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 28 of 85.
“Sir, may I clarify? The situation from 1965 has changed tremendously. There are at the moment four constituencies held by the Opposition and probably there will be more in time to come. If you keep to this procedure, on the face of it, it would appear that all these Opposition constituencies will never get CIPC funds for community projects because members of the CCCs are all selected by the People's Association (PA). Unfortunately, PA is not under the Ministry of National Development. It is under the Ministry of Community Development. If you look at PA, which is a statutory board, the Chairman of PA is the Prime Minister and Ministers are on the board. It is a very high-powered board. This board will select the members of the CCC. The CCCs will, in a way - I would not say beholden - have to look to the people who have appointed them. These are all political figures. Their action will definitely be politically-biased. They will certainly not approve something which will help the Opposition MPs. I think that is the crux of the matter. When we wrote to the CCC for support to apply for CIPC funds, they not only refused us but they have not even got the courtesy to give a reason. The usual standard Government answer: We have looked at your application. We are unable to accede to it. We asked three times for reasons because Potong Pasir has so far not benefited anything at all from CIPC funds and there is a need for community projects, because community projects, especially linked walkways, are built in other constituencies. If other constituencies have a need for covered walkways, why not Potong Pasir? It is within the guidelines. That is the problem.”
“I said the MP should make the recommendations.”
“The Ministry of National Development should give proper respect to the elected MP. And if there is any recommendation, it should come from the MP and not from the CCC.”
“Anyway, I am not worried about whoever stands there. The disadvantage to Potong Pasir Constituency is that he will always try to impede or stop any application from the incumbent MP. I am not stressing more on the amount that it will get. Of course, the MP wants the projects to go on and he has to put in his application. But he will never approve the projects. In that way, it is a disadvantage to the constituency.”
“He is always there. He has already tried once anyway and he is making his presence felt there. I am assuming that he must be the candidate. I am glad to hear now that he is probably not. An hon. Member: You are scared?”
“Why are they deprived of taxpayers' funds to improve their constituencies? I think a whole new look has to be made into the disbursement of funds to Opposition wards. This is an important issue. Otherwise, the PAP wards will have a great advantage of taxpayers' funds and the Opposition wards are completely deprived of those funds.”
“In such circumstances, would any prospective PAP parliamentary candidate want to do something that will lessen his chances of getting elected and improve the chances of the Opposition MP to get elected? The other problem is that neither the prospective PAP candidate nor the incumbent MP can complete a project with CIPC funds. Because, normally, CIPC funds are only given for 70% of the cost of a project. Therefore, they cannot get the full amount. On the other hand, in a constituency like Potong Pasir which is rather small, to raise the full amount for the whole project would be a financial burden on the town council. Take the example of the walkway project which Potong Pasir Town Council intended to embark on. It was estimated to cost $300,000 and the Potong Pasir Town Council applied to the CCC for support of CIPC funds. But, of course, it was flatly turned down without a reason. So we had to put the project in abeyance for the time being at least. I hear that in the case of Hougang CCC, just before Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party was elected, it had supported several recommendations for CIPC funds. But as soon as Mr Low was elected, it quickly withdrew its support. This is a rather strange thing. When it was a PAP MP, the project was good for the constituency. But when an Opposition MP got elected, it was not good and they quickly withdrew the recommendation. I think the important issue is whether the Government is going to recognise Opposition MPs who are constitutionally elected. Are they not MPs? Are they not serving the constituents? Why treat them differently? Under the present system, it is manifestly unfair against the Opposition MPs and unfair also against the constituencies which elected Opposition MPs.”
