Chew Heng Ching
Singapore
“Sir, in terms of sports facilities, we, as a nation, are certainly very well-endowed. We have many stadiums, swimming complexes, sports halls, multi-purpose fields, tennis courts, school fields and many, many more.”
“These jobs need not necessarily be limited to menial jobs like cleaners, sweepers and lift attendants, but could be extended to include the services of older professionals such as engineers, accountants, managers, and clerical officers.”
“For this reason, Sir, I am a bit disappointed with the Budget in that we could have done more for our SMEs, many of which have also made sacrifices in the past and are still struggling and not able to reap the benefits of economic recovery.”
“In so doing, we may have addressed the form of the issue at high cost to our charities, deterred some good people from coming forward to serve and to volunteer, but may miss out on the substance, which is the bigger picture, ie, what is the best means with reasonable level of disclosure and accountability to help meet the needs of the nee…”
“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.”
“May I therefore propose that the Ministry, in the light of this massive LUP project announced by the PM, review the adequacy and the use of town council sinking funds.”
The complete record
Every one of 653 lines we hold for Chew Heng Ching, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 14.
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I had on a number of occasions in the past in this House argued that the Government consider recruiting experienced executives from the private sector for the Administrative Service. I therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Public Service Division to recruit talents from the private sector for the civil service, in particular, the Administrative Service. I think this is a step in the right direction. I say this for two good reasons. Firstly, unlike the 60s and 70s, when the best cohort of each group of 'A' level students applied for Government scholarships, such as President's, Colombo Plan, Overseas Merit Scholarships, the 80s and 90s saw greater competition from the private sector for the top talents. Thus, banks, statutory boards and even MNCs offer scholarships to attract our best brains to join them, the result of which is that our Administrative Service in the last 10-15 years did not necessarily have all the top brains. Hence this move to open up the service to private sector executives is an attempt to try to draw them back to the premier service. The second reason is this. I was once an Administrative Officer and I fully understand the utmost importance of the work of Administrative Officers as they work closely with our Ministers to chart the destiny of the country and to formulate long-term policies that affect the lives of all Singaporeans. Excellent academic and work track records and sound character and integrity notwithstanding, an Administrative Officer who has had experience working in the private sector will be able to look at issues with a more balanced and broader perspective.”
“This expectation is unrealistic and I would even say dangerous, as we might easily be lulled into complacency and an attitude that the Government has the duty to provide a scintillating budget to please everyone, forgetting that it is really Singaporeans' hard work that had made it possible for the Government to reward us according to our efforts. Singaporeans must therefore remember that so long as we all continue to strive for excellence, increase our productivity, upgrade our skills and stick to the same tried and tested formula that has secured us success and prosperity, Sir, I dare say that this very generous Budget will not be the last nor the best. With that, I beg to support the Budget. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the debate on the Budget Statement be proceeded with beyond 4.30 pm and the proceedings thereon be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 at this day's sitting. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed.”
“"Kiasuism" is now perceived by some as an acceptable social behaviour, however, shameful it may be. Dramas which used to act out "kiasu" conduct for a laugh has caught on with the audience so much so that some thought that it is the vogue thing to do. We should correct this misconception, and teachers, parents, guardians, while themselves must show their loath at kiasu behaviour, should constantly remind their children and our young ones the importance of social graciousness and good behaviour. Sir, recently our Prime Minister has called for conscious efforts to develop ourselves to be a gracious society. This call cannot be more timely. I fully support this and urge the Minister to review its budget allocation with a view to channelling more funds towards the achievement of this goal of becoming a more gracious society. Sir, as in most things in the past, I would like to urge the Government through our civil servants to take the lead and set an example for more gracious behaviour. This call again cannot be more timely as we have just implemented the Budgeting for Results and Autonomous Agencies systems in the civil service. We should put courtesy and graciousness high on our priority list for measuring quality of service, efficiency and productivity. We should invest in our civil servants and train them for gracious behaviour and be courteous in their work. I am sure the private sector will follow suit in no time. Sir, I would like to end my speech in a cautionary note. We have had good budgets for the last 4-5 years, with each budget better than the last. Euphoria and joy will soon be displaced by an expectation that next year's budget must necessarily be even better, otherwise the Government has shortchanged us.”
“Sir, as companies in Singapore regionalise, more and more Singaporeans have to be trained to manage our overseas investments. Many Singaporeans are ill-equipped to do such tasks. Also, as our economy restructures to be a developed one, industries will have to close down and relocate overseas. In the process, some of our adult Singaporeans will be out of job. I am therefore suggesting that part of the surpluses be channelled to a fund to be called the Regionalisation Training Fund to train Singaporeans in the necessary language skills and management skills to better equip them in their work overseas as we expand regionally. Sir, this proposal of setting up a Regionalisation Training Fund was raised by me last year during the Budget debate. I am raising this again in the hope that the Minister will look at it seriously this time. Sir, also on education and training, I am proposing that we channel part of the surpluses to a fund to be used for the training of our older and less educated Singaporeans (particularly those in their forties and early fifties) who may be out of job because of closure and relocation of our industries overseas. Many of these Singaporeans are unskilled and have low education and would find difficulty seeking alternative employment in this increasingly competitive environment. Sir, with our longer life span, many of these Singaporeans still have a good 10-20 years of working life ahead of them. We need to give them, so to say, a "second spring" instead of seeing them fade into "the autumn of their twilight years." Sir, our society has not benefitted from the economic success we have achieved if our social behaviour still lags years behind. When first mentioned, "kiasuism" was thought to be funny.”
“Indeed, Sir, the constituents of Eunos GRC taken as a whole will receive benefits through rebates in rental, SC&CC charges and utility charges alone amounting to about $12.5 million. Sir, our Finance Minister is certainly the envy of many a Finance Minister elsewhere. He is faced with this happy problem of how to reduce taxes and reward Singaporeans in the most equitable manner of achieving success together. Sir, the rebates, tax reliefs and incentives announced in the Budget are quite a mouthful. Many Singaporeans are still not fully aware of them. May I therefore suggest that the Government implement some kind of publicity programme through the media to inform Singaporeans of the changes. Sir, we should not be embarrassed by our budget surpluses. There is this temptation to want to spend our surpluses more liberally. I urge the Government to resist the clamours for more free handouts without considering whether it would weaken the will to work for Singaporeans. Neither should the Government be tempted to spend more than is necessary in order to narrow the budget surpluses. Instead we should look at how best to use this surplus to achieve our long term national objectives. In particular, Sir, we should use our surpluses to address the structural problems the country will face in the years ahead. In this regard, Sir, I am arguing for more surpluses to be channelled to the field of education and for the retraining of Singaporeans. I am happy to note that the Government will set aside another $500 million from the surpluses to the Edusave fund. But, Sir, the latter fund only benefits our younger population. The adult population does not benefit from it, at least not directly.”
