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 8 of 14.
“He sold his shop to someone else and the new owner of the shop decided to up the rent to recover his investment. So the shop remains closed, waiting for another tenant to try his luck. Sir, in this scenario that I have just illustrated, I think the residents in that neighbourhood can be considered lucky, because the owner borrows money to buy the shop. He is therefore forced to quickly look for a tenant to operate the shop to recover his investment through rental income. But there are instances where purchasers of shop units are cash-rich. They can hold the investments. They buy the shop and they do not operate it. The shop remains closed for an indefinite period of time. And the owner hopes that by holding it, he could make a capital gain by selling to another owner in the open market at the appropriate time. Sir, the point I am driving at is that a free market economy and our current tender system for the sale of shop units need not necessarily result in the efficient use of our scarce resources, ie, the shops in HDB estates. And the end result is that the residents in the neighbourhood suffer. The shops are not serving their needs, they are standing idle or intermittently closed because of the frequent change of tenancy or change of ownership. A basic question needs to be addressed here: Are we building shops in HDB estates to allow investors to make money or to serve the needs of residents? Sir, I think the answer is obvious. I therefore urge the Minister to review the guidelines for the purchase and the operation of shop units in HDB estates, in particular, to ensure that these shops serve the needs of residents.”
“Sir, I wish to bring up a point about ensuring that our shops in HDB estates are optimally used. By this, I mean the shops should remain open for as long as possible to serve the needs of residents. Sir, shops in new HDB estates are sold to owners on a tender basis and very often the highest bidder gets to purchase the shop. But not all purchasers of shops are operators of the shops themselves. So what they do is that they tenant out the shops. This system has its own drawback. Let me just illustrate one example. The purchaser of this shop managed to find a new tenant to rent it and operate a business. The new tenant moved in, tried to start a business, operated for three months and found that the rent was too high, and the business was not viable to support the overheads. He therefore surrendered the shop back to the owner and the shop remained closed for a period of time. A few weeks later, the owner found a new tenant and this new tenant decided to try his luck. He moved in and operated a different kind of business but, unfortunately, after another three or four months, he found his business was not viable. He could not support the rent. He therefore closed the shop. And the shop remained closed for a period of time. A few weeks later, a third tenant came in and he was smart, he was a better businessman. He did his homework, he did his market research study, and he thought that there was a niche for him in that neighbourhood. So he opened a new kind of business. And he was right, the business survived and looked promising. But, alas, six months later, he found that he had to close the shop because the owner of that shop decided to capitalise on the rising property market.”
“Sir, the Eunos Town Council recently did a cost comparison study between the conventional chute system and the new CRC system and came to the conclusion that with all these operational problems encountered by the CRC system, it may be more viable to stick to the conventional system of refuse collection in HDB estates. 5.15 pm Sir, in the light of all these operational problems and cost-effectiveness of the conventional system of refuse collection, may I suggest that the Minister do a review of the CRC system and, if necessary, modify the design and construction of the CRC system for new flats in Singapore. Sir, can I move on to the next topic?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5100. Sir, the Eunos Town Council is presently managing over 200 blocks of new flats with a centralised refuse chute (CRC) system. More new flats with the CRC system will be managed by the Council over the next 24 months with the completion of many more new blocks of flats in Pasir Ris and Tampines North. Sir, the CRC system was implemented to solve our long term labour shortage problem. However, it has its own drawbacks. The general feedback that the Council has received on the system so far are spillage and stains along the corridor at lift landing and in the CRC area, littering from the flat, dumping and tipping at the CRC area, foul smell from CRC compartment, noise pollution created by compactor, motorised roller shuttle and the Ministry of the Environment truck and very often a jammed and choked refuse handling equipment. Sir, problems relating to undesirable social habits of behaviour of residents are hopefully transient. The Residents' Committee and the community leaders will solve this problem. But what concerns the Town Council is the problem created by the compactor type refuse handling equipment. This machine is frequently jammed with newspapers, telephone books and other hard materials. The Council, in recent months, has to incur additional expenses to resort to manual collections and each time it costs us $100 per choke. At the peak, a choke happens about four or five times per day. Such problems are further aggravated by the alternate day collections of refuse by the Ministry of the Environment. The accumulated refuse decomposes and gives off a stench, especially when manual collection is being carried out.”
“One cannot argue that among the numerous measures implemented to-date to control our vehicle population growth, the COE method, however unpopular, is the most effective. It determines the number of cars allowed on the road based on our projected road capacity. Sir, based on the Government's long term development plan to improve the road network and increase road capacity, will the Minister tell us the projected number of COEs to be issued per year in the next five years or at least up to the introduction of the Electronic Road Pricing system? How do these projected figures of COEs compare with the number of COEs issued each year in the past few years, since the COE system was implemented? Sir, I ask these questions because I think it is useful for Singaporeans, particularly those aspiring to be car owners, to know that the Government is consciously expanding road capacity to allow more and more cars on the road without aggravating our road traffic situation. This will be borne, hopefully, by the projected number of COEs to be released in the future.”
“Sir, the whole-day Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) has been in operation since 1st January this year. When the ALS scheme was introduced many years ago, many people greeted it with scepticism. However, with the scheme being in force now for a good number of years, I think one can see the improvement in the traffic situation during the peak hours in the CBD. Sir, the whole-day ALS is an extension of the ALS. In theory, traffic congestion in the CBD during the non-peak hours should ease with the introduction of the whole-day ALS because people will not drive into the CBD unless it is really necessary. But, Sir, I ask this question: how long will this last? There is always a tendency that after a while motorists will not be swayed by the imposition of a $2 licence for entering the CBD during non-peak hours. Indeed, I am of the impression that this has already happened since on the many occasions in recent weeks when I entered the CBD area during lunch hour, I notice that the traffic seemed to have worsened since 1st January. May I therefore ask the Minister this question: if the whole-day ALS scheme has not been effective in reducing traffic flow in the CBD so far, and if the survey conducted to-date shows that the scheme has not been effective after all, what modifications will the Minister make to the scheme? The scheme is also extended to 3.30 pm on a Saturday and with many companies operating within the CBD area working on a 5-day work week, and increasingly more Singaporeans are shopping in the CBD on Saturdays, will the Minister consider lifting the ALS on Saturdays from 10.15 am onwards? Sir, I move on to the next topic.”