“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 UJ 5100. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to change the rules in the application for CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) funds. Under the present set-up, it would appear that Opposition wards shall never get any allocation of CIPC funds for community projects. Let me explain. Before the CIPC funds can be released to any constituency, it must first have the recommendation or support of the CCC. In the case of PAP constituencies, there are no problems at all. Why? Because the PAP MPs are the advisers to the CCCs. In other words, they can advise themselves in a way that they need the funds. Whenever a PAP MP needs funds for community projects, he as the adviser will advise his CCC to support his application for funds from the CIPC. As long as he meets the CIPC guidelines, funds from the CIPC shall, as a matter of course, be disbursed to him. So in the course of this kind of exercises, the PAP MPs have managed to get $51 million of CIPC funds. Whereas, of course, understandably, the Opposition MPs have got none. In the case of constituencies held by Opposition MPs, the advisers of the CCCs are not the incumbent MPs, but the PAP prospective parliamentary candidates. Of course, his main aim is to try and win back the constituency for the PAP. Therein lies the great problem. Assuming that a PAP prospective parliamentary candidate supports the Opposition MP's request to CIPC for funds and the funds are released for the project, and the project is completed, the Opposition incumbent MP shall probably get most of the credit for the project, and that will enhance his prestige.”
“The differences between the two are the plot ratio, design, finishing and building materials used. If this concept of medium-price condominium flats can be implemented in Singapore, we will enable more medium-income Singaporeans to own their own private properties and thus relieve the pressure on prices of private properties.”
“According to information from the Urban Redevelopment Authority, from now until the year 2001, 79,000 new private residential units will be supplied to the market. Compared with the present rate of construction of HDB flats, I think by the year 2002, private property will take up 20% of the total housing in Singapore. The Government is the biggest land owner in Singapore. To reach this long-term percentage of 20% for private housing, the Government will have to release land more liberally for development by the private sector, and the amount of land to be released by the Government will affect the prices of land and private property in Singapore. The question of most concern to the people in Singapore now is the high prices of private housing. Over the past four years, the prices have gone up by 1.5 times. According to reports over the past few months, prices of private property are softening. This is also reflected in the tender prices declining over the past few months for the sites offered for sale by the Government. If prices are going down, will the Government continue with the promise to provide more land for private development? How many parcels of land will be provided for the building of private housing? If tender prices keep dropping, will the Government revise downwards the reserve price? If Government continues with the tender of land and yet cannot moderate the increase in the prices of private property, will the Government consider allowing land to be purchased by the private developers for development of medium-price condominiums? As a wedge between the two types of properties, like in Malaysia, the price of a medium-price condominium unit is about half that of the high-class up-market condominium.”
“There must be a few among them who just cannot take the inconvenience and do not want to remain in the flats. What happens to them? Does the HDB provide alternative accommodation of rental flats to these families? I am referring to some of them who have got chronic sickness and maybe infant children who cannot take the noise. Maybe the Minister could also enlighten me on this point. We have just been told of the importance of water conservation. The water conservation tax has been increased. In line with the water conservation programme, I am asking the Minister whether in these upgraded flats there are provisions made to collect and store rain water so that it can be used maybe to water the plants in the estate or residents could wash their cars with this rain water. I believe rain water is certainly quite clean for washing cars, especially if sufficient filters are provided in the tanks that store the rain water. If the HDB has not provided these water tanks to collect and store rain water, will the Minister consider doing so? 2.30 pm The other issue I have already brought it up. Will the Minister consider extending the 99-year lease of upgraded flats to, say, maybe six years more, to 105 years? I hope the Minister will consider this because I am sure upgraded flats will have their usable life extended. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay( In Mandarin): Sir, in the Budget Statement the Minister for Finance confirmed the stand of the Government on the supply of private property. According to the blue-print, private residential properties will eventually constitute 20% of all residential properties in Singapore. At present, we have only about 10% private property.”