“The last factor is higher development charges arising from rezoning of land for development. These reasons were described in some detail in the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance in this year's Budget. So I do not wish to touch on them further. But Members of the House may wish to refer to this Report for a detailed analysis of the budget surpluses. Sir, this FY96 Budget gives every Singaporean something to shout about - school children will get more Edusave grants, both employers and employees will pay lower taxes, HDB dwellers will enjoy utility rebates and have their service and conservancy rebates extended for another year with better adjustments, and various CPF top-up schemes. Even wives and parents of NSmen are rewarded through tax reliefs. Because it is so good, many Members of the Opposition, in particular, have tried to detract by labelling it as an "election budget". But the truth is, as explained earlier by other Members, that we have all played our role well, whether as parents, wives, NSmen, workers or employers, working hard and consistently maintaining a healthy rate of productivity growth, living harmoniously with each other, are rational, determined to achieve our aspirations, and led by a competent Government, we have collectively achieved success. We have therefore, by our own efforts and the will to succeed, made it possible for the Government to be kind and generous with us in this Budget. Sir, for me, this is the best Budget I have seen in my 12 years as a Member of this House. It is balanced and meets the needs of most, if not all Singaporeans. It is so good that it makes it difficult for many of my constituents this year to fault it, unlike in the past when I had cause to voice some of their justified misgivings in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chairman of the Estimates Committee for this House, I am compelled to respond to some of the remarks made by earlier speakers. First, it pertains to a remark made by Mr Ling How Doong - he is not in the House - who mentioned that he was ignorant and not aware of what sort of returns we get from our reserves. If one looks at the Budget document under the Overview section at pages 5, 15, 22 and so on, there are enough descriptions and information on the sort of investment incomes that we get from the reserves. I am surprised that this statement should come from Mr Ling How Doong because he is a Member of my Estimates Committee. As Members of the Estimates Committee, we are expected to scrutinise Government expenditure and revenue estimates in detail, and I expect him to understand the format of this document. The other remark pertains to budget surpluses. I think Members of the House will realise that last year, the Estimates Committee met to review what caused the budget surpluses in the last five years. The Committee made its observations and recommendations to the Ministry of Finance with a view to trying to reduce the budget surpluses. I think this Report of the Estimates Committee was circulated to Members of the House in November last year. It gives a detailed review of the causes of budget surpluses in terms of expenditures and revenues in the last five financial years. The recommendations and observations go to show that the higher budget surpluses in the last five years were attributed mainly to three factors. Firstly, higher than expected GDP growth. The actual GDP growth was 9-10% compared to an assumed 6-7% growth in the budget every year. Another factor is the higher than expected COE revenues.”
“All these extra premiums earned can be used to subsidise the operation cost of the MRT lines, so that it will not run into losses in the long-term. In this way, it will be possible to bring about the earlier realisation of the North-East Line and the people living there will be able to enjoy the benefits of the new modern system of mass rapid public transport. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“In this way, the burden on the commuters will be further lightened. I hope that the LTA will consider applying this principle to other public transport facilities, to ensure that the fares paid by the commuters are affordable. As the Member for Aljunied GRC, I am somewhat disappointed that the White Paper has not recommended that the construction of the North-East Line be commenced immediately. The Government's reason for the delay is that the capital cost involved is too heavy. According to their estimates and forecast, the passenger load is inadequate to cover the operating cost in the initial years, even though the passenger number is large. This will result in losses on the part of the operator. The Government has now agreed to undertake the construction cost of $5 billion. However, the commuters will still have to bear the high operating cost for the North-East Line to ensure that the LTA will not suffer any losses. Even with the proposed new formula of cost-sharing, the fares to be charged for the North-East Line will still be high. In order to lighten the burden of the commuters and to bring about earlier realisation of the North-East Line, I would suggest that the LTA be allowed to develop commercial, industrial and residential properties above and around the MRT stations, so that these areas will be turned into mini hubs. On the one hand, this will increase the passenger-load when more people are attracted to live and work there, thereby sharing in the operating cost of the North-East Line. On the other hand, because of the convenience of MRT, the properties around the stations will yield higher rentals and higher sale prices.”
“For this reason, the White Paper recommends that the Government bear the infrastructure cost such as tunnelling, construction of MRT stations, and the cost for supply of the trains and other facilities. The commuters need to bear only the operational cost, including depreciation. For example, the construction and equipment cost of the North-East Line is estimated to be in the region of $5 billion, and it will be borne entirely by the Government. The fares to be paid by the commuters shall be sufficient to cover only the operating cost and future replacement of trains and equipment. The LTA goes further to recommend that the commuters bear only the cost of the current generation of trains and equipment, but not for the future generation because future cost will certainly be higher. The shortfall will have to be paid for by the Government. I think this new formula of cost-sharing will lighten the burden of commuters and increase the feasibility of the new MRT line. This again is a proposal which warrants our support. However, this cost-sharing formula can be further improved. In dealing with the underground road system, the White Paper points out that the cost of construction is about $4.8 billion which is not far from the $5 billion for the construction of the North-East Line. Because of the construction of an underground road system, the Government can allow an increase in the car population. As such, the increased revenue from road tax and COEs can be used to pay for the construction and operating cost of the underground road network. If we apply this same principle, the LTA can also build above or around the MRT stations and make more profits because of the premium. All these extra profits and revenue can also be used for the financing of operating new MRT lines.”
