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 36 of 85.
“I think the HDB is asking too much of parents at Potong Pasir when it expected them to send their little children to a creche where next door to it there are people who are mentally unsound. Even if those mental patients are harmless, I do not think that parents would want to risk it. I hope the HDB would give the PPTC another suitable site to set up a creche and allow the PPTC to do its share of social services to the community. 2.00 pm”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. I would like to speak on the provision of child care centres. The Potong Pasir Town Council (PPTC) not only looks after the maintenance of the common property of the HDB estate in Potong Pasir Town, but it also endeavours to provide welfare services to the residents of the estate. Pursuant to the latter aim, it started making feasibility studies in late 1989 and 1990 to set up a creche. Surveys were conducted to determine whether the residents were in favour of the proposed creche. The replies from the survey showed that there was a need for a creche and that the Potong Pasir residents there were in favour of a creche. The PPTC wrote to the HDB and MCD. The HDB consented to set up a creche at the void deck of Block 139 Potong Pasir Avenue 1. The proposed creche was to accept 80 children aged between 2-5 years old and the floor area given was about 280 square metres. The MCD gave the PPTC approval to receive Government financial assistance. After much hard work, the PPTC finally was informed by the HDB that work on the creche would start in September 1991 and completed in March 1992. Everyone in the PPTC was, of course, elated. Then came the bad news. When March 1992 arrived, the HDB told the PPTC that it was not handing over the walled up area to it as earlier promised. Instead, the HDB was handing over the said premises to the Singapore Association of Mental Health (SAMH) to house people who are suffering from mental problems. The HDB also informed the PPTC that it was willing to build a new alternative creche adjacent to the SAMH premises. Parents at Potong Pasir naturally do not accept that proposal.”
“Sir, I have two cuts under Head U. Before the amendment is withdrawn, may I speak on them?”
“I hope the Minister is not trying to worm out of his offer. I am taking up this offer. Landed property is not a shirt, and we all know that landed property goes up in price. In respect of landed property, most of the properties escalate in price. So if you want to purchase back the property, you have to give them a reasonable price, probably open market value. And they will probably consider. Let us have the Minister say, whether or not he is going to make his offer in writing to the residents of Potong Pasir, and we will go from there. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: But they do not own the flats. He said they do not own the flats. So how can they sell them? My point precisely is that HDB flat owners own their flats and when they sell them, they sell them at current market price. They make hefty capital gains, they pocket their gains, and they come back to HDB to apply for a second flat, hoping to make similar capital gains. It is the SDP which claimed that HDB owners do not own their flats. So we say, okay, if they do not own their flats, you ask them to give back the flats and we will refund them the original purchase price. They have been staying in all these years for free. From now on, they stay but they pay the market rental of the flat. It is a very generous offer. Mr Chiam said they do not own their flats. I did not say it. So mount a campaign, prove that his residents feel they do not own the flats. And I will accept whatever he is able to bring up. How many will go along with him and say they do not own their flats and they are willing to return the flats to HDB?”
“Before the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah withdraws his amendment, will I be given a chance to reply to the Minister of State?”
“But the offer was made to Potong Pasir. I think I have a right to reply.”
“The point is that he has made an offer to residents at Potong Pasir and I want to make some reference to that offer. I was patient enough to sit here the last time without interrupting him and the press took it up and had a field day on it.”
“Sir, before the Minister finishes his answer to the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah, I was here last Friday and I was considerate enough not to interfere with the Minister of State in his reply. The Chairman: What is the point that you are making, Mr Chiam? Mr Lim is still making his reply.”
“I did not expect the Minister to give me up to the dollar how much CPF members would invest under the Enhanced Investment Scheme. I am sure the Government has worked out its sums and would have an estimate of how much money will be released into the market.”
“Sir, may I take up one point that has just been mentioned by the Minister? He says that the Government wants CPF members to widen their scope of investments and enlarge their assets. At the moment, CPF members have invested 15% of the available funds, ie, $2.1 billion. The Minister says that $14 billion is available for investments. My question to the Minister is: when this Enhanced Investment Scheme is implemented, how much more of the $14 billion will go into the market for investments?”
