in the east and a future one in the west, make waste management easier and they are also likely to reduce the cost of treatment. The two sewerage treatment plants are also the future NEWater and industrial water production plants. It will be one of the three important water taps in our water self-sustaining strategy. If something goes wrong with these taps, it will have a significant impact on the continual water supply when, at that time, we will no longer be getting water from Malaysia. Any stoppage of the plant for more than a month, Singapore will face a water crisis.

I can easily think of a way that can cause the plant to shut down for a long period of time by some form of stubborn contamination. Sir, some of these may cause permanent stoppage of the plants.

Sir, the deep sewerage tunnel system is not pressurised and the sewerage flows through gravity. Foreign materials could easily be introduced into the tunnel and eventually arrive at the treatment plant through all the possible openings, be it the manhole, the sewer collection and pumping stations, and even the toilet bowls in our homes.

So, if one could contaminate the system and pose potential security risks to our water supply system, it is because waste water is used as feed water for the production of NEWater and recycled water. What precautions has the Ministry taken or will take to minimise such a potential risk?

Prof. Ivan Png is not here. Mr Yatiman.

Semakau Landfill

Mr Chairman, 10 years ago, the Government acquired Pulau Seking and Pulau Semakau and developed them into an offshore landfill which was operational about six years ago. A fortnight ago, I was fortunate to be able to visit the site on the courtesy of Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee.

In my life, I have seen how Kallang Basin, the area from Jalan Kolam Ayer to Lavender Street, had evolved from a dumping ground to a public housing and industrial estate and how Lorong Halus, another dumping ground, had attracted stray dogs and how residents who initially moved into Pasir Ris had to tolerate the odour coming out from the area.

Contrary to the general perception that a landfill is an unhygienic, smelly and dusty place, this offshore landfill, which I am told is as big as Sentosa, is a clean and nice place with the smell of fresh air from the blue sea filling our lungs. The special care taken during its construction has prevented leakages

into the sea and the air. In this way, the maritime eco-system is fully protected and the air is clean. More than that, Sir, the rejuvenated natural habitat of Pulau Semakau, with the replanted bakau trees and the mangrove mud flats, provided an attractive opportunity for the creative and productive use of the place.

2.30 pm

I have two questions to ask. Firstly, to what extent has the landfill been able to meet our current and future needs for waste disposal? Secondly, going beyond just a landfill, as Semakau/Seking is large enough an area, I would like to know what the Ministry has in mind in

maximising its potential for the benefit of Singaporeans.

Sir, I would like to venture to suggest that the island be developed into an intensive-recreational area. Facing an open sea, it could be developed into a seasports centre for those who love to go yachting, boating, sea-kayaking, wind surfing and even sports fishing. The untouched Semakau Island could be a unique place for nature lovers to view its fauna and flora. It could also be developed into a retreat for families and voluntary welfare organisation members. Sir, to do so, we need first of all to turn the place into a green island, which Seking is lacking.

Recreational Use of Reservoirs

Sir, I must disclose an interest here. I am personally keen to bring my children to sail and row in our reservoirs.

I applaud the Ministry for opening up the reservoirs for water sports. However, I am concerned that the mechanism is too exclusive. Last year, I was so happy to read the Minister's speech that we could sail on Lower Seletar Reservoir. So I went to find out. What I found out was that I must pay $10,000 entrance fee to join Seletar Country Club, then I could do my sailing. This, Sir, was very disappointing.

I urge the Ministry to open up the reservoirs to the public - truly open to the public - not just to a select few. I urge the Ministry to please make it a condition that when the reservoir is open to an operator, the facilities must be open to the public, not just to a few members.

Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) Reading

Mr Chairman, Sir, the NEA currently

publishes the overall daily PSI value which effectively shows the highest indices in accordance with the USEPA guidelines for PSI reporting. Since 14th February 2005, the agency had also implemented a system of publishing the PSI reading categorised into the five major regions in Singapore over the same period. The recent spate of bush fires in Singapore from the hot weather had exposed an inadequacy in the PSI information dispensed by the agency.

Our suggestion: could NEA consider putting in place a system which allows the indication of the time of day where the highest PSI value is registered? Such information could serve as an advisory alert, allowing Singaporeans to make an informed choice on the time of day where they may like to conduct their outdoor activities. This information will certainly hold more practical value than a tabulated presentation of the PSI by regions within Singapore.

To further refine the proposal, NEA may even adopt a farsighted and proactive approach by issuing an hourly PSI automatically, without prompting, when the situation demands. For example, during times of local and regional blazes. If the cost is minimal, such an hourly update might even become the daily norm. Such a mechanism is apparently feasible as seen during the times when an hourly update of the PSI was released in view of the haze emitted from the Indonesian fires which had periodically and severely enveloped the region in recent years.

Distinction of the seriousness of the haze problem should not be dependent on whether it is of a local or foreign origin. As such, the measures taken to inform the public should universally be applied to all situations.

Sir, first, I would like to thank Dr Amy Khor, our new GPC Chairman and other Members for the various suggestions and questions. Sir, today, being the International Women's Day, may I take this opportunity to wish all the women folk in Singapore a better future.

Sir, indeed, my Ministry is committed towards continuing to build on past successes to further improve the management of Singapore's environment and water resources.

Sir, Dr Amy Khor and several other MPs have alluded to how Singapore has progressed in terms of our environment. Indeed, we have done well as a nation. Just take a look at the Singapore River from the Members' Room. Looking back over 40 years of nation building, our environmental achievements to date are no mean feat. Today, Singapore is 100% sewered, with all used water collected and treated. Proper waste management facilities and systems have been put in place. Singapore is recognised by the World Health Organisation as being free from malaria. Sir, we are indeed clean and green.

Sir, we could not have done all this alone. Over the years, many groups and civic-minded individuals have worked hand-in-hand with us and other Government agencies to engender pride in our environment, and promote the message of keeping our environment clean. Through these meticulous, collective and continuous efforts, our environment became and, has remained, a key factor in making Singapore an attractive place to live, work and play.

Mr Chairman, sometimes, being away from Singapore makes one appreciate more of what we have going here. In a letter to the Business Times in December last year, one Ms Vanessa Ng, now living

in a small town about 90 minutes outside London, wrote about the little things that she missed. Two things worthy of mention today. She missed having her rubbish collected daily. Where she now lives, her rubbish is collected once in two weeks. Once she missed the collection day, she had to tolerate the smell and flies for a month. She also misses the neighbourhood wet market. She has to travel miles to a supermarket to get her marketing done, but there she cannot get meat cut to the size she wants, or fish which are cleaned and scaled so that she can cook it readily. Sir, she misses the efficiency, service and convenience that we have here in Singapore.

But, having said all that, Sir, I think we all agree that we must not rest on our laurels. Having reached the base camp of environmental performance, we must now continue to push towards environmental sustainability as our next peak. Going beyond just keeping Singapore clean when we are reminded to, we want every Singaporean to feel for, and care for, our environment. This is not beyond us. In fact, this behaviour is already of 'export quality'. Indeed, I have been told by the Saudi authorities that Singaporeans are the cleanest lot there. Our Haj pilgrims never fail to bag their rubbish and dispose of them at the right places.

