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 29 of 85.
“Even with the assurance of the Prime Minister, there are many intellectuals in Singapore who do not think so. They have points of view to make but for fear of retribution, they have not made these points. How can the Government assure them that they can take part in the political debate without joining a political party and yet the Government will not victimise them? There are occasions where we can think of many policies which the Government has gone wrong.”
“Isn't the stand taken by the Government rather regressive? Because this assumes that the Government is always right and all others are wrong. There are times in which the Government policies may be wrong, and these people who speak up may be right. So they should be allowed to air their views in line with what they think, rather than to come down on them with a sledgehammer.”
“Some of these well-meaning people have volunteered themselves to be selected as NMPs. What is the position of the NMPs? Are they allowed to criticise the Government outside this House?”
“Can I have a clarification from the Prime Minister? I think Singaporeans would like to have this matter clarified. Does he say that one must be in a political party before one can take part in political comments or criticisms of Government policy? Is that the position? No well-known person in Singapore can criticise Government policies?”
“Is the Government adopting double standards? When journalists are very critical of the Opposition, they can take part in politics. But anyone writing in the papers against the Government, he or she will have to answer very serious questions from the Government side and being accused of taking part in politics or not joining an Opposition party to take part in politics. Is there a double standard?”
“No. HDB RESALE FLATS (Housing loans) 7. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether he will consider the grant of higher housing loans to those who purchase Housing and Development Board resale flats in older housing estates to live near their parents.”
“You are the Minister. You must answer the question. I ask a question and you answer.”
“Is there any place, other than Potong Pasir, which has rampant illegal parking in HDB housing estates?”
“If he thinks that there is illegal parking in Potong Pasir and there is no illegal parking in other places, why does he not try and see whether he can get more than 600 parking offences at other places within three days?”
“I am surprised at the answer of the Minister. Does it mean that if there is no increase in the rate of parking fees at Potong Pasir, there will be none in future? Certainly, we have to anticipate that this increase will be coming. So the Question is absolutely in order. Nevertheless--- Mr Speaker: What is your question? Could you get to the point?”
“Yes. What is actually the problem at Potong Pasir for him to deploy extra parking wardens there?”
“Sir, I still have not got the answer from the Minister because I have to report back to my constituents at Potong Pasir.”
“I know that uppermost in the Minister's mind is revenue. So if his purpose is to eradicate illegal parking, I would certainly, as the MP there, welcome such a move. I think we are privileged to have such attention given to us.”
“I have already told the Minister that I welcome the move of the Minister to be so diligent at Potong Pasir. He has said that more parking wardens will be deployed. I want to know how many more parking wardens will be deployed in Potong Pasir and when they will be deployed. After all, I am the MP there and I should know.”
“May I know how many extra parking wardens will be deployed in Potong Pasir and can he please let me know when will it be implemented?”
“All right. Why is the Minister so reluctant to supply security guards at places where there are rampant vandalism and/or thefts from cars?”
“All right. In the past, the HDB did not charge parking fees. Now the fees have all gone up. It is obvious that there would be surplus funds in the HDB. Therefore, there must be places which need --- Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, are you asking your question? If you are making a speech, I will ask you to resume your seat. Ask your question now.”
“In the past, when the first flats were occupied, the HDB did not charge any parking fees. It is obvious that the HDB ---”
“Thank you, Mr Minister. I think it is high time that the HDB got on to the job. It is probably due to other people coming into the estate to park their cars indiscriminately.”
“Sir, I am just responding to the Minister.”
“If he could, he could roughly tell me which are the car parks in which these 600 parking offences were issued over the last three days. Is it near Block 108?”
“I am happy that the Acting Minister has increased the number of parking wardens at Potong Pasir and he said that over the last three days there were 600 parking offences. Can I have a clarification? Where were these 600 parking offences committed? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: If the Member wants, I will photostat the list to him. It covers all the car parks in Potong Pasir with varying numbers of parking offences in each of the car parks. Does he want me to read out the whole list?”
“From 1st February 1995, the monthly parking charges for multi-storey car parks in these 23 precincts will be decreased from $75 to $65, and that of surface car parks adjusted from $55 to $65. By equalising the parking charges, car owners will now be more willing to park in multi-storey car parks. Both surface and multi-storey car parks are now integrated into one category for a more efficient usage of parking lots. As to the suggestion of providing security guards for car parks, this would increase the cost of operation, and the cost increase would have to be passed on to the car owners. With the generally low crime rate in Singapore, HDB does not see the need to specially provide security guards and increase the operation cost. However, in response to the Member for Potong Pasir's concern, I have instructed HDB to increase the number of patrols by HDB parking wardens in Potong Pasir in order to prevent illegal parking and to deter car thefts, vandalism and other misdemeanours. The Member will be glad to know that these increased patrols have over the last three nights resulted in HDB issuing 600 parking offences. I assure the Member that HDB will keep up its effort to reduce illegal parking and deter car thefts and vandalism in Potong Pasir.”