“Can I get a clarification from the Minister? From my feedback, there is a great pressure on our present universities. Many "A" level students are, in fact, unable to get in, and many of them, through big sacrifices of their parents, have to go abroad. So what provisions does the Minister intend to have for these many students who are qualified but they cannot get into the university?”
“I believe that a great number of parents are making great sacrifices to send their children to tertiary education overseas Australia and New Zealand have about one university to every 500,000 population. England has about that ratio. In the case of America, the ratio of university to population is about 1:100,000. If we take the Australian and New Zealand figures, Singapore should have five universities, since our population is about 2.62 million. I am not advocating at the moment that we should emulate Australia and New Zealand in regard to the number of universities we should have. By comparing with Western countries, it does highlight that Singapore has a long way to go in regard to providing university places to our local students. Singapore is presently rich enough and should put its priority in building another university, now that the original proposal to start the Open University by the Government has been shelved. The Singapore Government is very ambitious. It wants Singapore to reach the Swiss standard of living by 1997. It wants Singapore to be the brain centre of the region and it wants Singapore to build an external economy, ultimately reaching about 30% of its GNP. I say that we can reach all these goals if we have more Singaporeans who are highly trained and you can only do that by having enough universities. Two universities are not enough. The Government should forthwith build another one.”
“Sir, Singapore needs a third University. Presently, Singapore has two universities which are really not enough to cater for the great number of our students passing their GCE 'A' level examination each year. Many of these 'A' level students who can qualify to enter our local universities cannot gain admission because there are just not enough university places. Those children whose parents can afford it are sent overseas but those whose parents are not that well-off have to stay in Singapore. They get frustrated because they are not trained for any particular work. Many end up getting jobs with starting salaries similar to GCE 'O' level holders, although they have spent an additional two years in school. Meanwhile, those of our students who are studying in tertiary institutions abroad are paying hefty university tuition and boarding fees. The average student, who is studying overseas, depending on which country that he is studying in, is paying between $20,000 and $50,000 a year. At any one time, we have about 12,500 students studying overseas. The loss in foreign exchange is quite substantial. My estimate is that foreign exchange lost through our students studying abroad is about $400 million. Last year, the total expenditure of NUS and NTU were $346 million and $221 million respectively, making a grand total of $568 million. When you compare the two figures, the foreign exchange lost by our students studying abroad is about 70% of our Government's expenditure on those two universities. Surely, the high proportion of our money spent abroad should make out a case for the Government to open another university in Singapore. I must say that not all the parents who have sent their children overseas are particularly rich.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $21,691,150 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,078,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head H -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VB 1500. I will take both my cuts together. As regards elections regulations, I have taken part in five general elections and one by-election and I am of the view that certain rules could be changed. One is that the election agents should be allowed to go on board the buses that carry the ballot boxes prior to the ballot boxes being loaded onto the buses. The Police now refuse that. And, secondly, the Police have also refused official representatives of candidates to go on board the bus to be with the ballot boxes all the way to the counting stations. So these are the two points: (1) allow election agents to check and see that there is nothing wrong, or everything is in order, in regard to the bus, before the loading of the ballot boxes; and, (2) to direct the Police to allow election agents to be in the bus to follow the ballot boxes to the counting stations. The other amendment is in regard to rally sites. Now the rules appear to have changed. Only designated rally sites are given. In the past, the candidates could apply for any rally sites in the constituency, provided they get the permission from the relevant authorities in charge of the land. But now only a limited number of rally sites are allowed. The other point in regard to ---”
“I have one clarification for the Minister. At the last by-election at Marine Parade GRC, it was clearly stated that those who vote for the PAP will get priority in upgrading. Is this still true?”
“While most of us understand the rationale behind the proposed capping as one way of curbing rising health costs, what is disturbing is that some employers have already started to take advantage of the situation by proposing cost-sharing between employers and employees. Therefore, it is not surprising that workers are beginning to be concerned as they consider this development as a sign that employers who are presently providing medical benefits beyond 2% would seek to withdraw these benefits even though there is no necessity for them to do so at the moment. In this connection, I would like to know what measures the Government can take to check on such unscrupulous employers, as the Minister has said in his budget speech, and I quote: `The Government's aim is to pre-empt a future problem and not to deprive any worker of existing benefits.' Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on the issue of the Goods and Services Tax. Feedback from the ground revealed that there is a widespread concern about the final retail prices to be paid by them when GST is introduced. They strongly believe that prices would go beyond 3%. This fear is reasonable and expected because, firstly, people are unclear of the multi-stage collection process of the GST, and secondly, retailers will seize the opportunity to jack up prices through the rounding off process. I would like to ask whether something can be done to allay the fear. Could the Government consider the suggestion that retail stalls be asked to show the breakdown between the sale price and the GST when sales are made or when services are given? On that note, Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance.”
