Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 85.
“Last November, the Minister was reported to have said in relation to the upgrading of the Toa Payoh estate: `Upgrading was necessary to prevent flats in the older estates from degenerating into slums.' The Government does not want older flats to degenerate into slums. That is perhaps the more true reason why Government wants to upgrade older flats. If that is the rationale, then the Government should go ahead to pick the oldest and the most run-down flats for upgrading rather than choose those flats for upgrading for other reasons, be they political or otherwise. The Government should be seen to be transparent and open in its upgrading programme. In order to be open and transparent, the HDB should compile a list of all the HDB blocks of flats that are going to be upgraded and give the people a time-table to show when each of those blocks will be upgraded. I think this is the fairest way of carrying out the HDB upgrading programme. The HDB is implementing its plan to give Toa Payoh a facelift in 1997. A report in the New Paper on 3rd November last year said that: `Based on strong support by residents for the renewal plans, the Government has decided to upgrade Toa Payoh estate.' In fact, the Government is going to do a lot of things. They are going to build a road network, improve a neighbourhood park and also build a new bus interchange. Also, there shall be Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). Under this scheme, Blocks 145, 147, 151 and 152 at Toa Payoh shall be developed. I also read that there shall be en-bloc redevelopment of HDB estates in other estates, such as Tiong Bahru.”
“The Government has announced that it shall spend about $15 billion to upgrade HDB flats over the next 15 years or so. The HDB has carried out sample upgrading of flats under its Interim Upgrading Programme. Under this programme, there does not seem to be any rationale in picking the flats for upgrading. Some flats which are upgraded so far are only 17 years old. These flats which are fairly new are upgraded in preference to older flats. Many flats in Singapore which are over 20 years old are not included, like those in my constituency at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh and other older estates are bypassed. Can the Minister explain why younger flats are upgraded and older ones are not? Some other aspects of the upgrading programme are also unclear. Apparently, there is talk that if people support the PAP their flats shall get upgraded sooner. Is this true? I personally do not think so. Perhaps the Minister can answer. All Singaporeans must be treated equally, whether they support one party or the other at the polls. Singaporeans pay their taxes and do what is required of them under the law, like making good their national service liabilities. If they do not do their national service, they can be jailed. There is no favouritism for any Singaporean in the eyes of the law. Under the Constitution, all Singaporeans have the freedom to vote who they like. Why then should one be discriminated in not getting priority by the way he votes? The Senior Minister has said that it is the essence of government for the Government to give good things to the people so that they can vote it. What about the case where the Government threatens to withdraw its services and not give priority, say, to upgrading of their HDB flats unless the people vote for the Government? Is it right? I do not think so.”
“Sir, I have a cut on "Private Sector Participation in Development of HDB Flats". Since the formation of the HDB in 1960, it has to-date built over 600,000 units of flats. I believe that at one time the HDB had intention to allow private participation to develop about 10% of its flats. I think the public would welcome that. We all know that private participation in building public housing is a good thing. It gives the HDB competition in regard to cost and design, and the public can also compare and contrast those flats built by the private sector with those built by the HDB. Even for Singapore Power, the Government has deemed it a good thing to give it competition. I think this kind of competition should also be given to the HDB. At one time the former Minister in fact had offered me to build four blocks of flats at Yishun. Arising from that, many people had approached me, including engineers. And one engineer in particular from France had informed me that he could in fact build cheaper flats than the HDB if there is better calculation of the amount of materials used. In other words, if you do not calculate properly, you may use excess amount to make sure that the flats are strong. But if you have got better calculation, you not only can make sure that the flats will stand up and remain there, but also with the safe amounts of materials used, it could be cheaper. In the light of all these, can the Minister let us know whether the earlier intention of the HDB will be carried out? If not, why not allow private participation in the building of HDB flats?”
“I am still not very happy with the reply. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $817,841,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $323,737,900 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -”
“I am surprised to hear that the Senior Minister of State says that there is a 50% subsidy. In my constituency, the dentists are charging $30-$35 per filling. I have the Government rates which also range from $15 to $30. In fact, if you want a specialist to do it, he charges $35. How does she arrive at this subsidy?”
“Sir, can I have a further clarification, please?”
“I understand that the rates charged for filling up a cavity at the community dental clinics range from $15 to $30. Obviously, $15 is for a very small cavity and $30 is probably for a bigger hole that they have to cover up. Can the Ministry not have a fixed rate, whether it is a small or a big cavity?”
“Sir, since we have some time, may I get clarification from the Senior Minister of State before I withdraw my amendment? The Chairman: Yes.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PF 1500. Sir, from my own experience, I note that the cost of private dental care has recently gone up quite high. Our population is also growing. My general observation is that there is a problem in regard to dental health care, especially among the workers in Singapore. I believe there are only three community dental clinics spread out in Singapore and three other dental clinics situated in each of the hospitals, ie, Singapore General Hospital, NUH and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But I believe the dental clinics in the hospitals only see patients by appointment and they mostly cater for specialist treatment. I may be wrong but the Minister could clarify. Each of us only has got two sets of teeth in our whole lifetime. We lose the first set very quickly and we have to take care of the next set and use it for the rest of our life. Therefore, if there is neglect, we are not going to get any replacement. So I think dental care is important. Also, I have been told that tooth decay can emit poison and if constantly enters into the body, it can cause health deterioration. So dental care, I believe, is very important, if not just as important as the general health care. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to increase the number of community dental clinics in addition to the three that we already have.”