Sir, last year, we released the first Clean Card to inform the public about how our environment is faring and what more we could do to make it even better. Sir, we have just updated the Clean Card and we would make this available to all schools, public libraries and community clubs. Sir, we have also put together Singapore's first State of the Environment report, and I hope Members have the chance to go through it. Sir, this report is a handy, yet comprehensive, account of Singapore's environmental challenges, strategies and performance towards environmental sustainability. Sir, allow me to highlight a few key achievements.

Sir, all households continue to enjoy daily refuse collection services, now provided entirely by private companies appointed by the NEA. Last year, Sir, we incinerated 2.26 million tonnes of rubbish. On a daily basis, this works out to 6,200 tonnes of rubbish or 880 truck-loads of refuse every day. But the good news, Sir, is that the amount of waste we are incinerating is declining, from 2.31 million tonnes in 2003 to 2.26 million tonnes last year. The overall recycling rate, as noted by Dr Khor, is up. It now stands at 48% - not 47% as she cited - up from 40% in 2000. Sir, we are seeing greater participation from schools, up from 30% in 2003 to 50% in 2004; from households, up from 45% in 2003 to 54% in 2004; and condominiums, up from 20% in 2003 to 34% in January this year.

All 21 JTC flatted factory industrial estates in Singapore now have a waste recycling programme. NEA is working on extending the collective recycling system to other smaller factories and workshops. In all, these efforts have helped cut down on the waste going to our landfill and extend the Semakau landfill's expected lifespan by another 10 years to 2040. So going forward, we are targeting for 80% of our schools to have recycling programmes by the end of this year, up from the current 50%. We are also piloting a regional recycling scheme to serve clusters of private condominiums and apartments to encourage even more people to recycle their waste.

Sir, more restaurants and foodstalls have attained the "A" grade. Foodcourt management have also been playing a more active role in getting their stallholders to attain and maintain the "A" grade. We now have 52 foodcourts on the "Straight As" list, up from the 39 in 2003.

Sir, the air we breathe is clean. Going by the Pollutant Standards Index, or PSI, our air quality was in the 'Good' range for 88% of days last year. The remaining days were in the 'Moderate' range. We are well within the international standards in controlling most of the air pollutants. However, like many other urban cities, we have yet to meet the PM2.5 standards. Introducing the Euro IV standards next year would help us address this issue.

Sir, Mr Steve Chia suggested that we introduce an hourly PSI reading and indicate the time of day when the highest PSI reading is taken. Sir, I would like to inform Mr Chia and the House that NEA already has a system for reporting PSI readings hourly. This system is activated automatically when the daily 24-hour PSI reading exceeds 65, which is when the hazy conditions become perceptible over prolonged periods of the day. For example, when PSI hit 66 in June of last year, the reporting of the PSI readings at hourly intervals was automatically activated. The daily PSI readings already take into consideration the highest pollutant reading within the 24-hour period.

Sir, although PSI readings have crossed into the "moderate" air quality range during the recent dry spell, as a result of some localised bush fires, the highest daily PSI reading during this dry spell was only 56. Sir, NEA will continue to monitor the situation and initiate the reporting of PSI readings at hourly intervals when the daily 24-hour PSI reading exceeds 65.

Sir, Dr Ong asked whether we have enough water in future and whether our taps will ever run dry. Sir, I would like to assure him and the House that we have, and will continue to have, an adequate supply of water for all our needs. Sir, our programme to increase our local water

sources is on track. Allow me to elaborate, Sir.

Sir, the yield from our existing reservoirs will be increased with the completion of the Reservoir Integration Scheme in mid-2006. By 2009, our local catchment area will increase from half to two-thirds of Singapore's land surface with the completion of other reservoir schemes, including the Marina Reservoir. It means that all of us by then will be living in a reservoir.

Dr Ong also asked what we are doing to ensure that water in the future Marina Reservoir is kept clean. Sir, with the availability of advanced water treatment technology, the quality of water in the Marina Reservoir is less of a concern. Nonetheless, we would want to keep the water clean and aesthetic so that Singaporeans could also enjoy and participate in recreational activities in the waters. A multi-agency steering committee has been formed to help ensure this, for example, by ensuring that proper pollution control and safety measures are undertaken for activities such as non-motorised boating, water taxis, duck tours and river cruises.

Sir, our third tap - NEWater - has been turned on since 2003, and we now have three NEWater plants with a total supply of 20 mgd (million gallons per day) of NEWater. Another plant in Ulu Pandan is on the way and when completed in 2006 would be our largest plant, with a capacity of 25 mgd of NEWater. Sir, our target is to increase the direct non-potable use of NEWater to 55 mgd or 15% of total Singapore's water demand by 2011.

Sir, our fourth tap, which is desalinated water, is set to come on stream this year. So, with these diversified sources in place, we have sufficient capacity to make up for the loss of the water supply under the 1961 Agreement, and are well-placed to meet our future water needs.

Sir, if need be, Singapore can be self-sufficient beyond 2061.

Sir, an integral part of the water loop is the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS). This system allows us to channel used water to what we now call Water Reclamation Plants, and then on to NEWater factories, thus allowing us to "close the water loop". Prof. Low was concerned that the possible introduction of foreign materials into the deep tunnel sewers could pose a potential security risk in the production of NEWater. Sir, let me take this opportunity to allay his fears.

Sir, as the 48 km deep tunnel is an extension of the existing 3,100 km gravity sewers, the potential risks are no different from the current risk. Due to the greater dilution effect of the deep sewers, a large amount, and continuous dosage, of contaminants would be needed to affect the downstream process. Sir, even if contaminants get in, the used water would first be treated by the PUB to international standards, before the effluent is discharged or used as feedstock in our NEWater factories. The NEWater process itself is also very stringent, where all contaminants are removed through a three-stage process. As a further safeguard, a comprehensive online monitoring system ensures that the NEWater supplied for use is always of high quality, meeting the World Health Organisation's and US Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water guidelines and standards.

Such comprehensive measures ensure that our NEWater supply meets the high standards of water quality and will be free of contaminants.

2.45 pm

Sir, let me now move on to greater community involvement raised both by Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Phua. I agree with them that we must continue to build on

our existing partnerships and strengthening it further. To this end, civic and community groups play an important part in helping to foster shared ownership of our environment. Indeed, I am happy to see that there have been more community-driven efforts that promote a greater sense of personal and shared responsibilities towards our environment.

The "Make Singapore Sparkle" Programme that Mdm Phua mentioned encourages residents to keep the environment and public toilets clean. Last year, South-West CDC, under the able leadership of Dr Khor, jointly organised the Clean and Green Week launch event with NEA, making it the first community group to do so. Recently, both the North-East and South-East CDCs have also organised dengue prevention workshops in their respective districts. The strong support of our community groups has given good results in some areas. For example, greater participation in recycling has contributed towards a drop in the amount of waste disposed. We hope that we could also reap similar benefits in our joint battle against the dengue scourge.

The community's efforts are also important in helping us close the water loop. Conserving water and caring for our waterways and water catchments require the cooperation of all. On a per capita domestic basis, our water consumption has dropped from 165 litres per day in previous years to 162 litres per day in 2004. This is good but we can do better. Our target is to reduce this to 160 litres per day by 2007.

Sir, this target is achievable if each of us takes ownership of our water consumption and adopts water conservation habits. Some 190,000 households in 54 constituencies have made a start by installing water saving devices in their homes under the Water Efficient Homes programme. They have seen savings of up to 5% in their monthly water

consumption. About 500 building owners have also achieved similar water savings under the Water Efficient Buildings programme. PUB intends to reach out to another 120,000 households and 200 building owners this year.