“Workers are generally disappointed that their contribution rate is reduced only by half a percentage point despite the favourable economic growth in 1992. They would have been happier if the reduction had been one percentage point because they have been eagerly looking forward to have more take-home pay to assist them to cope with the high cost of living we are experiencing in Singapore. On the other hand, employers have no reason to lament on the increase of half a percentage point in their contribution bearing in mind that they have been given several incentives in this year's budget. Also, employers must never forget our workers' sacrifice when they willingly accepted the immediate reduction of employers' CPF rate during the recession years of 1985-1986. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why the contribution on the part of the workers is not reduced by 1%. Another aspect of CPF which I would like to touch upon is the CPF Share Ownership Top-up Scheme. The objective of this Scheme is to enable our citizens to own shares so that they will have a more direct stake in the growth and prosperity of Singapore, and this is indeed praiseworthy. But the scheme as announced appears to be restrictive as it is confined only to citizens aged 21 and above who are CPF members. What I would like to ask here is what about CPF members who have not attained the age of 21? Will they be eligible for the scheme as well? Could the Minister please enlighten the House on this point? Sir, the next issue I would like to comment on is the capping of tax deduction for medical expenses to the maximum of 2%.”
“I say it is a clever scheme and I support it. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my colleagues in endorsing the fiscal principles as expounded by the Minister for Finance on Budget Day. Without doubt, this year's Budget is a most welcome one judging by the many positive reactions from various quarters. Not only is it painless, but more importantly, it is a well-balanced Budget that had adopted new approaches aimed at keeping costs down and to make Singapore stay competitive. To help Singapore take off in its next stage of economic development, the Budget has introduced a number of incentives for the business community. At the same time, the Budget this year can also be described as very generous and compassionate in terms of the wide range of rebates, tax reliefs, financial assistance programmes and additional subsidies in education and health which will benefit a wide cross-section of Singaporeans, including the lower-income group. Mr Speaker, it is indeed heartening to note that our nation has a healthy budget surplus in 1992. As the Minister has informed the House, this position is expected to continue in the next few years so long as our economic growth is sustained. We are indeed blessed, Sir, as not many countries in the world are in this enviable position and what this proves is the principles underpinning our fiscal policy are sound, pragmatic, prudent and realistic. And for this, credit must go to the Minister for Finance and his team of officials for making it possible for all Singaporeans to reap the fruits of our economic success. Having said all that, Sir, I would now like to make some observations on the Budget Statement. First, I would like to raise the issue of CPF contribution.”
“I said that it was a clever scheme because you are flushing out many of these one million CPF members who would not have come out in the first place. An hon. Member: Why not?”
“I hope the Prime Minister and other Members of this House would not put words in my mouth which I have not spoken. I did not say that I am disagreeable to this scheme. I said that it was a clever scheme. If we have one million, in other words, instantly the Government would have the benefit of $7 million worth of funds to use. Is that not right? An hon. Member: It is the people's money!”
“Sir, can I just ask the Prime Minister one question? With this top-up scheme, how many more new CPF members the Government expects to have?”
“So in the end, you get massive amounts of money coming in and they will be locked in for the next 30 years, and the Government can have free use of them. As regards the Government's incentives to encourage Singaporeans to go abroad to do business, I would like to know, as many people have been asking, why only at this juncture is the Government openly asking Singaporeans to move offshore. Has the initial thrust of the Government-linked companies and the statutory boards into overseas markets proved disastrous? Or are they not making headway and need the assistance of the private sector to join in? Or is the market so plentiful abroad and the Government wants also the private sector to participate and exploit the potential there? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on this point. As I study the seven incentives for Singaporeans to go abroad, I do not think they can be effective. The more important thing for the Government to do is to make an environment, or as one writer in the Straits Times has put it, to change structurally our environment, to make Singaporeans as go-getters, who can show initiative, leadership and who are willing to take adventure. I think these moves by the Government are equally important.”