“Even assuming the hospital land is used for an alternative purpose, there shall be compensation to the Government when there is a sale, or transfer fee, or income from its alternative usage. Therefore, if the Government does not include the cost of hospital land, I would think the hospital's medical services could be brought down. I hope the Minister can explain, if these land and hospital costs were not taken into account, whether or not the cost of medical care could come down.”
“Cost shall go up in Government privatised hospitals. I do not think that it is right for the Government to compete with the private sector in providing health care services. The Government should have a policy of providing cheap, yet good health care services. The Government should follow the example of the HDB in its building programme. In 1960 the HDB was formed to provide low cost and good housing to the masses of the population and it left the development of better houses to the private sector. The Ministry of Health should also do that - provide more for poorer Singaporeans and leave higher class health care services to the private sector. If HDB can assist the majority of Singaporeans to secure cheap and good housing, I cannot see why the Ministry of Health cannot provide cheap and good health care services to the masses of Singaporeans. 4.45 pm At the moment, health care costs in Government run hospitals are almost as expensive as those in the private sector in respect of the better class. I have a lingering suspicion that those costs are so high because the Government has taken the private company's approach in pricing its medical services. I have been informed that the costs of land and hospitals have been included in the calculation of its total expenditure. In the case of the medical services, I think this is not the right way to determine its unit cost. All those parcels of land and hospitals were inherited by the Government from the British colonial power, and there was hardly any cost incurred. There is also no loss of opportunity cost because those pieces of land in any event are planned for use by hospitals and shall not be used for an alternative purpose.”
“The bottom line about the restructured hospital is the health care financing. Since Government hospitals were restructured, we heard a lot about how costly it is to be treated in the former Government hospitals. Formerly, Singaporeans could visit Government outpatient clinics in hospitals and pay only a few dollars. But these days, even before seeing the doctor in the hospital, one must first pay $12 for registration fee. I have personally received several complaints from my residents whose husbands were hospitalised and underwent surgery. Each of their hospital bills came to over $20,000. One family's savings were completely depleted by payment of hospital bills of the breadwinner of the family. A member of that family subsequently has to come to the Town Council to request for waiver of its service and conservancy charges. I think, in principle, it is wrong for the Government to set such a high level of hospital charges so much so that once a family member suffers a catastrophic illness, the whole saving of that family is wiped out. The fees in Government privatised hospitals (GPHs) are not cheap. People are saying that the GPHs are trying to compete with the hospitals in the private sector. The GPHs are being upgraded and many have commented that they look very posh. The trend of the GPHs is to become like that of private hospitals. That is the perception. The latest example is the new Kandang Kerbau Hospital. It looks really expensive. One wonders who this new Kandang Kerbau Hospital shall be built for. Mostly for the rich or mostly for the poor? How many poor beds are there going to be in the new Kandang Kerbau Hospital? What is going to happen to the old one? Is it going to be upgraded? What about its new price structure? It appears that the trend is there.”
“But there is no division as to whether the figure of 47% comprises just secondary or upper and lower secondary education. If we take one half of the secondary education as lower level, then it is still something like 50% of our workforce have only attained up to lower secondary education and the percentage of those with primary level is still fairly high at almost a quarter of our workforce. 2.45 pm In America, the TFP is high because they make education available to all. I have heard of even truck drivers enrolling in colleges to get a degree. In Germany, they have widespread well-established apprentice system. Whatever system Singapore adopts to promote TFP growth, it must first of all solve the basic problem of poor education amongst our workers. The Minister has said that the way to promote TFP growth is through a holistic management of the main factors. The main factor in our case is to make sure that all workers secure a good basic primary and secondary education for a start. Since the Minister has suggested a holistic approach, which I agree, I would suggest that he should persuade relevant Ministries to do the following very quickly: (1) Establish neighbourhood libraries in all HDB housing estates so that kids from poor homes can be introduced to books at an early age; (2) Reduce the class size of all neighbourhood schools to 30 pupils per class for a start so that teaching can be more effective to the poorer pupils; (3) Make education compulsory at least for 10 years; and (4) Have widespread campaigns to make both management and workers be aware of qualitative improvements in productivity and take steps to promote TFP growth in their workplaces.”
“I am not surprised at all that the average quality of the Singapore worker is only one-tenth of that of the developed countries at the same stage of development. The reasons are obvious. Firstly, a large proportion of our workforce comprises workers who have no education at all or only a primary education. A large percentage of these workers have no literacy or numeracy skills. Secondly, the number of foreign workers in our workforce has become significant. The productivity of foreign workers is generally low and certainly lower than those of Singaporean workers. Thirdly, the attitude and management of workers have not been geared up to make high productivity a way of life. I am referring in particular to the non-manufacturing sectors. In the 1994 Budget statement, Dr Kanwaljit Soin referred to the Labour Force Survey of 1992. She pointed out that of the persons employed aged over 15 years but under 20 years of age, there are 70,000 people and this does not include foreign workers. Nearly 4,000 have never attended school or only up to lower primary level. Another 29,000 or 40% of our young workers below 20 years have only primary or lower secondary education. On the other end of the age group, those workers who are over 40 years old constitute the largest group who either did not attend school or only completed up to lower primary level and these workers numbered 150,000. In the past years, I have also highlighted the low level of education of large numbers of our workers but the Government has to-date not taken any steps to remedy this situation. The latest figures of education profile of workforce just distributed under Table 1 by the Minister today show that there is improvement.”
