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 46 of 85.
“Much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I am against the proposed amendment to the Constitution. As I have said on another occasion, with the amendment to the Constitution, we shall have three classes of MPs, the elected MPs are in the first class, the NCMPs are in the second class and the nominated MPs are in the third class. I put the NCMPs in a higher class than the nominated MPs because they have gone through the fire of a parliamentary election and they have a measure of electoral support, whereas the nominated MPs have none of these. Personally, I say that the nominated MPs have no place in the Parliament of independent Singapore. We are not a colonial legislative body where nominated legislative members are a common feature. I would say that when nominated MPs are installed in our Parliament, they are just like fish out of water. They should not be in our Parliament. They should be tossed back to the universities or statutory bodies or businesses or other work places where they came from. If these people want to be in Parliament, then let them do so by the proper means. Come forward and put themselves through the electoral process. I do not think it is right for anyone to enjoy the privileges and prestige of being a Member of Parliament without earning that right in a parliamentary election. The proposed amendment is a retrogressive step. It will whittle down our democratic parliamentary system. The essence of true democracy is representation. The people elect their representatives to Parliament and Members of Parliament in Parliament represent the will of the people. Members of Parliament do not act for themselves in Parliament. They are voted in by the electorate and they represent the electorate. This is how democracy works.”
“Why is the Government not willing to pass laws to contain communalism and other specific problems instead of wanting to maintain the Internal Security Act?”
“Sir, the Minister is saying that there is really no need for the Internal Security Act to contain communist subversion. He is saying that there are in fact other threats like communalism. I take the Minister's point. But this House will soon be passing laws to restrict people from mixing their religious activities with politics. Why can the Government not pass specific laws to also contain a problem with regard to communalism in Singapore? What people are objecting ---”
“The Minister has said that communist subversion in Singapore today has receded but has not completely disappeared. At this stage, does it justify having the Internal Security Act, which is really aimed at communist subversion?”
“Will the Minister tell the House whether or not there is a threat of communist subversion in Singapore today? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, communist subversion may have receded but it has not disappeared.”
“Sir, I suspect that people who say that they are shy in asking for assistance are not really giving the true reason. I think it is economic reason. The fees probably are so high that they are afraid to ask for assistance and they are afraid they might not be able to repay them back. Assuming the fees escalate to as high as $12,000 a year, how can a working taxi-driver or a hawker dare even to go and ask for assistance when the fees are so high?”
“If there is a runaway in fees, eventually these independent schools will become the herald in Eden of Singapore. Is it not correct?”
“The Minister is aware that Asians are reluctant to go and ask for assistance. I think most parents, if they can afford it, will send their children to independent schools, and if they cannot afford it they will send their children to the ordinary Government schools. My point is eventually if there is a runaway in fees ---”
“Sir, the Minister has mentioned that the average recurrent expenditure per pupil is about $3,000 a month. Is this the amount the Government gives in per capita grant to the secondary schools? That is the first question. The Minister said that the per capita grant to the secondary and independent schools are the same. Is this the amount of the per capita grant given by the Government for the average child in secondary schools? What is the average recurrent expenditure per child per year in the independent schools?”
“Sir, if the independent schools are allowed to escalate their fees, then would these schools not become elite schools and only cater for the rich in time to come?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I think smoking is a bad habit. There is no doubt about that. The Minister has quoted statistics to prove that there is a correlation between bad health and smoking, in particular to the disease of lung cancer. The present amendment is certainly a step in the right direction. Everything that could be done must be done to protect the health of the citizens. But like Dr Aline Wong, I think this is still not enough. There must be a lot of public education, especially among the young citizens. If we look at the statistics, you will find that the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes is increasing every year, something like five times from 1978 to 1988. So if the statistics are any indication, cigarette and tobacco consumption will still continue to rise. Most of these smokers pick up this bad habit when they are young. I have heard that many of our youngsters learn to smoke when they are doing their national service. I wonder whether the Ministry is aware of this and whether the situation is true. If it is true, then the Ministry of Defence must certainly do something to correct this situation. I think an intensive campaign must be launched amongst our young national servicemen to show that it is not necessary to smoke to portray an image of toughness or ruggedness. The other point I would like to bring up is with regard to section 3(2). It would appear that the Minister can give certain approvals to cigarette manufacturers to advertise if they sponsor certain events. I wonder whether it is morally right. On the one hand, you discourage or curb the cigarette manufacturers from making profit and on the other hand, you accept their money for charity. This is surely a contradiction.”