“Sir, my residents also have the same concern as those mentioned by earlier MPs, in particular, those residents in the older part of my estate at Toa Payoh, Lorong 8. The flats there are about 20 years old and they are situated at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh Estate. They have seen the upgrading of flats in the neighbouring area at Kim Keat and much publicity has been given to that part of the upgrading at Kim Keat. They are just wondering when their turn will come. I hope the Minister has not overlooked Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, which is just across the road from Kim Keat Constituency. The flats at that part of my Constituency are definitely ripe for upgrading. In fact, the sunken apron problem is very prevalent there. Any visitor who comes to visit his friends in that part of Potong Pasir will see ugly gaps below the void decks. Like the other MPs, I hope the Minister will give an indication of when the upgrading programme will come to that part of my Constituency. On average, about 10-20% of the residents have not voted for the upgrading programme. Can the Minister give the reasons why these people do not want to have their flats upgraded? Is it because of their old age that they prefer the status quo, or is it because they just cannot afford to pay the contribution of between $2,000 and $14,000? What happens to those residents who genuinely suffer hardship and cannot afford even to pay the minimum sum that is required of them when their flats are upgraded? Does the Government pay for them? Maybe the Minister could enlighten me on these points. During the upgrading programme, of course, there will be inconvenience caused to residents. I know that Singaporeans are generally a hardy lot. They are very adaptable and can quickly adjust to their immediate surroundings.”
“And fined, and do national service. I just want to get a clarification. I would like to hear from the Minister. 4.30 pm”
“They will still be charged in court? An hon. Member: Yes.”
“I would say that the situation now has drastically changed from those of the 60s and 70s. In any event, Singapore has about a quarter million men under reserve or Operationally Ready NSmen. So in case of emergency, there is this big pool of reserves whom we can easily call on. In our present situation of high economic growth, there is a tight labour market and I think there is a case to make out to release thousands of our young people into the labour market. If this is done, it will certainly relieve our labour shortage and also add up to our GDP. Of course, as far as the NSmen are concerned, it will alleviate hardship on some of them. They will not have this discrepancy of 2 1/2 years difference between the young male and their female counterparts in finishing their tertiary studies or in the polytechnics. So for all these reasons, I hope the Minister will give it good consideration this time. I want a clarification from the Minister. Those Singaporeans who had not done their national service in the past and if they should return to Singapore, Mindef and the Police would immediately catch hold of them and charge them in court. But now I hear that these people are encouraged to come home and, when they come home, they will not be charged in court as long as they make up for their national service. Is this the situation now because I have been asked --- An hon. Member: They will be charged first before doing national service.”
“Sir, in the past, I have called for the shortening of the NS period and I am doing the same again this year. In Switzerland, where they take their national defence very seriously, their young people only complete about 19 weeks of military training. And in the case of Germany, the initial period of military training is about 1 1/2 years. I would like to suggest that ours should be reduced to about 1 1/2 years. Those two countries are in Europe and, before the breakdown of the Berlin Wall in 1989, they were in fact in the front line of a possible Soviet attack. Yet they maintain military forces where their non-regular soldiers only do a stint of military training which is much shorter than ours. If they can do it, I cannot see why Singapore cannot follow the same example. The security situation in this part of the world has improved tremendously. The two big Asian super powers, China and India, including all the other Asian countries in this region, are embarking on improving their economies and they are doing everything to attract foreign investments to their country. And if they want other countries to invest in their country, they cannot at the same time have a hostile stance. Like Singapore, their aim is to improve their economic growth and therefore they also want peace, and we have heard the Minister say that we have got robust and friendly defence relations with all our neighbours. So it would appear that the security situation in this region is more stable. Unlike in the 60s or 70s, there was a real threat of war. But at present, there is a case to make out that there is no need to have 2 1/2 years military training, or to have one cohort of such military servicemen to be prepared to go into action immediately.”
“Can I clarify with the Minister, Sir? I agree with the Minister that water resource is a very important factor to Singapore. We are dependent on our water from another country. We are not self-sufficient in water. I agree that we must also have water conservation. But my point is: has the Minister attempted to find other ways to conserve water? Has the Minister embarked on campaigns in the schools, families, or over TV? As far as I know, there are none at the moment. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, the save water message has always been a regular message. You look at the literature you get with the PUB bills. The Save Water campaign on a national level has been periodically introduced. So the water situation is not one which is unfamiliar to Singaporeans. Sir, the problem here is how do we bring down the very high rate of consumption growth, from 6.5% to 3%, in as short a period of time as possible. If we have the luxury of time, if water is going to run out in 20 years' time, I think we can embark on a 5-year education programme. But when you have a six-year time-frame staring at you in the face, I think it is best that we act as quickly as possible, by bringing the message home to Singaporeans as strongly as possible so that we can all cooperate together to conserve water and to ensure that we are able to succeed in pushing back the time when we will be short of water.”