“I am not saying that it is a bad scheme. Mr Lim Hng Kiang, please listen carefully to what I have said. I said it is a clever scheme.”
“For the first time, the PAP Government is planning for a deficit, a loss of $183 million per year for the next five years when the GST is introduced. From the feedback I get, and despite the Government's statistics, I, like many others, do not believe that the Government shall be out-of-pocket. My view is that despite what the Government statistics show, there shall be a break-even, if not, even a positive collection of revenue from the GST. I would like the Minister to prove me wrong on this point. I would like the Minister to prove to me that the tax will not be a positive collection. In other words, what I am saying is that the Minister, with his statistics, has not presented the true picture. As regards the CPF Top-Up Scheme, it is a very clever move. These days you see in advertisements all kinds of inducements in the newspapers and one, in particular, the Credit POSB is even giving a car as a prize to encourage people to put money in the bank. This is a similar scheme. The Government puts out a bait of $200 into your account. But the catch is that you must have $500 CPF deposit in there first. Not only that, before you can put in the $500, you must open a CPF account. This is another way of getting those who have got no CPF account, in fact, to open a CPF account, in particular, the many stallholders. In the long term, you get many more people, who are not CPF members, coming forward as CPF members and, at the same time, the Government will be benefitting not only from the $500 deposit, but also even the $200 that has been placed there, because it will be locked in for the next 30 years.”
“In the case of other countries cited by the Minister like New Zealand, England and very soon Australia next year, those countries have a heavy welfare burden to carry. And because of their welfare burden, they have gone into deep debts and they were quite justified in introducing a goods and consumption tax. Australia will be introducing a goods and services tax next year. At the moment, Australia is having something like $200 billion deficit, one million unemployed and they are in financial problems. Under those circumstances, I think it is quite justified to introduce a very substantive goods and services tax. In Singapore's case, our citizens are paying for everything they get from the Government, whether it be education, housing or in terms of health. What the Government is doing by introducing the GST is, in fact, to introduce another layer of tax. So the people of Singapore will have to bear the consumption tax when it is introduced. The Minister's main rationale for introducing the Goods and Services Tax is to make Singapore more competitive internationally. In the case of Singapore, there are already provisions to make Singapore attractive to foreign investors. There are in place many tax incentive provisions so that multi-national companies which come to Singapore to set up factories or regional headquarters pay very little or no tax. So the reduction of the corporate tax finally to 25% is really not an issue when Singapore has already provision for a pioneer status in regard to foreign companies. I am surprised to see that as a result of all the rebates, offsets and waivers, the Government's revenue loss per year is estimated at $183 million for the next five years. This is really a surprising thing.”
“' Despite criticizing the Malaysian Government in the 1960s on the turnover tax, the PAP has not only slapped a tax on our PUB bills but also on telephone bills as well on Singaporeans. By the huge profits that those two public bodies have made every year, I do not think I am wrong in saying that much of the taxes on utilities and telephone bills have been absorbed by the PUB and Telecom but rather passed down to the consumers. In 1964, the PAP was complaining of only one item, the turnover tax on public utilities being passed on to the consumers. The GST, when introduced, is a hundred times worse than the Malaysian turnover tax on public utilities. The GST shall be a tax on all items in the market place and they shall all be passed on to the consumers, notwithstanding the exemption on small businesses which do not have a $1 million turnover per year. All the goods ultimately sold to the consumer would have been transacted at least once and would attract the GST. I say Singapore definitely does not need a goods and services tax at this moment. The previous speaker has said that the Minister is preparing us for a rainy day. But Singaporeans are sophisticated and they do understand the situation. If the rainy day comes, they will accept a GST readily. It is not necessary to introduce it at this point of time. The Finance Minister knows it. He has said that we do not need the money, at least for the short term. However, in the long-term, if the experience of other countries is a guide, the present 3% GST rate could easily escalate to two, three or four times after the five-year honeymoon period is over. If the Government thinks that I am wrong, I hope the Minister can assure the House that the rate of GST shall remain at 3% after the initial 5-year period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two broad areas in this year's Budget Statement. First, it is the Government's introduction of the GST package and, second, its attempt to encourage more Singaporeans to go abroad to do business. First, let us look at the GST. The PAP had, in fact, in the past rejected the idea of a consumption