“Will the Minister consider screening these programmes during these hours?”
“Sir, our TV programmes serve to entertain as well as to educate. SBC has a long history but our TV programmes today are largely imported. I have nothing against imported programmes. With careful selection and censorship, most of the imported TV programmes are entertaining and many educational. Sir, TV programmes have a strong influence on our young. It is therefore of utmost importance that programmes for the children be of the right type. I observe that TV programmes for children are generally cartoons and most, if not all, are imported programmes. I feel there is a dearth of TV programmes for children which are produced locally. We should encourage our children to see TV programmes with a Singapore theme and such programmes should be set in Singapore and acted by local children. Through such programmes we can inculcate the right values amongst our young. By this, I mean SBC should run stories or programmes that reflect respect for law and order, respect for parents and elders, and portray good moral values and healthy lifestyle. Sir, I believe places like Taiwan and Hong Kong have produced many quality children's programmes. I think our SBC should do likewise. Will the Minister tell the House whether SBC plans to produce more local children's programmes? Another question pertains to the timing for screening of these children's programmes. These programmes are of utmost importance in inculcating the right moral values among our young. Indeed, it is part of the nation building process. I therefore advocate that such programmes should be shown during prime time, between 5.00 and 7.00 in the evening. This is a good time for screening because normally after 7.00 pm the children either retire to do their homework or they leave home to attend private tuition classes.”
“In the dialogue session conducted last month on this year's Budget, some participants felt that the Government should transfer the collection from the foreign workers' levy fully or partly into the Skills Development Fund so that the SDF would have more money to sponsor more and better skills training courses. I know that the Minister for Finance has firmly adhered to his principle that all revenue should go to the Consolidated Fund, unless in very special circumstances. Last week, Mr Chew Heng Ching suggested setting up a special account for the collection of COEs so that it could be used to improve our roads. I think transferring the foreign workers' levy into the Skills Development Fund has the same implication of establishing a link between "taxation" and "benefit". This will have a few advantages because: Firstly, it would be easier for those who pay fees and taxes to shoulder the burden because they know that whatever tax that they have paid will go to good use; Secondly, the beneficiaries, eg, workers will see more clearly the benefits of certain policies; and Thirdly, the total revenue of the Government would not be reduced. This link between taxation and benefit will give the people a better understanding of our Government's policy and will help to foster a better relationship between the Government and the people. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Industry will urge the Minister for Finance to consider these suggestions from a broader perspective.”
“The reason is very simple: with less and less workers earning a salary of $750 and below, the collection from the SDF levy is decreasing. On the other hand, training and upgrading programmes are costing more and more. Here I would like to raise a few questions: First, the SDF levy collection. I would like to know how many workers there are in the salary bracket of $750 to $1,000 per month. Are they concentrated in the small and medium enterprises? What is the amount of projected SDF collection per year for the next five years, with effect from the financial year 1995? Secondly, the SDF expenditure and sponsorship programme. In the dialogue sessions with the local small and medium enterprises, I gathered the impression that most of these SMEs felt that the training grants seem to favour the larger enterprises and have neglected the small and medium enterprises. I checked the annual report of the SDF for 1992/1993, and I found that for enterprises employing 10 workers and below, the grant is only 5% of the total grants of $60 million. For those enterprises employing 500 workers and below, they received a total of 59.2% of the grants. As at the end of March 1993, enterprises with 10 workers and below took up 82% of the 86,300 local enterprises. In other words, the smaller enterprises are not getting their proportionate share of the training grants. Moreover, the SME representatives also felt that the training plan tends to favour the managerial and supervisory staff, but not the skilled and semi-skilled workers. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Industry will clarify this matter. In addition, the SME also hopes that the SDF would give greater support to the skills development training courses conducted in Chinese.”
“Sir, the Government has set aside a $1 billion Cluster Development Fund for the EDB to make investments of strategic value to Singapore together with the private sector. Sir, this is a large sum of money. I think Members of the House deserve some clarification from the Minister on the objectives and uses of this Fund. For how long would this money be spent and for what projects? What types of industries are considered strategic to us today? How will investments in such industries be of benefit to Singapore in general, to Singaporean companies and to the man-in-the-street? Sir, making money available for this Cluster Development Fund is one thing. Having the management expertise and experience to be able to invest and manage the fund is another. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether EDB has the resources and the management expertise to evaluate investment proposals for the use of the Cluster Development Fund. What safeguards do the Government have against misuse of the Fund? Would the Minister like to clarify these various points? Sir, there has also been a suggestion by Dr Wong Kwei Cheong during the Budget debate last week that the fund be used for investments overseas as part of our regionalisation drive. Sir, I caution against this. I think we should invest the fund in Singapore to directly benefit the Singapore economy. Would the Minister comment on this suggestion? Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Sir, in order to improve the competitiveness of our economy and to restructure our economy, we have to keep on upgrading the skills of our workers and to provide retraining for workers who have been redeployed. Under this major premise, I support the increase in the salary ceiling for SDF levy collection from $750 to $1,000 per month.”