“HDB therefore recently reviewed the car parking charges in precincts which fall under one of the following three categories. The first category involves five precincts where there is a severe congestion in the surface car parks while the multi-storey car parks nearby are under-used, mainly because of the large difference in the season ticket prices for the two types of car parks. The equalisation of the car parking charges will help resolve this problem. The second category involves 12 precincts where temporary surface car park lots were provided while multi-storey car parks were being built. The residents were informed from the start that the surface car park lots would be removed when the multi-storey car parks were completed. However, the residents have now appealed to retain some of these surface lots to supplement the multi-storey car parks. As the majority of the surface lots will be removed ultimately, HDB wants to prevent a mismatch in demand arising from the difference in car parking charges. A single charge would therefore be imposed. The third category involves six HDB upgrading precincts. The residents were previously paying $55 per month for the surface car parks. In the upgrading, the surface lots were replaced either fully or partially by a multi-storey car park to enhance the aesthetic value of the living environment. However, these car owners then end up having to pay $20 more than before. Taking these circumstances into consideration, HDB has decided that, in future, car parking charges will also take into account the utility value to the car users, and the demand and supply situations of car parks in the housing estates. On this basis, HDB has adjusted the parking charges for 23 of its car parks.”
“Sir, is it true that for the speed limit of 50 km per hour, the Police shall only take action against motorists who exceed 60 km per hour? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think I should say this. The Traffic Police has taken a pragmatic approach towards enforcing speed limits. In other words, consideration is given to people who may exceed the speed limits by a certain amount because, after all, sometimes we have to speed up when we overtake. There are situations when we may exceed the speed limit. I think this is something that I am sure Mr Chiam will agree - that it is good judicious enforcement. HDB CAR PARKS (Season parking fees and security guards) 6. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Acting Minister for National Development why there is a necessity to increase the season parking fee at Housing and Development Board estates and whether the HDB will provide security guards at these car parks to prevent illegal parking, car thefts, vandalism and other misdemeanours since residents pay for their parking lots. The Acting Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, HDB car parking charges were priced to gradually recover the full cost of building and maintaining its car parks. Based on this policy, the monthly parking charges were fixed at $75 for multi-storey car parks and $55 for surface car parks. However, this disparity in pricing has led to an imbalance in the demand for the two types of car parks in precincts where they co-exist side by side. Car owners prefer the surface parking lots, mainly because they cost $20 less than in the adjacent multi-storey car park lots. This has resulted in shortages at the surface car parks, while the multi-storey car parks are under-utilised.”
“Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that along Holland Road, whenever motorists approach the speed detection camera, they will slow down? As soon as they pass this camera, they will pick up speed again, defeating the purpose of this camera. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We cannot control, as it were, the specific behaviour of the road users. But I think we must keep in mind the larger objective of these speed detection cameras which is to reinforce the message that speeding is an offence and that they are for the benefit of motorists themselves. As the press reports have said, now less people in fact speed along that stretch of road. I think that is evidence that the message is filtering down to the ground.”
“Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the general feedback is that 50 km per hour is unfair? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Unfair to whom? Mr Chiam See Tong: It is too low for the motorists. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we must bear in mind that Singapore is an urban setting where our roads are used not just by motorists who have high capacity cars like Volvos and Mercedeses but also motorists who drive smaller capacity cars. Also the types of drivers in Singapore are of such a wide diversity. Some are more experienced, perhaps like Mr Chiam, and others are less experienced. All things considered, it is better to heed the professional advice of the Committee and keep the speed limits as they are.”
“Is the Prime Minister's tactic always to ambush the Opposition?”
“I have always been ready. Would it not be better for everybody to have regular dates for general elections to be held? What is there for the Government to fear since the Government has always said that it has got a good record?”
“But regular practice has it that general elections seem to be held every four years rather than three years. Why not start a precedent by having elections every four years so that all those who wish to take part will not be inconvenienced and I think it would be fairer to everybody? In fact, it would be in line with the Prime Minister's declaration that he wants to have openness. Let us have openness in regard to the general election.”
“If the Prime minister is not willing to have fixed dates for general elections, would the Prime Minister give us the reasons for that?”