“Although the transport system is planned in line with the needs of the development of the towns, they come under two different Ministries and there seems to be a lack of overall integrated planning, resulting in the potential of the surrounding areas of the MRT stations not being fully developed, and the residents and commuters are deprived of the convenience which they would have otherwise enjoyed. The White Paper states that town planning and transport system planning must be closely integrated. This is a step in the right direction. At the same time, the Land Transport Authority recommends that the MRT station be the centre of development and the surrounding area be allowed to be used for high-density residential, industrial and commercial, and public institution development. The Land Transport Authority also proposes that the Authority itself be given the right to develop the land above and around the MRT stations for residential and industrial and commercial purposes. This will change the existing method of the MRT developing passively in line with the development of satellite towns. It can then actively link up the MRT stations with the surrounding areas to develop it into a town centre, bustling with activities. The positive and proactive approach of the Land Transport Authority is worthy of our support and commendation. The other significant point in the White Paper is the new formula for cost-sharing among the Government, the LTA and the commuters for the capital cost of constructing the MRT extension lines, including the proposed Light Rail Transit system. The cost of construction and operation of the MRT is extremely high. If the entire cost is to be borne by the commuters, the fares will be exorbitant.”
“May I therefore propose to the Minister to plan the LRT system to cut through the other parts of Eunos GRC, such as Bedok Reservoir, Bedok North and Tampines North, so that my constituents in Eunos GRC will be adequately served in the future. Finally, Sir, I wish to remind Singaporeans that a world class land transport system does not come by easy. It will only be realised if we continue to work hard, foster and uphold the importance of national unity and political stability, and generate economic growth. For without growth, we will not have the money to build this system. Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 2nd January, 1996 the Government released the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System". The two points in the White Paper which are most innovative and outstanding are: (1) Integrating land use and town planning to form an overall development plan, during the planning of the transport system; (2) Proposing a new formula for financial costing arrangement, particularly in the MRT extension lines, to lighten the burden of commuters. Let me first deal with the first point. All along, town planning in Singapore is centred on the development of satellite towns whereby the population and the industrial and commercial activities are decentralised to the city outskirts and suburban areas. These satellite towns are then linked up to the city area by the transport system.”
“In meeting this objective of a comfortable public transport system, it would be good if the Government could bear 100% of the costs of the construction of such linkways so that Town Councils would have more money left to fund other necessary amenities and improve the living environment in the constituency. Would the Minister please discuss this suggestion with the Minister for National Development? Sir, whilst Singaporeans look forward eagerly to the implementation of this new transportation system, would it not be of immediate service to Singaporeans even as they are persuaded to travel more on the MRT and, subsequently, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system and other forms of public transport, to have parts of our existing roads demarcated as cycling tracks linking MRT stations and bus interchanges to blocks within the constituency so that residents could cycle safely to these stations and have better control of their time? And a corollary, would it not be practical and a safe idea if motorcyclists and scooterists would have their own lanes, like bus lanes, on our highways? I urge the LTA to give serious thought to these ideas. Sir, I also note in the White Paper that the proposed Light Rail Transit system will serve as feeders to the MRT network. The LRT will run through residential estates where there is sufficient ridership. Sir, Eunos GRC is a very big constituency indeed with a population of at least a quarter million people today. The MRT currently cuts through my neighbouring GRCs, like Bedok GRC and Tampines GRC. Except for the Pasir Ris sector, the other parts of Eunos GRC are a distance away from the existing MRT line.”
“It is no use having a world class transportation system if Singaporeans have to allocate the bulk of their salary to pay for this system at the expense of, say, education, health, food and lodging. In other words, Sir, uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans is affordability, not "world class" price when we implement this system. So would the LTA please bear this in mind. Sir, on the question of convenience, I would like to propose that the Government consider having designated taxi stands in HDB estates. I say this because I notice more rampant taxi snatching in the constituency. By that, I mean one who stands closer to on-coming traffic ahead of another gets a taxi first. So it is not uncommon in the constituency to see taxi commuters trying to out-walk each other. Thus, Sir, until the day when some relatively affluent but ugly Singaporeans could imbibe gracious social manners, we should consider having taxi stands built in HDB estates so that priority would be accorded to a passenger first in the queue. Like queuing for a bus, we must instil orderliness in queuing for a taxi in our constituency. Sir, on the question of providing a comfortable public transportation system, one way to augment this is to have more linkways connecting the blocks in HDB estates to bus stops. I know this subject has been brought up by other Members but I would also like to raise this because this is a feedback from the grassroots leaders and they have asked the LTA to consider funding the construction of linkways from HDB blocks to bus stops. Currently, the Town Council has to pay 10% for the construction of such linkways, with the remaining 90% being borne by the Government through the CIPC funds applied through the constituency CCC.”
“Sir, the proposed financing framework for a world class land transportation system implies that the Government will increase its subsidies for public transport services. I think this is a laudable move as it will help make such services more affordable. This move is also prudent as more and more of our public sector services will be privatised in the future. Assuming we continue to have economic growth, albeit moderate ones, the Government could well afford to increase its subsidies for such essential services, like public transportation, besides housing, health and education. Already budget surpluses have enabled the Government to step up HDB upgrading programmes, implement Edusave and various CPF and Medisave Top-up schemes. Transportation is certainly another area which deserves a share of the budget surplus cake. But, Sir, increasing Government's subsidy is not enough as the public transport operators must themselves ensure that they remain efficient and productive in order to keep fares low. I therefore propose that the LTA look into adopting a "carrot and stick" approach towards these public transport operators to ensure that they remain efficient and keep fares affordable. Sir, continuing on the subject of costs, residents in my constituency, and they are mostly 3-roomers and 4-roomers, like all Singaporeans, aspire to own cars in the future. Many, however, will still have to depend on public transport to move around. Their priority, they told me, is affordability first, followed by convenience a close second, and, lastly, comfort in that order. For instance, they would still like to have a choice between cheaper, non-airconditioned bus ride and, say, the more expensive and comfortable BusPlus.”