“It should instead embark on an education programme to teach people to save water. In fact, under the penalty system, the lesson of water consumption can never be put across to Singaporeans, as experience has shown. We have already in place a penalty system and yet what happens? People just flout it and in fact use more water. Maybe, you should combine the two. The Government has fixed the upper limit of water used at 20 cubic metres of water per family per month. Above this, a heavier tax will be imposed. If you look at the figures, this upper limit may not be fair. Because the average PUB account, at the moment, already shows that for a family, the water consumption is about 21 cubic metres per month. So in fact, the average norm today is already 21 cubic metres per family. To be fair, the upper limit should be fixed at 21 cubic metres and if any family uses above the average norm today, then he should be penalised.”
“Because we were promised 336 million gallons a day. Our consumption is only about 250 million gallons a day which is about 1.14 million cubic metres. I do not think you need to sound the alarm bells. 5.15 pm Our relations with Malaysia at the moment at least look very good and cordial. In fact, on 21st February 1995 it was reported in the Straits Times that Tan Sri Muhyidin, the Mentri Besar of Johor, immediately responded to the Prime Minister's warning, published in the local press the previous day, that we may have shortage of water in about 15 years' time. Tan Sri Muhyidin assured Singaporeans that Malaysia shall maintain a cordial relation with Singapore and abide by the two water agreements. The Singapore Government must have calculated that its relation with Johor State and the Malaysian Federal Government would remain cordial for at least the next 16 years. Otherwise, the Singapore Government would not have spent $306 million to build the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor. This reservoir was completed in June 1993 and has a capacity to hold up to 770 million cubic metres of water. Our average consumption is just 1.1 million cubic metres of water a day. So it will take 770 days, which is about two years' time, before the whole Linggiu Reservoir can go dry, and with our heavy rainfall, about 100 inches a day, I can see there is no present shortage of water. We have got adequate supplies from across the Causeway for at least the next 20 years, of course, provided there are no unforeseen circumstances. By then, anything could happen. Since nothing has really changed as far as the water situation in Singapore is concerned until 2011, it is not justifiable for the Government to immediately up the water conservation tax just because the Prime Minister has made a warning.”
“With such an over-supply of water until 2011 --- An hon. Member: Over-supply?”
“Sir, as I have already spoken on the development of water supply locally during the Budget debate, I shall not repeat myself. I would like to touch on the recent announcement of increase in the water conservation tax. The hon. Member for Leng Kee said that he was disappointed at the statement I made to the press recently. I said that there was no danger of water shortage. Our reserves have not been tapped and that the alarm bells have not been sounded. He said that Singapore has to be prepared for eventualities. I agree with him wholeheartedly. But what I said must be seen in perspective. Presently, there is no danger of water shortage. The possibility of water shortage can only come in the year 2011, that is, about 16 years more. To the credit of the Government, it has done everything possible to ensure that Singapore has adequate water supply to that date, at least. The maximum number of reservoirs to impound water has been built. The Government already has in place a penalty tax for over users of water. I read that it had also entered into agreement to import water from Indonesia. The Minister has also recently announced that there shall be a desalination programme of sea water. At the moment, Singapore has two existing water agreements with Malaysia: one will expire in 2011, which Malaysia agrees to supply 86 million gallons of water a day; and the other agreement will expire in 2061, which supplies water to Singapore at 250 million gallons a day. Up to 2011 at least, we have a promise of water supply from Johor State of 336 million gallons of water a day which is more than enough for our average water consumption. Presently, our water consumption is only about 250 million gallons a day or about 1.14 million cubic metres a day.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Furthermore, officers on the same grade but on different medical schemes are on different salary scales. To reflect all these would require a considerably enlarged and modified Appendix D. In its place, a salary manual with all the details was prepared for administrative use. It is available in the Parliament Library. It is a document of some substantial size.”
