RESPONSE BY MR LIM HNG KIANG, MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY DURING THE COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY DEBATE Let me take Mr Steve Chia’s question. I think, first, he must understand how to interpret statistics. When the statistics shows that the income has risen, it does not mean that there could not be 3 per cent people who are unemployed and therefore, the income has dropped. This is the per capita GNI, gross national income, which looks at the average numbers. 2 PM, in his speech on 19 Jan 2005, mentioned that the overall per capita income had increased since 1998 and I think, indeed, it had increased because the per capita income is a widely-used benchmark in international comparison. So, we are using internationally accepted statistics and the method of measuring statistics. The per capita income is obtained by dividing the gross national income (GNI) by the population and therefore, the gross national income which is the income receivable by all residents of the economy would include both Singaporeans and foreigners. 3 Mr Steve Chia claimed that this would distort the numbers because it would include the high-earning expatriates. I think he would realize that the number of expatriates and people with employment pass were in fact a smaller percentage compared with the larger pool of other types of foreign workers. So if anything, the foreigner element of the calculation in Singapore’s context would tend to drag the number down. Even if we excluded foreigners, the latest statistics showed that the average income of Singaporeans in 2004 is 10.1 per cent higher than in 1998; compared to 10 years ago, the average income of Singaporeans had increased by 25.1 per cent. And as I had explained, this is the average number. You realized that over the last five years, the unemployment in Singapore had risen. The latest number is 3.7 per cent. So, if you look at 3.7 per cent, this means that around 80,000 Singaporeans are unemployed, which means nearly a thousand members per constituency, these are the thousand who come and visit us every week and every other week, and all of us who are MPs realized that. But that does not change the hard facts of the ground, which is that the average Singaporeans, the 90 per cent of Singaporeans who retained their jobs had had good income and for most of them, the income had grown, even in the most difficult years that we faced in the last five years. 4 Let me now turn to tourism. I agree with Ms Penny Low that the targets we had set for ourselves for the next five, ten 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’s something that I think we can achieve. Why? Because the tourism flow in this region and for the world is growing. And if we are intelligent enough and if we are hardworking enough, there is no reason why we should not capture our share of that growth. 1 5 I remember many MPs had raised this, including Mr Tan Soo Khoon and I agreed with him over the last five, ten years, we had indeed underinvested in our tourism capability and so, even though our tourism receipts and the tourist arrivals had been quite decent and remained fairly steady, as a percentage of GDP, the contribution of tourism had in fact dropped over the last five, ten years. So what we want to do is to try to redress it, I am not saying it is not an easy task but it is something we have to do. And the suggestions that Ms Penny Low raised about having fiestas and activities, these are in fact a component of what we planned to do. 6 As explained in the press conference some months ago. There are three elements. The first element, which we cannot avoid, is tourist attractions. We must plough back in tourism attractions and this means quite heavy investment. 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. The many suggestions that Ms Penny Low put out, we will look at them. In fact, STB is even more ambitious, STB had set for itself the target of having 52 events a year. That means, at every weekend, there must be something happening in Singapore. There must be some buzz. So that tourists who come just for the weekend will have something attractive to look forward to. And the third area is capability. We must develop industry - the promoter, the event organisers, the guides, the waiters, the sales people. People must feel happy coming to Singapore and they must experience and have a full experience when they come to Singapore. So these are the three elements. 7 On this issue of integrated resort, this is an issue that has been debated many times, there were a lot of views put up. We have had this discussion over a year. I disagree with Mr Gan Kim Yong. In fact, members of this house had 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 these views would be taken into consideration when we make our decision. PM had explained that we intend to make a decision before the middle of April. The government had been elected to govern and it had the full mandate to decide on many important issues, for example the GST increase and the CPF contribution changes. All these are issues that, having gone through discussions and taking into consideration the views of the people, the government then had to make a decision. This, I think, is the same for the integrated resort. 8 I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that the Workers Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang had been conspicuously quiet for this whole, entire one year. And like him, I am a little perplexed why he thinks this ought to be an election issue. As Mr Low Thia Khiang knows, the election is not due until 2007. So is he suggesting that we don’t make any decision and wait until elections come around and treat this as an election issue, two years later? 2 9 So the government intends to make the decision. Whatever the decision, we will make a ministerial statement in parliament, to use the occasion to explain our decision, whether we are proceeding or not. This will give the MPs an opportunity to state your views and also to seek clarifications on the decision taken, whatever the decision may be. So I think there is an occasion for MPs to clarify and present your views when we make a statement. 10 I agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that even though Mr Low had been quiet all the time, that may be the occasion for him to state his view. I also noticed that he has not file any cuts during the entire session on the Committee of Supply and when he spoke on the debate on the budget, this did not feature in his speech. But there will an occasion for him to speak. ****************** 3.