“Improving productivity is not something new in Singapore. We have heard of Quality Control Circles, or QCCs, more than 10 years ago. In those days, in the early 80s, we read a lot about the promotion of QC circles in factories and other workplaces. Somehow, despite the encouragement to set up QC circles, qualitative improvements in productivity have not been as good as one would like. In November last year, during the Second Reading of the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board Bill, we heard the Minister say that it was critical for Singapore to seek greater qualitative improvements as opposed to sheer expansion in inputs. The Minister implied that much of Singapore's growth had been through increases in inputs of capital and labour rather than through high productivity or quality labour. Qualitative improvement in our workforce is definitely critical to our economy. Where there is no qualitative improvement in the workforce, investors, whilst sinking in more capital and deploying more labour, will find there is no proportionate increase in productivity. I have been informed that in the 60s, a foreign investor needed only to invest $25,000 in relation to one worker in his factory. Now, after 30 years, he has to put in something like $125,000 for the employment of one worker. The capital increase is five times over the last 30 years but his returns are not five times more, but only marginally. The Minister has said that in most developed countries at the same stage of development as Singapore is in now, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) averaged 2% to 4% a year. However, for the period from 1980 to 1992, annual TFP growth in Singapore only averaged 0.4%.”
“Sir, what I am going to say about the small and medium-sized enterprises have already been voiced by previous speakers. I have spoken with people who are connected with small and medium-sized enterprise and, without exception, each and everyone of them painted a gloomy picture of high costs of doing business in Singapore. They complained of high rentals, high labour cost, and lack of labour. The Government should take note of their complaints. I think there is a serious problem among our small businesses in Singapore. Whereas all the big ones are foreign-owned, a majority of these small-sized businesses are owned locally. So the Government should take note of not only the complaints of the people who are in small businesses but also of what is, without exception, almost spoken by every MP, that there is a problem among the SMEs. Perhaps as suggested, CPF rates and foreign workers levy could be reduced and also the employment of foreign workers for these small enterprises could be relaxed.”
“These are the people who will spearhead the move to go abroad to make a stake for Singapore in those emerging countries. We cannot nurture this kind of people in a green house. People have commented that Singapore is a very protected society. Is the Government willing to make Singapore less protective and open up the society with a view to allowing entrepreneurial leadership, daring and adventure spirit to grow? 5.30 pm”
“Sir, I support the Government's efforts to establish an external economy. In the past, Singapore had become rich through the investments of multi-national companies. But after three decades, our economy is maturing and production costs have gone up steeply. Our neighbouring countries are following what Singapore has done. They too are providing attractive conditions for multi-national companies to invest in their countries. Since they are starting later than Singapore, the costs of production in those countries are much lower than those of Singapore. Therefore, Singapore is facing stiff competition in its attempt to attract capital into the country. Singapore has really no alternative. For its long-term survival, Singaporeans must go out into the fast growing industrialising economies such as those in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and China to do business there. In fact, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have already invested heavily in those countries since 1989. South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong realise the importance of opening up an external wing for their economies. So must Singapore. The question is how do we do it. The Government has quickly set up a committee to promote enterprise overseas and it has made wide-ranging recommendations from various tax and fiscal incentives to financing assistance for small and medium enterprises to venture overseas. The Government is also willing to be a partner in overseas ventures and also to act as a facilitator. The help given by the Government is very attractive but, to me, if Singapore is going to be effective in opening up a new wing to our economy, we must have droves of Singaporeans who are imbued with entrepreneurial leadership, daring and adventure spirit.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Yes. He says that the principle in acquiring land is the same as that for the construction of previous MRT lines. But there is a very basic fundamental difference in that the last three MRT lines were all built above ground. I think only 30% were underground. Whereas in this particular line, only about 6% shall be above ground. The rest are all underground. So it does not affect the surface at all.”
“Before I withdraw the amendment, Sir, can I get a clarification from the Minister?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TC 1500. I would like to make some enquiries from the Minister on the compulsory acquisition of land in connection with the construction of the North-East MRT line. The North-East line is 20 km long comprising 16 stations and it shall take about 6 years to be built. Its completion date is expected to be about 2002, and the total project shall cost $5 billion. It has been reported that 63 ha of land shall be compulsorily acquired and 20 ha of that land belong to private owners, and the remainder belongs to statutory boards and Government-linked companies. We are also told that the whole North-East line shall be built underground, except for one station. If the whole line, except for one station, is to be built underground, why is there the necessity that so much land should be acquired? In that respect, I would like to ask the Minister what percentage of the land acquired is required in connection with the construction of the MRT line and what percentage of it is to be used for other developments. I am particularly concerned with the large amount of land acquired in my constituency. Will all the land acquired at Potong Pasir be required directly for the use of the MRT line? If not, what will the land acquired going to be used for? Will there be intensive housing development above or near the two MRT lines to be constructed at Potong Pasir? I would also like to ask the Minister on the cost of $5 billion, which is a very large sum of money. Is this total amount to be used primarily for construction cost of the line or part of it shall be used as payment of compensation for the land compulsorily acquired?”