“Sir, I noted that some $350 million will be set aside for a research and development fund to be administered by the National Science and Technology Board for the promotion and development of R&D projects in Singapore. This is a big sum of money and I know it is always difficult to quantify the benefits of money spent on R&D projects. But, nevertheless, I would still like the Minister to explain to the House how the money spent on R&D projects in the past has benefited Singaporeans in the Singapore economy. What will the $350 million to be set aside for the next fiscal year be used for and how will this sum of money further benefit Singaporeans?”
“Sir, enough has been said about profiteering. Many measures to combat profiteering have, indeed, been discussed, ie, the strengthening of CASE, the formation of the Committee on Inflation and Profiteering, consumer education, publication of listed prices for essential foodstuff, boycotting hawker stalls or retailers who set high prices, and the list goes on. The Government has said that, if necessary, it will punish profiteers. My question to the Minister is: will the Ministry seriously look at invoking the Price Control Act? Because I think this is the best signal to deter would-be profiteers and show consumers that the Government is serious about checking profiteers.”
“Sir, the Government has a plan to privatise the Government-linked companies and even some of the statutory boards over a period of time. This was a consequence of a decision taken following the Divestment Committee Study in 1986 to privatise the GLCs and the statutory boards, when it was argued then that the private sector should be the engine of growth and that the Government should just concentrate on governing the country and stay away from business. However, Sir, with a change in economic strategy in recent years to create an external wing for our economy, would the Government review its plans to privatise or divest its shares in GLCs? The reason I ask this is that it seems, and this point has been amplified by Dr Ow Chin Hock a moment ago, that the GLCs, because of its linkages and connections with the Government, have a comparative advantage over our private sector companies in securing investments and businesses overseas, especially in Asian countries like China. Should we not use these linkages to the maximum advantage to benefit our domestic economy? If so, how will this approach modify or change the Government's plan to privatise or divest its investment in the GLCs? Will the Government slow down its investment plan to allow the external wing to take roots and grow first? Will the Minister enlighten the House on this subject?”
“Sir, GST will be implemented in three weeks' time. Despite the massive publicity and public education programmes launched by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore since the release of the White Paper on the GST in February last year, we still hear of complaints by traders and consumers that they are confused and are not ready to implement the GST. Sir, in the Report to Parliament by the Estimates Committee in November last year, of which I am the Chairman, we examined the implementation of GST, the potential problems and we made various observations to the Finance Ministry. I think a number of observations have been highlighted by Dr Ow Chin Hock just now. In our deliberations, the Committee was satisfied that sufficient efforts have been made by IRAS to reach out and to educate consumers and businesses on GST prior to its implementation. The Committee was, however, concerned that despite the publicity programmes, the implementation of GST would create confusion and tension initially. Based on recent developments and feedback, this observation may turn out to be true. Our Committee then advised the IRAS to ensure that they are fully equipped to handle the situation, in terms of having sufficient suitably qualified manpower to attend to queries and complaints and in terms of having a new computer system for collection of GST in place well ahead of time. May I therefore ask the Minister how well prepared is IRAS today to implement GST? Is the IRAS equipped to handle initial teething problems and hiccups? And will traders and companies be penalised if they default come 1st April? Will a grace period be given before penalties are imposed? Will the Minister respond to these clarifications? 2.30 pm”
“Sir, when Parliament adjourned yesterday, I mentioned that it was perhaps timely for the Government to gradually move away from giving fiscal incentives, no amount of which is ever enough. Discounts and rebates as incentives should slowly make way for some other more meaningful and less money-based incentives. If we desire a more caring and gracious society, want to inculcate stronger family values, we should not always emphasize fiscal rewards. How much should be fiscal and how much should be non-fiscal incentives, I do not have a ready answer. But I do know that in the long run, and with resolve, the Government should be able to find a balance between incentives and rewards. With that, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance.”
“Sir, despite this good showing of a robust economy, I am thankful that the Minister has sounded his gentle reminder to Singaporeans "to prize diligence, effort and enterprise above luck and quick gains." Sir, I am concerned that some of us might have taken the Government's rewards for hard work for granted. That it is customary and has become the Government's duty to find some rewards for Singaporeans every year, never mind whether Singaporeans have put in sufficient efforts, or irregardless of the state of the economy. Even with so many rebates announced this year, how many will bother to translate the aggregate benefits into dollars and cents, and come to appreciate what the Government has done for them with the implementation of GST? Sir, it will be easy for many to feel the pinch of GST without realising the efforts put in by the Government to offset the impact. Sir, I dare predict that we will continue to hear more grouses and complaints after GST has been implemented. Sir, is it not therefore timely for the Government to gradually move away from giving fiscal incentives, no amount of which is ever enough? Discounts and rebates as incentives should slowly ---”
“Applicants will have to be people with a dire and urgent need for money caused by unforeseen circumstances, such as dependants who suddenly lose their parents in an accident, or where the sole breadwinner dies without leaving any savings for the family. Some money may also be put aside to create a "Constituency Bursary or Scholarship Fund" where deserving students could be more easily identified at the constituency level. I must, however, add that the CCC will have to do a very careful and thorough study and to check on each case, which will be subject to further scrutiny by the Ministry of Community Development which will have its own stringent criteria and guidelines. Sir, this is just a preliminary suggestion. Perhaps officers of the Ministry could work out the details. Suffice to say that the intention is clear: let the people see that some 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, I am sure he will still see and feel the joy of his neighbour's plight assuaged by financial assistance through the State at a time of acute need and great despair. Sir, lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating a welfare state as such a scheme will only be in place so long as we continue to enjoy and maintain a budgetary surplus every year, and will only be granted to needy applicants, subject to very careful checks at both constituency and Ministry levels. Last year's economic performance was exceptionally strong. So the Government could afford to reward all by reducing taxes and letting us enjoy generous rebates.”
