Arthur Beng Kian Lam
Singapore
“Sir, the aim of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is to encourage optimal road usage so that car ownership can be increased. My questions to the Minister are (1) what is the estimated cost to a motorist, ie, the median, that the Ministry of Communications is expecting?”
“Sir, one point of clarification, please. I am very pleased to hear the announcement made by the Senior Minister of State about the very comprehensive way in which IT is going to be applied in schools. I am also very glad to hear that six more computers are going to be added to the existing five for administration.”
“Sir, my topic is on public transport in mature HDB estates. Sir, we are all excited about the plans to achieve a world-class public transport system. However, as many of the mature towns have little or no reserve land, it would seem that the bus will still be the mainstay of transportation. I would like to ask the Minister two questions.”
“The Minister has implemented a paradigm shift in his approach to personnel management. The new salary scales announced are welcomed and will do much to raise the morale of the teachers. I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises the principal as the CEO of a school. This gives a significant recognition to the role of the principal.”
“Sir, I am glad to know that the Minister will be taking active steps to implement the IMC and that he himself will be chairing the Ministerial Steering Committee which will include the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs.”
“However, upgrading is necessary as the business of the centre will be affected if the town is not upgraded, and experience has shown that the business in upgraded town centres indeed improves. Sir, the HDB or MND earns from the sale of shops. Should not a sum from this be allocated to town councils for the upgrading process?”
The complete record
Every one of 722 lines we hold for Arthur Beng Kian Lam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 15.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister what he means by "full cost"?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that he will reconsider these cases. Does this mean that he will reconsider it retrospectively, ie, those cases that were previously turned down for marriage will now be reconsidered? Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, if there are past cases that have been turned down and they now meet the new criteria, I am prepared to relook at them. WATER AGREEMENT WITH MALAYSIA (Progress) 7. Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the state of progress of the negotiation with Malaysia on the supply of water to Singapore and when will a treaty with Malaysia for this supply be expected to be signed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, will the Minister please clarify further on the liberalization of permanent residence status for the spouses of Singapore citizens? For example, will he allow those spouses who do not have five '0' levels but whose husbands have got good earning capacity to be allowed to come in as permanent residents? Secondly, what measures are being planned to ensure that enclaves of foreigners are not formed and what measures are being taken to ensure that these immigrants will be integrated into our society? Thirdly, will the Government consider giving priority to the residents of Hong Kong who are working in Singapore-based companies, that is Singapore companies who have branches or offices in Hong Kong?”
“I would again ask the Member not to rely on newspaper reports but to turn to the verbatim report of what I have said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like again to say that I have explained the reasons why I have talked about the hasty measures. I do not intend to repeat them. As to whether the people in Fengshan are also all non-car owners, I would say no. We have a largely middle-class population in Fengshan and he has no right to speak for my residents in Fengshan. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): I agree with Dr Beng that I have no right to speak for his constituents. But I wish to rebut what he said yesterday. This morning in the Lianhe Zaobao there is this report which says: 'Dr Beng spoke with great emotion that these measures taken by the Government are too harsh. First it would greatly increase the burden of using the motor cars. Secondly, the biggest hit people are those who can least afford.' Are you saying that the hardest hit are those economically weak, living in the 1-room or 2-room flats or are you referring to those in the middle income group, like your constituents?”
“Sir, I would first like to ask the Member, Mr Peh, whether he has any opinion of his own other than just the editorial of Shin Min. Second, he says that a psychological preparation has been done long ago. Perhaps he has not been listening to what I have said this morning. He says I am incomprehensible. Perhaps he is not capable of comprehending. Third, is his Constituency representative of all Singapore? Has he not heard what the Member for Mountbatten has spoken this morning? Fourth, is he not aware of the effect of the present measures on all his constituents, including that of his non-vehicle owning constituents? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard Dr Beng saying about his accusation of the Government's hasty introduction of these measures. He said that we could wait for a comprehensive land transportation system to be implemented before we take such measures? But can we wait? Can we wait until that time to solve the problem? Can we wait until a person is sick before we say we have no medicine? You have to wait for the medicine. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on points of clarification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this amendment also. The wording is important. If the Member had said, "to review the present measures and regularly reviews ...", I would consider.”
“I think this is a very dangerous way to approach a problem. Do we want to kill a fly with a mortar bomb? Let us not overkill a situation. What we should do is to be rational about it, study the problem, be relatively sure that the measures will work, then implement it, not implement it and when it does not work or backfires on us, withdraw it. Have we not learned yet from the taxi fare affair? Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Point of clarification, Sir. There are not very many people who agree that there is truly traffic congestion in Singapore today. With the good management by our ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I also thank Dr Lee Siew-Choh for his support but unfortunately I am not able to give him my support. Sir, I would like to turn to what Mr Ng Pock Too has said. First, much has been mentioned this afternoon about the bitter pill. I guess it is because the motion has been moved by two doctors. But unfortunately they do not understand medicine. When one has an illness, you do not have to turn to a pill. There are many different modalities of treatment and so are there very many different modes of transport. Firstly, I would like to turn to the accusation about the use of the word "hastiness". What did I say yesterday when I used the term "hastiness"? I explained what I meant when I said "too hasty". "Hasty" not because the Government has not been giving us warnings. Yes, we all know that all these measures will come in when the situation arises, when congestion increases, when things get out of hand or before they get out of hand. But I used "hastiness" in this context, ie, the MRT is partially completed, lack of bus/MRT integration, problem of access to MRT stations and that there is room for improvement in the bus service and I ended up by saying and I quote: 'In summary, Sir, while deterrent measures are being introduced, are alternatives being offered to the motorist?' This is the context in which I used the word "hasty". Now I turn to the word "harsh". It is really amusing to see that I am being accused of using the word "harsh" wrongly when there are so many Members in the House asking for the HDB car park charges to be reviewed. As my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock said, if 100% is not harsh, what is harsh? If it is not harsh, why are you all asking for reviews? Then there is the question whether the measures will work.”