“And these are based on their CPF and tax records, because under CPF and tax laws, all wages attract CPF and are liable to be taxed. Therefore, this is a reasonable basis upon which to assess the National Serviceman's pay for the purposes of ICT make-up pay. Allowances paid as reimbursements are not considered as wages and do not qualify for make-up pay and this would include night stop and laundry allowances paid to airline staff, for example, when they are overseas. However, commissions, profits and overtime pay are included so long as the NSman has continuously received them six months prior to the ICT. Mr Chiam claims that there has been no recognition for NS men since NS was first introduced many years ago until 1990. I am sure Mr Chiam does support these new initiatives that the Government has taken to recognise National Servicemen and he has said so. With regard to his specific suggestion that NS should be used as a skills training avenue, the education system in which our young people spend 10 years already provides these avenues for skills training. The purpose of NS is to prepare our young men to defend the country and where they take up skills which are useful, that is an additional benefit, but that is not the purpose of National Service. As regards gun clubs, NSmen can already make use of simulators at SAFRA to train their shooting skills without having to issue them with guns. Mr Chiam See Tong: What about uniforms? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: As regards booking in and booking out in uniform during in-camp training, I am not sure that it is such a major issue. I am not sure what is the motivation behind Mr Chiam asking this question.”
“00 pm Mr Charles Chong also asked whether we have schemes to assist NSF personnel who are in financial difficulties. Yes, we have. Since 1975, we have had such a scheme going and 1,475 servicemen have benefited from this. Under the scheme, financial assistance is granted to full-time National Servicemen whose families' monthly income fall below the subsistence level, based on MCD's guidelines. They can receive grants for up to six months, after which there is a review. And we can also provide some loans where this is necessary. Dr Wang Kai Yuen raised the question of CPF for active servicemen and the subject of whether active servicemen can benefit from the CPF. Since 1993, the Government has introduced three Share Ownership Top-Up Schemes (SOTUS) and we understand that NSF do not have CPF. What Mindef has done is to assist them by opening CPF accounts for them and providing National Servicemen who qualify for SOTUS with an interest free loan so that they can make their own contribution to CPF in order to receive the CPF top-up. Short of raising NSF allowances to full-time employment salary, which would involve a major change in the philosophy and the principles of NS allowance, we will not be able to bring up the allowances and CPF contributions of NS men to the levels of what salaried workers get. But as I have said, we are reviewing National Service allowances and we are always reviewing the schemes and benefits which we can give to full-time National Servicemen so that they would be able to have a reasonable standard of living even while they are serving their NS. Mr Charles Chong asked about make-up pay. The principle regarding make-up pay is that NS men do not suffer a loss when they come for in-camp training (ICT).”
“Mindef should explore ways to assist NSmen to acquire some kind of skills in which they could use after they complete their first instance training, such as motor car or aircraft mechanics, training in computer, or even trained to be cooks, or in managing a store. I hope the Minister would look into these suggestions. I read that, in Switzerland, gun clubs are established throughout the country where NSmen could go for target practice. Could we also not set up similar gun clubs here to allow NSmen to practise shooting? Like Switzerland again, shooting skills have been maintained outside NS training time, we could hope to cut down the 2 1/2 years' training period to a shorter one. I have been told that some NSmen are required to book in and out of their camp in uniform. Can Mindef allow them to book in and out of the camp in civilian clothes? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Charles Chong and Mr Teo Chong Tee have asked about allowances for full-time National Servicemen. I would like to state a few principles first. Unlike civil servants or others who are working in the workforce, full-time National Servicemen are not salaried employees. They are paid an allowance which is meant to cover some of their daily basic expenses, such as transportation. As most full-time National Servicemen stay in-camp, food and accommodation are also provided. Mindef's policy is to regularly review the national service allowance for all the reasons that Mr Charles Chong and Mr Teo Chong Tee had raised. The last revision of the NS allowance was carried out in 1994. Mindef is currently reviewing the NS allowance and we expect to complete the review sometime this year, and we will announce any changes once this has been done. 2.”
“The history of SAF goes back to 1957. The first battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, was formed in that year. In 1966, compulsory military training was introduced for all male citizens who were 18 years and above. From 1966 to 1989, a period of 23 years, I have not heard of any concerted efforts made by Mindef to reward NSmen. Then in 1990, we heard of RECORD which is an acronym for Recognition for Contribution of Operationally Ready National Servicemen to Total Defence. There were two RECORD Committees known as RECORD I and RECORD II. After RECORD I was formed, NSmen began to get all kinds of perks and rewards, ranging from getting extra benefits in asset enhancing scheme, such as Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme and SOTUS, in which active NSmen were given 50% extra and other NSmen get 25% extra, to benefits, such as recreation, NSmen group insurance scheme and easier to obtain exit permits. NSmen are also rewarded during their training. They get a gold award of $400 and a silver award of $200 if they have done well in the Individual Proficiency and Physcial Test (IPPT). There are also similar incentive schemes for marksmanship. In this Budget session, we have heard from the Minister for Finance that NSmen, both active and non-active, their parents and wives will get higher income tax reliefs. I support all these rewards to NSmen. However, if Mindef is really serious about helping NSmen, it should plan far more meaningful schemes, such as schemes to train NSmen during their 2 1/2 years' National Service for them to acquire a skill or some knowledge in which they can make it a career or help them in their careers after NS training. I know some NSmen are already trained as truck drivers and, on leaving NS, they obtain jobs as truck drivers or bus drivers.”
“No. He disagrees with me and he said that he has not read what the Senior Minister had said. Assuming that the Senior Minister had said that, which I can stand firm on that point, does he agree with me that the Senior Minister is then wrong?”