“Sir, I would like to briefly touch on the financing aspect of the proposed world class land transport system and to offer suggestions to improve the flow of public transport at the constituency level. Sir, the cost for the construction, operation and asset replacement of this exciting land transportation system will run into billions of dollars. And this is big money. Many Singaporeans, including my grassroots leaders, who had read the White Paper found sentences like, "commuters will pay fares which cover operating costs including depreciation" and "the second set of operating asset will be financed by fare revenue covering only the historical cost of the first set of operating asset", a mouthful, if not quite confounding to them. Many of them are non-accountants. Many of them are just grassroots leaders and laymen. So they asked me point blank: What does all this mean? Will fares be increased in small amounts but more regularly? Will the funding come from current surplus and current tax revenue, or will it come from the reserves? They would like to know. Will future generations be made to pay for this system in the form of higher income tax and will GST be increased in the future? Some of our grassroots leaders are concerned and many are wary. Sir, this is understandable as nothing pinches a person's heart more than a tug of his purse-string. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister, in his reply afterwards, would clarify these misconceptions and doubts regarding where the funding for a world class transportation system will come from and, perhaps, also allay the fears that many may have about world class fares.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad to have bold and astute leaders who could see beyond the finite limits and implement visions for the betterment of Singapore. And history has, time and again, credited our leaders with such tangible and intangible rewards of success as can be seen in the high quality of life Singaporeans are enjoying. Sir, although a small island nation which we sometimes cannot even find ourselves in a global map, we pride ourselves as having scored many first. Our airport, our seaport and our living standards are among the best in the world. Our Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) is the first of its kind ever and has succeeded in ensuring a smoother traffic flow even at peak hours. Many countries are now studying our ALS to try to solve their traffic woes. Thanks to the vision of our leaders and thanks to our people who together have worked hand-in-hand to ensure that our economy continues to thrive and generate the income necessary to sustain and improve on its modern infrastructure. Sir, the White Paper has promised Singaporeans yet another best, a world class land transportation system, that will not only be another envy to others but a long-term solution to road congestion which, if left unchecked, could erode our competitive edge. The formation of the Land Transport Authority by the Government, some months ago, to look into providing a comprehensive, convenient, reliable and affordable land transport system is indeed timely. And I am sure Singaporeans will once again rise to the occasion to meet this challenge and pledge their full support to ensure that the proposed land transport system will be another success which will further improve our quality of life.”
“The third clarification pertains to the sharing of common facilities between the HUDC and HDB flats now. Following the privatisation, how do we split the common facilities? The last question is: when will Bedok Reservoir HUDC flats be privatised?”
“By way of clarification,Sir. Some MPs and civil servants have died. But if they are living, they would enjoy these benefits. Would their surviving spouses enjoy the benefits?”
“I would, therefore, appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to also consider revising the pensions and gratuities of retired civil servants. This gesture cannot be more timely, especially when the country celebrates its 30th Birthday this year. Sir, I support the Bill. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the point raised by Mr Chew had been addressed by the Prime Minister when he spoke, I believe, a few months' ago, during the debate on the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government. The Prime Minister had said that it would be appropriate for us to make a gesture to recognise the contributions of the civil servants who had retired before substantial adjustments were made to public sector salaries. I think it would be difficult for us to revise the pensions and gratuities of those who have already retired, because pensions and gratuities are settled as part of the terms of service. To change them retrospectively will open a very dangerous precedent, because it will commit us to future revisions which we may or may not be in a position to make. However, a one-off gesture will be entirely justified and reasonable and feasible. A committee of civil servants has been studying this question for the last few months. They have made certain recommendations to the Cabinet. I believe we will be ready to make an announcement within the next few months. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are proud to have a civil service of the highest integrity matched by unsurpassed efficiency. It is timely, therefore, that civil servants' gratuities be revised, especially so when they had contributed in no small measure to a strong and vibrant economy. Sir, whilst the present serving officers of the civil service can be likened to the hardworking gardeners who continue the good work of pruning and maintaining a beautiful garden, should we not spare a thought for the planters who cut through the forest to create this garden? Yes, without the pioneers who took over the colonial civil service by clearly charting out its mission, improved on it and set high standards, we might not have a bureaucracy that is so clean, so honest and so incorruptible. These pioneers had retired at a time when their salaries were relatively paltry compared to what the civil servants earn today and so is their pension which is a percentage of their last drawn salaries. It is, therefore, our responsibility and moral duty to them to ensure that they would today still enjoy a standard of living that is not too lavish but yet comfortable enough to get by. We owe it to them for nurturing a civil service that is now the envy of many a government and the people. It will be nice if this Government could show once again that it cares and that it never forgets about the persons who had contributed to the well-being of Singapore and to Singaporeans. Just as the serving civil servants will be pleased to learn that their commitment and contribution to duty is amply rewarded, the retired guardians of yesterday should also share the fruits of a buoyant economy for which they had laid the foundation.”
“Sir, with the opening of Kaki Bukit Avenue linking Bedok Reservoir to Jalan Eunos and Paya Lebar, there is heavy traffic jam daily during the morning peak hours along Bedok Reservoir Road. Sir, the jam is so bad that it is quite impossible for motorists living in HDB flats in Bedok Reservoir estate to get out of their car parks in the Bedok Reservoir Road. Sometimes it takes as long as five to ten minutes to leave the car park to gain access to Bedok Reservoir Road. Sir, the congestion is due to motorists from Tampines New Town using Bedok Reservoir Road as a short cut to Paya Lebar and Jalan Eunos. I am sure when the PWD built Bedok Reservoir Road some 10 years ago, the road capacity was not meant to cater for this huge traffic flow from Tampines New Town to Paya Lebar. Some measures have been taken to try to solve the problem, ie, drawing of yellow boxes at the road junctions fronting the car park to enable motorists to get out of the car park into Bedok Reservoir Road. But this measure alone cannot solve the problem. I am therefore asking the Ministry what other measures will be taken quickly to solve the traffic jam problem along Bedok Reservoir Road. And in the long term, what is the Ministry's plan to ensure that traffic from Tampines New Town to Paya Lebar and Eunos is diverted elsewhere? Will other access roads be built and how soon?”
“Since we are now enjoying healthy budgetary surpluses, I propose that the Ministry look into considering setting aside money now for future funding of the MUP and IUP programmes. The second question pertains to the capacity of the construction industry. How is the HDB going to cope with this demand for upgrading of flats without over-straining the construction industry in the next few years? In other words, are there plans to increase the capacity of these industries and, if so, how and when?”