Our interest groups and NGOs have also been active in helping to engage the community. For example, the Restroom Association of Singapore has launched the "Happy Toilet" rating scheme to encourage building management to achieve high standard of cleanliness for their public toilets.

Sir, another commendable example is the Waterways Watch Society (WWS). On a Sunday morning last month, they took me on their small patrol boat up and down the Singapore River, and showed me how they picked up flotsam and other rubbish in the water. They have been doing so almost every Sunday in the Kallang Basin and Singapore River area. The WWS also gives presentations to schools and conducts beach clean ups to reach out to more people and cultivate the spirit of "keeping our waterways clean".

My Ministry will continue therefore to work closely with the CDCs, Town Councils and CCCs to sustain various public outreach efforts, such as the Rat Attack, Mozzie Attack and other community programmes initiated under the banner of the Singapore's OK campaign. We are quite comfortable with the current structure. We do not see the need for us to put everything together. But, certainly, where there are synergies to collaborate and to streamline, we will do so.

Sir, in support of the CDCs and CCCs in these efforts, we will provide appropriate funding support, which could amount to $250,000 for all the CDCs and another $420,000 for all the CCCs. In

addition, over the next twelve months, PUB will provide $1 million towards its 3P - or people, public, private sectors - partnership programmes to engage more Singaporeans to appreciate, value and take ownership of our water resources. This is on top of the existing $1 million 3P Partnership fund that NEA has set aside to help support the various 3P initiatives.

My Ministry continues to involve interest groups through various environmental events and activities, such as the Environmental Education Advisors Workshops and Clean and Green Week activities. NEA is currently working with the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) and CASE on increasing public awareness on the Energy Efficiency Labelling scheme for air-conditioners and refrigerators. Dr Khor has asked a question on energy labelling. With your permission, Sir, I will take it up when I speak on the energy efficient cut.

Besides collective community efforts, we want people to feel that they have a personal stake in keeping the environment clean and beautiful. To this end, we will create more opportunities for the community to enjoy and appreciate our environment and water resources. This is reflected in PUB's new tagline "Water For All: Conserve, Value, Enjoy", which sums up our new approach in encouraging Singaporeans to build a closer relationship with water and, in so doing, learn to appreciate and treasure this precious resource.

Sir, we have taken a cautious but proactive approach in our efforts to open up the reservoirs for more recreational activities. As a start, we have encouraged mainly organised groups, like schools, the national sports associations and clubs, to conduct their training and events in our reservoirs. Moving forward, and as these prove successful, we intend to progressively introduce more recreational activities in our reservoirs and encourage

more groups of people to participate in these activities.

Members in the House and Prof. Png may be pleased to note that there are plans to open up facilities for walk-in members of the public. For example, the PUB is working with the Singapore Canoe Federation to start a kayaking centre in MacRitchie Reservoir. The centre, expected to be launched later this month, will not only cater to school and national training but will offer rental of kayaks for members of the public, including Prof. Png and his family. As we anticipate a high level of interest from the public, there are plans to open similar centres for kayaking and sailing at other reservoirs, such as Bedok Reservoir.

Prof. Png mentioned that we should ensure that the opening up of the reservoirs benefit the general public and not only exclusive groups. I agree with him and I would like to reassure him that this has always been our intention.

Let me just explain the case of the Seletar Country Club. In the case of the Seletar Country Club, the PUB has imposed a condition that the sailing and kayaking facilities put in place and operated by the Club will be made available for organised groups of the public. Instead of individuals, we think we should open up to organised groups, because these are clubs and therefore they can organise it better that way. Hence, there is no need to join the Club to enjoy the facilities. Members should come as a group. The PUB can facilitate members to enjoy the waters in the Lower Seletar Reservoir.

Let me cite an example, Sir. In the recent Speed Crossing event, which was jointly organised by the Seletar Country Club and the Boardsailing Association of Singapore, more than 100 local and regional windsurfers, most of them in their early teens, took part in a race across the Lower Seletar Reservoir.

In fact, we have been very encouraged by the interest and positive support shown by the public for our initiative to open up the reservoirs. In a public consultation last year, about 80% of the 2,000-plus public feedback supported PUB's proposed plans to open up the Bedok and MacRitchie Reservoirs for more recreational activities. But we have to be mindful that as we open up the reservoirs, we should be concerned that the reservoirs have their own unique characteristics. So the PUB has formed the Water Network comprising members from the 3P sectors to serve as a sounding board to ensure that the activities introduced would keep to the unique character of the reservoir. So for reservoirs like MacRitchie where residents and visitors prefer the serenity and quiet surroundings, activities would be more subdued, such as fishing and canoeing, in keeping with the character of the place. In contrast, more active recreational activities like wakeboarding and dragon boating would be introduced in the more urban reservoirs such as Bedok.

Besides the reservoirs, we are also looking at opening up the Pulau Semakau landfill, which SPS Mr Yatiman Yusof has described so vividly. Many people picture a landfill as a dirty and smelly place. This is not the case with the Semakau landfill. In fact, if Members are interested, we could organise for them a trip to the landfill one day. Semakau landfill today has a pleasant environment as a result of environmental and conservation measures taken by the NEA. For example, the mangroves on Pulau Semakau were conserved while new mangroves were planted to replace those affected by the construction of the landfill. Biodiversity surveys conducted on the island also revealed a rich variety of flora and fauna. These include a species of seagrass found nowhere else in Singapore and rare birds such as the Great-billed Heron.

However, as there are ongoing landfill operations on the island, opening up the landfill for recreational activities must be done in a gradual manner. So I urge SPS Mr Yatiman to be patient. Currently, students have been visiting Semakau landfill under MOE's Learning Journey Programme. Grassroots organisations have also organised visits to the landfill for their residents during the Clean and Green Week campaign.

NEA has approached various interest groups while exploring the possibility of opening up Semakau landfill for more recreational activities. So far, Wild Singapore has expressed interest in conducting biodiversity surveys on Semakau; Nature Society for bird-watching; and the Sport Fishing Association of Singapore for sport fishing. NEA will be putting in place the necessary amenities to support these activities. We can expect the first groups to commence their activities on the island in the second quarter of this year.

Sir, both Dr Khor and Mdm Phua have asked how do we engage the community, especially the young. Our young are naturally passionate about the environment. I found this out during a recent dialogue which I had with some young people. Several of them were enthusiastic about having more opportunities to engage on environmental issues.

Sir, if we can foster a sustained interest in environmental volunteerism in our young, we would have laid a good foundation for a generation of Singaporeans who are more conscious and engaged towards our environment. My Ministry has put in place a variety of programmes and activities to involve students on environmental issues. The NEA has begun to build up a network of environmental champions among students to reach out to their peers. To date, NEA

has trained some 470 student champions from 82 primary and 58 secondary schools. Some of them have begun to give environmental talks in their schools to encourage fellow students to adopt good environmental practices.

In addition, we hope to see every school having a club that organises environmental activities. Such clubs could be dedicated Environment Clubs, or as part of other clubs such as Science or Geography Clubs. Currently, 25% of schools have Environment Clubs while another 65% have clubs with environmental activities. NEA will similarly support Environment Clubs in schools through the 3P Partnership Fund when they organise environmental activities for students.

NEA is also now working with the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre to develop more environment-related Community Involvement Programme (CIP) projects for students in primary and secondary schools. Such projects will commence from the third quarter of 2005.