“Sir, I did not say that all wars would end in seven days. I am talking about an attack on Singapore, and Singapore being a small island, it seems to be a realistic picture. Assuming that the Senior Minister had said that, does he still --- An hon. Member: You are assuming.”
“Can I seek clarification from Mr Kenneth Chen? He disagrees with what I said that if there is a war, it would be over in six or seven days. He disagrees with me. But what I said was actually what the Senior Minister had said some time back. I believe the Senior Minister did say that our armed forces should at least hold the situation for seven days until the allies come and assist us. Is Mr Kenneth Chen saying that the Senior Minister is wrong?”
“Can I ask a clarification from the hon. Member?”
“But, ultimately, I say that the question boils down to one of fairness. Fairness to a person whose life is overturned because he is mistakenly prosecuted. Fairness to a person who is vindicated by the court but who has to deplete his life savings in order to achieve that vindication. Justice means not only pursuing wrongdoers impeccably. It also means doing what is right to compensate those who turn out to have been innocent all along. A legal system without justice is a body without soul. I ask the Minister for Finance to think about this matter. And I ask the Minister for Law and Minister for Home Affairs to consider this carefully as well.”
“In any case, the prosecution makes it a custom to recover cost of the prosecution from guilty parties. And that is right. Guilty parties should pay for the cost of the prosecution. And we should expect therefore that the aggregate of the cost recovered by the prosecuting authorities would far outweigh the cost paid out to those who are mistakenly prosecuted. May I say that if it turns out that the costs recovered are less than the costs paid out, we should be asking why. What is going wrong with the prosecution service, if that is so? It has been said by some that allowing the court to award cost against the prosecution would deter the prosecution from bringing a case when they are not entirely sure they can win. I ask: is this good or bad? If a prosecutor has insufficient evidence to justify a conviction, should he prosecute anyway on the off-chance of getting a conviction? Should he, in the words of the Chief Justice, proceed on an extended voyage of discovery at the expense of an innocent person? In any event, I think this fear is over-blown. The DPP does not pay the cost out of his own pockets. The Department bears the cost if the prosecution turns out to have been mistaken and if the Judge is convinced that it is fair that the accused person should be compensated for having vindicated himself in court. Since our prosecutors are efficient, well-trained, we would expect that they will win more often than they will lose, and that the costs recovered from guilty parties will far outweigh the costs paid to innocent parties. As I said before, this is not the case. I think we ought to know why. A little private discipline of this sort is not a bad thing, especially when we are increasingly relying on market forces to make our public sector efficient.”
“Or will some Members say that it is your bad luck if you are prosecuted? The prosecution is never wrong? The only reason an accused gets off is because he has got a clever lawyer. The only reason I am asking for this is because I am on the side of the criminals. And therefore if you are prosecuted, you deserve to have your life savings depleted with no compensation, even if you are found to be totally innocent. Is that a good argument? Could it be said that compensating the innocent parties is undesirable from a policy point of view, that it will encourage criminals? A little thought will show that this is specious. The court will award cost only if it is convinced that the innocent party is truly innocent, a victim of mistaken prosecution. This will not encourage clever and unmeritorious defences. Judges are intelligent enough to know when an accused gets off on a technicality. In civil cases where a Judge feels that a person who has won the case does not deserve to have his cost the Judge does not order cost. We go to great lengths to hand-pick our Judges from the best that are available. We have raised their salaries to ensure that we can keep the best, and we should have some faith in the ability of our Judges to sort out the meritorious from the unmeritorious. But they should have the discretion, in a meritorious case, in a deserving case, to order compensation to the innocent accused. Could it be said that the State cannot afford to redress such injustices? Consider, in the light of the entire Government budget, the sums involved are minuscule. In fact, given the fact that most prosecutions succeed, given the fact that our prosecutors are competent, you will expect that cases in which there is a genuine mistake would be few and far between.”
“But what about the sums that they paid to their own lawyers, which included a Queen's Counsel. This comes out of their own pocket. Given that the prosecution's cost was $200,000, you expect that the defence's cost would be somewhere in that region too (six figures). Is this the kind of sum that the average person or the average businessman can easily pay with equanimity? If he is acquitted of all wrongdoing, is it fair that he should be called upon to pay sums of this magnitude to vindicate himself? They got back what they paid towards the prosecution's cost but they will still be out of pocket as far as their own cost is concerned. I have asked before in this House that the law be amended to allow the court to award costs in favour of an accused person who is acquitted, in an appropriate case. Let me make clear what I am asking. I am not asking that in all situations the accused should have their cost paid. Definitely not. I am not saying that all persons who are acquitted deserve to have their cost paid by the prosecution. I am not saying that cost should automatically be ordered on an acquittal. All I am asking for is that the court be given the discretion in a deserving case to award cost, just as in a civil case. If it can be done in a civil case, it should be done in criminal cases as well, especially when we are talking about making prosecuting authorities and other parts of the civil service autonomous and subjecting them to market discipline. What are the objections to such a power? Assume that an accused person is being acquitted by the court, it is found that he is not guilty of any crime or moral wrong. Is it unfair to the prosecution which turns out to be mistaken, that it should bear the cost of vindicating the accused?”