“Yes, Sir, I want to make a clarification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to Dr Hong Hai that we have not supported --- Mr Speaker: Dr Arthur Beng, you cannot respond to the speech of Dr Hong Hai. If you want to make a brief clarification, I will allow that.”
“Now the SBS and TIBS have improved their services, they are no longer treated as public service vehicles. Is this consistent policy, as asked by one of my colleagues earlier? First, taxis were penalized. Now Scheme B buses. SBS and TIBS had better be on the alert now. One day the MRT may be regarded as the only public transport system. Sir, I wish to reiterate that the proposed measure will have tremendous social and economic repercussions. They need further evaluation before implementation. I agree that electronic road pricing will be one of the most important measures for controlling road utilization in the future. It is my earnest hope that it will not take up to seven years to put the ERP in place. I believe that if we have the political will, this gap can be closed. The target should be 3-5 years. Last but not least, we must continually upgrade the public transport system that we now have. One of the most pressing questions as has been mentioned earlier is how do we make MRT travel more convenient? Better feeder services? Park-and-ride? The bus services must also be improved and we must press on with Bus/MRT integration. We must also keep our minds open to other forms of mass people-mover system. Will a light-rail-transport system be necessary in the future to complement the MRT? In conclusion, I urge all members to lend us their support. This amended motion will place the onus on the Ministry merely to have a re-look on its policy after listening to Members of this House. We are not asking for anything more. If the Minister after his re-look believes that all his policies are correct, so be it.”
“As has been mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier, it is totally illogical that you encourage more people to enter the CBD by lowering the toll then frustrate them by increasing the parking charges. Sir, have the measures been equitably applied? A Business Times report on 17th May 1989 states. I quote: "latest anti-congestion measures affect junior executives most". Junior executive (definition: salary $2,500) will spend 2.1% of salary more per month on transportation. Middle executive (salary $4,000) will spend 0.5% more. Senior executive (salary $8,000) will spend 0.1% more. What is not mentioned is the poor motor cyclist. Motorcycle growth reported a minus growth of 3.2% in 1987 over 1986, and 0.9% growth for the period 1988 over 1987; less than 1% growth. Is this so alarming that we must now let the sledge hammer fall on motorcyclists? Based merely on the question of growth in numbers, there is no need to punish the motorcyclists entering the restricted zone. Sir, 70% of cars are in the 1001 to 1600 cc range. A 1600 cc car owner will pay a road tax of $1,440 per annum. 70% of motor cycles are in the 101 cc to 200 cc range. A 200 cc motorcycle owner will pay road tax of $30 per annum. However, his cost of entering the restricted zone will be $240 per annum. That of the car owner is $720 per annum. For the motorcyclist the cost of entering the restricted zone is eight times his road tax. For the motor car owner the cost of entering the restricted zone is half of his annual road tax. Is this equitable? Sir, I feel that we have let down the Scheme B buses. In the 1970s when the bus service was undergoing reorganization, they played a vital role. Now we seem to have forgotten their contribution. Once they were a vital part of our public transport system.”
“The measures are harsh in two ways: First, the net effect of all these is to increase the cost of motoring very substantially; and Secondly, it is very much more harsh on those who can least afford it, and may even affect those who do not own a vehicle, through inflation. Sir, the policy to shift the restraining measures from vehicle ownership to vehicle utilization is welcomed. Indeed, this was what I was advocating. But what is done now is to add tax upon tax. The cost of car ownership remains status quo, but disincentives for utilization are added. This is difficult to accept. As I have said before, this can even be counter-productive when a person asks himself, "Why am I paying so much to leave my car at home?" In particular, I wish to point out that the petrol tax is not a utilization tax. It is as good as an ownership tax for can anyone of us run our vehicle on anything else but petrol? It is a frustration tax. It merely irritates and frustrates the car owner as it is non-discriminating. It is a "blind tax" that cannot differentiate whether the petrol is being burnt up in Orchard Road or in Changi. Whether it is being burnt up on Sunday or a Public Holiday or during peak hours on a working day. It will hit hardest those who need to travel to make a living. Salesmen who call on clients and people providing home services. For those requiring home services, for example, TV repairs, electrical/plumbing repairs, the cost will go up. The inflationary aspect cannot be denied. Likewise, the 100% increase in parking fees in public housing estates. This is not utilization tax. This is as good as ownership tax. What is the alternative to the present HDB car owner? This also applies to the increase in parking charges in the restricted zone.”