Sir, we also launched the Adopt-A-School scheme where schools are matched with private companies to work together on environmental projects. To date, 43 schools have been matched with companies. For example, Dunman Secondary School and Singapore Airlines Limited teamed up to build roof gardens to reduce the temperature of upper floor classrooms in the school. NEA will work towards matching more schools with private companies this year.

Sir, we will also be consulting the public this year on the review of the Singapore Green Plan 2012 targets and programmes. The review will commence in the second quarter and the revised targets and programmes will be launched in the later part of this year. This is in line with the earlier announced plan of a three-

yearly review of the Singapore Green Plan 2012 targets since its launch in 2002.

In this review, we will involve representatives from the people, private and public sectors. We will organise three focus groups in March. We will set up an on-line channel to solicit the public's feedback, and we will have a public exhibition to highlight the achievements so far and what are the new directions and priorities going forward.

3.00 pm

Sir, let me turn to the section on the economic opportunities. The environment sector has been traditionally viewed as a spender of public monies. However, with increasing emphasis

on the need for good environmental management globally and in the region, we are well poised to take advantage of our good environmental track record to grow our environmental services industry as a source of revenue and jobs.

Both Dr Khor and Mr Othman have asked about the Ministry's efforts in manpower training and job redesign for the environmental sector. Sir, for many years, many jobs in the environment industry sector have been low-paying and carried a poor image. As a result, the number of Singaporeans employed in this sector is small, accounting for only about 0.4% of the total Singaporean workforce.

Together with the Town Councils, the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and environment companies, my Ministry has started to upgrade and redesign jobs in conservancy cleaning, waste collection, hawker centre cleaning, street cleaning and waste recycling. The job redesign changes may include introducing greater mechanisation, performance-based contracts, work scope enlargement and flexible working hours. This will improve the image of the job and attract more Singaporeans.

Sir, Mr Othman has asked about the "1000 by 1000" initiative. Under this initiative, the environment companies, NEA, WDA and CDC worked together to create and match 1,000 jobs paying more than $1,000 a month within 18 months, from October 2003 to March 2005. I am pleased to inform the House that, at end-February, NEA and our partners have successfully matched 958 workers with jobs paying more than $1,000 a month for Singaporean workers. We have about a month to go, but we are confident that we will be able to meet the target.

Mr Othman also asked whether we have learned anything useful. We have learnt two lessons. Firstly, Singaporean workers, including the more mature workers, are capable of taking on redesigned jobs with appropriate training. To this end, environment companies, together with NEA and WDA, have developed skill standards under the National Skills Recognition System (NSRS) and trained workers to attain NSRS certification. Sir, in addition, cleaning and waste collection contracts called by NEA specify that a certain proportion of workers need to be NSRS-certified. Town councils and private companies were also encouraged to employ workers with NSRS certification and to adopt performance-based contracts. All these have helped to encourage workers to upgrade their skills to qualify for higher paying jobs.

Sir, the second lesson is that a conscious effort has to be made to raise the image and improve the working environment for the workers. For example, workers doing redesigned cleaning jobs in hawker centres are provided with uniforms, meal coupons and proper rest areas.

Sir, where do we go from here? My Ministry, with our 3P partners, will focus our efforts on raising the competency and

enhancing the employability of the environment workforce through education and training.

Dr Amy Khor has asked what plans and initiatives we have to help develop our environmental industry. I am happy to report that, through the involvement of the private sector in environment and water management over the years, we have facilitated the development of a vibrant and dynamic environmental industry in Singapore today. For example, refuse collection, recycling and public cleansing services are now carried out almost completely by the private sector. My Ministry, in collaboration with EDB and IE Singapore, will continue to build upon our initial success to further help our local environment companies strengthen their expertise and grow their business. For example, we are exploring other ways to involve the private sector, for example, through public-private partnership (PPP) schemes. In the area of water supply, through the Design-Build-Own-Operate (DBOO) contract arrangements, SingSpring will provide desalinated water over 20 years from the later part of 2005. Also, Ulu Pandan NEWater factory which will be our fourth and largest, to be owned and operated by Keppel, in Singapore when it turns operational in 2006. In addition, we will be calling a DBOO tender for the fifth refuse incineration plant soon.

Sir, apart from collaborating with environment companies within Singapore, my Ministry is also working with the industry to venture out to the region. Last year, the former Environment Minister Lim Swee Say had led a trade mission to China, and I led a trade mission to UAE and Qatar. We plan to do so again this year, as it has provided good opportunities for our companies to expand overseas.

Sir, to help Singapore environment companies acquire a technological edge when they compete in overseas markets, we have been providing seed funding for innovative environmental projects under the $20-million Innovation for Environmental Sustainability Fund, set up in 2001. In addition, under the joint Environmental Test-bedding Initiative with EDB, we allow environment companies to use our facilities and resources to test-bed their technologies. One company that has benefited from both funding and test-bedding support is local SME, Aromatrix Technologies Pte Ltd, whose patented odour control technology for wastewater treatment is one of only a few available on the global market today.

Sir, 2005 will be a watershed year for Singapore, in terms of environmental and water conferences and events. At least three major international environmental and water conferences will be held here this year, namely, the first International Water Association-Asia Pacific Regional Group (IWA-ASPIRE) Conference in July, the International Desalination Association (IDA) World Congress in September, and the World Hydrogen Technologies Convention in October. In addition, my Ministry, NEA and PUB are also working with the industry associations on their trade events, such as EnviroAsia 2005 and Environmex/Watermex Asia 2005. All this is to create platforms for our companies to meet, network and, hopefully, to profit from such arrangements.

Sir, for the water industry, which was also asked by Dr Ong, we have established WaterHub to link up our local water and waste water companies to international water networks and global markets. We also have regular dialogues with the recently-formed Singapore Water Association to better understand the needs of the water industry and gather feedback on how the Government can play a role in facilitating development in the industry.

Sir, let me address the specific concern by Dr Khor on newspaper vendors. When the street hawkers were resited to hawker centres in the 1980s, some street hawkers whose trades were not compatible with those in the hawker centres were allowed to operate in the streets. In 1994, street hawkers were licensed in a one-time exercise to control their numbers and no more licences were issued after that. The intention was to phase out these street hawkers through natural attrition and allow such trades to move into proper premises. In 2000, the trade hawking scheme was reopened to allow itinerant ice-cream vendors to operate in the town council estates and parks. In August 2004, the scheme was extended to allow non-easily perishable food, like sealed packed food, nuts, and others, to help those in financial difficulties.

Dr Khor has suggested that NEA consider allowing new newspaper vendors under the Street Hawking Scheme. While allowing more newspaper vendors will not pose a public health problem, there are other considerations, such as inconvenience to the public, for example, obstruction to pedestrians or even vehicular traffic on crowded pavements and roads, as well as unfair competition to the shopkeepers that we have to bear in mind. But we will review the scheme and consult the relevant agencies, including our town councils.