tax, and it has been mentioned by the previous speaker and was highlighted at an earlier date that the GST is retrogressive. Consumption tax was basically similar to the goods and services tax. Now, the PAP is shifting its position. It is doing something which it has rejected before. The majority of the people then supported the PAP for the policy of rejecting a consumption tax, and now the PAP has let those early supporters down by introducing the GST. The PAP's credibility, of course, has been dented and it is going to be dented again when the GST Bill becomes law. When the PAP was in the opposition in the Malaysian Parliament in 1963 to 1965, it vigorously opposed the turnover tax on public utilities such as electricity, water and gas, the payroll tax and the tax on crown corks. The Senior Minister, the former Prime Minister, was the main spokesman of the PAP in the Malaysian Parliament. He vigorously opposed those taxes. I quote the Senior Minister who spoke in the Malaysian Parliament on 12th December 1964 as follows: 'Where is the justice in a turnover tax on public utilities - electricity, water and gas - all of which will be paid by the consumer? Is the intention to collect taxes from a public corporation like the Central Electricity Board or the Singapore Public Utilities Board, or is it the intention to pass on the turn-over tax ultimately to the consumer?”
“There were five people residing there at the material time including one old lady and a teenage girl. On Wednesday, 24th February, at about 11.30 am, a horde of HDB enforcement officers came to that house together with two Thai workers and an escort of two armed policemen. On instructions, the Thai workers broke the windows of the house and used crowbars to pry loose the main door. When the main door was detached, it was thrown on the nearby grass. The family was alarmed. The teenage girl cried and begged the HDB officers not to tear down her house. This is the sort of way the Government forcibly evicts tenants of houses on land that has been acquired.”
“What happens when land is acquired by the Government for resale at a hefty profit or when land is acquired just to plant a few trees there or land is acquired to be re-rented out by the Government for a profit? Can we say that those lands are acquired for a public purpose? I do not think so. I would say that a more equitable mode of compensation could be one in which it depends on whether the land is generally acquired for a public purpose or for a quasi-public purpose or just outright acquisition for resale by the Government for a profit. I suggest that there should be different rates of compensation depending on the purpose for which the land is acquired. If such a formula of compensation were to be adopted, then the land owner will not unduly suffer too much loss. It has also been pointed out that not all land owners are wealthy people. I must say that we must remember that all these land owners are not wealthy people. I know of one case where a man had put all his savings in a piece of land as an investment. He had hoped eventually to sell it for a profit and use the profits of sale to tide him over in his old age. Suddenly, the land was acquired by the Government. The compensation he received was so low compared to the prevailing open market value at that time that the shock just killed him. He is one of the many victims of the low rate of compensation paid out under the Land Acquisition Act. Other untold stories concern the way the Government takes possession of compulsorily acquired land. I have only just been informed last night at my Meet-the-People session of a case at Kheam Hock Road adjacent to Bukit Brown Chinese Cemetery. This case concerns a wood and zinc house. It is situate on land that has been compulsorily acquired by the Government.”
“Sir, I must declare my pecuniary interest. I am a practising lawyer acting for clients whose lands have been compulsorily acquired. Land acquisition is big business for the Government. The Government, under the Land Acquisition Act, is given massive powers to compulsorily acquire land. Compulsory acquisition of land is a very profitable activity of the Government. Last year, the Government reaped $4.1 billion from land sales, which lands are mostly compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. This year, the Government is expected to make $3.8 billion from land sales. The receipt from land sales this year is about 7% less than last year, probably indicating that land that would be acquired is becoming less. But, nevertheless, the sum of $3.8 billion is still very substantial. Last year, the receipt of land sales was about one-third of the amount collected from tax revenue. This year, it is about a quarter of the tax revenue. It is quite clear that Government capital receipts from land sales contribute substantially to Government income which, when unspent, goes into the reserves. Therefore, much of our reserves are revenue derived from the sale of lands which are compulsorily acquired by the Government. I cannot support the present amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. I say that it is unfair and inequitable. A new formula for compensation should be worked out. Speakers have already brought up the idea of market value. It is quite common knowledge that the Government acquires land for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily bona fide for a public purpose or for public interest. When land is acquired for building public housing, a hospital or construction of roads, no one will quarrel that they are for a public purpose.”