“Sir, an estimated amount of some $21.4 billion will be spent by the Government over a 25-year period under the upgrading programme. In the coming financial year, in FY95, from the Budget document, another 7,394 units will commence the Main Upgrading Programme while another 20,000 units will be improved under the Interim Upgrading Programme. In the Budget document, a further amount of some $408 million has been budgeted for current FY95 under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) and the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP). The MUP and the IUP programmes will pick up momentum in the next few years, as more and more HDB flats are due for upgrading. Due to popular requests by residents and now MPs, I am not surprised that the programme may be speeded up to meet the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, especially now that private properties are beyond the reach of many Singaporeans. Sir, given this trend, there will be implications on Government financial resources as well as on the capacity of the construction industry. My questions to the Minister are therefore two-fold. The first question pertains to the funding of the upgrading programme. I understand that currently the upgrading programme is funded through current Government revenue because the amount involved is still small. When the number of flats due for upgrading picks up very quickly within the next new years, this will certainly put a strain on current revenue resources of the Government. My question is: how is the Government going to fund the MUP and the IUP programmes in the long run? Will it continue to be on current revenue, which means that taxes will have to be raised in future? Or do we dig into the reserve, which means that presidential assent may be required?”
“Sir, I advocate privatisation. When a statutory board is privatised, we naturally expect the former statutory board to be self-sufficient and to be no longer a drain on the Government resources, particularly revenue. We also expect the staff of this privatised statutory board to work harder, to make a success of the venture and to be rewarded accordingly. And more importantly, Singaporeans will be able to share the fruits of this success by being shareholders of this privatised statutory board and also, hopefully, pay lower cost for services rendered. Sir, I understand that the Government has plans to privatise PUB, or parts of PUB. I have two questions for the Minister. Would the Minister tell the House the details of this plan to privatise PUB? Why, when, what and how would PUB be privatised? The second question, and this question is uppermost in the minds of many Singaporeans, is: will the price of PUB services be lower, or will it be increased after privatisation?”
“I therefore suggest that the MTI seriously look at forming a special task force comprising representatives from the Singapore Retailers Association, Merchants Association, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and other relevant Government and non-governmental agencies to address the problems faced by the retail sector and come up with solutions and recommendations quickly.”
“Sir, the retail sector is going through tough times. The key factors affecting the retail industry are the huge supply of retail space, the competition arising from too many shopping centres throughout the island, the decline in tourist expenditure, partly the result of our strong Singapore dollar, the tight labour market resulting in difficulty in recruiting retail manpower and the reduced spending by Singaporeans, partly the result of higher COEs and property prices. Sir, talking to people in the retail industry, I gather that these people are very unhappy. If this sentiment persists, some retailers may have no choice but resort to profiteering tactics and unfair trade practices. This would mean that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) may be burdened with more work following more complaints from disgruntled customers. If this problem goes unchecked, it may hurt our image as a shopping centre and affect our tourism industry. Sir, my view is that the situation is quite serious. We can argue that these are businessmen's woes. Businessmen should be answerable for their own actions. All businesses carry risks. But, Sir, it is time for the Government through MTI to try to interfere and try to solve the problems faced by the retail industry. I believe the problem is more than cyclical in nature. The Government should look at how best it could, through the help of various agencies and various retail organisations, address the structural problem faced by the retail industry and come up with solutions.”
“Sir, I just have two questions. The first question pertains to the $5.8 billion of foreign investment brought in last year. Would the Minister tell the House what benefits, directly and indirectly, will these investments bring to Singaporeans, the men-in-the-street? The second question pertains to regionalisation drive. Would the Minister give us a status report on this programme, and whether his Ministry is happy with its progress? And what further plans the Ministry has to further expand the regionalisation programme?”
“Sir, the Government has committed that it will build up the Edusave fund to $5 billion to put in place a strong permanent foundation for educational standards to be continually upgraded for a well-educated and highly-skilled people who will always remain the fundamental objective of this Government. Sir, in keeping with this philosophy, the Government has gradually increased its contribution from budgetary surpluses to the Edusave fund. Better than expected economic growth has allowed the build-up of the Edusave fund to its present level of $3 billion with another billion dollars to be added on this year. This build-up of Edusave fund will allow students to participate in a larger variety of educational programmes to maximise their potential. Sir, my concern is that our schools may be tempted to quickly implement plans to try to spend this huge amount of Edusave fund as the build-up of this fund is much faster than expected, far beyond the expectations of Education Ministry officials, principals and teachers. And I agree with Mr Peh that we must ensure that teachers do not misuse this fund. Sir, it is appropriate, at this juncture, for the Minister to tell the House what is the progress in the use of this fund. How many students have indeed benefited from it and where do we go from here? Sir, on the use of the fund, I would like to make one suggestion. I am aware that we are gradually converting more and more Government schools into independent and autonomous schools for which school fees would rise. May I ask the Minister if he would consider using part of this fund to provide additional grants to these schools to improve their quality of learning and teaching so that school fees in these schools can remain low and affordable?”
“The media, such as the movies, television, video-tapes and laser discs, have transcended time and space in the audio-visual fields, and exerted great influence on our primary and secondary school students on sex. Since the Ministry of Information and the Arts feels that they have to keep up with the situation and insists on allowing the screening of R(A) films under some restricted guidelines, I feel that the Ministry of Education should also have certain precautionary educational measures to prevent the infiltration of undesirable culture and R(A) films into our schools. I think we should take proper measures. The Ministry of Education should, under such circumstances, maintain our traditional Chinese values and also introduce sex education in our schools. I hope the Ministry of Education will consider this.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the state of morale among this group of teachers and also his Ministry's assessment on the recent promotion exercise, the feedback his Ministry officials have gathered from the teachers' unions and other sources, and what plans, if any, his Ministry has to further boost the morale of this group of teachers. Will the Minister also explain the rationale and the criteria for promotion of these teachers and how frequent will this promotion exercise be carried out from now on? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, having read the report in the Shin Min Daily News I cannot help feeling that the moral standard in Singapore is declining and times have really changed. Just imagine, secondary school students, in uniform, walking intimately hand-in-hand in public, and some are even seen hugging and kissing at the road-side, as though they are the only people in the world. How can we not shake our heads in disbelief! Since the number of single ladies and single men is increasing every year, I have no objection to Junior College students falling in love as long as it does not affect their studies or their physical and mental development. But at such tender age, they do not fully understand "sex" and this may lead to unhealthy conduct. Some teachers told me that today even secondary one girls are seen to have love bites on their necks. How can we not worry about this present situation! Following the development of our society and the continuous impact of undesirable culture, the thinking of our primary and secondary school students is becoming more daring and mature.”