“Would it not be better that these collections be channelled into a special fund, call it the "Road Improvement Fund", for use to improve roads, expand road capacity, build underground tunnels, for general road maintenance work, and even to subsidise public transportation to keep costs low, instead of blending this fund with other monies in the State coffers, unfortunately perceived by some as the Government "pocketing" the money. Sir, my suggestion that COE and road tax collections, and for that matter, any kind of collections, be used to benefit its givers is not new. We have already been doing this through the 4% cess, through the 1% SDF levy where collections are clearly seen to be spent to improve and promote the tourist industry, and to train and upgrade workers' skill respectively. It will be nice if Singaporeans could see, as much as is possible, that some money goes back to benefit them in a more personal and poignant way, on top of the rebates which benefit all across the board. How then, Sir, would some money go back to benefit the people? Even after giving the rebates and discounts, we still have an enviable budgetary surplus. Could we not set aside some amount of this surplus to a fund to be administered by the Ministry of Community Development for spending on the people at the constituency level? In other words, consider creating a "Welfare or Needy Fund" for needy constituents. 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.”
“And productivity will fall as more workers suddenly feel that they have become indispensable and will bargain for the highest salary without matching it with their best effort. An expansionary budget, coupled with the implementation of GST, will quite likely brew an inflationary economy. May I therefore urge the Government to continue to monitor prices of goods closely and to punish those who are found to be profiteering. If existing laws are inadequate to punish profiteers and the unscrupulous, then the Government should consider legislation. Sir, increasingly more Singaporeans are cynical of Government's policies, however well-intentioned they may be. Many are of the opinion that the current budgetary surplus is the result of Government's "pay-and-pay" policies. Many do not realise that this is the consequence of strong economic growth last year. Many have argued that the Government is taking money from the people's pockets, and putting it into the Government's pocket. And with money collected from various sources putting into one pocket, ie, the Consolidated Fund, the surplus appears very large indeed and lends credence to the argument that the Government is making a lot of money for itself. Sir, I think there is a need to dispel this notion. The best way to do so is for the Government to show to the public where money collected from a particular source and for a particular cause goes to. Take the case of COE and road tax. Will it therefore not be worthwhile for the Minister to consider applying the COE and the road tax collections directly to benefit its givers?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased that the Government has decided to plough back budgetary surplus to Singaporeans in the form of tax and public housing rebates, and increasing its contribution to Edusave and Medifund, among others. We see, with great satisfaction, that pensioners' concern that their pension will be paid has been adequately addressed. The setting up of a pension fund for public officers puts to rest their worry that their pension might not be paid. In so doing, the Government has recognised these pensionable officers' constitutionally protected pension as a liability while relieving future taxpayers of the burden. I would like to join my colleagues to applaud the Minister for Finance for his prudence and long-sightedness. Sir, the business sector is said to be disappointed with the Budget. This need not be so if it remembers that the 3% corporate tax cut announced last year will take effect this year. The business sector cannot expect the Government's Budget to be "pro-corporate" year after year. And, Sir, in the same token, it is also timely to remind Singaporeans that a "pro-people" budget may not come every year as well. And it can only come about if all Singaporeans continue to work hard to increase their productivity. It is a fallacy to expect unlimited "goodies" every year, and it is good that the business sector has now found this out. Sir, this "pro-people" Budget also appears to be an expansionary budget with increased emphasis on improving social and economic infrastructure. So more jobs will be created. So workers in the already tight labour market will have more jobs to choose from. This is good and yet bad because if this situation is not properly managed, job-hopping will return, as the previous speaker has said.”
“I only wish that people could discern between a boo-boo and a bull, and remember that even bulls are vertiginous and cannot stay on high without falling. Sir, it is necessary time and again to remind ourselves the need to go back to basics. We have succeeded thus far because of our perseverance and dedication to work and duty. But if we and the young were to believe that money can be so easily made by just punting on the stock market, soon our commitment to thrift, hard work and sense of achievement and pride in work will be eroded. And then we will hear more calls to tap our reserves. Sir, in my speech, I might have touched on a raw nerve. So be it if it could set us all thinking together, notwithstanding our success and material achievements, whether we have done enough as responsible adults towards educating our young and becoming a more gracious and forgiving society. Education of the young is not just the role for the school, teachers and educators. It is for us all as parents, as elders, as brothers, as sisters, and as friends of the young. I therefore support the suggestion by the Member for Yuhua that the Government form a high level committee to do a comprehensive review of our policies on the family. I even venture to propose that the Ministry of Community Development consider launching an annual campaign promoting "A More Gracious Family Lifestyle". And until we have a complementary sense of magnanimity, filial piety and kindness towards others, we cannot pride ourselves for our material success and achievements, however enormous.”
“They went to court and the action was expectedly thrown out. The protagonists admitted it was a storm in a teacup. Then why stir it to the extent of suing each other in court? Was a comfortable life for high earners too boring? They should appreciate the good life they lead, riding horses as a past-time when others have to eke a living cleaning horse dung. Sir, we have also read of abuses and assaults by road bullies arising from as trivial an incident as overtaking. Amidst our material gains, achievements and success, many of us have unfortunately become increasingly impatient and intolerant of others. In no time, we would have a less gracious, more belligerent society which is to no one's good. Sir, do we have to wait for the day when the Government will once again have to legislate for us to look after our parents, to be compelled to become more patient, more understanding and more tolerant? I hope not. Sir, in the pursuit of wealth, many Singaporeans have gone awry. Because of their wish to manage their own funds personally to enhance their assets and wealth, the Government had liberalised the use of CPF money for various investments. And all too soon, there was this mad scurrying for shares in the stock market. Some thought that the bull market will go on and on and on, and had even resigned from their jobs to go full-time share punting. It was worse for those who still kept their jobs because their hearts were not with their jobs, as they alternate between the phone and their work. They do not care what they are buying into as long as it is from "an insider". So loan stocks were chased up to as much as three times their redeemable values.”