Sir, in conclusion, Singapore will continue to face its own unique challenges in balancing both our economic and social progress while achieving environmental sustainability. However, we are determined to ensure that all who live in Singapore continue to enjoy a quality environment conducive for work and play, by working in partnership with the joint owners of the environment, mainly the local communities and the businesses who operate here. Together, we can

achieve a sustainable Singapore for our children and children's children.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his good news. I am so excited that I am almost rushing to get my T-shirt, pants and sunglasses to launch into the kayak. Certainly, I applaud the Ministry's efforts in reducing our solid waste. Here, I have a suggestion which is to address a particular problem in Singapore, maybe peculiar to Singapore and I think Hong Kong as well. When my wife and I first bought our condominium, it was a new condominium, we were like many other home owners in Singapore interested in customising the unit. So I told the condominium developer, "Don't put in the floor because I am going to put in a new floor." The condominium developer said, "No. We will put in the floor. You come in, you take out the floor and throw it away and then put in your new floor."

Sir, this is a problem that perhaps his Ministry and the Ministry of National Development - I am very glad to see the Second Minister for National Development sitting right there - get together and arrange with the developers to say, "Give your buyers an option. If they don't want certain fittings, let them have an option not to have the fittings." In fact, we did not even ask them for a discount. We just said that to save on the environmental resources and to reduce construction waste, give the buyers the option not to have the fittings, give them a menu and say, "Tick off what things you want", and install them; those things they do not want, do not install. I think this is a win-win situation. I do hope the two Ministries can get together to do this. If he can do this - construction waste is a very large part of our solid waste - I am sure he will be that much closer to meeting his goal before time.

Sir, I thank Prof. Png for his creative

suggestion. I agree with him that we should find ways and means to help. In fact, our construction waste, ie, recycling waste, is one of the highest. But I agree with him that there is scope for us to do more. I will pass the suggestion to the Ministry of National Development, and we can work together on this.

I want to seek clarification on the newspaper vendors. As the Minister may recall, during the Presidential debate, I had raised this issue. And in that particular case, my resident was asking to take over an existing licence. So the explanation that it might inconvenience people does not really apply in that case because it is an existing licence. It is just that he was not allowed to take over. What that really suggests is that there is a policy reason behind it. I would urge the Ministry to consider issuing more licences.

Sir, as we mentioned in the reply, we want to try and move some of the street hawkers of the streets into customised places where they can sell newspapers. But, at the same time, those who are holding newspaper licences are allowed to renew it on a year-to-year basis. In the specific case she mentioned, the licensee has asked for the licence to be transferred to another person. These are instances in which we have to look at it very carefully as to whether or not we want to allow the industry to grow or to keep it to a certain size. But I would look into the specific request and see whether a special case can be made. But having said that, we must bear in mind that we do not want it to grow unwittingly because we want to make sure that the newspapers which are being sold in the shops and supermarkets are not, in a sense, threatened by the street vendors.

Sir, just a point of clarification on the newspaper vendors again. The cases I am referring to are all transferred. Actually, they are not supposed to be transferred. But many of the original licensees are not operating the stalls anymore because they are either getting on in age or they do not want to operate since they were given in 1994. So many of the operators are actually not supposed to be operating them. Occasionally, when they were caught, they would come and appeal to us. The licence cannot be transferred. On the other hand, there are no new licences issued, and they have been making a living out of these stalls for a while. So these are really the cases. The other issue is that we can work with the town councils to identify areas or potential locations, where these vendors could be located and that may not pose any competition, as some are selling along the streets, and every evening, you will see a long queue of people buying the Wanbao.

Sir, on Dr Khor's second suggestion, we can look into that to see how we can work together with the local agency. On the first point, we have to bear in mind that certainly, in some cases, these are licences held by the parents, whose children would have grown up and chances are that they probably would not be interested. Dr Khor and I are familiar that some of these transfers came into effect without us knowing it, and therefore we have to clamp down. I understand the concerns of Dr Khor and Ms Indranee Rajah, and I promise both Members that we will take a look at this much closely.

Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.14 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head L (cont.) -

Prof. Low Seow Chay. Two cuts, total six minutes.

Sir, could I take the two cuts together?

Yes, please.

Kyoto Protocol

Sir, in my speech during the debate on the President's Address, I spoke at length on greenhouse gas, challenging the Government in its ability to mitigate greenhouse gas emission. Subsequently, I read from the newspapers which reported that the Ministry in the past many years has reduced the greenhouse gas by more than 20%. Sir, this figure is laudable. But, in my view, if no further aggressive action is to be taken from now, we will fail quite miserably in our action in helping the prevention of global warming.

The GDP growth and the lifestyle change have already pushed energy consumption up by 125%. The projected quantum by 2010, ie, the excess in terms of electricity consumption compared with 1990, will be 195%. Taking into consideration the improvement of efficiency of maybe about 10%, and then shifting from the conventional heavy

diesel to natural gas for power generation, it may save greenhouse gas by another 20%, if electricity consumption constitutes about half of the total energy consumption. Just from the increase in terms of the electricity consumption from 1990 to 2010, the net contribution of additional greenhouse gas from Singapore will be 56%.

Another half of the consumption will be from automobile energy consumption. By year 2010, the vehicle population is estimated to be 42% higher than that in 1990. Again, if nothing is done, and efficiency improves by 10%, the increase in the vehicle population again will contribute another additional 19% to the growth in greenhouse gas between 1990 and 2010. In short, by 2010, these major energy sources would have contributed about 75% more in terms of greenhouse gas emission, compared with the level in 1990.

If we really want to be a player in advocating for the reduction of greenhouse gas and try our best to be a part in saving Planet Earth and also act as a responsible citizen, we must have some aggressive feasible plans.

Take Japan as an example. Before the World Climate Change Summit held in Kyoto in 1997, Japan had already achieved its aggressive plan in shifting many of their conventional power generation from fossil fuel to nuclear power. They went aggressively for voluntary industrial reduction of energy, use of newer energy sources, energy conservation, product efficiency, and they are also taking steps in the use of renewable energy in a very aggressive growth of more than 30% per annum. Of course, they are also planting more trees to absorb the carbon dioxide. By doing so, they are able to achieve the intended level of 0.4% below the target set. The next technology which it is likely to be implemented will be the fossils of CO2.

They are talking about forming carbonate salt or pumping CO2 200 metres below sea level.

Sir, in Singapore, I do not advocate nuclear power. There are other possible means for us to curb the ever increasing greenhouse gas emission. Some of the Japanese measures will be good examples for us as reference. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we shall come up with an aggressive plan that clearly charts out the map, helping Singapore to play a constructive role in the mitigation of greenhouse gas.

Green Vehicles

The next topic I would like to touch on is green vehicles. We talked about the issue of environment-friendly vehicles in this House many years ago, since the time when Dr Ahmad Mattar was the Minister for the Environment. We know that the current Minister is the fourth Minister who succeeded him after his retirement. Yet, we do not see much progress in the area of environment-friendly vehicles. Years ago, I heard about Volkswagen, Volvo and other car companies bringing in diesel-electric hybrid cars. And last year, I was disappointed to read in the newspapers that one of the car companies said that it had stopped marketing green vehicles because there was no demand. I also heard that there was a pilot programme to build a CNG filling station and also to run some CNG buses and taxis in 2001 and 2002. After that, it was all quiet. My feeling is that the programme must have been scrapped. I would like to ask: what is wrong about the environment-friendly vehicles? Why is it so difficult to get them running on our roads? For all new emerging technologies, the sales volume is low and the price high. There is no way for such vehicles, which are good for health but bad for the pockets, to be in popular demand, without the tax benefits

from the Government. The Government must weigh the potential savings from a cleaner environment against the loss of some tax revenue, and work out some tax benefits to encourage people to shift towards environment-friendly vehicles. Without the Government's will in the implementation of green vehicle ---

Prof. Low, your time is up. Dr Geh Min.