“On this policy of trying to take away religious teaching from our curriculum, I do not think that it is a good thing. Many people fear that this is only a first step. As Dr Arthur Beng has stated, maybe the Government will say, "No more religious activities or groups of activities in our schools." I think people will fear that this is a first step and the Government should assure the people that they are not taking such steps. 2.15 pm”
“That is right. I know. But it is not part of the school curriculum. I think that is very important. Because you are taking religion as if it is athletics, badminton or some other subject. I think that is a wrong emphasis on a subject. It should be taught within the school curriculum time, but on an optional basos. There is a basic difference there. Sir, I do not think it is true to say that the students who take religion as an examination subject are students who are weak, who cannot pass the normal subjects or take religion to get them into pre-U classes. I think that is not fair. There are many students who want to have a grounding of religion and they take it as a subject, and they just follow it through as an examination subject. Sir, I think religion is definitely important in our society. It gives a man the ballast, something to hold on to. We have seen a lot of social problems in Singapore, because if you take something away from them, they do not know what to cling on to unless, of course, you have got a good alternative. It is important that if we do not give our people some spiritual balance, they might search for other teachings. Sir, the reason given for changing this policy is that they say there is a heightened religious awareness. I think this is typical of this Government. If there is a show of any slight movements in our society, they will have to go there and make big changes. I think this is wrong. This is something which is typical of our society. Sometimes when something comes up, it goes in a cycle and it will probably fade out in time to come. But I do not think it is right to change a major policy just because there is some heightened religious awareness.”
“I do not think it is wise to go around trying to change a very fundamental thing in our society very quickly. That will disorientate our society and make us really rootless. If we want to have roots in our society, we must have basic institutions. I think the teaching of religion in our schools is one of these basic institutions. The Government recognised it in 1982. They must have given it a long and hard look and thought about it. And now all of a sudden, we come to this House today and say that we are going to completely change that policy. I think this is a major decision to be made in Singapore - to take away religious teaching in our schools. The Government should not take such a strong step, but perhaps modify it. All right, if you do not want to make it compulsory, maybe it could be on an optional basis. [Interruption] No, you are taking it away completely from the schools and teaching it outside the schools.”
“Sir, first of all, I will comment on what the Minister for Education has said. I do not think it is fair that our Order Paper should be transferred to the Straits Times and we have to keep tab with what is going on in Parliament by reading the Straits Times. I thank the Minister for Law and Home Affairs for saying that I could move another motion. I think he has got it right there. Sir, the Minister for Education did say that religious teaching, whether or not to change the policy, depends upon the type and circumstances of our society. I think this is very true. The type of society we have is inherited from the British. We have an education system for more than 100 years. Apart from the education system, religion has been taught in school and this is a historical fact. Sir, in order for the society to have stability, we must not abruptly uproot or change institutions that have already been established and tested for a long time. I am referring to the mission schools in Singapore. They have been a great contributor to the society and they are tested institutions. The teaching of religion in these schools, I think, has been recognised by the Government as an important fact contributing to the good of our society. I think that is why in 1982 the Government had in fact gone one step further and introduced the teaching of religions in schools. Sir, I do recognise and accept that Government must be secular. But I think the teaching of religion in schools does not make the Government involved in religion. We should continue the historical institution of teaching of religion in our schools. This is something that is historically with us. We are accepting what is already with us for a long time.”
“I hope that in future Ministers who want to move a motion on a very important topic should give the Opposition some notice. I do realise that they can get round all this with the technicalities of the rule.”
“Sir, I do realise the Minister is right on technicalities. But we are talking of an important subject with regard to our nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that this is a very important subject, a whole change of Government policy in regard to religion, and yet the Opposition has not been given notice that such an important debate is to take place here. I notice Members of the GPC have come with prepared texts. Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Chiam. Earlier on when I asked the House if there were any dissenting views on the Minister's request to move a motion to exempt the debate from the provisions of the Standing Orders, ie, to remove ourselves from the constraint of the half-hour time limit, there were no objections. But your objection was directed against the moving of the motion of the adjournment by the Minister. And if you know your Standing Orders, the Minister is within his right to move a motion for the adjournment without any notice. You really have no grounds for any objections to the debate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is a very important topic and Members are caught unaware by such an important statement made by the Minister. I think we should reserve the motion for another day where there could be a full-fledged debate and Members can come prepared.”