“I do not think in this case that cost should be awarded. Sometimes a person is morally guilty of a crime but he gets off by taking advantage of a technicality in the law - poor drafting or a loophole. Again, this is not a case where cost should be awarded. But sometimes, as in the InnoPac case that I have just referred to, an innocent person is mistakenly prosecuted and because the Judge sees that he is innocent, he is let off, not guilty of any wrongdoing, moral or legal. I did not bring this case up to the House to blame the prosecution. CAD has an enviable reputation as an efficient prosecutor of white-collar crimes. But even the best prosecutors sometimes are wrong. They make mistakes. Sometimes innocent people are mistakenly charged. Such cases are few and far between, but they happen. Members with longer memories may remember that in 1992 a charge of criminal breach of trust was laid against Mr Peter Chee, an accountant, in relation to the winding up of the affairs of Pan-Electric. The prosecution collapsed when the former Director of CAD gave evidence that he had personally authorised Mr Chee to keep the money as a fee in respect of work done. So the recent Innopac prosecution is not an isolated case. It is not a common case, but it is not an isolated case. Even the best prosecutors do make mistakes. My concern is not to blame the prosecutor or to punish the prosecutor in any way. My concern is for the persons who are proven innocent and acquitted of all wrongdoing. Under our present system, they get not one cent back as compensation for the considerable sums that they have expended in defending themselves. The cost of a case, like Innopac case, can be considerable. Consider that the accused paid $200,000 in prosecution cost, and this was refunded to them.”
“In other words, the expense that the appellants were put into in defending themselves would have been defrayed by the losing side. This is only fair. Where a case is brought against you and it turns out that the case is ill-founded, it is only just that the people who sue you should bear the legal cost. But that is only in a civil case. In a criminal case, the prosecution can claim cost if it wins and this is what is done as a matter of course by the CAD. When they win, they claim cost from the people who are sent to jail, people who are convicted. But the prosecution does not have to pay cost if it loses. The Minister has told us that eventually all Government agencies are going to become autonomous agencies and Budgetting for Results. I presume that the same will hold true for prosecution authorities. If the aim of this kind of autonomous agencies and Budgetting for Results is to ensure efficiency and to ensure that agencies are kept on their toes by market discipline, then there does not seem to be any economic justification for allowing the prosecution to claim cost when it wins, but leaving the prosecution free from the consequences when it loses. This distorts the market, if I may say so, because, in a sense, the innocent people who are acquitted are in fact subsidising the prosecution. And therefore, if we are going to make the civil service lean and mean and efficient, including the legal part of the civil service, I would say to the Minister that in a situation like this, private sector discipline should be imposed. There are many reasons why a prosecution may fail. Sometimes witnesses may not be willing to testify in a court of law. So a criminal gets off because the evidence is not sufficient to convict.”
“From the various shifts in the respondent's (that is, the prosecution's) case I was drawn to infer that the respondent had never been quite sure whether the appellants had committed criminal breach of trust, let alone which of the limbs of section 405 they could be prosecuted under. The entire process translated into a protracted and unproductive voyage of discovery for the respondent. The trial spanned 43 days in the district court. Costs of the prosecution were awarded at $200,000. In my opinion, to amend the charges yet again at the appellate stage and remit the case for a re-trial would be unfair and highly prejudicial to the appellants. I did not see how the interests of justice would be served by such a course of action, and I therefore refused to accede to the DPP's requests.' I bring this case to the attention of the Minister and the House, not to blame the prosecution, but merely to highlight a fact that under our system when we are trying to encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise, sometimes we do get directors of companies who take a risk with their company's monies, perfectly legitimate commercial risks which turn sour and then they get prosecuted. The Chief Justice in this case rightly acquitted the two accused. They had paid $100,000 each towards the cost of prosecution. This was ordered to be refunded to them. The two accused were then discharged without a stain on their reputation, and a happy ending for them, presumably. Not quite. Although the prosecution costs that they had paid were refunded to them, the money that they had spent on their own lawyers, not a cent was given back to them in compensation. Had this been a civil case, the respondent would have been ordered to pay the appellants' costs.”
“The Chief Justice held that the accused had not acted dishonestly and he noted that the acquisition of the Lucky Man shares had been approved by the InnoPac Board. I ask the House's indulgence to just read a portion of the Chief Justice's Judgment. The reason for this would be apparent as I go along. In allowing the appeal, the Chief Justice said: `On the evidence, I found little support for the district judge's finding that the appellants had some undisclosed interest in Aquiline Pacific Ltd and that they had intended to use InnoPac's funds to gain a profit in their capacity as Aquiline Pacific's shareholders. They could not be said to have obtained any wrongful gain or caused wrongful loss. There were no "unlawful means" employed in the process of acquiring the Lucky Man shares ... I was satisfied that even if there had been no objection to the propriety of the charges, the findings of the district judge were against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the convictions of the appellants could not be upheld. In the course of his submissions, the learned DPP suggested that, if I were minded to rule that the charges were improper, I could consider amending the charges ... I regarded this submission with some cynicism. The charges had already been amended twice before. The original averred that there was dishonest misappropriation in the appellants' disbursement of monies to which Aquiline Pacific was not entitled. At the commencement of the trial the allegation of "lack of entitlement" was abandoned and replaced with the more particular allegation of Aquiline Pacific not having provided proper legal consideration for the monies disbursed. The re-amended charges eventually emerged only after seventeen days of trial ...”