“Is it not timely now for the Ministry of Education to seriously look into strengthening the moral education in our primary and secondary schools for pupils to learn filial piety, loyalty, respect, sacrifices and the deeds and thoughts of patriots, philanthropists and folk heroes? May I even suggest that the press, through the Singapore Press Holdings, consider introducing an annual award for the Model Family of the Year. Sir, we have worked hard. The Government cares enough on its part to nurture, promote, encourage the growth of the arts as a healthy form of relaxation and unwind for the spirit. Artistes, on their part, should be thankful and appreciative of the Government's efforts. They should persevere to bring arts to greater heights of esteem. What saddens me was to read of a performing artiste who, during a week-long arts festival, decided to protest against the so-called unfair press coverage of persons allegedly soliciting for sex in public, by publicly shaving his pubic hair. To call this an art is nauseous and I am glad this disgusting act was quickly condemned by the National Arts Council and the artiste brought to court. Sir, my point is, have some of our youths today lost their sense of proportion and shame? Are they unable to tell what is right and wrong? In the first place, was the giving of press coverage to an act of indecency a subject worthy of protest? This performing artiste was not alone. Why was he not stopped in the act? Why was he not reprimanded by the arts group for performing such a shameful act in public? If there was acquiescence, it sadly reflected the thinking and the stance of not one person, but a group. Sir, recently, there was a report of two private club members accusing each other of threat.”
“Worse, if the children do not have in themselves the natural love and the desire to look after their parents. We have read of adults, having concluded that their parents had become too old to look after their own children, left them to the care of the old folks home, and never returned to see them again. If this were to become a trend, then indeed we have a problem, a problem not with the old but with our young. Sir, the desire to take care of the old and aged will have to come from the heart. We, as young adults, must lead by example. We, who will ourselves become old one day, must show love and patience to our children and instil in them the virtues of respect, compassion and love for the family. It is unthinkable how they could be taught to care and share with society at large without their first knowing how to love, respect and be patient with their parents, their elders, their siblings and others in the family. We, as parents and teachers, will have to teach the children good values from young and when they are still impressionable. Asian values, steeped in respect for the elders, loyalty to friends and kindreds, and patriotism to the country, should be inculcated at an early age. Sir, I remember as a boy, I learn to sing songs like Mama Hau or Mother is Good, and Mien Yee or Cotton Shirt, which exalt the love, the care and sacrifices of the mother for her children. Through songs like Mun Jiang Hong, one learns patriotism. Thus, through singing, children could easily learn what is expounded in the songs. It is therefore our duty as parents, as adults and as teachers to ensure that children are taught the right values, given the right songs to hear and to sing, the right books to read and the right TV programmes to watch.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by Mr Loh Meng See thanking the President for his Address. Sir, in his Address, the President has once again reaffirmed the Government's commitment to improving the lot for all, and that we are on course to achieving the goals set for the Next Lap. Under honest and good government and through hard work, we have today achieved prosperity and progress to the envy of many. We enjoy a high standard of living. Many of us could now afford holidays for the family once a year. We have achieved much in material gains. And what we have asked of the Government, it has delivered. But are we happier today? Have the material gains and personal enrichments brought us more closer together as a family, and more tolerant, understanding and gracious to each other in the context of society? Are we not suffering from the problems of affluence? Perhaps the Member for Bukit Timah was right when he shared his observations with us last Thursday. He was concerned with "SQ" or "Street-smart Quotient". My anxiety is with the attitude and behaviour of our young and the upstarts. I am afraid there have been disturbing trends lately indicating that the family bond may have weakened, and as individuals, we are less tolerant, less patient and less appreciative. The Prime Minister had, in his New Year Message, cautioned that by the year 2030, about 25% of our population will be over 60 years old. Sir, there is a need and it is timely now to plan ahead on how to take care of the old. The success of our family planning in the 70s and 80s has seen family size reduced. Unlike the 60s and earlier, when there were enough siblings to help look after the aged parents, smaller families today mean fewer children to look after the old.”
“Yes. I did mention that the Government should constantly review subsidies for the lower income group, so that the cost increases could be contained. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That this Debate be now adjourned. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].”
“With that note, Sir, I give my support to the recommendations by the Cost Review Committee to contain rises in the cost of living.”
“The result: successful property developers, shopkeepers and stallholders inevitably will have to pass the high bid costs down to the consumers in order to survive. And consumers will have to pay more, resulting in higher costs of living. Sir, whilst the policy of allowing Singaporeans to own Singapore is laudable, the timing of tendering exercises is very important. Just as the bad coordination of bus fare and MRT fare and health care cost increases have upset some Singaporeans in the past, will not the sudden rush-in of tendering for almost everything - COE, share prices, land, shophouses - be cause and reason enough for another disenchantment? Already, we have read and heard of grouses about too many tenderings and their effects on costs and prices. I would, therefore, urge the authorities concerned to go slow and to coordinate all these tendering programmes. Meanwhile, the HDB should continue to rent out shophouses and stalls to tenants at affordable prices so that they will be able to compete with large departmental stores which enjoy the distinct advantage of economy of scale and superior cash flow. Finally, Sir, critics should not lose sight that we are a small country without natural resources. When society becomes more affluent and the propensity for spending increases, the desire to purchase expensive branded goods becomes even more intense. This is inevitable as the country succeeds in creating more wealth for her people. But for Singaporeans who cannot afford at the moment, there are always other choices. And this is where the Government, the HDB, the MRT, the bus companies and even the NTUC could lead in providing the choices, catering to the basic needs of Singaporeans inexpensively.”