Energy Efficient Vehicles

Sir, I agree with the Minister that our environmental achievements are very impressive. But I also agree with Prof. Low that, despite our clean and green image, Singapore has been lagging behind in the introduction of energy-efficient vehicles. I do not have the same historical perspective in the House like he has but I feel that this anomaly should be corrected as soon as possible.

Energy-efficient vehicles, such as petro-electric hybrids which produce less pollution and consume less fuel than conventional vehicles, are ideal for urban driving conditions like Singapore. They also have a better fuel economy rating for urban driving than for expressway driving - the opposite of a conventional vehicle. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the present costs are substantially more than conventional vehicles of the same engine capacity, and the current rebates are just not enough to make them cost-effective. So, this results in a chicken-and-egg situation. We have prohibitive prices that result in insufficient demand to make them cost-effective, and this insufficient demand then compounds the problem and keeps the prices high. Because of our relatively small domestic market and our taxation on cars, only Government can break this deadlock.

Since the high vehicular tax is designed to provide us with an efficient

world-class transport system and is also designed to keep our air quality good - at least this is how I perceive it, and I am sure it is not there just to increase our tax revenue - it appears paradoxical to me that this tax should be preventing, rather than promoting, the increased use of green vehicles in Singapore.

I would therefore like to ask the Government to reduce the price difference to a realistic level by providing tax incentives, more realistic tax rebates, or even creating a special COE category for green vehicles which meet the minimum criteria of energy efficiency. This, of course, does not mean a tax subsidy, but just a lower rate of taxation to give the use of energy-efficient vehicles that kick-start that it needs at the beginning. Of course, this could subsequently be moderated as more green cars take to the road and prices naturally equalise. I believe the same formula was used to promote unleaded petrol, and that worked very well.

3.45 pm

Let me now quote from the latest Technology Quarterly of the Economist:

"The success of the Prius has taken Toyota by surprise. The average rate at the American dealership is currently six months. [Some people in the US tell me that it is much longer than that.] Even though the company increased its sale target for North America from its initial estimate of 36,000 units to 47,000 units last year [ie, an increase of 30%] to meet demand, Toyota had to announce a further increase, saying it would push monthly global production up this year by 50% and double its allotment."

This success is not surprising when one considers that by choosing to drive a hybrid like Prius, buyers can demonstrate how green they are without paying any penalty other than a slightly higher purchase price. Compared with the New American car of the same size, the Prius

consumes roughly half as much petrol and, therefore, emits half as much climate changing carbon dioxide. Moreover, its emission of smog/fog pollutants are 90% lower than conventional vehicles. Yet, it still manages to deliver the comfort and performance of a conventional car. This is borne out by people I know who have test-driven it.

As the success of the Prius in the US shows, people will buy hybrids, even in the gas-guzzling culture like the US, if the price is affordable. The beauty of the Prius electric hybrids is that they do not require any changes in driving behaviour or the fuel delivery infrastructure, like, for example, hydrogen fuels in our cars. So why are we waiting?

Let me state here that I do not have any vested interest in Toyota or any other car companies, but I do have a vested interest in maintaining our environment, in keeping it healthy and sustainable. And I would also like to see Singapore reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

I know we have been improving on our performance, but our carbon dioxide emissions are still amongst the highest per capita in the world. I know that Singapore does not just want to be average or slightly better than average. We want to be really outstanding, and I think we can be.

So if we are genuine in our desire to be clean and green, we must seriously consider the option of affordable energy-efficient vehicles. The Prime Minister, in his Budget Statement, spoke of support for projects which protect or improve our environment. Tax incentives for energy-efficient vehicles would definitely fulfil this criterion.

Diesel Engine Cars

Sir, the Minister for the

Environment announced in last year's COS debate that ENV had decided to promote CNG and Euro IV diesel vehicles.

By October 2006, it is envisaged that all diesel vehicles should comply with the Euro IV diesel emission standards. The Euro IV emission standard is applied to passenger cars in Europe. Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles are required to conform and comply with the Euro IV diesel emission standards in 2005. No distinction is drawn between private passenger cars and passenger cars used for commercial purposes, eg, taxis.

In Singapore, private diesel cars attract six times the road tax of equivalent petrol-driven cars. No ARF exemption or tax incentives have been introduced for passenger-driven diesel cars. This is despite certain car makers producing diesel engines that meet with the Euro IV emission standards.

Modern diesel cars can no longer be regarded as dirty and noisy, with poorer performance characteristics. Diesel engines are the most fuel-efficient energy conversion devices in production today. This explains the continuing popularity of diesel-fuel passenger vehicles in Europe. Resulting advances in diesel engines have in recent years produced improvement in engine noise, vibration and harshness. Diesel-powered passenger cars are currently more expensive than petrol-driven cars for the same model and make. Should this still be the same?

People who wish to buy and own diesel-powered passenger cars ought to be allowed tax exemptions and incentives that are similar to commercial vehicles. Diesel-powered cars that meet the Euro IV emission standards are as environmentally-friendly as petrol-driven cars. People should be given more choices in their selection of cars.

In order for the alternative choices to be realistic, tax incentives and exemptions should be given to all diesel-powered engine cars and not just diesel-powered engine cars for commercial purposes.

Sir, both Prof. Low and Dr Geh Min have asked about our long-term plans to improve energy efficiency and carbon intensity, including our initiatives to encourage energy efficient vehicles.

Sir, let me just give some background information. Singapore has since 1997 ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is committed to becoming more carbon efficient. We welcome the Kyoto Protocol initiative, which translates the Convention into concrete actions. The Kyoto Protocol came into effect on 16th February 2005, following the ratification by Russia. We are currently studying the timing of our accession to the Kyoto Protocol.

Prof. Low can be assured that we believe in promoting energy efficiency as they benefit industries and Singaporeans. Being energy efficient not only lowers our carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution levels, it also lowers energy consumption and energy costs for both businesses and consumers. In the long run, this will help to strengthen the competitiveness of our economy.

Sir, it is for these reasons that Singapore developed a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change, with energy efficiency being a key component. As a sign of our commitment, we have set a national target to improve our carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon dioxide for each GDP dollar generated, by 25% from the 1990 levels by the year 2012. Singapore's carbon intensity has already improved by 17% between 1990 and 2003, and we target to improve it by a further 8% point by

2012 by focusing both on the energy-supply and energy-demand sides.

Sir, on the energy-supply side, electricity generation companies (or gencos) have adopted advanced technologies such as combined cycle and co-generation technologies, which harness both electricity and heat in the generation process. This will achieve greater efficiency compared to conventional oil-fired power plants. Gencos are also burning cleaner and less carbon-intensive fuels such as natural gas.

Sir, on the energy-demand side, we have introduced several energy efficiency improvement schemes to reduce energy use by industries, buildings and consumers. For the industry, companies that have put in place energy audits and energy conservation measures have already reaped benefits. For example, ST Microelectronics, as a result of its investment in energy saving equipment, has reduced electricity used to make a wafer by 40% while its production output has gone up by almost three times! We will be introducing a new Energy Efficiency Assistance Improvement Scheme with a $10 million fund, which companies can tap on to conduct energy audits.

Sir, in the case of buildings and housing estates, we have worked with our Town Councils and HDB to conduct energy audits for the common areas in HDB estates to cut down electricity wastage. We will be introducing a scheme later this year to give recognition to energy efficient buildings. I am pleased to inform the House that several public agencies will also take the lead by participating in a pilot project to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings through energy audits and performance contracting.