“Again I asked him if he would recommend our system to his home government. He answer was "No". So I asked him why he was recommending it for Singaporeans. He was very honest in his answer. Being an expatriate in Singapore, his company paid for all his transport bills. If he was back home, he would have to pay from his own pocket - like us Singaporeans. Sir, measures proposed for implementation must be very carefully thought through. The advantages to the Singaporean motorist must be convincing. There must be acceptable alternative travel modes. Disincentives, by its nature, will be painful, but still in the final analysis, affordable. The measures proposed by the Ministry have deep social and economic implications, as may have been mentioned by many of my colleagues. Some of the questions I would like to raise are: (1) What are the implications for residents living in the restricted zone? (2) What will be its effect on retailers in the restricted zone, with the implementation of the evening ALS? (3) What about those studying in the restricted zone? (4) What about family arrangements with the evening ALS? What is the social implication of this? (5) What will be the inflationary effect of all these measures? (6) Will the restricted zone be under populated when Singaporeans decide no longer to live in it? How does this fit into the Master Plan regarding maximum utilization of land? (7) The Ministry in its haste to implement these measures have forgotten that the whole eastern sector of Singapore has no MRT service today; likewise, other parts of Singapore. Do these people have any alternative? Is this fair to them? Sir, I will now deal with the harshness of these measures.”
“Firstly, the MRT is only partially completed. Secondly, there is a lack of MRT/bus integration. Thirdly, access to the MRT stations, ie, having a convenient means to reach the stations is still a problem. Fourthly, there is still room for improvement in the bus service to make it more attractive to the motorist. In summary, while deterrent measures are being implemented, are alternatives being offered to the motorists? Sir, in the planning of an efficient public transport system, the feelings of the people must be considered. A realistic balance must be struck between consumer expectation vis-a-vis statistical criteria of traffic congestion. In our consideration of land transportation, we should not be obsessed by motor vehicle population only. We should not be obsessed by vehicular speed only. After all, what is the definition of a "traffic jam" or "congested roads"? What is "acceptable restraining measures"? What is reasonable? What is unreasonable? These are all very subjective. Let me illustrate with two examples. One, after the opening of a transport conference two years ago, an official from a foreign country came to congratulate me, ie, Singapore, for our wonderful traffic management. He was complimenting us on our ALS, PARF and our car ownership disincentives. I asked him if he was going to recommend this to his own government. He looked at me aghast and answered, "Of course not". I was astounded. I asked him, "Why?" His answer, "Firstly, it will be politically unacceptable and, secondly, I [ie, he himself] will not be able to afford a car." At a diplomatic function one night, I met an expatriate. He had just come back from Hong Kong. Again, he was singing praises for how good our roads were, and how pleasant it was to work in the CBD in Singapore with the ALS.”
“Another very important aspect of Parliamentary debate is that this will allow for all Singaporeans to follow the arguments for and against, ie, it will help us to secure the understanding and acceptance by Singaporeans of new policies. If we debate the motion in its original form, it would be a meaningless debate. It would merely mean talk and more talk. The difference in the amendment is that it calls upon the Ministry to review the policies after hearing Members' views. If this motion receives the support of this House, then the Ministry cannot ignore the views of hon. Members. To do so would be to do it in defiance of a motion carried in this House. Are we asking for the unrealistic or impossible? Are we trying to place obstacles in the path of the Ministry? Are we trying to upset the system? Are we being unreasonable? No. What the House will be doing is to remind the Ministry that it has an obligation to listen, think over again, then act in good faith. Out of the inputs of 81 elected Members must come some good suggestions. The carrying of this motion will also signal to all Singaporeans that we, as their elected Members, are not impotent in presenting their views. The original motion provides the forum for debate, but the amended motion calls for action after the debate. As the saying goes, "Action speaks louder than words". Herein lies the very important difference between the amended motion and the original motion, and I call upon all Members to lend us their support. Sir, I do not intend to discuss every single measure recommended by the Ministry, but merely to make out a case that there is a need for a review of the proposed measures. I consider that the measures have been introduced too hastily. Why do I say this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the Motion moved by Dr Hong Hai, At the end, to add --- 'but regrets that some of the measures are too hastily introduced and too harsh; and that this House urges the Ministry to review them.' Sir, I would like to thank you for allowing me to move this amendment. My colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and myself have given serious thought to the main motion, and we both feel strongly that for meaningful debate, this amendment is necessary. I would like to explain to the House why we feel that this amendment is necessary. Having persuaded hon. Members, we ask for their support. All of us in the House must remind ourselves that in our parliamentary democracy, Parliament reigns supreme. All important policies of State should first be presented to the House, debated and a decision subsequently taken after hearing Members' views. The Ministry of Communications and Information has again made this serious omission in its announcement of its package of measure to curb car usage. It is indeed unfortunate that its press release "INTERIM RESTRAINT MEASURES FOR LAND TRANSPORT" was not first tabled for debate in Parliament. Yes, we may again be told that tax and revenue announcements must be kept secret. However, I believe that a blue paper could and should have been presented for a full debate without mention of pricing figures and dates of implementation. The Ministry could then take Members' views into consideration and act accordingly. This is parliamentary democracy. This is the expected norm in parliamentary practice. This is more important when this House has only one elected Opposition Member and one NCMP. The people of Singapore have given us, the PAP, their mandate, and we must represent their views in Parliament.”