“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 NB 1500. Sir, when I looked at the Budget book this year, I was surprised to note that the whole of Appendix D, which normally appears at the end of it, was taken out. Appendix D gives salary scales of political appointees and all Government employees from Superscale, Division I to Division IV employees. I am just wondering why such relevant and important information has been deleted from the Budget book. I find the information in Appendix D very useful, because I use them as a guide to fix some of my employees' salary scales in the Potong Pasir Town Council where I am the Chairman. So when I looked at the Budget book this year, I was disappointed that the salary scales, which normally appear in that appendix, are no longer there. It seems rather coincidental that last year this House debated and agreed to fix Ministers' salaries to top earners in the private sector. I hope that it is not because of the Ministers' new salary scales or high salaries that have prompted the omission of Appendix D from the Budget book. Will the Minister in charge restore Appendix D in the next Budget book? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Mr Chiam need not be surprised because Appendix D was left out from the 1994/1995 Budget book also. It is again excluded for the 1995/1996 Budget book. In fact, it has been excluded for two years already. Appendix D of the Budget book contained the basic salary scales for each and every grade of civil servants, as Mr Chiam has pointed out. In addition to the basic monthly salary, officers receive the monthly variable component, the non-pensionable variable payment and the non-pensionable component.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State for Health has pointed out to me that in fact there is a sum allocated as subvention for Woodbridge Hospital. Therefore, with your permission, I would like to withdraw the statement that I made that there was no subvention for Woodbridge Hospital.”
“I did not say that. I said that since that is the order of the day, surpluses must be obtained from someone. So in this case, it is from the people of Singapore. And if the people of Singapore are going to pay more to the Government, they will have less and so they will have a tough time ahead. That is what I said.”
“Sir, I have not said that. He wants to put words in my mouth and ask me to answer him. I have already explained. Because of the amendments in the Constitution, each government must accumulate its own surplus. Otherwise, if there is an emergency, it has got no money to rely on.”
“But the point is that although they are equally old, equally run down in status, there are as yet no signs that they will be upgraded. Because I know that just across my constituency, Kim Keat Constituency has been upgraded. It is just across the road and some people described it as a first-class condominium. If it can be done across the road, why can it not be done on the other side of the road?”
“Sir, if every government's aim is to have surpluses, it must collect its money from somewhere. The money just does not drop from heaven. So it is going to collect more money from the people. Of course, the people will have a tough time ahead. They will have less money. The proposal that I mentioned is not for the whole population to shut down water for two or three days. Everybody can have their needs of water. The PUB can monitor the water bills and if they note that this fellow has been consistently consuming above the permitted level, then they send him a warning and say, "Look here, your water consumption is too high. Please reduce it." If he does not heed the warning, then they take enforcement action to shut off the water supply. It can be easily done. You just lock it up. And then for one or two days, if he has no water, he has got to go next door with a pail to try to get some water, then he will learn the lesson. As regards building a dam, this is what I read in the Readers' Digest many years back when Hong Kong built this dam. It has been done. Of course, there are engineering problems. But I am talking of just the bare basics. You dump a lot of rocks and then you cover up with mud. And surprisingly enough, the mud will seal off the leaks. [Laughter]. Do not laugh. This is an engineering possibility. I think it is a feasible thing to do in Singapore and the Singapore Government should give it a go. Of course, the problem is the salinity of the water. Over time, the saline water will be diluted. Of course, you cannot totally get rid of salinity in such a situation. I am not saying that Opposition wards will not be given upgrading. They have to.”
“This has put great stress on families. The society has also become more affluent and successful. One of the main problems of success is also the growing problem of mental illness. The Government should pay more attention to this area in its health policy. Mental illness is a growing problem. I urge the Government to put aside more resources for more mental health facilities. For a start, it could build more psychiatric outpatient clinics and to train more social workers who can help people who have psychiatric problems or who are suffering under great stress. I think the Government should not neglect this area in its health care policy.”