“Dental care has become very expensive and as a result Singaporeans have avoided visiting the dentists and their dental health has naturally deteriorated. This is glaringly shown in a TV advertisement. I urge the Government to look into giving more aid to dental and health care on a permanent basis. 1.38 pm Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to join in the debate at this point. As a taxpayer and a citizen, may I thank the Minister for Finance for a very generous Budget that we have before us today and I unhesitatingly support the motion that is before the House. I would like, however, to confine myself to one small area to bring the Minister's attention to what seems to me to be an injustice. On 5th February this year, the Chief Justice delivered judgment in this case, Magistrate Appeal No. 13 of 1995, between Cheam Tat Pang and Cheong Teck Fook against the Public Prosecutor. The two accused were directors of Inno-Pacific Ltd. They were charged with criminal breach of trust of InnoPac's money. The prosecution had alleged that they use InnoPac's funds to secretly purchase three blocks of shares in Lucky Man Properties, a Hong Kong company. According to the prosecution, the purchase was made through a company called Aquiline Pacific Ltd, which it was alleged that the accused controlled. The allegation was that these directors of a listed company had used the listed company's money in a manner that was dishonest to benefit themselves by purchasing shares secretly in the name of a company that they controlled. They were convicted by the District Court and appealed. Their appeal was heard by the Chief Justice. He allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.”
“It also assists in building a cohesive society. I am urging the Government to do so because the Government can afford it. SPEX 2000 programme is a good programme. The $10 million set aside for that programme needs to be increased. I can assure the Minister that money spent on sports is not lost. It has both social and material benefits. If it is possible, should a Singapore football team reach the World Cup finals, imagine the value of the publicity received all over the world. That alone will repay for all the money the Government would have spent on promoting world class sports in Singapore. On the material issues, in view of the massive surplus, I call on the Government to build all MRT stations in the North-East line immediately, and not to delay the building of the Sennett, Woodleigh and Punggol stations. It would make more sense and be more cost effective to build them all at once rather than delay them. I also call on the Government to give more income tax relief in respect of the wife and children because of rising costs. I understand that tuition fees, books, transport, shoes, etc. have gone up in price. As for women, I understand that their personal needs have also gone up, such as doing up their hair, clothes and shoes. They have all gone up tremendously. I think the Government should be more generous in giving wife and children reliefs. As regards dental and medical health, the Government should make them accessible to all Singaporeans. I am certain the Government is concerned with the well-being of every citizen. If that is the case, and in view of the budget surpluses every year, the Government should generously give support to the dental and health care of Singaporeans.”
“Another area which I believe that the Government should assist is to build neighbourhood libraries for children in all HDB estates. These libraries must be sited in the estates whereby they are within walking distance from their homes. These libraries are particularly important for children from non-English speaking homes. I understand that the failure rate in English in neighbourhood schools is about 30% of each cohort. That is very high, although I stand corrected. The Government must have realised the importance of these neighbourhood libraries. I read that it has increased the number of neighbourhood libraries from two or three to 10 now. If that is the case, then I think the Government should proceed to establish such neighbourhood libraries all over the island, since it has already found that it is a worthwhile thing to do. The other area of concern is that more and more Singapore families are engaging foreign maids to take care of their children. I do not think this is a healthy trend. The Government should spend more money to establish more childcare centres either on its own or assist its agencies or the private sector to do so. I do not think you can expect the foreign maids, who are mostly uneducated, to inculcate the values you want in our children. The deleterious effect on our children who are taken care of by foreign maids may not be evident in the short term but it may surface in the long term. Another area which the Government has neglected for a long time is sports. The Government should spend more money in sports. It has been said that the Battle of Waterloo was won in the playing fields of Eton. So sporting activities are actually important. It not only builds character. It gets different classes of people together.”
“If we have the money, we should utilise it wisely for the national good, in particular, in social areas such as improvement on our education of the young and truly prepare conditions to preserve the family unit and inculcate more social interaction to build more cohesiveness in the community. It is no use to accumulate more and more wealth if Singapore in the long term cannot survive as one people. If society breaks up, everything will be lost. The other aspect of having high surpluses is that it may give the wrong signals to Singaporeans. People may think that the Government wants the people to think that money is everything. The Government is telling the people that we have the money, we are wealthy, we can achieve all our goals with money. It is admitted that money is important for survival. But the present Government at this present time must have collected enough funds for all the needs as a Government and more. I do not think we can persuade the Government to lower their levels of collection of revenue. Government can have surpluses but I do not think that it is right to have a target for massive surpluses every year. I think no one in this House can persuade the Government to lower its target of budget surpluses, only the people at the polls during election time can do that. However, I shall try to persuade the Government to spend more of its surpluses on the following areas: One area, which is my pet subject, is education. In this respect, I request the Government to spend more money to upgrade neighbourhood primary and secondary schools to give the children in HDB heartlands a better fighting chance. I request the Government to reduce the class size of these schools to about 30 in one class.”
“In fact, the Singapore dollar has already become too high for some manufacturers' liking. As a result, they have moved their manufacturing plants elsewhere, as a strong dollar means that their cost would go up. I believe that the Government's position is that it wants to top up the reserves. The Government says that the reserves at our present level can only sustain six or seven months' of imports. I think this statement is rather unfair. It can even be said to be alarmist. Will there really be a situation whereby all business activities would come to a standstill and Singapore completely has no income at all and would entirely depend on our reserves to buy goods and services from abroad to keep us alive? I cannot see such a situation arising, not even in times of war. Should there be a war, everything would be over in six or seven days, one way or the other, and there is no need to wait for six or seven months. This is the reality. We do not need to increase our reserves. If the Government is bent on increasing the national reserves, it would only mean that Singaporeans have to work harder, make more sacrifices because as time goes on, that extra dollar is harder to earn. The question is: why should the present generation work so hard? Enough is surely enough. I am certain future generations of Singaporeans, if properly brought up, can well take care of Singapore, if not better. Our job, therefore, is not to be continually obsessed with the accumulation of reserves and target for budget surpluses.”