“I wish to seek the Minister's clarification and views regarding the following issues: First, what is the position regarding all the agreements already entered into, ie, prior to this date? How will this Bill affect the rights of the parties involved? This is a cause for concern as some may have entered into agreement on the premises that the Privy Council will be the final arbiter. Second, what is the standing in our Courts of judgments already passed by the Privy Council prior to this amendment? Are they still binding on our Courts. Third, will this amendment precipitate businessmen to insert a clause to ensure that their matters are resolved according to English law and by English court, such as the insertion of a clause similar to one such as this: "this agreement shall be governed by the law of England, and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court". In other words, will businessmen in future opt for English law or other foreign law to be the "proper law" of their contracts? If they opt for English law or any other foreign law to be their "proper law", will they then not opt for English courts or other foreign courts to be their forum? What will be the impact of this on Singapore as a financial and commercial centre?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, during the parliamentary debates earlier this year, I had expressed the view of my GPC and Resource Panel that Singapore should work towards the setting up of a permanent Court of Appeal. This Bill before us today makes it more urgent that we should have our own Appellate Court. This would be in keeping with our effort to establish a financial centre second to none in Singapore, and will provide the judicial infrastructure for the convenience and reassurance of foreign investors. The Bill before us today deals with two specific aspects of law. Firstly, criminal law; secondly, civil law. This Bill proposes changes to our present system of appeal to the Privy Council. Sir, first, with regard to criminal law. In criminal law cases, appeal to the Privy Council is only allowed where: (a) the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life; and (b) the decision of the Appellate Court is not unanimous. The intention here is clear, for it restricts appeal to serious cases where decision of the Appellate Court is not unanimous. In my mind, the provision provided here is adequate as it is borne out by the statistics circulated by the Hon. Minister. Appeals to the Privy Council in the last 11 years show that the number of petitions for leave was 55; and the results, dismissal 44; granted, 3 (the substantive appeal in all these 3 were subsequently dismissed). And there are 8 cases pending. The statistics thus bear out. In civil cases, Sir, my understanding of this amendment is that the purpose is to allow the parties involved in civil matters to decide for themselves as to who should be their final arbiter. The spirit of this Bill is laudable.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I would like just to ask for one clarification from the Minister. I am given to understand that for cannabis trafficking Malaysia has imposed the death sentence. Would it not now shift the base for cannabis trafficking to Singapore and what does he intend to do about it?”
“If we look at the other passes also, and the number of passes issued in 1988, we can imagine how much of the workload can be reduced and how much inconvenience can be avoided if the Department were to consider extending issuing a longer pass in the first instance. For example: No. Validity Issued 1988 Professional Visit Pass 1 week - 2 years 11,015 Student Pass 6 mth - 4 years 46,791 Employment Pass 1 year - 3 years 19,615 Dependant's Pass 1 year - 3 years 16,543 Visit Pass (for Work 1 year/2 years/ Permit holders) 3 years 169,543 Social Visit Pass 2 weeks - 2 years 190,769 Sir, for example, we take a student pass. If a Primary 1 student is issued a pass, the pass should be issued for the whole period of his primary school, that is, from Primary I to VI. Thus it would not make it necessary for the student to repeatedly go to Immigration to have his pass renewed. Likewise, those in the other categories. Sir, I would like next to turn to the question of the Immigration Checkpoint at Woodlands. Sir, this is a constant source of irritation to many who make use of the causeway frequently. Can the Minister give us more information regarding the redevelopment of the Woodlands checkpoint? Can the time-table for this redevelopment be brought forward?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like now, Sir, to turn to the question of upgrading of the Immigration Service. I would like to deal briefly with two topics. Firstly, that of Immigration passes and, secondly, the Woodlands Checkpoint. Sir, the GPC notes that there are six categories of passes issued to foreigners visiting or working in Singapore. There are the social visit pass, professional pass, student pass, employment pass, dependant pass and visit pass for work permit holders. We also note that in FY 88 the Immigration Department processed 1.12 million Immigration documents and is projected to handle 1.19 million documents in FY 89. The GPC sympathizes with the Department in the handling of this tremendous workload. Sir, the GPC would like to suggest to the Department that it should decrease the workload and public inconvenience by issuing these passes for longer periods. This will also make foreigners feel more welcome and to stay longer in Singapore. This is, of course, subject to security considerations. For example, we could, for a start, extend the initial social visit pass from two weeks to four weeks. Sir, we consider that in 1988 190,769 social visit passes were issued and the validity period rank from two weeks to two years. If this could be extended, the number of trips to the Immigration Department would be very much reduced. Many serious businessmen and relatives of Singapore citizens could then stay beyond two weeks without making a trip to the Immigration Department.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, in regard to both integration and upgrading, I understand that a combined school is being set up for both the Civil Defence Force and Singapore Fire Service. Will the Senior Minister of State care to elaborate on this?”
“Sir, I next turn to the upgrading of the fire-fighting capability of our services. The recent fire in the Pulau Merlimau Petrochemical Complex reminds us that fire-fighting is both a science and an art. My questions to the Minister are: (1) How are we gearing up to meet with the attendant fire hazards of more sophisticated industries? (2) Are we adequately equipped to deal with high-rise fires?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. Just on a point of clarification. When I mentioned the air-conditioning of police stations, I referred specifically to rest rooms, not to central air-cons. I thank the Minister for mentioning in his reply that this will be considered. I am sure that the comments of the Minister will indeed boost the morale of serving Police officers and also aid in recruitment. Sir, I would like now to turn to parts (c) and (d) - the integration of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Fire Service and the upgrading of the Singapore Fire Service. Sir, the Singapore Fire Service has a tradition that stretches more than a hundred years. The officers and men have done Singapore proud. However, recent trends in rescue and emergency services make it obvious that the integration of the Singapore Fire Service and the Civil Defence Force will provide for greater efficiency and maximum utilization of sophisticated and expensive equipment and valuable manpower. For the integration exercise to be successful, Sir, the feelings of the officers on the ground in both services must be sensitively dealt with. A 100-year tradition and pride of service cannot be simply pushed aside with the argument of "efficency and maximum utilization". Will the Minister kindly enlighten the House as to how integration is progressing? What will the name of the new integrated service be? Will the name, logo and uniform reflect both services? How will rank and service conditions be adjusted in the integrated service so that the exercise will be fair to all, especially the long-serving loyal members? Can the Minister assure this House that in this transition period, operational efficiency of the emergency services will not be jeopardized?”