“Sir, for a choice to be real and choosable, I would urge the Government to constantly review the standard of services provided, such as in health care and education, and if necessary, to adjust the subsidies to keep pace with cost increases so that the quality of service will not suffer, and the services remain affordable. If the choices are provided by statutory boards, the MRT and the bus companies, make sure there are enough alternatives for the people to choose from. Thus, while there are people who like to live in bigger and even self-designed flats with better finishings, there are those who just need a decent roof over their heads. The HDB should therefore continue to answer to the needs of these people who would rather live within their means and build smaller budget flats for them. Similarly, when a bus commuter could save 60 cents or more a day taking a non-airconditioned bus to work, we should give him the choice, and ensure that there are enough non-air-conditioned buses plying the route. Sir, the Government has always wanted Singaporeans to have a share of Singapore, to be part of its prosperity and success. Thus, instead of restricting Singaporeans to rent a piece of Singapore, whether a flat, a shophouse, or even a hawker stall, we encourage ownership. Unfortunately, the best approach to determining the price of a piece of valuable Singapore is through the tender system. This policy is inherently correct and is for the benefit of Singaporeans because property prices tend to rise in the long run. But the immediate impact could always be counter-objective. Sir, this is because land is scarce in Singapore. In the midst of a booming economy now, exacerbated by the kiasu mentality of some Singaporeans, bid prices have sky-rocketed.”
“Thus, to these 16% whose family incomes remain low at $1,000 or less per month, today's health care, housing, transport and education costs are more than just a pinch to them. The Committee has pointed out that the impact and the severity of certain cost increases could have been ameliorated. It has identified simultaneous cost adjustments after the last recession as one cause. The solution is simple, as the Committee has noted: coordinate fee increases, if they really cannot be absorbed by the Government, and introduce them gradually over a period of time. But more importantly, Sir, give the people a choice. I think this recommendation of giving Singaporeans a choice echoes the inner voices of many, especially those in the lower income group. On health care cost, if they cannot afford, or are reluctant to pay for the services provided by private and restructured hospitals, respect their wishes. Maintain at least one, if not two, unrestructured Government hospitals. Allow for more class C wards, extend consultation hours at Government polyclinics, as suggested by some Members. On education cost, if they could not afford independent schools, have enough Government schools so that the poor but otherwise bright students will continue to have good schools to nurture them for success. If private kindergartens are too expensive, have more PAP Foundation kindergarten classes which offer low cost kindergarten education. Give Singaporeans a choice, a real and choosable choice.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by now, the House must have heard enough accolades showered on the Cost Review Committee. Indeed, Mr Lim Boon Heng and his Committee richly deserve all the praises and compliments for having frankly, fairly and incisively discussed, analysed and deliberated a very sensitive topic that concerns all and proffering good and practical recommendations and conclusions. Sir, there are snide remarks levelled at the Committee's efforts, labelling it as a political exercise for the PAP. I think this is most unfair to the hard work put in by all concerned to prepare the Report. Sir, the Report contains details supported by facts and figures. When it had to criticise the Government, the administration, it criticised without fear or favour. Sir, I would like to discuss the Committee's Report by looking, firstly, at the impact of cost increase on the lower income group. Secondly, on the need to offer more choices to the people of Singapore. Thirdly, on the need to phase out our tendering or privatisation of scarce resources in Singapore. Sir, in the Committee's key findings, it is noted that the proportion of households with monthly incomes of $4,000 and above rose from 6.3% in 1980 to 24% in 1990, and households earning less than $1,000 per month fell from 48% to 16%. Sir, whilst more households have higher earnings now than 1980 to somewhat offset the increase in cost over the same period, my concern is for the 16% of households whose family incomes remain at less than $1,000 per month. Cost increases over the last 10 years have been considerable. $1,000 may not be able to buy the same basket of goods today.”
“This is a wrong example. You cannot use this because, factually, it is wrong. Sir, I want to repeat that this reaching-out process has to continue. The job is not over. In fact, it has just begun. Only then will the true value of the GST and the effect of the cushion in the packages be fully appreciated by Singaporeans. Let GST be discussed and worked out now by the people themselves with the Government and with the Inland Revenue people in close attendance, ever ready to explain and to help Singaporeans accept it as our taxation system and as our way of life. Sir, it is here where I think our grassroots leaders and we, as MPs, could play a useful role in trying to reach out to fellow Singaporeans to explain the GST. And I am sure all of us will do our part in due course. And who knows, through all these continued discussions and dialogues, the GST could be further improved and tailored to include practical and workable suggestions from Singaporeans and still achieve its objective of restructuring our tax system for a more prosperous Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill. 3.45 pm”
“Sir, I come to the example brought up by Mr Low Thia Khiang. I respect Mr Low as a man of high intellectual powers. But if a person, like Mr Low, could not understand the full complexity and the issue of GST, what more do we expect from the man-in-the-street? Sir, as an example, the error in the computation of the table which Mr Low has presented has been explained by the Minister of State for Finance and I would not explain that. He brought up the wrong example. He quoted polytechnic fee increase. But the Minister had made it clear in his Budget Statement that Government would absorb whatever GST there was on educational institutions run by the Government through greater grants, so that the impact on the students would be neutral. This message has certainly not gone to Mr Low. Mr Low Thia Khiang: No, I am using it as an example. That is all.”