“I think the Minister has to answer the question. Did the Government attempt to put further advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times?”
“After the publication of the two advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, did the Government attempt to put further advertisements in these two papers?”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that our men there are assisting members of SWAPO. As I understand it, SWAPO is a political party there. It stands for South West African People's Organization. Can I have a clarification on what the Minister has just said?”
“I would urge the Minister to reconsider the amendment, and not only not to go on with this present amendment, but to amend the previous amendments, ie to take away caning from our Immigration Act. Of course, in law, mandatory punishments are never good. As it has already been mentioned, it will take away the discretion of the judge, because the judge is there sitting and judging over the case. He can hear the persons involved personally, and he is there to see. He has been given the autho- rity to mete out punishment. I think we should not take that authority away from him by making caning as a mandatory sentence.”
“Yes, it is successful in flushing out 12,000 and later on when they have a final amnesty, we have another 393 overstayers who surrendered themselves. But the fact is that none of them have been caned yet. So until the measure is being meted out, we do not know whether this law is going to be successful or not, whether or not Singaporeans will suffer reprisals. We do not know yet. So I think we should be mindful of this before we quickly come to the conclusion that the imposition of caning on foreign workers is a success. Sir, with this new amendment, as the Member of Paya Lebar has said, we have become one of the first to mete punishment by caning for commercial crimes. Sir, businessmen are now going to be caned. Under the law where a corporate body is found guilty, its director, manager or secretary can be caned. So I think this will strike fear in our business community. Somebody talks of psychological affect. I think the terror of caning will have a great psychological effect on our community. The Prime Minister has moaned: why are our citizens emigrating from Singapore. Perhaps this is one of the reasons, the harsh punishments. People are fearful of the punishments that are going to be meted out. They cannot even make one mistake, and for one mistake they will have to suffer such severe punishment. The psychological effect, Sir, is real. I hope the Minister will not brush it away. Sir, the Vision of Singapore for the 1990's is to have a more enlightened society. How can we accomplish this vision when, in fact, we are going backwards - to mete out caning which is equivalent to flogging? It is almost going back to the Dark Ages. So we are not moving forward with this law. In fact, we are moving backward.”
“Because when a person is caught trafficking in illegal immigrants is liable, on conviction, to a sentence of not less than two years and not more than five years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and caning. Sir, the word "and" is conjunctive there. Therefore, he is liable to imprisonment, he is liable to a maximum fine of $10,00, and caning. But the Judge has the discretion of meting out one stroke or two strokes at the most. But under our law, the $10,000 fine is taken out and in its place a mandatory three strokes. Sir, I would say the present amendment is too draconian. members have described it as barbaric. I think those terms are quite appropriate in view of the severity of the punishment. Sir, we have just amended the immigration laws, not more than seven months ago. Now we are again before this House to amend the law further. Has the Government over-reacted to the situation? Or has the Government not given proper thought in its law-making? Or has the Government been under pressure from foreign governments whose workers are affected by our amended law. Is the Government going to appease the foreign governments and, to look good, we amend out laws now? And to appear fair to the government, we not only punish foreigners but we also punish our own locals with caning? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. Sir, we have also said that the caning measures meted out for foreign illegal workers have proven successful. Has it? The matter is not over yet. Because not one worker has been caned yet. Amnesty after amnesty has been given. So the whole chapter has not ended yet. We cannot be too quick to say that it has proven successful.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to oppose the Amendment Bill. Sir, I have listened intently to the opening address of the Minister and I cannot find anything in what he said to justify such a draconian measure, ie, caning of employers who either traffic in one or more illegal immigrants, or employ five or more of the overstayers. Sir, the word "unscrupulous" is used against the employers. I think we have to distinguish the types of employers. I would say they are unscrupulous if they exploit the workers, as has been mentioned by Mr Lim Boon Heng, making the workers pay $1 a day to see the doctor and then on their sick leave they are not given their pay leave. That is one form of exploiting workers. They are unscrupulous employers. But on the other hand they are business people. They are business people who bring in workers and who, in the course of their business, must employ foreign workers. These are business people. They are not unscrupulous. They are carrying out a proper business. Sometimes through no fault of theirs, they might be caught in this unfortunate law. And how are they going to get out of it? Sometimes it is difficult to get out of a technical point of law. Sir, I would say that at the moment the measures of the punishments in our law are already sufficient. I can see that even in the present section that is to be amended, there is already a provision for caning. I am referring to para. (c) of clause 2 of the Amendment Bill. Sir, this is to amend a provision in the present law. As i can see it, in the present law there is already caning, but not three strokes. I may be wrong, but this is how I see it.”