“For 1994, it was $15.3 billion and for 1993, it was $14.8 billion. It can be seen that each year, the Government has accumulated huge amounts of money from its revenue sources, such as investments, sale of land and other capital sales. The Singapore Government, with such persistently high levels of excess of receipts over outlays must by now be the richest government in the non-oil producing countries per head of population. With such high levels of wealth accumulated by the Government, it is only natural that the people want to know what the Government has done with all these large sums of money. Where has the Government invested its money, ie, Singapore, in the region or elsewhere? Perhaps the Minister could oblige. The Budget gives some information on the returns on Government investments. I note that the returns on Government investments are quite credible, at about an average of 4.2% for the past four years from 1992. However, I would like to know whether these returns from Government investments are from investments made locally or from investments made abroad or from both locally and abroad. I hope the Minister can give some answers to these queries. I would also like to ask the Minister whether some of these surpluses have gone to augment the national reserves which now stand at a level above $80 billion. My view is that Singapore has accumulated enough reserves for such a small population. In any event, I presume these reserves are earning interest at least at the level of 4.2% per annum and there is capital appreciation on the investments. We do not need more reserves above the level of what we already have. The Singapore dollar is already securely backed up. We do not need more reserves to strengthen the Singapore dollar.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to speak on the budget surplus generated by this Government year after year. At first, Singaporeans were impressed with the Government's budget surpluses. They applauded the Government for being efficient and prudent in running the country. But after more than 10 years of budget surpluses, the people are getting weary and look at the budget surplus each year as a burden they have to carry. "When Government gets richer, the people get poorer." This is what has been said. This is the sentiment of large sections of Singaporeans towards Government budget surpluses. Let us look at the figures. Last year, the Government registered a budget surplus of $4.8 billion. For this year, the estimated budget surplus is a whopping sum of $6.4 billion. Why do I say "whopping"? It is because it exceeds the past eight years' average budget surplus of $5.2 billion by $1.2 billion or 23%. The average budget surplus of $5.2 billion is worked out from what is stated in the Budget Statement. The Budget Statement said: `Budget surpluses have averaged 4.4% of GDP over the last eight years.' According to the 1995 Economic Survey of Singapore, our GDP was $118 billion and 4.4% of that is $5.2 billion. At budget time, we often talk only of the budget surpluses. But in reality, in addition to budget surpluses, the Government also earns massive sums of money from its investments, sale of land and other capital goods. When added to the budget surplus, the amount is over $10 billion each year over the last four years. These sums of money are termed "Excess of Receipts Over Outlays" in the budget. The estimated amount of excess of receipts over outlays for this year is $12.8 billion. For last year, it was $14.4 billion.”
“Sir, how does the Minister determine equality in respect of allocation of major pasar malams? Is he going to count the number of major pasar malams given to the town council and then an equal number given to the CCC or CCMC? If that is the case, which is the starting period? How can he determine equality? I just cannot understand the Minister. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I have already explained the qualifying periods, the times and how the quota is allocated. I am not sure which part Mr Chiam does not understand. In any case, I should reiterate the reasons why we introduced this rule in the first place. There was a proliferation of pasar malams all over Singapore and the durations were not controlled. They were starting to create a nuisance, noise and unsanitary conditions affecting two main groups of people: (1) the residents, because they were inconvenienced by all this noise; (2) shopkeepers were unhappy because these pasar malams came, operated without the overheads of having to maintain shops throughout the year in order to service their customers. And these pasar malams were coming in at particular times of the year, undercutting shopkeepers and taking away their customers. So in response to these concerns, we introduced some curbs on the duration of pasar malams, where they can be held, how often they can be held. I have explained the duration, the booking period and so forth. I am not sure which part Mr Chiam does not understand.”
“If this flexibility is not changed, would the Minister not agree that in opposition constituencies, the opposition town councils will be shut out forever? They would not get a chance to hold fairs to raise funds. In the light of funds not being granted to town councils by the CIPC, how are they going to raise funds for their community work? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not quite sure how Mr Chiam has connected together all these variegated ideas. First of all, I think he is wrong in saying that opposition town councils have not organised fairs. Opposition town councils have indeed organised fairs since this policy was introduced in July 1994 and these are in Nee Soon Central and Hougang. So they have held some fairs. Sir, my other point is that all the constituencies are treated equally. Therefore, all the constituents in these constituencies are treated in the same way.”
“When was this flexibility implemented for holding major fairs, whereby a town council, CCC or CCMC can use two years' quota to organise a fair? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, this flexibility was given at the request of fair organisers who felt that 16 days in one given year may be too restrictive. So when several of these organisations asked for this flexibility, my Ministry acceded to them. It was more than a year ago.”
“Sir, what about flat purchasers, who have already budgeted what they already have in their Ordinary Accounts but could not meet the repayments because of increased prices in the flat? That is why they fall short.”
“Is the Minister suggesting that a flat purchaser move into the flat without renovating the flat? In practice, I think you can hardly find one person who would move in without renovating the flat. In such circumstances, can the Minister not make a provision for payments to be paid out of the Special Account?”