“In other words, the reaching-out process to explain to Singaporeans should continue in as much gusto and fervour as it has started all the way until its implementation and beyond so that the fussy Singaporeans among us cannot say that they have no opportunity to ask questions or to seek clarifications and answers. Sir, officers from the Ministry of Finance and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore should continue to go all out to the field, to the constituencies, to the ground, to field the people's queries and answer and explain to them. And it is important that this reaching-out process should continue beyond, until the GST is implemented. Rebates for property tax and conservancy charges and other benefits have been designed to cushion the impact of GST, particularly on the lower income groups. I understand from my grassroots and community leaders that, to date, a large proportion of these lower income residents are still ignorant of the mechanics of GST. We should let them know that these benefits are to cushion the impact of GST, so that when GST is implemented 12 months from now, Singaporeans will remember fresh in their minds that these benefits are meant to negate the effects of GST. Sir, it appears to me, and is confirmed at today's sitting, that the difficulty of understanding the GST is because it involves too much arithmetic. Those who are unable to calculate correctly have found themselves desperately lost in their attempts to try to appreciate the full impact of GST and are swayed by the politically dishonest to believe that GST is, indeed, a grievous shock tax. The would-be profiteers who can correctly calculate but prefer to take advantage of other people's confusion deliberately miscalculate and, when questioned, put the blame on the Government.”
“Sir, this GST concept has been very enthusiastically debated in the House earlier last week and today. Fellow Members have more than adequately voiced their concerns and apprehensions of Singaporeans generally. The Hon. Minister for Finance and also the Minister for Trade and Industry have, in the process, verified many queries and have also agreed to refer the GST Bill to a Select Committee for further refinement. Sir, enough has been said and said again. I will not delve further on this except to add that I fully support the concept of GST which will restructure our taxation system, making Singapore more competitive and bring long-term benefits to all. Sir, I must applaud the Hon. Minister for so timely initiating a comprehensive tax restructure all within a very short space of time. Unlike the implementation of the COE and time-based telephone charges, the GST will affect all and spare none. Thus, the Minister has indeed done very well as he has started to publicise and explain the GST concept a year ahead of its implementation through the media, the press, SBC, forums and dialogues. Sir, to the literate, to those who read the newspapers, who listen to SBC news and who attend GST forums, or those who bother to pick up a leaflet explaining the GST, they would already by now more or less have understood the concept of GST and how it works. Even if the number in this category is large, but so long as there are some Singaporeans who are not in this category, the Government has a duty to continue to explain the GST to them because GST will affect them.”
“Sir, I see from your facial expression that you are getting impatient. I shall, therefore, make my remarks short.”
“Sir, I wish to touch briefly on the subject of administration of special schools for the disabled. By this, I am referring to schools like Chao Yang Special School, Katong Special School and others. Sir, I believe the education of disabled children is left very much to voluntary organisations while the Government provides a grant as well as gives the necessary support like training of teachers and so on to these organisations to run the schools. Sir, I have received complaints from parents that these schools are generally poorly run. Facilities such as classrooms and toilets are inadequate. There is insufficient good teaching staff. Trained personnel such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, are also inadequate. Educational aids such as computer programs or educational TV programmes, specially designed for disabled children, are rare and few. Sir, I wish to ask the Minister if his Ministry would re-consider and take over the administration of such schools from the voluntary organisations, in order to ensure that a minimal acceptable standard of teaching is maintained. Alternatively, would the Ministry consider giving a greater grant to these schools to enable them to have better teaching facilities? Sir, I would like to raise with the Minister one clarification. I am not sure if Edusave also covers such disabled children. If not, would the Minister consider extending Edusave to these disabled children?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. When the cost of living improves dramatically, I will raise this question again. Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn The sum of $57,267,970 for Head X ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head L -”
“Sir, would the Minister at some point in time in the future consider a Singapore Allowance for the other 7,000-odd pensioners?”
“Sir, would the Minister be able to tell me, out of the 16,000 pensioners today, what proportion actually draw pensions of less than $1,000 and who will enjoy the Singapore Allowance?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head X of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 4100. Sir, this topic of the plight of pensioners has been brought up by many an MP in the past, and I think it is opportune for me to bring up this subject again. Our pensioners have rendered invaluable service to the country. Today, we have more than 16,000 pensioners and from time to time we read in the papers about genuine grouses made by some of these pensioners that their pensions have been eroded by inflation. Indeed, some Members of this House have voiced their concern for these ex-civil servants in the recent debate on the GST. Some have argued that the additional $30 given as special allowance to pensioners may not be enough to offset the GST payable by these pensioners. My concern is that our pensioners receive a fixed pension after their retirement. This amount is not adjusted until after they have lived beyond the 12 years after their retirement, after which they receive the full amount. Even then, this amount is not adjusted. Sir, with inflation, this amount gets eroded over the years. Its purchasing power drops. May I therefore ask the Minister if he would consider pegging pensions to the cost of living index, CPI or some other indicators? This will certainly help to ensure that our pensioners do not suffer a drop in their standard of living as a result of inflation.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $419,251,400 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $580,139,300 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head X -”
“Sir, I understand that under the Income Tax Act a penalty of 5% is imposed on taxpayers, individuals and corporate bodies, for late payment of income tax, ie, failure to pay tax within the 30 days stipulated. With the emergence of the Inland Revenue Authority as a statutory board, it would indeed be a testimony of our maturity if the Comptroller of Income Tax, with the blessing of the Minister for Finance, is permitted to pay interest at 5%, or whatever reasonable market rate, on tax ascertained to be repayable from the date a claim for such repayment is lodged by a taxpayer. In other words, what I am saying is that whilst a taxpayer has to pay a penalty to IRAS for late payment of income tax, would it not be equitable also for IRAS to pay interest on any late refund of tax repayable to the taxpayer? Sir, I believe such a practice is prevalent in some countries like the United States, UK and Australia. Would the Minister consider this suggestion?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code NN 1500. Sir, I am heartened to note the hon. Minister has finally allowed a taxpayer to claim tax relief for aged parents even if the latter are not residing in the same household. These taxpayers retain close family ties and maintain their aged parents, despite not being able to house them under the same roof. But, Sir, under existing guidelines, this relief is allowed only if the parents are over 55 years of age. Many taxpayers are also supporting their parents who are below 55 years of age. These parents are unemployed and many, for some reasons, are not working. Many prefer to stay at home to look after their grandchildren. Many, particularly those in their early 50s, find it difficult to seek employment. May I therefore, ask the Minister if he would consider lowering the age limit to 50 years of age. Or, better still, have no age limit, so long as the taxpayer can prove that the parents are not gainfully employed. Sir, can I move on to the next topic?”