“Whenever there is a leakage, you try to repair them which is difficult. Money should be spent and replace the whole lot of them. Since at this time there is talk of conservation of water, perhaps Government could treat that as one measure of conserving water in Singapore. In the older estates also, in the early days, the Government was eager to plant big trees. All these trees have now matured and their roots are causing great problems to the car parks. They have spoiled all the car parks and these trees need to be cut down. The car parks have to be repaired and then the trees have to be replanted and the car parks redone again. All these are very costly projects. I am involved with a Town Council and I personally know these are the problems. I also join Members in urging the Government to help pensioners who are not earning very much, especially more assistance should be given to pensioners who are chronically ill. Government should either waive their medical charges or allow them to pay at a lower rate. I think Government should help these workers who have given much of their whole life to building the nation. The other problem that has been brought up, which is close to every housewife, is the maid levy. Much has been talked about it. Unless, of course, the Government can build enough creches or child care centres to mind the babies, I think the Government should take steps to waive or lower this levy to help mothers to go to work and increase their combined household income. I think this is a real problem and the Government should look into it. I have gone through this year's Budget and noted that there is no subvention for Woodbridge Hospital. The Government has asked Singaporeans to be more competitive and go abroad in its regionalisation drive.”
“With such a large surplus expected this year, it is expected that there will be a large number of proposals and suggestions on how the surpluses can be used. In principle, the Government should look at the needs and priorities objectively. After all, we are Singaporeans. "We are Singapore" as the patriotic song which is broadcast over TV regularly tells us. The Government should not in its use of the budget surpluses distinguish between Opposition and PAP wards, although on record PAP constituencies have benefitted $51 million to-date towards community projects. And the Opposition has not been given one cent in respect of such projects. Similarly, upgrading programmes up till now have only been confined to PAP constituencies. I hope the Government will change all that and look objectively at the urgency of the needs of each constituency, especially in the older HDB estates. Some of the more urgent problems the Government should give assistance to are, for example, grants to older estates to repair sunken aprons. These are caused by the sinking of the lower level at the void decks, causing ugly and dangerous gaps between the void decks and the level below them. The Government should give grants to repair sunken aprons. Another urgent matter is that in older estates which are 20 or more years old, you will find that nearly all the water pipes underground have corroded and there are massive amounts of water leakage underground which are sometimes hard to detect. What the Government needs to do is to give money, because they are costly and the Town Councils find it a burden on them. The Government should step in to replace all those underground water pipes that are in fact more than 20 or more years old. Because it is difficult to repair them ad hoc.”
“The Minister has suggested that desalination is a solution. But it is not really the best. We are not an oil producing country, like Saudi Arabia. If there is going to be another oil price hike, the desalination plant may not be economically feasible. In 1965, Lee Kuan Yew said that if there was a hostile government across the Causeway, we have to start to dig wells in Singapore. My question is: has the Government done a thorough research into the possibility of being self-sufficient in water supply from local sources? If the Government carries out an intensive investigation to find water resources locally, it may well discover a huge reservoir underground somewhere in Singapore. Have we done that? Of course, as suggested by a hon. Member, I am tempted to say that maybe at Potong Pasir you will find one reservoir. And I can tell you from personal knowledge that it used to be a water resource-rich constituency. The Government has plenty of money. It should set up some fund to engage a special team to specifically advise the Government on how Singapore can be self-sufficient in water supply. Somebody has suggested that a dam be built across the Singapore side of the Straits of Johor. I think this is a very good idea. It was, in fact, canvassed in the local papers a few years back. In fact, Hong Kong has done it. I have read about the building of that dam in Hong Kong and the engineering side is not that really difficult. They just have to pile rocks and, surprisingly, pile mud on top of the rocks. When the mud settles, the mud seals off all the gaps in the rocks and then you have a dam. I think the Singapore Government should seriously consider this idea.”