For consumers, we have introduced energy labels for air conditioners and

refrigerators to help buyers identify more efficient models. For example, using an air-conditioner with four ticks on the energy label can save a household about $300 a year on electricity bills compared to one with two-ticks. If consumers find such information useful - Dr Khor asked this earlier - we may even consider making labelling compulsory in the future.

Sir, now, let me move on to transportation, which I agree with Dr Geh Min that green vehicles generate many positive externalities for the environment. Not only are they more energy efficient and emit less carbon dioxide, they also emit less air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and particulate matter. To encourage the switch to green vehicles, the Government introduced a Green Vehicle Rebate (GVR) scheme in January 2001 equivalent to 20% of the Open Market Value (OMV). Unfortunately, the rebates have not been sufficiently attractive, and as a result of this and the general lack of awareness surrounding green vehicles, there are only 24 green vehicles registered under the GVR scheme to-date. The GVR scheme is up for review by end of this year. MEWR is currently reviewing the rebate with MOF to see how we can make it more attractive for environmentally-conscious people to purchase green vehicles.

But, Sir, at the end of the day, the decision to purchase a green vehicle is also a lifestyle choice. With growing awareness, better technology driving down costs, and more models available in the market, we hope that the take up rate of green vehicles will improve.

Sir, on the other hand, we know that there is an even more environmentally-friendly option and this would be public transport, as raised by Prof. Low. Besides being more fuel-efficient than private cars, they also offer an affordable solution for the public to move around.

As we know, CNG buses emit less air pollutants, especially fine particulate matter or PM2.5, than diesel buses. PM2.5, as I mentioned in my earlier speech, increases the risks of bronchitis and asthma, and may even lead to premature death. This is a key concern for Singapore. Today, our PM2.5 levels do not meet the standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). If nothing is done, our PM2.5 levels are projected to further increase in the future. So, we announced in April last year the introduction of Euro IV emission standards for new diesel vehicles from 1st October 2006 to lower our PM2.5 levels to USEPA standards. We expect to achieve these standards when about 80% of our diesel vehicles have moved to Euro IV. This can be accelerated if we have CNG or Euro IV vehicles on our roads early.

Sir, to encourage taxi and bus operators to switch early to Euro IV compliant vehicles, we also announced a tax incentive package for CNG and Euro IV taxis and buses. Under this package, CNG and Euro IV taxis can enjoy an ARF rebate of 100% OMV till 31st December 2005, and 80% from 1st January to 30th September 2006; while Euro IV diesel or CNG buses will be completely exempted from paying the Additional Registration Fee of 5% of the OMV till 30th September 2006. CNG buses and taxis also enjoy a 20% road tax rebate till 31st December 2005. These are some of the initiatives that we have put in place to encourage the switch so that we can control the PM2.5 levels in our air.

Sir, let me now move on to Mr Andy Gan's suggestion that the punitive road tax on diesel cars be removed. Although advances have been made in diesel engine technology, studies in Europe and the US have shown that diesel vehicles generally emit higher levels of PM2.5 and oxides of

nitrogen than petrol vehicles. Petrol vehicles emit negligible PM2.

5. In addition, unlike petrol vehicles, the emission performance of diesel vehicles is more dependent on whether and how the engines and pollution control devices are maintained. Therefore, we should continue to discourage the proliferation of diesel vehicles, especially diesel passenger cars.

4.00 pm

Sir, Dr Geh Min also suggested a separate COE category for green vehicles to be considered. Sir, we have consulted our colleagues at the Ministry of Transport and they do not think that it is appropriate for us to promote the use of green vehicles by having a separate COE category for them for the following reasons:

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

Second, according to MOT, it would be difficult for us to set a quota for such green vehicles. In fact, as with all vehicle categories, their growth annually would, therefore, be capped as a result. But if they do not have a separate COE category for the green vehicles, it would allow the pick up to increase freely in response to the demand, because they have become part of the total vehicle population.

So, Sir, in conclusion, by retaining our diesel road taxes and introducing the Euro IV standards for new diesel vehicles, we hope to bring down our PM2.5 levels to within the USEPA standards and make our ambient air cleaner for Singaporeans.

Smoking in Public Places

Mr Chairman, Sir, smoking should be banned in all enclosed

areas, including all pubs and certain areas in coffeeshops and hawker centres. We often have children, together with their parents, eating in the coffeeshops and hawker centres at one table, and a group of smokers puffing away at the next table. Invariably, the children and other non-smokers become passive smokers. If we take into consideration our older citizens, we should have a segregated smoking area in the coffeeshops and hawker centres.

According to one local study done in February this year, it was found that pubs which ban smoking would see a plausible decrease in patronage and affect their revenues. However, based on a one-year study done in New York in 2003, I am told the results are different. After the smoking ban, there was actually a surge in businesses as non-smokers could now go to the pubs and enjoy a pint of beer in a smoke-free environment.

One interim measure is to have a smokers' room in the pubs, as I have seen in Japan and Korea, where the rooms are isolated and installed with an effective exhaust system to extract the smoke.

More important is to educate our young on the harmful effects of smoking and debunk the image that smoking is associated with a successful businessman or woman, or that it is cool to be seen with a cigarette in hand. We have done well in our drug education for the young. I hope the Environment Ministry could learn from MHA on drug education for children. My daughter is in Primary 5 and she has done two projects on drugs, but not on smoking. Reach out to the young, and the results would be better and last longer.

Mr Chairman, like Mdm Cynthia Phua, I am concerned about smoking in public places and I would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry would

consider banning smoking in public places. Other countries have made moves in this direction and Singapore should as well.

Lung cancer is the No. 1 killer disease for men in Singapore. It is the No. 3 killer disease for women. The link between smoking and lung cancer is quite clear. The problem with smoking is that it does not just affect the smoker. The second-hand cigarette smoke puts non-smokers at risk as well. Smoking is a pernicious and insidious form of chemical poisoning. It kills more slowly than other chemical agents, but no less, surely. I would, therefore, urge the Minister to consider banning smoking in public places.

Sir, I thank both Mdm Phua and Ms Indranee Rajah for raising this very important issue.

Sir, the Government has always viewed smoking as a serious health issue. We have put in place measures to discourage smoking and protect non-smokers against the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

Sir, these measures have been effective in bringing down the proportion of smokers in the population. Currently, only 14% of our population are smokers, down from 18% in 1992. The decrease is particularly significant for males. Among males aged 18-69, the proportion of smokers has decreased from 33% to 24%. However, we see a worrying trend of young females picking up smoking. Over the same period, the proportion of smokers among females aged 18-24 almost tripled from 2.8% to 8.2%, in contrast to a reduction from 29% to 24% for males in the same age group! Sir, we must continue to act decisively against smoking and, in particular, make an extra effort to stop the young from picking up the habit. Mdm Phua's suggestion of working with the primary schools is a

good idea which I would ask NEA to look into.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has already announced an increase in excise duty on cigarettes to discourage smoking. In parallel, my Ministry is reviewing the ban on smoking in public places. The Government introduced the ban on smoking way back in 1970, initially in public buses, cinemas and theatres. This was progressively extended to many other public areas including lifts in 1973, amusement centres in 1982, fast-food outlets in 1988, air-conditioned restaurants in 1989, air-conditioned barber shops and hairdressing salons in 1992, air-conditioned workplaces in 1994, queues in public places in 1995, and air-conditioned shops in 1997. The reason I am reiterating this is to demonstrate that the Government has committed itself to increasingly protect non-smokers from the effects of second-hand smoke.