“Sir, what I meant was that the Divisional HQs are now still called police stations. Whether we should drop the term "police station" and substitute it with the term "Police Divisional Headquarters" and drop the term "HQ" which has the connotation of the old police shack compared to the new modern generation multi-million dollar centre?”
“Perhaps the Ministry should consider giving these new "nerve centres" a new name such as "Police Divisional Headquarters - A, B, C, D or G Division" so as to reflect its new role and its modern image. There is much that is associated with a name, and I feel that with the restructuring, a new image must be projected. Finally, Sir, in upgrading the Police Force, the new proposed Police Academy will play an important and critical role. Will the Minister enlighten the House as to what form the Academy will take? How will the courses conducted reflect the challenges ahead? Can this Academy take on the additional responsibility of providing law enforcement courses to the mushrooming security agencies in the private sector so as to ensure greater professionalism in this sector? Sir, the other members of my GPC will deal with other aspects of this Head such as the Traffic Police and Marine Police.”
“There will be seven such modern HQs scattered throughout the island. Each of them will cost several million dollars, and each will be equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and weaponry. We, however, note that the Ministry could be more generous in providing a little bit more comfort and luxury to the Police officers. Here, Sir, I refer specifically to provision of air-conditioning for the rest rooms of the officers and men. I am sure that the Minister will agree that in our hot and humid weather, air-conditioning today is no longer a luxury. There is air-conditioning in the airport, post offices, hospitals and outpatient clinics. Is it not time we updated our police stations? This will indeed enhance the morale of our officers. Further, small things like coffee, tea and some snacks for officers who work throughout the night, I am sure, are also in order and will be supported by my colleagues in this House. How about the police cars? The cabins of buses and lorries are now air-conditioned. Taxis and buses are also air-conditioned. So is the MRT. Should we not provide our police cars with air-conditioners? I am sure this will enhance productivity. Sir, these examples that I have brought up are small ways, very very small ways, that we, as a community, can show to our police officers that we care. These are small but tangible ways to show our appreciation. Next I turn to the Divisional Headquarters. Sir, we have retained the title of "Police Stations". But each of these modern Divisional Headquarters costs $5-7 million. They are no longer the old shacks with which we associate the term "Police Stations".”
“However, should we take this for granted? Mr Speaker, Sir, the mission of the Ministry is "to maintain law and order at all times, and co-ordinate civil defence measures in emergencies". This indeed places a severe responsibility on all the services, and we must ensure that the various units have the manpower and equipment to do their job, and to do it well. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister several questions. Firstly, how he intends to grapple with the problem of recruitment of officers? Secondly, will we be able to offer more scholarships to A level students to attract them to serve? Thirdly, can we look into the possibility of accelerated promotions and the possibility of giving good serving officers more opportunities to study in Universities or even prestigious law enforcement agencies overseas to provide a more rewarding career and hopes for career development? Fourthly, can we allow for specialization of duties as an added incentive? Sir, with specific reference to the upgrading of the Police Force, I would like the Minister to comment on two aspects: firstly, the concept of the Divisional Headquarters and the Neighbourhood Police Post; and secondly, the redevelopment of the Police Academy. Sir, with the shift of the population to the housing estates, community policing, or the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) concept, is now rapidly gaining popularity and recognition. It is so popular that not only every constituency wants it, but every block in the constituency wants the NPP to be placed in each block. The GPC is glad to note the tremendous effort and sacrifice put in by the officers and men of the Police Force has made community policing a success. The NPP now comes under the charge of a Divisional Headquarters.”
“Sir, I first speak on manpower and human resources management and the upgrading of the Police Force. Sir, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law has had four briefings by the Minister and his senior officials. We note that the Ministry, especially the uniformed elements, has a problem of manpower shortage. Sir, we are glad to note from the Ministry and the Minister for Trade and Industry that a committee will be formed to look into the problems of all the uniformed elements. Sir, the uniformed elements - the Police, Fire Service, the Civil Defence Force, and the Prison Service - all face similar problems. Their officers are: (1) subject to severe discipline; (2) work irregular hours; (3) subject to personal danger in the course of their duties; and (4) by and large under-paid. Thus, it is not surprising that in a full employment economy, it is both difficult to recruit and retain officers in these branches. The GPC, however, is glad to note that, despite this problem, the operational readiness of these units has not been adversely affected. Sir, in this respect we are glad to note that the major crime indices are satisfactory in Singapore. A major crime is defined as that of rape, murder, robbery, housebreaking and theft of motor cars. Singapore's rate for major crimes in 1987 was 17 times lower than that of London, and 1.7 times lower than that of Hong Kong. It was even lower than that of Japan. In Singapore, it was 207.4 cases per 100,000 population. In Hong Kong, 256.3; Japan, 259.2; West Germany, 2244.3; and London, 3423.1. Also for robbery, in 1985 to 1987, the cases stabilized at about 64 per annum and housebreaking for 1983 to 1987 about 120 cases per annum. Sir, this is a credit to the dedication and commitment of the officers and men.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, with your indulgence, may I request that under this Head, the debate be divided into four separate discussions to allow for a focus in the debate. May I respectfully suggest, Sir, that parts (a) and (b) be taken together, then parts (c) and (d), to be followed by parts (e) and (f) separately.”
“The Government in this way will be able to divert its financial resources to more urgent areas of need. For example, the implementation of single session schools while at the same time responsibly discharging its responsibility to the pre-school programme.”