“Sir, I shall be brief. Manpower is a scarce resource in Singapore. As our economy progresses and the standard of living improves, more and more Singaporeans will shy away from certain jobs. Collecting refuse is certainly one of such jobs. Indeed, we may have to resort to foreign labour to do our daily refuse collection. Even this pool of foreign labour may one day dry up as our neighbouring economy improves. My concern is that a day will come when we may not be able to collect our refuse on a daily basis. This has wide-ranging implications since most of our refuse bin collection centres at the older HDB estates do not have facilities or the capacity to store refuse for more than a day. I understand the Ministry, in trying to solve the shortage of labour problem, tried out a pilot scheme in some private estates last year to get residents to voluntarily dump their refuse onto the moving trucks. I wonder how successful was this pilot project. Could the Minister enlighten the House on the magnitude of this shortage of labour problem for refuse collection and how his Ministry plans to overcome this problem in the short term, in the medium term, and in the longer term?”
“Sir, I had the impression that the Committee on Profiteering and Inflation was actually dissolved because inflation had been kept low in the last decade. But anyway, I am happy with the Minister's reply. I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WA 1500. Sir, since the Minister has actually touched on the subject of inflation and profiteering to some extent in his earlier reply, I shall make my comments very short. The Minister for Finance in his reply to the House on the Budget Statement yesterday stated, and the Minister for Trade and Industry has just restated a moment ago, that the Government will implement various measures to combat profiteering and inflation. Government will monitor prices closely, give a greater grant to CASE, step up consumer education, encourage formation of consumer groups, encourage RCs and CCCs to report on shops that profiteer and, through the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, take enforcement actions against profiteering and cheating, and, through NTUC Fairprice, widen the sources of supply of essential food items to keep prices stable. Sir, there is nothing wrong with this multi-agency approach, so to say, to solve the problem. What I feel is needed is somebody, some committee or some person to coordinate all the activities of these various agencies. May I propose that the Government form a committee headed by perhaps a Permanent Secretary to steer, supervise and coordinate the activities of all these different agencies to ensure that they all pull in the same direction? And since the Minister responsible for the economy is the Minister for Trade and Industry, I would propose that the committee be headed by perhaps the Permanent Secretary (Trade and Industry). Would the Minister consider this suggestion?”
“There may be those who complain that the burden is too much. A man must support his wife, he must support his children. Now it is proposed that he should support his parents as well. This is too much. I trust that no one will raise this objection. There is no merit whatsoever. Most Singaporeans manage to support family and parents without the need for legislation. The proposed legislation will not change things for them. What will change is that the parents will be entitled to ask for support from children who can afford to pay but refuse to do so. Let me summarise what I have said. Prices defy the law of gravity. They only go up. Government handouts to retirees are a bottomless pit. It is not a long-term solution since there is no guarantee that Government will always be able to afford welfare payments. The onus of supporting retirees should be on their children. Most Singaporeans support their parents. There are some who can afford to do so but will not. The solution is to legislate the right for a parent to obtain maintainence from his children. This right is already part of Singapore law through the Poor Law Act of 1601. The trouble is that there is no mechanism for enforcing that right. Such a legal right would be in keeping with our desire to entrench good values in our society. In conclusion, let me say that there is no legal impediment to passing such a law. It will cost the Government nothing. It will send a powerful signal as to the type of society we seek to create. If it benefits even a thousand Singaporeans, even a hundred Singaporeans, even ten Singaporeans, I say it is worth the effort.”
“This was done in the reign of Elizabeth I in the Poor Law Act of 1601. This law provided that the children of a person unable to maintain himself should maintain him at such rate as the local Justices of the Peace should assess. The penalty was a fine of 20 shillings per month for each defaulter. The Poor Law Act of 1601 was part of a corpus of English law that existed when Singapore became a British possession. It, therefore, probably applies here for technical legal reasons that I shall not trouble this House with. It is no longer law in England. In 1948, the British introduced the welfare state and the onus of providing for the old was transferred to the Government. We do not want to follow that unhappy precedent. But the Poor Law Act of 1601 cannot be applied meaningfully in Singapore because there is no mechanism for its application. It hangs there tantalisingly out of reach, a right without a legal remedy. That is why we need modern legislation. There is no reason to be afraid of such legislation. We take it for granted that children must be maintained by their parents. It may surprise hon. Members to know that this is not a common law right. It is a right created by statute. In Singapore, it only dates from 1872. It is a relatively modern creation. A parent's right to support from his children should be seen as a corollary of a parent's obligation to support his children. If we can legislate the latter, there can surely be no objection to legislating the former. Some will say that it is impossible to fairly assess maintenance for parents. This is also wrong. The courts assess maintenance for children. They assess maintenance for wives. The problem of maintenance for parents is not fundamentally different.”