“Sir, the teaching profession is one of the oldest in Singapore and teachers used to be highly respected in our society. However, with economic progress and abundant job opportunities which offer better salaries and rewards, teaching has become less attractive over the years. We still have thousands of teachers who have dedicated their life to teaching as a career. Many of them are non-graduate teachers who have put in many years of service, ranging from 10-30 years, to teach, to serve and to educate our children. It is therefore of great importance that this group of teachers continue to be sufficiently motivated. Due recognition must be given to them for their work and dedication and they must be amply rewarded. Sir, the Ministry of Education recently, in recognition of the need to keep our teachers sufficiently motivated, mounted a massive promotion exercise where some 2,000 teachers or, I was told, roughly 10% of the teaching profession, were promoted and given pay rises of between $150 and $190. I wonder if the Ministry has gathered any feedback from the teachers on the outcome of this promotion exercise. Based on my own feedback in the constituency and the teachers I have met, many seem not happy with the outcome of the recent exercise. They told me that teachers with administrative duties were favoured over teachers with teaching duties and the promotion exercise also did not give due recognition for long and dedicated service.”
“Secondly, in approving and disbursing development expenditure, is there any control procedure? Thirdly, to which Ministry was this excess payment of $246 million made? What was the development project and when were these overpayments discovered? Fourthly, since such a big sum of money was returned to the Ministry of Finance in 1993, why was it not mentioned in the 1994 Budget?”
“Sir, I applaud the Minister for introducing the Budgeting for Results (BFR) system in the civil service. Under the BFR system, funds are allocated and greater managerial autonomy granted to Government Ministries in exchange for clearly defined objectives and outputs. Sir, the BRF system will make the civil servants more productive and cost conscious and, hopefully, enhance the performance of the public sector. I strongly advocate the BFR system for it makes the public sector more productive and civil servants more careful in the use of public funds. And, hopefully, with this new system, inefficient, wasteful and unproductive activities will be phased out and scarce financial and manpower resources better deployed to areas more responsive to the public demand. Sir, my concern with this system is with its implementation. My question to the Minister is: will the Minister ensure that, in the implementation of the BFR system, it will not inadvertently result in the public sector passing on the higher costs of public administration to the public, ie, will the Minister ensure that civil servants do not resort to cost recovery measures in their effort to boost their output performance and hence charging a higher price for the services rendered to members of the public? Will the Minister also tell the House the time-frame for implementation of this system and when will this system be fully implemented throughout the civil service? Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, on page 25 of this year's Budget book, under the heading of Other Miscellaneous Revenue, a sum of $246 million was returned in FY93 to the Ministry of Finance because of overpayments in the development expenditure. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance, firstly, how did this overpayment come about?”
“At present, land under development is exempted from property tax for a period of up to five years and this exemption was introduced in 1987 to help businessmen tide over the economic downturn in 1986. The Minister has said that in this year's Budget, given the current strength of the economy and the property market, this tax exemption is no longer necessary. Sir, I feel that the withdrawal of this tax exemption for land under development is untimely. It should have been withdrawn, say, two years ago in 1993 when the property market reached its peak, and not now. The market is already softening and many property development companies are quite apprehensive about the business outlook in the next one to two years. May I therefore ask the Minister why the oversight, if any, in not removing the tax exemption earlier and why do it now? And by doing it now, will it add further fuel to the already high prices of properties in Singapore?”
“Sir, the Minister had announced last year that the property tax rate for industrial, commercial and let-out residential properties will be gradually reduced to 12% over four to five years. The rate was reduced from 23% to 16% in 1990. Last year saw a further reduction of 1% to 15%. And in this year's Budget, the Hon. Minister has further reduced it to 13%. Sir, this shows that the Government is concerned about the increasing cost of doing business in Singapore and the need to enhance our competitiveness vis-a-vis our neighbouring countries. But this reduction in property tax will achieve its objective of reducing business cost only if landlords pass the reduction to the tenants. But is this the case in practice? Sir, based on feedback I have gathered from businessmen, particularly those in the retail trade, this is seldom the case. The Minister had said yesterday in the House that the Government will demonstrate and take the lead by ensuring that the JTC, and subsequently the HDB and other Government agencies owning properties, pass on the property tax reduction to the tenants. I think, Sir, this is indeed a very good move on the part of the public sector. The question is: how does the Government ensure that the private sector landlords do likewise? Will the Government consider making it compulsory or even passing legislation to ensure that the latest reduction of 2% in property tax be passed on to tenants to help reduce the cost of doing business in Singapore? Sir, I move to one more point on property tax, ie, the withdrawal of property tax exemption for land under development, as announced by the Minister in the latest Budget Statement.”
“Without good planning and astute vision, as has been the hallmark of this Government, all this wealth creation will just be a pipe dream. On that note, Sir, I join my fellow Members of the House to voice my support for this Budget.”
“And the best people to identify which households deserve a little more to meet immediate and pressing needs are none other than our community leaders in the constituencies. I am therefore suggesting that we set up a "Constituents Hardship Relief Fund or Needy Fund" using part of the budget surpluses to be administered by the Ministry of Community Development for spending on the people at the constituency level. Applicants for this fund will have to have a deserved cause to be supported by the constituency Citizens' Consultative Committee and endorsed by its Advisor. Applicants will have to be people with a dire need for financial support caused by unforeseen circumstances. Some money may also be put aside to help deserving students from these needy families to pay for their school fees and textbooks. It may not cost a lot but it will go a long way to touch the hearts and assuage the worries and fears of these constituents. In this way, Sir, the Government would not be mistaken as a Santa Claus to all and sundry. The people will also see that part of their money will go back to them in a use that touches their hearts more deeply. Even if he is not the direct beneficiary of this fund, I am sure he will still see and feel the joy of his neighbour's plight assuaged by financial assistance through the State. Sir, it is important to remind ourselves not to take the budget surpluses we enjoy year after year for granted. We must remember that this sharing of wealth is only possible if we as a nation continue to work hard to prosper and the economy continues to perform creditably. It is equally relevant to remind ourselves not to take a robust economy for granted, that it will and can carry on thriving indefinitely.”