“In view of trying to curb such gambling which might bring down the seriousness of these elections, would the Prime Minister be willing to fix elections at regular fixed dates, say, August or December of every fourth year after the last general election?”
“Is the Prime Minister aware that whenever an election seems to be coming, there would be widespread betting on that date?”
“Was the Prime Minister aware that teachers were told not to go on overseas holiday and police officers were also told not to take leave last December?”
“Was the Prime Minister aware that even syndicated gamblers could pinpoint that the election date was 17th December last year?”
“Was there any substance in the widespread rumour that the general election was scheduled to be held on 17th December last year and was cancelled?”
“If the Minister cares to read the Report of the Select Committee on the Land Titles (Strata) Bill, he will see that the Minister, Prof. Jayakumar, explained to one of the representors, Mr Lim Chin Joo, that the meaning of unanimous vote applies to only those who were present and voted unanimously, and not necessarily that every owner must vote. Therefore, based on that explanation, do we take it that everyone of the occupiers must vote and you must get more than 75%, or only if the people who attend the meeting voted 75% and above, you can have an upgrading? Which of the two is correct?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the HUDC flats are quite similar to the private flats and yet there is a difference in the law governing the HUDC flats and the private flats. I stand to be corrected. The Land Titles (Strata) Act in fact does not allow occupiers to upgrade their flats if they get 75% of the votes. I believe there must be a unanimous resolution or, if not a unanimous resolution, they must apply to the court to have their upgrading done. In regard to the HUDC flats, now there is an amendment before us that if not more than 25% vote against it, then upgrading is allowed. My query to the Minister is: how many occupiers actually comprise the 25%? Is it that everyone of the occupiers must vote and get 75%? Or is it confined to those who attend the meeting, ie, if 75% vote for it, then the majority will win? I would like to get this clarification.”
“I think you have not answered the point. You have said that you want the trees to survive and to grow. That is very good. But you must see what type of trees. Because there are some trees which are instant trees. So what harm is there in cutting them down because you can grow them instantly? We are talking about hardwood trees. These are the trees that should be preserved. Once you cut them down, you are going to take another 30 years to grow them. I think that is unreasonable. But if you can grow them overnight, what harm is done? No harm is done.”
“Although such trees are not allowed to be felled, some owners have not taken care to maintain the trees and the trees may suffer and they may have to be felled because of poor maintenance. So the amendment in this Bill seeks to extend both preservation and maintenance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this amendment in principle. I think everybody in Singapore loves to see Singapore becoming a green and clean city. This provision in the Bill in regard to felling of trees that are more than one metre in girth does not distinguish the types of trees. Because in the tropics, we have got many softwood trees and they are very fast growing. For example, the Angsana trees are in fact instant trees. So I think there must be a distinction made between softwood, semi-hardwood and hardwood trees. It is wrong to cut down a hardwood tree because its growth period takes a long time. But in the case of some trees, they grow almost overnight. Even if you cut them, they can be grown within one to two years and they will be mature during that period of time. So this Bill does not distinguish this point. I hope the Ministry, in implementing this Act, will take into account whether they are fast growing trees or slow growing trees because I see that the penalty has been increased from $2,000 to $10,000. That is the only point I wish to make. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the preservation of trees in this Bill is directed at those trees in the Tree Conservation Areas. The Ministry is already making a distinction that, in Singapore, there will be areas where there are many mature trees, both hardwood and softwood, and we would like to keep the ambience in the areas. For such areas, we designate them as Tree Conservation Areas and for trees with a girth of more than one metre, they would not be allowed to be felled. The amendment in this Bill is to also ensure that these trees are maintained.”
“One of the reasons why they were called to court is that maybe the notices have been sent to the wrong address. They have not reported the change of address to the relevant authority in regard to parking offences. So I can conclude that we really welcome OSCARS.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all Singaporeans welcome this One-Stop Change of Address Reporting System, otherwise known as OSCARS. This name given is very appropriate, especially to film lovers. Oscars are given every year, I think, to the best film and the best performance in the film industry. And also I think fish lovers would welcome this name - "OSCARS". I believe it is the name of a fancy fish that is very popular among aquarium keepers. I think every Singaporean would welcome this change. Those who attend court will know that many summonses are issued. I do not know so much about pharmacists, but I know for sure that business people and income taxpayers who have not paid their income tax on time would welcome this change, because the very common reason given is that the Government notices never reach their addresses. So with this change, it is very convenient as they do not have to go to so many other departments to change their addresses. In the first instance, if they do not receive one notice, they are informed in other areas in which they are involved. So I think Singaporeans will definitely welcome this change. The only comment I can make is why the Government has taken so long in implementing this system when computerisation is always a priority in the Government's programme. Of course, we are awaiting for the other link-up and two areas which quickly come to my mind are motorcar registration, ie, the registration of owners of motorcars, and in regard to the driving licence. I think these are the areas in which many Singaporeans have been subject to court action and, in fact, not long ago we heard that many of the motorists, something like 44,000, have not paid up their fines for parking offences.”
