Implement first, ask questions later...
From New Paper
========================================
WHAT if you happen to have $450 million lying around? Well, you can always come up with a spanking new university right in the heart of the city.
BUDGET TERMINAL: $45M. --Pics/THE STRAITS TIMES
What if you can afford just one-tenth of that: $45m?
Then try your hand at building Singapore's very own low-cost airline terminal.
With all the recent talk about white elephants and trimming the fat from charities and public agencies, it's little wonder MPs brought up such costing issues in Parliament yesterday.
Were we too 'hasty', for one, in spending money on the Budget Terminal (pictured above), asked Tampines GRC MP Sin Boon Ann.
ONLY ONE USER
Slated to open on 26 Mar, the single-storey complex, which is the size of three football fields, has so far signed up just one budget carrier - Tiger Airways - to use its dedicated facilities.
Tiger's rivals - Jetstar Asia, Valuair and Thai AirAsia - have all decided, for now, to stay put at the larger terminals.
This, despite the promise of lower ground handling charges, lower office rentals and check-in counter fees, and lower operating costs from the doing away of aerobridges - all of which Minister of State for Transport Lim Hwee Hua said can add up to a staggering '50 per cent' in savings.
SMU: $450M
Mr Sin's query: 'Couldn't we have used an existing airport in remote areas like Seletar?'
After all, it may be wise to 'wait and see' how no-frills terminals in other countries fare before taking the plunge ourselves.
Mrs Lim's reply: 'This is really a question of judgment. By the same token, if we had waited for models to succeed elsewhere, then Changi airport would never have been built.'
In any case, she explained, the Government would only make such 'strategic decisions' after 'extensive consultations' with users.
Why aren't more carriers biting? Because they're still evolving their business model, Mrs Lim stressed.
For instance, some low-cost airlines, for their passengers' convenience, may prefer to arrange for direct transfers to full-service flights at Terminals 1 and 2.
But hang on, said Mr Ong Kian Min, also from Tampines GRC.
What if the worst-case scenario happens, and Tiger Airways - which is 49 per cent owned by Singapore Airlines - also decides to pull out? Can it change its mind just like that and shift back to the main terminal?
Mrs Lim chose to stay hopeful. 'Given cost considerations, we trust that Tiger would continue to operate out of the new terminal for as long as is commercially viable,' she said.
Commercial viability - and Singapore's fight to be an education hub - is also why West Coast GRC MP Ho Geok Choo feels Singapore Management University's $450m city campus is worth the investment.
With 'centuries of tradition', elite institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge can afford to have old-fashioned buildings, she told The New Paper.
'But a new player like SMU needs to leverage on whatever advantage it can get,' Madam Ho argued.
And yes, that includes having an impressive hi-tech campus in a location to die for.
SMU's new premises were officially opened just last month.
Earlier in Parliament, Madam Ho had asked how the Education Ministry ensures universities and schools don't 'overspend on building infrastructure'. She'd seen one too many 'koi ponds and automatic gates', she later told The New Paper.
Replying, Minister of State for Education Gan Kim Yong said the MOE always maintains strict 'financial discipline' to make sure building designs are 'functional, and not lavish'.
For big-value projects over $50m, there's even an extra layer of checks.
These must be approved by a high-level committee, comprising the Finance Minister and two other ministers.
Best of all, Mr Gan pointed out, keeping development costs - the big bucks - down means long-term tuition fees will also stay down.
And that's good news for you and me, whether we're talking $45m or $450m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much control is possible over casinos?
ANOTHER 'big bucks' issue also resurfaced in Parliament as the House debated the Casino Control Bill.
First up, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng told MPs the Government will relax some controls over the operators of Singapore's two integrated resorts, expected to be up and running in 2009.
This includes removing limits on the number of hours the casinos will be allowed to open.
The Bill will also set up a new statutory board called the Casino Regulatory Authority and put in place social safeguards.
While some of the nine MPs who spoke voiced concerns similar to last year's sitting, a few fresh issues also cropped up.
These include: Should we physically segregate local and foreign gamblers within the casinos?
Should we ban all 'how-to-play-and-win' in-house programmes from the resorts' hotel rooms?
DISCOUNT
Should we get rid of the $2,000 annual entrance levy for locals - which is an option to paying $100 a day - since that's akin to a 'jumbo discount package'?
How can we control the distribution of sleazy pamphlets offering sex if we can't even stop contractors from pasting advertising stickers all over HDB lifts?
Can overseas-based parents of foreign students also bar their children from patronising the casinos here?
How can we make sure IR operators don't entice people to gamble by forcing them to walk through (and be tempted by) its gaming areas, just to get to the restaurants, shops, or even the toilets?
Mr Wong will give his replies when he wraps up the debate this afternoon.