“This would also apply to non-electronics industries as we become less competitive due to cost pressures and businessmen relocate their operations to neighbouring countries. And when this happens, more and more Singaporean workers without the necessary skills would be out of jobs. Sir, I am therefore proposing that we channel part of the surpluses to the Skills Development Fund for the training, education and the retraining of our older Singaporean workers to better equip them for employment opportunities as our economy gradually transforms to a more skill intensive and higher value added one in the years ahead. Coupled with this, I am proposing that we step up our efforts in encouraging this group of Singaporeans to go for retraining and upgrading to cope with the challenges ahead. I can understand why these Singaporeans do not feel a pressing need to undergo retraining now because current economic conditions are favourable and jobs aplenty. But we cannot wait for doomsday to happen. We must do something now. I therefore suggest that a special committee headed by either a Minister or Minister of State and comprising specialists from the public and private sectors be formed to address this problem and mindset, and come up with solutions and recommendations as quickly as possible. Sir, in the Budget debate last year, I proposed that the Government set aside a small amount of its surpluses to a fund to help the needy in our constituencies. This proposal has certainly not been taken up by the Government. I would like to propose this concept again this year. The point here is that the needy in our constituencies needs the money more than anyone else.”
“It is my view, Sir, that we should channel more of our budget surpluses to the field of education and for the retraining of Singaporeans. I am glad therefore that the Government has decided to channel another $1 billion to the Edusave fund to allow students to participate in a larger variety of educational programmes to maximise their potential. But the Edusave fund, Sir, only benefits our younger Singaporeans. The adult population does not benefit from it. Sir, as our industries regionalise and expand overseas, Singaporeans have to be properly trained to manage our overseas investments. Many Singaporeans today are ill-equipped to do such tasks. May I therefore suggest that a small part of the surpluses be channelled to a fund to be set up to be called the Regionalisation Training Fund, or RTF, to train Singaporeans in the necessary languages and management skills, in order to better equip them in their work overseas as we expand regionally. Sir, still on education and retraining, we should also seriously look at channelling part of the surpluses to the Skills Development Fund, or SDF. I think there is a need to retrain our workers, particularly those in non-executive positions who are in their 30s and 40s, who did not receive much education and skill training in the past, and this is a point which has also been put forward by Dr Ow. The recent spate of retrenchments in the electronics industry resulting in thousands of workers being out of job is, indeed, a warning sign. This pool of workers is lucky to be able to seek alternative employment when our economic growth is still buoyant and the electronics industry robust at the moment. The scenario may be different if circumstances change within the next one or two years.”
“I therefore fully agree with Dr Ow Chin Hock that we should launch a campaign to conserve water. Sir, allow me to come to the Budget surpluses. Whilst many countries, including once economic powers, are grappling with budget deficit problem, we are blessed with another year of budgetary surpluses. Sceptics, especially those who are jealous of our success, are throwing mud at us. They said the current budgetary surplus is the direct result of the PAP Government's "pay and pay" policies. Is that really so? The truth is our budgetary surplus is largely the consequence of our strong economic growth from which wealth is created and some returned through tax collections to the State for spending on infrastructure, defence, education, health care and other social services. Indeed, the Hon. Minister for Finance has shown this fact through Table 1 of his Budget Statement, which shows that tax revenue forms a large 80% of total revenue collected in 1994. Non-tax revenue which is a consequence of Government's non-fiscal policies forms the other 20%. Sir, we should not be embarrassed by our budget surpluses. There is this temptation to want to spend the surpluses more liberally. I am glad that the Government has again resisted clamours for free handouts without considering whether it would weaken the will to work hard for Singaporeans. Neither should the Government be tempted to spend more than is necessary in order to narrow the budget surpluses. Doing so, Sir, is likely to have dire consequences and will overheat the economy and lead to inflation. Instead we should look at how best to use the budget surpluses to achieve our long term national objectives. In particular, we should use our budget surpluses to address the likely structural problems we will face in our economy.”
“The business outlook remains cautiously optimistic despite a number of unfavourable developments since the beginning of this year, ie, the Kobe earthquake, the Mexican peso crisis, the collapse of Barings, and now the weakening of the US dollar. Sir, this `pro-people' Budget appears to be an expansionary budget with development expenditures projecting to reach a high $6.7 billion in FY95, an increase of 46% over FY94. Sir, one must remember that the economy grew by 10.1% last year and foreign investments in Singapore reached an all time high of $5.8 billion. All these expansions will put a further strain on our limited resources, particularly manpower and land. These will drive up wages and rentals. My concern, Sir, is that our economy may be in danger of overheating. Unless we manage our growth prudently and with caution, cost inflation will rise and this will add further pressure on the cost competitiveness of our existing industries. We cannot allow what happened in the mid-1980s which led to an economic recession in 1986 to repeat itself in the near future. Sir, talking about our limited resources, water is a precious but scarce resource. It is therefore timely for the Government to send an amber signal to Singaporeans to conserve water. The high water conservation tax has to come at a time when water consumption remains high and increasing. We must develop a habit to conserve water. But, Sir, I would ask that due consideration be given to manufacturers who use water as a basic ingredient, such as those in the food and beverage industry. It is the wastage of water which should be discouraged. By the same token, there should be incentives when efforts are made to conserve water and, for that matter, other forms of energy.”
“Sir, the issues which Mr Ling has brought up are not new in this House. I am sure these issues have been brought up in the past over and over again. I am sure Members of the GPCs for the various Ministries will again address these issues in the course of their speeches. But I would like to add one comment. As an economist, I know it is always difficult to use statistics to compare inter-country achievements, expenditure patterns and tax structures because statistics can be misleading. When we quote statistics, are we quoting them in real terms, in current terms, in what currency? I think this has to be made known before we disclose any statistics. Sir, true to what has been predicted, the Budget in my view is a painless one, generally much welcomed. However, for some Singaporeans, the hand-outs were below their expectations. It was to them a non-event. They had expected more good news given the fact that Singapore celebrates its 30th Birthday this year. But this has not happened yet. Perhaps the Government is holding back the best news for release in the month of August when we celebrate our National Day. Sir, the business sector is said to be somewhat disappointed with the Budget. This need not be so if it remembers that a number of incentives would be introduced to boost R&D activities and to further promote the financial services industry. Businessmen understandably perceived this Budget as less than ideal. They said the Budget only benefited certain segments of the economy. They have wished for another reduction of corporate tax, but I think they cannot really feel disappointed as the last corporate tax reduction of 3% was made only last year and businesses generally are still benefitting from it.”