“Sir, under the new section 33A, I do not think it mentions anything about a prima facie case. It just merely states "if there is a reasonable suspicion". That is the reason why I thought it was too wide.”
“I am referring to probably section 9 whereby it is the duty of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment debt. No figure was given in the past. But now you have made it a lower figure of $5,000. I believe this is probably section 9. Section 18 (3) is in regard to taxation. I am sorry about that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Section 9 (1) and (8) sets a lower limit for the payment to the Public Trustee of the amount awarded by a court against any person insured for third-party risks. I think here there is a need also for the Public Trustee to be involved in looking at the matter from a macro level. In other words, whether it is a settlement out of court where you have got an insurance company paying or a court settlement under section 9 (1) and (8), he should look at it from a macro level. He should be the facilitator through which the monies can be paid. That is the ambit of the amendment. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. FINANCE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sorry, it should be section 18 (1). Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Section 18 (1) is not being amended. The amendments are to sections 6 (1), 9 (1) and (8) and 18 (3).”
“It is not taxation. I am talking about judgment debt. Formerly, there was no figure. The insurance companies have a duty to satisfy the judgment debt despite some of the reasons given in that section. But now they are not required to pay out if the claim is less than $5,000. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not think that is the ambit of the amendment. You mentioned section 18 (3). Section 18 (3) in fact talks about the question of mandatory taxation.”
“But now, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a lower figure of $5,000. I do not actually see the necessity of pegging it to a figure. Once an injured person gets a judgment, there is already a debt owing to him. He is a judgment creditor. Of course, the original section 18 (3) makes it a duty for the insurance company to pay out. But now they do not have to pay out for any sum less than $5,000. Why is there this necessity? In fact, this amendment makes the injured person at a more disadvantageous position. So I cannot really see the rationale of wanting to have this lower figure of $5,000. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this further. I do not think that the Ministry or any Government department will be made less busy if this is put at a lower figure of $5,000 whereby it is necessary for the insurance company to pay out. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Member asks why we have chosen $5,000. He suggests raising it to $10,000. I think we should take a cautious approach. By raising the current limit from $500 to $5,000, the savings in terms of number of cases - I think the Member very rightly points out, the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office is working very hard, not only in terms of Public Trustee's cases but also bankruptcy and other cases - he will have a saving of, based on 1993 figures, 30%. I think we can work with that figure and we can live with it. For the moment, we are lifting it by 10% - from $500 to $5,000. We should take that approach and in due course, after review, if there is indeed a need to raise it further, we can consider that. The other point that he mentioned is - I think he does not fully appreciate the ambit of section 18 (3) - the question of taxation. Currently, all courts ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I must declare my interest. I am a practising solicitor. I would like to refer to clause 2 of the Bill whereby the amendment attempts to amend section 6 (1) of the principal Act by changing the figure of $500 to $5,000. In my mind, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a proliferation of cases and it has increased by about 41.3% and the amount involved is over $62 million. The number of cases and the sums involved are quite large. I think a more appropriate figure should be $10,000 rather than $5,000. The figure of $5,000 is too small, especially when the last amendment was made in 1960, which was 34 years ago. The value of money has diminished and, as the Minister has pointed out, there are a great number of cases jamming up the probably under-staffed Public Trustee's Office. From my experience, I found that the Public Trustee's Office is rather slow in paying out compensation money. Probably the main reason is that it is very shorthanded and sometimes it takes more than two months for money to be paid out. So it can cause hardship and difficulties to those who have already suffered personal injuries, and especially if they are poor, they have to wait for a long time to get their money. I am not talking of those cases that have to go to court and the long drawn court battles. Sometimes these smaller claims are settled quite quickly and they have to wait for such a long time for the Public Trustee to pay out the money. Even some cynics have said that the Public Trustee is probably keeping the money to earn interest. I hope it is not so and it is untrue. As regards the requirement of the insurers to pay out the money under section 18 (3) of the principal Act, formerly no amount was mentioned.”
“Will the Minister be willing to give such criteria in writing, if requested to do so, in regard to the building of footpaths on public land?”