“I have been informed that in the past a newly pregnant woman could just walk into Kandang Kerbau Hospital and ask on demand for an abortion by paying a fee of $5. Is this still the case?”
“Sir, why is preference given to Hong Kong immigrants over other persons who want to apply for permanent residence in Singapore, in that it is not necessary for a Hong Kong immigrant to have a job first in Singapore? You say they come here, they apply, they get a job, then you give them permanent residence. Is that the position?”
“The Minister mentioned that the US team has come here for site surveys. Under what terms and conditions were these surveys carried out?”
“Whatever statement that was made in public by the Prime Minister. So Ministers of Government should not solicit funds.”
“Would the First Deputy Prime Minister then see that this statement is, in fact, corrected? Would he be willing to see that, in fact, this state- ment made publicly should be corrected? Would he be willing to do that?”
“This is a clarification from the First Deputy Prime Minister. According to what I see in this Question, it says here "Ministers of government" are allowed to solicit funds. I think what it means is Ministers as ordinary persons and not as Ministers. Is that the correct position? Certainly you cannot solicit funds as Ministers. You cannot come to Mr A and say, "Look here. I am the Minister for Defence. I am coming to solicit funds for the Party." I think that is wrong. I think Ministers of Government should not solicit funds but as Mr Goh Chok Tong or as Mr Goh Chok Tong of PAP, he can solicit funds. Is that the correct position?”
“Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will explain the Prime Minister's statement at the People's Action Party fund-raising dinner that it does not amount to a corrupt practice for Ministers of government to solicit monies for the Party from selected individuals. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, political fund-raising in itself does not amount to a corrupt practice so long as it is above board, be seen to be above board, and the donors do not expect or receive reciprocal benefits. That was the crux of the Prime Minister's message at the PAP's fund-raising dinner on 21st July. That was also the reason for publicising the PAP's first-ever fund-raising dinner. Indeed, the Prime Minister went on to spell out three cardinal rules to keep money politics out of Singapore: (1) Observe strict legal limits on election expenses; (2) Donations should never be made to individual Ministers or MPs but to the Party; and (3) Political contributions must never become a means of buying influence or swaying Government policies. The PAP abide by these rules. I hope other political parties do likewise.”
“That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, elects Mr Wee Kim Wee as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of four years to commence immediately after the expiry of his present term of office. [Applause.] ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS NATIONAL DAY CELEBRATIONS (Expenditure) 1. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what is the total amount spent by the Government in relation to the national day celebrations on the nights of 8th (celebrations at Marina Square), 9th (at the National Stadium) and 19th ("Swing Singapore" at Orchard Road) August, 1989. The Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence (Policy) (Mr Yeo Ning Hong)(for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Sir, earlier this year Parliament approved the provision of $1.5 million for the National Day Celebrations 1989. The National Day Parade is budgeted to cost the Government $1.3 million and Swing Singapore, another $200,000. The accounts for the expenditure are in the process of being finalized. As for "Countdown to National Day", this was held on 8th August 1989 and it was organized by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. No Government funds are involved. Sir, here I would like to thank the thousands of Singaporeans and corporate citizens who have given very generously of their time, their talent and their support to these National Day Celebrations. Their contributions have made these celebrations a success. Their efforts have enabled Singaporeans to come together to express their pride in Singapore and to help in the process of nation building. MINISTERS SOLICITING MONIES FOR PAP 2.”