“For the rich who can afford to pay the water conservation tax he would merrily continue to consume large amounts of water. He may use our good clean water to wash three of his cars and hose his garden to make it look like the Garden of Eden. Where is the lesson of water conservation as far as that rich person is concerned? The lesson cannot be really got on to him. Instead of increasing the water conservation tax, the Government should replace it with a more equitable solution. The Government says that householders consume about 55% of the water supply and that businesses consume the other 45%. This statement does not give the true picture of water consumption in Singapore. Although the industrial and commercial sectors use up 45% of the water supply in Singapore, their number comprises only about 15% of the account holders, whereas domestic account holders add up to 85% of the total consumers. This means that we have a situation where 85% of household consumers use up 55% and the other 45% is used up by only 15% of the account holders. In other words, if we compare account holder with account holder, you will find that in fact the industrial and commercial account holders use up to five times more water than the domestic account holders. In Singapore today, the big time water guzzlers are not families but those in the industrial and commercial sectors. The Government should then not penalise householders but get the businesses to do something about the water problem. It is not that businesses like to use more water because as the economy improves, so do businesses improve, and water consumption will also increase. Now, the most obvious thing to do is to make factories and other industrial plants recycle their waste water for reuse.”
“Most people in Singapore would not object to the Government accumulating surpluses. What they are unhappy about is the way the Government does it. The Government always uses fiscal means to solve almost every problem in Singapore, whether it be a national, social or health problem. A current example is the so-called water problem. The Prime Minister announced that we may suffer water shortage in 15 to 20 years' time. The next thing we know is that the water conservation tax is raised. There must surely be other solutions other than increasing the tax on water conservation charges. My estimate is that the increase in water conservation tax may be close to $30 million which will offset the $30 million the Government is making payment for rental and service and conservancy charges for HDB flat dwellers. The Government will not lose anything. If there is really a water problem now, I would suggest that the Government start a Save Water campaign for one month and repeat it every year. Then it could monitor the water consumption of every household and commercial and industrial enterprise. If water consumption rises above the permitted amount for a householder, now fixed at 20 cubic metres, then a warning should be served on that consumer. If that consumer fails to heed the warning, then his water supply should be shut off for one or two days. Once the consumer is deprived of water for one or two days, the lesson of water conservation shall surely be put across to that person very effectively. The consumer shall, of course, be made to pay the turn-off and turn-on charges. On the other hand, an increase in water conservation tax will not effectively teach people to conserve water.”
“On record, so far, this Government is budgeting for more surpluses than the previous Government. I suppose it has to, because it cannot use the surpluses accumulated by the previous Government unless it gets the consent of the President and no new self-respecting Prime Minister will go to the President to seek that consent in normal times. The Goh Chok Tong's Government shall have to build up its own surpluses. So do all incoming future governments unless, of course, the Constitution is amended, which is unlikely as far as we can see. So it would appear that budgeting for surpluses shall be the order of the day in the years ahead. It would appear that Singapore would not have an easy time ahead of us. Having noted that the Government shall have a big surplus this year, the obvious question is: what does the Government intend to do with all that massive amount of money? The total budgeted receipt is $9.3 billion. The Government is clearly not handing them out to the poor and needy or to support any welfare programmes. I say that the Government owes a duty to the people of Singapore to let them know what it intends to do with those surpluses. Does it simply just want to preserve the bulk of it in case of emergencies, or invest it, or what? If it intends to invest the money, whether it is to be done locally or abroad. We know that the Government has initiated the Suzhou project which costs about $30 billion. Is the Government going to commit more money in Suzhou? The sum of $9.3 billion is receipts over outlay. That means all the developmental and infrastructural needs of the country have been catered for. The $9.3 billion are pure surpluses. The Government should tell the people of Singapore what it intends to do with those moneys.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. Since 1988, the Government has accumulated surpluses every year. This year is no exception. Instead of the usual $1 billion or $2 billion surpluses each year, the Minister had budgeted a huge $5.8 billion surplus for FY 1995/96. If we add to that the investment income and receipts from sale of land, the Government shall be receiving a whopping $9.3 billion, representing something like $3,200 from every man, woman and child in Singapore, taking our Singapore population at 2.85 million. The fees and charges to be collected are budgeted at $3.6 billion. That sum is nearly three times that budgeted for FY 1992/93. In the past, Singaporeans applauded the Government for being so efficient in the management of the finances of the country when it accumulated surpluses year after year. But now, I sense that the mood has changed. I can even venture to say that the average working Singaporean and Singaporeans who are running small businesses shall grit their teeth when they learn that the Government is budgeting for another surplus, not $1-$2 billion this time but $5.8 billion. And knowing the efficiency of the Government in collecting money, the budgeted surplus may well exceed the $6 billion mark. Why do they grit their teeth? They do so because they know from past experience that when the Government is aiming for a budget surplus, the high costs shall not come down and Government and statutory board fees and charges shall certainly increase before the end of the year. It is also unlikely that licences, like the COEs, shall drop further. Anyway, it is a good source of revenue for the Government. The level of collection of other fines and charges shall have to be increased as shown by the increased budgeted amount.”