“Sir, the Minister for Education has announced the cessation of the pre-primary programme as it now stands. He has given sound reasons and the alternative of earmarking the ten primary schools for teaching CL1. Sir, I support his views. However, I feel the MOE could still assist in the pre-school programme. Sir, my first comment is regarding the cost to run the non-MOE kindergartens. While the cost appears on the surface to be less than non-MOE kindergartens, this is not a true reflection of cost as there are many hidden costs. For example, many of the non-MOE kindergartens are run by charitable organizations. Much of their setup or capital cost is not costed in as they come in the form of donations. Secondly, much of the administrative work of these organizations are done by volunteers, and that is another significant saving. Thirdly, while the MOE conducts 4-hour classes the equivalent in the non-MOE classes are usually two- or three-hour classes. Sir, I would urge that the Ministry of Education should still continue to play a role in early childhood education but in a different role from that of administering pre-primary education. The state is already involved in this role via the People's Association and its assistance in the day-care centre grants. Will the Minister consider assistance to low-cost kindergartens in the following areas: (1) A grant to help in the setup of new kindergartens or extension of present kindergartens so that we will be able to cope with the intake of those who are presently in the pre-primary classes. (2) A grant to help further upgrade the kindergartens; and (3) A grant to help in teacher-training. In this way, non-MOE kindergartens can continue to provide good quality kindergarten classes at an affordable rate.”
“Sir, I have three questions. Firstly, I would ask the Minister whether there will be adjustments to the salary scale of Legal Officers recruited in the last few years and who were recruited on the lower starting salary scale. In view of the increase in the new starting salary, there will be a morale problem for those, say, recruited last year, since those recruited this year will receive two increments. Secondly, he has mentioned the problem of recruitment in the uniformed services. Will he consider the setting up of a Committee to look into the problems of all the uniformed services as a whole, ie, the Police Force, Fire Service, Civil Defence, Prisons Service and even the Customs Service? Thirdly, I would like to seek his clarification on the CEP. When is this arrived at? After how many years of assessment? After it is arrived at, is there a review of this CEP, as it is now so critical in the career of the civil servant?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his positive and encouraging reply. Today I feel we are also hearing the wise advice of a Professor of Law. Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $15,699,800 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $14,576,490 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head F - The sum of $9,425,700 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,355,130 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head G - The sum of $36,000 for Head G ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head H -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I wish to speak on the topic of the Court of Final Appeal. In the debates earlier in the year, it is clear that the role of the Privy Council in our Judicial system is under review. In the debate on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill on 25 January 1989, the Minister for Law said: 'I might add that it is not just the security cases that we are concerned with. In fact, the Government has been concerned for some time over how long we can continue this system of appeals to the Privy Council. Some Members may know that during the British Empire, some of the judges who sat on the Privy Council had experience serving in the colonies or in the Commonwealth. That way, some of the judges in the Privy Council had valuable local perspective when overseas cases came up to the Privy Council. This was important.'”
“On 26th February 1986, the First Deputy Prime Minister referred to the question of property tax rebates. He said, and I quote: 'A rebate of 30% on the present property tax rate of 23% has been given for both owner-occupied and let-out industrial and commercial properties, vacant lands, including lands under development and let-out URA, HDB, and JTC properties. This 30% rebate will be deepened, with effect from 1st July 1986, to 50%, and extended to 31st December 1988. The additional rebate of 20%, however, will be given only if it is fully passed on to the tenants.' Sir, the Finance Minister has generously extended this rebate scheme for another year till 30th June 1990. However, we are all aware that there are many instances where rentals of commercial properties have increased by as much as 100%. It would seem that the initial spirit of the rebate, that it be passed on to the end-user, that is the tenant, is breached. Will the Minister comment on this and look into this problem? Can a mechanism be set up whereby tenants can bring this to the attention of his Ministry? Finally, Sir, consumption tax. Sir, this subject has been debated extensively previously. It is reassuring to hear from the Ministers that in the implementation of the tax, "its effects on all income groups, and on our exports and tourist trade will be considered. However, Sir, I would like to bring up another point for the Minister's consideration. If the cost of essential and luxury items is raised above that of our neighbouring countries, will it not result in Singaporeans doing their marketing and shopping elsewhere? Would this then not be counter-productive? Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“This is something that all Singaporeans can be proud of and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Trade and Industry should be commended for this. However, as the Minister has stated, the majority of the jobs in manufacturing (65,900 jobs) went to foreign workers. Whatever local labour that was available was soaked up and supplemented by foreign workers. However, with each new factory being set up, there is also an increased demand not only in the production line (consisting largely of foreign workers) but there is also an increase in demand of the staff at all levels, eg, receptionists, stenographers, and other office staff, accountants and other infrastructural staff. What is the result? The result is that many small and medium-sized industries are facing an acute shortage of staff. Furthermore, these are the very industries that are not allowed to employ staff on work permits or employment passes. Furthermore, as a result of the increased number of foreign workers, the foreign worker levy is being raised, thus aggravating the shortage of manpower. I would like the Minister to comment on this problem. Are we tackling the problem at the right end? Did we allow the opening of too many factories in 1988? Was there too rapid a growth? Should we also not review the work permit policy so that both the foreign investor and the local entrepreneur can benefit? I agree fully that having a large number of foreign workers carries a high social and political cost. However, what is the solution now? There are some jobs that just cannot be automated and manpower is required. There is a mismatch of available labour. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this. Sir, I would next like to turn to the question of property tax.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. Sir, I lend my full support to the three budget policy objectives set out by the Minister for Finance, namely, the need to maintain an overall balanced budget for the long term; second, to continue investing for the future; and third, to foster growth of the private sector. In this respect, I support the Government's policy of supporting staff increases in the critical areas such as schools, junior colleges and the courts while the majority of other ministries will be maintaining zero growth in their staffing. However, Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification regarding his intention to reduce by more than 2,700 posts or 2.4% of the authorized manning level in ministries and Government funded statutory boards. How many of these posts are due to the deletion of long-standing vacancies? How many will actually be retrenched and what level of staff are they? What is the profile of these workers? Can they be retrained or given alternative jobs? How many will end up being unemployed as a result of this exercise? I am of course not expecting any exact figures but just a good guesstimate. Sir, I would like now to turn to the problem of manpower shortage which I believe is prevalent both in the private and public sectors, as a result of, firstly, the mismatch of the type of workers needed, and secondly, there is a real or absolute shortage of available manpower. The mismatch has arisen because the demand is for young female production operators in the factories, while we have a pool, albeit a small pool of middle-aged and more elderly males and females who are available for employment. Sir, the Minister has highlighted a record $2 billion manufacturing investment commitment in 1988.”