“Younger Singaporeans who have taken our system for granted would do well to remember that meritocracy is not always practised in other countries. But what I find most touching in Mr Wee's acceptance of nomination for re-election is his sense of duty to the nation. In August 1985 when the Prime Minister moved the motion to elect Mr Wee as the Fourth President of our Republic, he spoke of how Mr Wee, happy and content with his life as he had lived it, agreed to take up office as a matter of responsibility. I am sure that even now he is accepting re-election out of a sheer sense of responsibility. Public life demands hard work and personal sacrifices. At his age and given his recent illness, Mr Wee does not flinch from his sense of service to the nation. Other people would have, and understandably so, chosen to retire to the comforts of a quiet life with the children and grandchildren. It is therefore an act of supreme commitment to the country that Mr Wee has consented to serve a further term. Finally, Mr Wee has come to be known as a fatherly figure also. It is therefore most apt that he will be presiding over a period when we are engaged in introspection over our core values. It is my sincere wish and I am sure the wish of my colleagues in this House that Mr Wee would, after his re-election, continue to guide us with his wisdom, rich life experience, in our identification of this set of core values so that our younger Singaporeans can grow up on a solid foundation. I support the motion. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion to extend a further term of four years for Mr Wee Kim Wee to be President of Singapore. Sir, all the nice things have already been said and I support the sentiments thereof. Sir, I am also very glad to hear that Mr Wee Kim Wee has recovered from his two major surgeries earlier this year, and I wish him all the best of health. Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Prime Minister to elect Mr Wee Kim Wee for a further term of four years as President of our Republic. During the last four years of his service as our President, Mr Wee has endeared himself to the whole nation. By his quiet dignity, his friendly and courteous disposition, a common touch and a genuine concern for the unfortunate in society, Mr Wee has earned the very enviable reputation of being the People's President. Those who have known him before he became President in August 1985 have always known these qualities in him. And for those of us who got to know him only after he became President have also had plenty of opportunity to admire those qualities in him. When Mr Wee was taken ill in January and February this year, the amount of "Get Well" wishes he received was ample evidence of the deep affection which our people have for him. Sir, the Head of State is the symbol of the unity, the loyalty and the spirit of the people. From his humble background, Mr Wee has achieved the distinctive career as journalist, diplomat, Chairman of SBC and President of our Republic. He is the very symbol of our system of meritocracy where every person irrespective of family or educational background can develop his or her potential to the fullest.”
“Yes. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION MEDINET SYSTEM 1. Dr Aline K. Wong asked the Acting Minister for Health what kinds of information will be stored in the MEDINET system; who will be its major users; and what safeguards for confidentiality will be built into the system.”
“Sir, I would be interested to know the extent to which these facilities would be given to the Americans. Are we just giving garage facilities or up to nuclear facilities? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: They have come down to take a look at our air and naval facilities. They have visited Paya Lebar Air Base and Sembawang Naval Base and they have not yet reverted to us. So concrete discussions have not taken place yet. We are not quite aware of what they are interested in nor have we told them what we are prepared to offer. One thing is certain. That whatever we can offer here can never replace the massive and extensive facilities that they have at Clark and Subic. The question raised earlier by Dr Ong Chit Chung on the nuclear targetting of Singapore as a result of any deployment of US forces here, I think that question is really not the point. If we are going to be targetted, I think we are going to be targetted anyway because of our geo-strategic location. We have warships from the big powers sailing by Singapore all the time and I would be very surprised if all of them are non-nuclear. BILLS INTRODUCED IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Immigration Act (Chapter 133 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NATIONAL COMPUTER BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the National Computer Board Act (Chapter 195 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Finance (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PLANNING (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“'' Sir, as I read this section, it would appear that it would be repugnant to the Town Councils Act. Under section 18 of the Town Councils Act, the Town Council has authority to control, manage, maintain, and improve the common properties. They are supposed to control the property. How can the Town Councils control the property and have use of the property if the HDB can make regulations? If regulations are made not to allow the Town Council to carry out certain activities, the Town Council will thus have no controlling power. So the Town Councils Act would, in fact, be overruled by this particular section. Sir, I would suggest that this section should be further amended. After the words "in trust for the Board", to add the following words: ''except those common properties and open spaces in land controlled by the Town Councils;'' Because the Town Councils are allowed to make by laws. Therefore, they can make by laws which will control these open spaces and common property in lands controlled by them. Sir, I see that the HDB is given power to compound fines and that the amount is $400. I think this is too high an amount and I would suggest that it should be reduced to $200.”