“Sir, I come back to this particular case which Mr Jeyaretnam is doing. The Minister says that on 21st February the court was supposed to fix a date for hearing and they were asked to leave Singapore 10 days before 21st February. Is his Ministry not being neutral? The Ministry should have at least waited until the result of the hearing on 21st February before making a decision because the court could, in fact, give a hearing date the next day.”
“Does the Minister not agree with me that those foreign workers who are not even involved in illegal cases have absconded? It is not fair for him to point out that just because Mr Jeyaretnam acted for one who had absconded and therefore the extension of time should not be allowed.”
“Just a clarification from the Minister. The Minister has said that one of the nine foreign workers who sought legal help from Mr Jeyaretnam had absconded. Can the Minister tell this House how many workers had absconded who were not involved in any legal cases?”
“Would the Minister be so sure that the court would not give them an early date? How can he decide on behalf of the courts? They might give a date one week ahead for the hearing.”
“Is the Minister unaware that it is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the two workers that they are in financial difficulties and they are unable to come back to fight their case if they return home? That is why they have asked for an extension.”
“Sorry. Is the Minister fair in mentioning all these background facts when, on the face of his Question, there is no connection whatsoever?”
“Sir, I beg to differ with the Minister. In this particular case, he is merely asking a Question on behalf of two foreign workers. There is no indication that he is asking on behalf of Mr Jeyaretnam who is the Secretary-General of his party and therefore ---”
“Sir, if the counsel is the Secretary-General of the Workers Party, it does not mean that Mr Low has got any interest in the case. May I ask the Minister whether it is fair of him to mention that the counsel is the Secretary-General of a party in which Mr Low is a party member?”
“What sort of turnover are these companies generating every year? Can the Minister of State name a figure?”
“Other than petroleum companies, what are the other companies that are enjoying pioneer status in Singapore today?”
“The Minister of State has not really answered my questions. What are the types of companies and the type of products which the Government is aiming? I do realise that every country is competing for foreign investments. But you are giving them so many give-aways. In return, what do we hope to get from these companies?”
“What are the types of business or companies which Singapore hopes to attract under the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. While supporting the Bill, I have some queries for the Minister regarding this legislation which gives tax holidays to pioneer companies which produce specific products which could be declared as pioneer products. This legislation is laudable when it was first enacted in 1967. Singapore, at that time, suffered large-scale unemployment. The British were pulling out their troops and Singapore's survival depended on attracting large-scale foreign investments so that factories could be started here to mop up the existing unemployment and to give jobs to the large numbers of school leavers. It was proper at that time to give attractive tax holiday schemes to investors. The employment situation has now changed. There is full or over-full employment now. Our banks and other financial institutions have ample funds. The question is: why do we still need to give complete tax holidays or partial tax holidays to foreign companies, sometimes up to 20 years? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House why this legislation is still necessary in the light of Singapore's full employment, its economically advanced status and also Singapore itself is investing massive funds abroad, like in China, Vietnam and India. There is no shortage of funds in Singapore today. Is Singapore, on balance, losing out by continuing to give such generous tax-free packages to foreigners? What about the issue of technology transfer? Are these pioneer status foreign companies, while enjoying tax holidays, required to employ Singaporeans or local people in their top level positions and to have a minimum expenditure on their R&D programme? How many such companies are enjoying pioneer status in Singapore today and how much annual turnover are they generating?”