“I have seen the resolution announced to the public by the Law Society. I do not think the Bill will affect the livelihood and reputation of the lawyers. On the contrary, this motion will raise the professional status and the reputation of the lawyers. Our lawyers are a group of professionals who have very high professional standard and integrity of character. As such, they do not need to be restrained by strict disciplinary regulations. They also need not worry about any miscarriage of justice against them. I feel that they are very capable of defending themselves. Moreover, unlike the other professionals such as doctors, engineers, accountants, the disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are before a court of three judges. Therefore, a three-judge decision should be final and there should not be further appeal. Other professionals do not have any tribunal other than the High Court for them to appeal to. All Singapore lawyers are the officers of the Supreme Court here. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that our Justices should have this legal jurisdiction over the professional conduct of the lawyers. Moreover, the lawyers are admitted to practice by the judges in the first place. All our people hope that our lawyers will lead the way in this move of doing away with appeals to the Privy Council. They should not use the arguement that the Privy Council can exercise supervisory function over our judiciary as reason for retaining the appeal. I feel that now is the time for ourselves to be in charge of our own judicial matters, and the pursuit of excellence in the field of law should start from now.”
“The Green papers are now the subject of discussion and controversy. Sir, with your permission, I would like to quote one small section which is relevant to the subjects under discussion today. On the issue of "Maintenance of Professional Standards (on page 13 of the Green paper, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3) it has this to say: '4.1 The Government believes that it should be the duty of any professional body to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among persons who practise in that profession are sufficient to secure adequate protection for clients, and that the services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.' '4.2 This means that such a professional body must ensure that: (a) professional services are offered efficiently and with the required degree of professional expertise; (b) any complaints about services are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially; (c) matters are put right as quickly as possible with, where necessary, appropriate recompense; (d) where a professional man or woman fails to meet the required standards, appropriate action is taken; and (e) where the failure amounts to professional misconduct, appropriate sanctions are imposed, if necessary amounting to expulsion from the profession. '4.3 The Government believes that those who provide the public with legal services must do so in a competent and professional manner. It should therefore be one of the functions of the legal professional bodies to ensure this happens.' Sir, this Green paper reminds us again of the duty of Government and professionals, and not only lawyers, but of all professionals. Sir, the GPC supports the motion. Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Minister for Law.”
“Perhaps the Minister would also like to consider this sensitivity as the Faculty staff, I understand, are also key players in the Practice of Law Course. Sir, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law in supporting this Bill takes two points into serious consideration. Firstly, it is the duty of Government to ensure that the judiciary and lawyers, who are the officers of the court, continue to remain independent, and that all officers of the court are men of integrity and competence. Secondly, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that all professional bodies, including that of the legal profession, continue to maintain high standards of integrity and competence to protect the public who depend on the professional for advice. Sir, I am told that the legal profession feels uncomfortable with what it perceives as Government interference in the legal profession. Changes are always uncomfortable. However, change is a fact of life - we are in a dynamic state of transition, and to cling on to traditions or practices no longer relevant serves no purpose. Just as we adjust and adapt as a society to economic progress, so professionals also have to keep up with change and to change whenever necessary. Sir, in the United Kingdom, three papers have been presented by the Lord Chancellor's Department entitled: (1) The Work and Organisation of the Legal Profession; (2) Conveyancing by Authorised Practitioners; and (3) Contingency Fees. It is interesting to note that these three Green papers were presented to the Parliament in UK only in January 1989. Sir, the changes that are proposed in the Green papers have been described by the Times of London on 26 January 1989, and I quote, "as the most sweeping changes this century in the legal profession".”
“Sir, under clause 4 of this Bill, it is stated that the Board shall consist of the Attorney-General, the Dean of the Faculty, and eight other members nominated by the Senate of the Academy of Law. Let us compare this to what the Act is, as it now stands. It consists now of the Attorney-General, a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, two advocates and solicitors nominated by the Minister, three advocates and solicitors nominated by the Law Society, the Dean of the Faculty of Law, and two members of the Faculty nominated by the Faculty. Sir, the view expressed to me by some lawyers is that this amendment gives no recognition to the contribution of the Law Society towards Legal Education. The Law Society contributes about $150,000 annually towards Legal Education for the "Practice of Law Course" which all new graduates must pass before being called to the Bar. This indeed is a credit to the Law Society. I do not believe that there are many other professional bodies who invest this much money directly as a professional body towards professional education. The GPC is glad that the Minister has taken into account this sentiment and has moved for an amendment so as to allow five advocates and solicitors to sit on the Board of Legal Education. These five advocates and solicitors will be nominated by the Senate of the Academy after consultation with the Council of the Law Society. Sir, there is still the view of the Faculty of Law of the National University which has to be taken into account. In this amendment, the representation from the Faculty is reduced to one from three, that is, only the Dean of the Faculty.”