“But now with these sweeping powers given in the new section 15, the HDB can carry out any businesses they like as long as the Minister approves of the business. Naturally, I think as long as the company makes money, I think the Minister will approve. Sir, there is nothing to stop the Minister from approving as long as the company approved seems to be making money. This, as Dr Lee has pointed out, is not a very good policy because there will be unfair competition as the HDB companies are not stopped by the ultra vires rules. There will be a proliferation of activities. They can carry out any business they like, not necessarily related to those mentioned in section 13. As it has already been mentioned, at the ground, the Government has carried out all kinds of businesses, including maintaining funeral parlours, except they say that the Government has not gone into coffin-making. Maybe the HDB will go into this business. We will never know, because I hear it is a lucrative business. Small business enterprises are already feeling the competition, very keen competition, because of the participation of Government also in small businesses. Sir, with the introduction of these new laws, I think that competition for small businesses will be even keener. I hope that the future HDB companies will not go into traditional local businesses, thus making life more difficult for our local businessmen. Sir, the other clause I want to turn to is clause 6 which reads: ''Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Board may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules for or in respect of all or any of the following matters: (a) regulating the use and and enjoyment of common property and open spaces in any land vested in or held in trust for the Board.”
“Today we are being asked to give companies formed by the HDB unrestrained advantage over all other businesses in the private sector in that the HDB companies can carry out any business activities they like as long as they get the approval of the Minister. These HDB companies will have extra legal powers so to say. They need not comply with the ultra vires rule of the Company law. As you know, any company formed under the Companies Act can carry out only certain businesses for which they have been registered. Those businesses which are not included in the object, if they do them, will be considered illegal or ultra vires. In the case of future HDB companies, they can carry out any businesses even outside the objects for which they were formed as long as they get ministerial approval. So these are very sweeping powers. Sir, Dr Lee has pointed out the law. Section 13 spells out basically what the HDB can do - to build flats, to develop land, to acquire land, to maintain, lease out, sale, and so forth. And if you read the old section 15, Sir, they are not given such widespread powers. At least the principle of the ultra vires rule is adhered in the old law. Sir, may I refer you to the old law, section 15(1) - ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, cause to be formed, under the provisions of any written law for the time being in force relating to companies and incorporated private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) limited by shares to be held by the Board and having as its or their object, all or any of the functions of the Board set out in section 13.'' In other words, the HDB can form companies but the activities must relate to those activities mentioned in section 13.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, first of all, I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to clause 6. Under the principal Act, section 9 -- ''There shall be paid to members of the Board out of the funds of the Board, such salaries, fees and allowances or expenses as the Minister may from time to time determine.'' Can the Minister please tell us, for our information, what are the present remuneration rates, if any, and salary expenses to members of the Board, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. Sir, I would think that if the Minister has increased the number of members on the Board from seven to 9, he should also have amended section 10 of the principal Act to increase the quorum which is fixed at three. If you increase the number of the Board, I would imagine that you would surely increase the quorum accordingly. Sir, I will next dwell on clause 3 which has been dealt with by the NCMP. But I will view it from a different Looking at clause 3(1) - ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) having such object as may be approved by the Minister.''. Sir, this is a very material amendment because the Minister will be given full authority to form companies and to approve whatever objects the company may have. I am told that private developers have been complaining against the Housing and Development Board. They said that they were not allowed to do certain things which the HDB is allowed to do, thus giving the HDB an advantage over them in the construction industry.”
“Sir, is relief teaching still a problem in our schools? If so, what is the Ministry doing about it?”
“Sir, it is reported that there are something like 22,000 fami- lies who are in the poorer end of our society. How will this upgrading affect them? Who will help them?”
“I still do not know what the answer to this question is. It is a long policy speech.”
“-- to praise the Minister for answering this question because once I asked a similar question the former Minister said it would cost $200,000 to answer this question.”
“Sir, may I just be allowed to make a comment?”
“How can anybody make a reply? I can reply.”
“I do not think he is the Minister. He should raise it through the Minister.”
“Sir, I have got two matters to bring up with the Minister. The first one is in regard to the show-cause action of lawyers. I can think of at least five lawyers who were successful at the Privy Council. I do not know why his record shows only two. Sir, I am certainly in favour of having our own local appeal courts. I think it is time that we should grow up and have our last Court of Appeal. But I am not inconsistent. I am against the present amendments because it is half-hearted, as I say, expediency, and on an ad hoc basis. So we have mentioned the sensitive areas where the Government is a litigant, that is the problem. I think many people will still feel uneasy with these amendments.”