Sir, the ban on smoking was not always welcomed by smokers and businesses. Smokers were inconvenienced and businesses could be affected. But businesses adapted. The Government had to press on, because we know we have a duty to protect the health of our non-smokers.

Let me just elaborate here briefly. Sir, second-hand smoke is not something to be taken lightly. It has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified second-hand smoke as a "Group A" carcinogen, along with substances such as arsenic and asbestos. This classification is reserved for substances that are known to cause cancer in humans. In fact, second-hand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of over 4,000 chemical compounds, 200 of

which are known to be poisonous, and more than 50 have been identified as carcinogens.

People with allergies and asthma are particularly sensitive to second-hand smoke. It aggravates their medical condition. Even healthy people are not spared. Second-hand smoke can cause eye, nose and throat irritations, as well as headaches, nausea, coughing and wheezing.

Mdm Phua mentioned about the effects on children. Yes, second-hand smoke is especially harmful for babies and young children. Infants and young children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer chronic respiratory illnesses and impaired lung function as well as experience more frequent occurrences of chronic coughs, phlegm and wheezing.

The body of evidence on the health hazards posed by second-hand smoke is increasing. A 2002 landmark study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has concluded that there is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women, and 30% in men, who live with a smoker. The danger is higher in entertainment outlets. In fact, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association has shown that the level of second-hand smoke in pubs and bars can be up to 450% higher than in homes with at least one smoker.

Sir, Mdm Cynthia Phua has asked if we would extend the ban on smoking to even more public areas in the future. In view of the dangers posed by second-hand smoke, my answer to Mdm Phua's question is "Yes". I am, therefore, announcing that the Government intends to further extend the ban on smoking in a number of public areas.

Today, the ban on smoking in public swimming complexes, open air stadia and community clubs is enforced as a house rule. My Ministry will officially extend the ban on smoking to public swimming complexes, open air stadia and community clubs by 1st October this year.

Currently, smoking is also banned in queues as it is difficult for non-smokers in queues to avoid second-hand smoke. For the same reason, we will be extending the ban to bus shelters, bus interchanges and public toilets by 1st October 2005.

Sir, my Ministry also plans to extend the ban on smoking to entertainment outlets such as pubs, bars, discos, nightclubs and KTV lounges. In the case of entertainment outlets, it is difficult for patrons to avoid second-hand smoke as these are enclosed areas with limited air circulation. Many countries have begun to recognise the threat of second-hand smoke in entertainment outlets as a potential health hazard. California was one of the first to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. The Republic of Ireland imposed the ban in early 2004; pub-owners will now be fined if their customers are caught smoking indoors. The UK government has unveiled a White Paper proposing a ban on smoking in most pubs in England by 2008. A number of other countries are also following suit.

Sir, we have been conducting public consultations on the issue. The results of the consultations conducted so far indicate strong public support for a complete or partial ban on smoking in entertainment outlets. A Health Promotion Board survey conducted in December 2004 showed that 69% of those surveyed supported a ban on smoking in at least one of the entertainment outlets. In the NEA's own online survey conducted in February this year, more than 80% of respondents were in favour

of imposing some form of ban on smoking in entertainment outlets.

My Ministry recognises the concerns of operators who fear that a ban on smoking would affect patronage and result in a drop in business income. NEA will be consulting operators and trade associations to address their concerns and explore measures to mitigate any possible business impact before the ban is announced later this year.

Sir, I now turn to hawker centres and coffeeshops. These are frequently patronised by families, including young children. At times, patrons could find it difficult to avoid second-hand smoke from an adjacent table. 63% of those surveyed by the Health Promotion Board supported a ban on smoking in hawker centres and coffeeshops. NEA's survey indicated that more than 90% of respondents supported some form of ban on smoking in hawker centres and coffeeshops.

On the other hand, patrons may not be affected if the natural ventilation in these venues is sufficient to remove the smoke quickly. In fact, among those who supported the ban on smoking in hawker centres and coffeeshops in NEA's survey, close to a third indicated their preference for a partial ban, for example, in the form of a smoking corner, as a first step.

Sir, NEA will consult the relevant business associations on extending the smoking ban to hawker centres and coffeeshops. A decision on the ban on smoking in hawker centres and coffeeshops will be made by the end of this year, after all the consultations have been completed.

Sir, my Ministry will continue to review the list of public places, as and when necessary, so as to better protect the health of our population from the threat of second-hand smoke. The public

also recognises the risks posed by second-hand smoke. In the long run, my Ministry's intent is to do away with the need for an exhaustive list and move towards allowing smoking only in private premises, wide open spaces and designated smoking areas.

Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP)

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, food centres and markets were the creation of our first generation leaders. They have become our social trademark and a symbol of Singapore. Because they are frequented by all Singaporeans, they help to build up cohesiveness among our people. The food centres and markets have also provided many job opportunities for the middle and lower classes, contributing to our economic growth and social stability.

Although we have become a thriving and highly developed country, we must continue to provide our people with shops and markets offering affordable and good quality items. This is also one of our social responsibilities. Therefore, the Government has the responsibility to continue to build more food centres and markets in our public housing estates to serve our residents.

I would like to ask the Minister: how many food centres and markets have we upgraded and how much was the upgrading expenditure? After the upgrading, what have the financial benefits for the stallholders been and how does it benefit the consumers?

Wet Markets

Mr Chairman, Sir, wet market stall owners - they are not just stall operators, they are operators who own the stalls - are

facing hardship due to declining business and higher operating costs. Because of a change in shopping habits and lifestyle, many younger Singaporeans prefer to patronise air-conditioned supermarkets like NTUC FairPrice, Sheng Siong and, so on.

Sir, I have a wet market in my constituency at Block 511, Bedok North. With your indulgence, I would like to show the Minister two photographs of this wet market. This is a typical scene on a weekday morning [indicating]. It shows the condition is very pathetic, hardly any customers.

Sir, stall operators in this market, in response to Government's call in the mid-1990s to come forward to purchase the stalls, have actually bought the stalls, and they have been operating them for the last nine years. They have about 11 years of their lease left. The stalls were sold on a 20-year lease. The monthly interest payment, the monthly mortgage repayment plus property tax come close to $500 per month, and this is assuming that they stretch their repayment period to the full length of the lease.

Sir, not too far away at Block 538, Bedok North, in my constituency, I have another wet market. Here the stall operators are luckier. They do not own the stalls. They rented the stalls, and the average rental they are paying to the Government is about $200 per stall. And even then, they are already complaining of poor business and having difficulties making ends meet.

Sir, I am sympathetic to the stall owners at Block 511 wet market. I am sure there are other wet markets in Singapore where stall operators owning the stalls are in similar difficult positions and need help.

May I, therefore, suggest that the Government look into the plight of these

wet market stall owners. Many wanted to give up their stalls but, with outstanding loans from the banks, they could not. Some wanted to sell their stalls but there were no buyers. And their children are not willing to take over the stalls. Some even suggested that the Government buy back and lease the stalls back to them. Some asked for the property tax to be waived, and some asked for the lease period to be extended another 5-10 years so that they could stretch the repayment period to reduce the monthly operating cost.