“The case is then presented to two groups of lawyers - the Preliminary Proceedings Committee and the Inquiry Committee of the Medical Council. But the final appeal is heard in a High Court before a judge, who is a lawyer. In the case, however, of the lawyer, if he faces a problem, he is throughout the disciplinary proceedings dealing with lawyers, whether as his counsel or the Law Society. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the origin of the feelings of insecurity from which arises the feeling that a Court of Appeal is necessary. At the inquiry committee and disciplinary committee stage of course, one member of the Inquiry Panel is a layman. Sir, a third view is that there are sufficient checks and balances in this present Amendment Bill. Those holding this view feel that the onus is on the lawyer as a professional to maintain high standards so that there is no need for his professional conduct to be subject to scrutiny. To them, the best safeguard is to maintain high ethical standards of professional conduct and competence. Sir, our GPC supports this view, and also takes notes of the views expressed earlier. Sir, I am sure that there are many more views that prevail, apart from the three that I have presented. Which is the view that has the majority support? I will not hazard a guess, as there is always a "silent majority" to contend with. I am sure that each of the views that I have presented will have its supporters and critics. Sir, I believe that a delegation from the Law Society met with the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Law. Will the Minister enlighten this House as to the issues discussed? Sir, I next refer to the Board of Legal Education.”
“This trial is regarded by this group as being the court of first instance. Those holding this view feel that after this first trial there should be recourse to an appeal. They suggest, that after the investigation in the finding stage, ie, the Inquiry Committee stage and Disciplinary Committee stage, then the next stop should be the High Court with one judge. This now becomes the court of first instance; and is then followed by an appeal to a Court of Appeal comprising three judges whose decision will be final and conclusive. In summary, Mr Speaker, Sir, the argument by those holding this point of view is that they are satisfied if there is provision for a court of appeal and that the court of appeal need not necessarily be the Privy Council. Perhaps the Minister may wish to comment on this suggestion. My colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, will deal further with clause 9 regarding the question of finality of rulings. A second view expressed is that lawyers should be viewed differently from that of other professions. Why? They put their case in this way. If an accountant, doctor or architect has a problem, he is represented by a lawyer, someone outside his own professional circle. For example, if the professional happens to be a doctor, the case is represented by his legal counsel to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Medical Council (consisting of three members of the Medical Council, all doctors). If necessary, the doctor is represented again by his lawyer, either at an inquiry held by the Medical Council or as an appeal to the High Court (against a decision by the Medical Council). The reasoning, if I may summarize it, runs this way. Who is the professional facing the problem? A doctor. Who represents him? Someone outside his profession, a lawyer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, having discussed the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill with several lawyers over the last few weeks, I have found the reaction of the profession to be very diverse. I will attempt to summarize some of the feelings. I will first deal with the issue of Disciplinary Procedures. One view expresses deep concern that there is no longer the right to appeal after conviction by the Court of 3 judges. This feeling is not so much against the fact that the Privy Council is removed as the final Court of Appeal, but the fact that there is no longer a Court of Appeal beyond the decision of the 3-judge Court. Those holding this view accept that it is correct that our local judges, being the persons who admit the young lawyers or the young graduates to the Bar, be the ones to judge whether a lawyer is fit or not fit to continue service at the Bar. They reason, however, that both the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee have mainly an investigative function. Their role is to investigate into the facts of the case. In the case of the Inquiry Committee, it makes its report to the Council of the Law Society. In the case of the Disciplinary Committee it only records its findings in relation to the facts of each case and, according to those facts, shall then determine: (a) that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 80; (b) that while no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under that section, the advocate and solicitor should be reprimanded; or (c) that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under that section. Should the case proceed further, then the case is heard by a Court of 3 judges, one of whom is the Chief Justice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Sir, there are three main aspects to this Bill. Firstly, touting; secondly, assembly and, thirdly, that of noise pollution. Sir, much has been said about touting and the figures just go to show how important it is that we maintain Singapore as a safe tourist destination. Tourism contributes about 15% to our gross domestic product. That goes to say a lot. Sir, I next turn to the right of assembly. Much has been said about this. The Senior Minister of State has given us statistics to show the seriousness of the problem arising from seven in 1986, to 16 in 1987 and to 22 in 1988. What is important for us to realize is the tential for mus to realize is the potential for mischief in an assembly. So it is perfectly correct that the Minister should be vested with this authority. No one is prevented from having assemblies. All he needs to do is to apply for a permit and it will be duly processed. Sir, I would next like to turn to the problem of noise pollution. Sir, in a densely populated country like Singapore, it is important that we learn to live considerately. Noise pollution is now becoming an increasing nuisance. Inconsiderate noise, whether from expensive hi-fi sets or construction sites, is equally disturbing. It affects our children's study and, of course, rest for all of us. Section 13(b) now provides for an additional recourse for the person who is suffering from noise nuisance. He can take out a Magistrate's Court order to make sure that he does not have to repeatedly suffer this offence. Sir, I support this motion.”