“I think the Bill is good in the interest of the majority - the non-smokers. I think it will be effective, particularly in discouraging more and more Singaporeans from ever wanting to take up the smoking habit. But so long as smoking is not completely banned in Singapore, it is reasonable to assume that smokers should be given just that little more room to breathe and to exhale. I therefore urge the Minister to implement the law flexibly, sensitively and with compassion and sympathy on this group of habitual smokers.”
“I believe this percentage continues to drop. Therefore, Sir, I was not surprised when I met some residents recently in my constituency walkabout, who are themselves smokers, and even a small group of non-smokers who expressed their displeasure to me on the Bill. And I must say that their impression was based on what they have read in the Straits Times. They felt that such prohibitions, as good as a total ban, is an overkill. They argued that in recreation as well as in social gatherings after a hard day's work, they want to be able to let down their hair and be merry. So why can they not be allowed to enjoy themselves and smoke, say, in a private function room in a hotel, in a HDB void deck, or in a designated area in the National Stadium when doing their Kallang roar in supporting the nation's soccer team? Sir, I have one concern also, and this is through personal experience. I am sure some Members of this House share the same experience. The publicity given to the Bill may have some adverse impact on the tourist industry. I think this may impact also on our effort to promote Singapore as a business centre. I have experience and I am sure my colleagues in this House, who are in businesses, would have the same experience. Today, one of the most onerous and most difficult tasks in trying to entertain foreign visitors in Singapore is to be able to select a restaurant that allows smoking, and there are not many such restaurants left in Singapore. Will this amendment not mean that visitors to Singapore will not be able to enjoy a meal followed by a smoke? We can be lenient to these foreign visitors. But if we do so, then would we not be accused by Singaporeans for not applying the law fairly? Sir, I want to say that I am not against the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister that there is sufficient medical evidence that links smoking with morbid illnesses like lung cancer. So over time, the Government has tried to persuade people in Singapore to reduce, if not stop, smoking altogether. At the same time, legislation was progressively introduced to add more bite to the effort. Nobody would quarrel with the Government of its intention that seeks to give every Singaporean the best and, today, the best includes ensuring a smoke-free environment. Sir, I agree with the objective of the Bill, particularly in so far as it seeks to protect the majority, the non-smokers. I support the Bill, particularly when it is targeted at teenage smokers and those who are about to start smoking or who are marginal smokers, about to take up the kick of it. I think the Bill should come hard on them, clamp down on this group of people to discourage them from ever wanting to start smoking. Sir, I feel that clause 3 of the Bill is a bit harsh in the sense that it curtails the home further to exclude common areas outside one's home. Under the amendment, if I interpret it correctly, a smoker would have committed an offence if he smokes in a place for recreation or in a park, or even at an HDB void deck below where he lives, or if he steps out of his car with a lit cigarette in his mouth in a car park. I speak, Sir, for a small minority of habitual smokers. To this group of people, I think the Bill may be an overkill. Our current measures to discourage smoking through anti-smoking campaigns, education, excise duties and prohibitions of smoking in certain air-conditioned areas have been very effective. In fact, today we are proud that the percentage of smokers in our population is perhaps one of the lowest in the world.”
“It provides an additional safeguard for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet as they will have a say on the promotion of officers to that grade. This is also sensible because the Prime Minister and his Cabinet work closely with these senior civil servants and are therefore in a good position to make first hand assessment of their abilities and performance. But, Sir, the only setback to this arrangement, as proposed in the Bill, is the cumbersome procedure of having to gazette the changes of this Significant Grade from time to time. Hon. Members of this House, I am sure, will agree with me that with the volume of legislative materials that we have to absorb each year, there is a high probability that gazette notification of this kind can inadvertently miss our attention. Sir, I believe the best long term solution is to review the hierarchy of grades in the two Administrative Services. Like what private sector corporations have been doing, introduce more grades to provide for adequate career advancement of serving officers. We have presently in the Administrative Service the existing Staff Grades I, II and III, and Superscale Grades A, B, C, D1, D, E, F and G. Sir, I would like to suggest that the Public Service Commission consider introducing Staff Grades IV and V and Superscale Grades A1, B1 and C1 to the system. We can set the Permanent Secretary Grade at A or A1, and not necessarily at B as proposed now. This can also be the Significant Grade. This will provide sufficient height for career advancement of promising Administrative Officers and hopefully help to check the attrition rates of mid-career officers as well as provide the necessary checks and balances to ensure integrity of our civil service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill mainly because our civil service has expanded and our Ministries are handling a lot more functions than before. The amendments therefore create another height for career advancement of officers in the Administrative Service and the Administrative Service (Foreign Service Branch). This provides a further opportunity to retain key senior officers in our two premier services in the civil service. Sir, the amendment is not new when one looks at what is often done in the private sector. As a corporation expands, inevitably posts and ranks are created or added to the hierarchy in order to retain good executives or provide career advancement for them. In the case of corporations that follow the American system, an Executive Vice-President's (EVP) post is normally created to fill the gap between the President and the Senior Vice Presidents. As the corporation further expands, and because there can only be one President in an organisation, a number of Senior EVP posts are created to provide further room for the EVP to move upwards. In the case of corporations that follow closely the British system, like the Japanese companies, they do not normally practise the American system of calling themselves Presidents, EVPs, Senior VPs, VPs and so on. They tend to align themselves with the British system and call themselves CEOs, Presidents, MDs and General Managers. Because there can only be one man at the top, they too create posts or ranks in between to achieve the same end. As they expand, they call themselves Group MDs, Senior MDs, Assistant MDs and so on. Sir, I can understand the need to introduce a Significant Grade in the two premier services.”
“Sir, the HDB should look into the circumstances why the four shops have remained closed during that period. With that, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I want to just add to what Mr Low has said. Our Eunos Town Council spends money to repair sinking aprons. I accept the reply by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary regarding the CRC system. But I would still like to make available the study by my Town Council on why the conventional system is not cost effective over the CRC system. Maybe the assumptions used were different. I also accept the reply by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on the use of shop lots and that a free market economy results in intermittent closure of shops. This is unavoidable. Nevertheless, there are four out of 96 shops in Eunos GRC that have remained closed all these months since the owners bought them. I would advise that HDB look into the circumstances why these shops remain closed, and perhaps look into introducing a minimum period of operation of the shop by the purchasers.”