“Sir, I am just asking a justified question, and the reply is a threat to blitz Potong Pasir. Is this in order, Sir?”
“Sir, as far as I am aware, there is no littering problem at Potong Pasir Town Council. Can the Minister please name the block or any particular area which has been badly littered?”
“He is not doing his duty, Mr Speaker, Sir. He is the Minister, and he should know his work.”
“Can you please name the other charitable foundations that have been using HDB void decks?”
“Mr Speaker, we are now pinpointing a specific political use, that is, for use in the Marine Parade GRC by-election. So what I want to hear from him is that it is an admission that the PAP has been using the premises rented out to a PAP Community Foundation for educational purposes and it has been specifically used for an electioneering purpose. That is what I want to hear - it was used for a very specific purpose.”
“So he admits now that HDB void decks loaned to the PAP Community Foundation for educational purposes have been used in the last Marine Parade by-election.”
“Is it not true that in the last Marine Parade by-election, the MPs were still using HDB void deck premises as their election office?”
“Can he in fact confirm that no more premises at the void decks are being used by the PAP MPs as their offices?”
“Sir, may I know when were all the PAP MPs' offices at the void decks returned to the HDB?”
“I do not know which section the Minister is referring to, when he said that the PA has the power to run the Outward Bound School and other institutes. If that were true, then we are all wasting our time here. Why spend so much time in trying to amend section 10(2)?”
“There is no reason, and it will be wasteful, to duplicate services and activities in centres which are so close in a place that does not require both centres. We have in many instances closed down centres if we see that the usage has not been high. So it is not new. The fact that we closed the Sennett Community Centre does not mean that we are taking away one from him and not giving something in return. We have given the Potong Pasir residents a better centre. We have closed down other centres in other parts of Singapore which have not seen a high demand from the residents.”
“Mr Speaker, can I get some clarification from the Minister? He said earlier on that the PA has been running institutes and the Outward Bound School. The amendment is only made today and I see that the powers of the PA have not been given retrospectively. In other words, all the activities that the PA has been running are ultra vires. All the funds that were allocated to the Outward Bound School and other institutes were done illegally because they have no powers. I hope the Minister can comment on that. In regard to the community centre at Sennett Estate, when the PAP MP was there, they promised two community centres for the Constituency. I am asking the Minister why they are taking away one. In regard to transfer of use, it is certainly not used as a community centre. Therefore, there is a clear breach of trust, even if it is used for a similar purpose, a charitable purpose. But it is certainly not used as a community centre, and I still maintain that that is a breach of trust. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I only quoted the example of the National Community Leadership Training Institute as an example. If Mr Chiam were to read the present Act carefully, which says that the PA can "generally do all such other acts as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Association," then, of course, running the National Community Leadership Training Institute, even without the amendment, or running OBS without the amendment, will still not be ultra vires the People's Association Act. If Mr Chiam thinks so, then maybe he can challenge us in the court. On the community centre, as I said, we built a better and modern community centre in place of the old one.”
“I do not think it is for the Minister to answer that.”
“I repeat this question which has been asked many times in this House. As the Minister claims, if the PA and the community centres are non-partisan, why are the Opposition Members kept out of community centres?”
“The people have contributed money on the understanding that the money shall be used to build a community centre for the constituents' use. Yet, when I was elected in Potong Pasir in 1984, the community centre at Sennett Estate was quickly taken away by the PA and used, I believe, as a grassroots secretariat. Its use as a community centre was discontinued. That act was clearly a breach of trust on the part of the PA. Despite our many protestations, nothing has come out of it. Under clause 4 of the Bill, the PA is to expand its power not only to run youth clubs, boys' clubs and girls' clubs, but institutes and such other bodies as the Board thinks fit. This is like giving a blank cheque to the Board of the PA. I sincerely urge this House not to allow them to do that. The powers given to the Board are too extensive. What exactly are institutes and bodies which the Board has in mind? These institutes and bodies must be clearly spelt out in the Act. Otherwise we do not know what we are approving? I hope the Minister will clarify. What does the Board have in mind? Do they want to form other bodies that will help in the PAP MPs' politicking or what? At the moment, we have got the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs, youth groups, clubs and the lot. Why are they not enough? Why is there a necessity to increase the powers of the Board? Therefore, unless the Minister specifies them, I cannot agree with this amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support the amendments in the People's Association (Amendment) Bill. The People's Association is fully supported by taxpayers. And yet the way it is run and its functions, it appears to be a propaganda arm of the PAP. The People's Association is made to be in charge of community centres which are supposed to be the focal point of all social, cultural, educational and recreational activities of a constituency. But its real purpose is to promote the interests of the ruling political party. That is the reason why all Opposition MPs are shut out from community centres. The reason given is that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies. But do the PAP MPs themselves support Government policies? I do not think so. The community centres have mounted an intensive campaign to speak Mandarin. But what happens? When it comes to the crunch at the Marine Parade by-election, we see that the PAP MPs flouted Government policies. They strayed away from Government policies and used dialects extensively and that is one of the reasons why they won the by-election. And when it really comes to the bottom line, the PAP MPs do not believe in Government policies when it hurts their own interests. So it cannot be said that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies and therefore community centres should be handed to them. They must be made advisors to community centres, like all PAP MPs. In the case of Potong Pasir which I know very well, the People's Association even committed a breach of trust. Residents of Potong Pasir Constituency have contributed generously to build a lovely community centre at Sennett Estate which is part of Potong Pasir Constituency.”
“That is possible because the whole system in their land office and other related government departments are fully computerised. All the requisite searches can be done in one afternoon and not in six weeks under our present system. And the sale and purchase of a property comprise just filling in forms by the purchaser and the vendor. It is as simple as that. I believe over there, they do not even need the services of a lawyer. A trained bank officer or a property agent can do the job. I am afraid my fellow lawyers, should they know that I advocate such a system, will not be very happy with me, especially the more successful ones who deal mainly with this type of work and their earnings are derived from conveyancing work. But I say such a conveyancing system should also be put in place in Singapore. After all, Singapore's economic growth for many years was pushed up by the construction industry. So by expediting the sale and purchase of properties with a faster turnover, the volume in property transactions will naturally increase and Singapore's economic growth will increase to an even higher level. I therefore support this Bill. I welcome the establishment of a computer database of all land titles and I do hope that in the not-too-distant future that we too, like Sweden, can complete the sale and purchase of a landed property in four days' time, with or without the services of a lawyer, at a cheap rate and with the purchaser getting a good title for his property.”
“Sir, I rise also in support of the Bill, in particular, the computerisation of the registration of titles at the Land Titles Registry. This is a welcome step to those who wish to buy or sell property which, I am sure, many of us do at one time or other in our life-time. Property developers and the business community generally, I believe, also welcome the efforts of modernisation of the system at the Land Titles Registry. I do hope also that the other Government departments, like the PWD, MRTC, Sewerage Department, etc, are also computerising their systems so that searches made to them in relation to a property will not take the normal six weeks but can be cut down to a shorter period. Sir, at this stage, I would like to declare my pecuniary interest as a practising lawyer. I do a little bit of conveyancing work. But what I am going to say shall be against my professional interest. But, nevertheless, I am going to advocate it because it benefits the public and the business community and Singapore's economy. What I advocate is that the Government should take expeditious steps to fully computerise the system in all Government departments connected with the sale and purchase of land, not only at the Land Titles and Deeds Registry, so that the sale and purchase of a property can be done expeditiously and cheaply. That can be made possible when all the legal technicalities connected with the title to a property can be done away with. This is possible. Sweden has done it. It has such a system and has been in operation for many years. I understand that in that country, a person can buy a house with the transfer of title to the purchaser within four days.”
“The Minister has still not answered my question. The point is that it has sub-let for a political purpose. In the original permission given, is there a clause which says that the whole premises were allowed for political purposes? If there is not, then the PAP prospective candidate at Potong Pasir should not be using it for political purposes. He has got no right to, because it is in breach of section 5 of the Building Control Act, as he has earlier quoted.”