Chin Harn Tong
Singapore
“Singaporeans expect the Ministry to ensure the machines such as cranes and gondolas are properly maintained and operated. Presumably, they are imported for use here only if they are suitable for the purpose.”
“If some employers are too shortsighted to see beyond their pockets, the Ministry should be more active and energetic in rectifying their vision. Practically, every PAP MP in this House, at one time or other, has spoken or written about Singapore's people as being its most important asset.”
“This reluctance is understandable when viewed in relation to the Government's refusal to subsidise commercial activities. However, while the bus companies are private sector companies, the Government has also indicated an intention of privatising the operator of the MRT.”
“I would suggest that the Government consider setting up an Employment Arbitration Court to deal with matters which are now left to the discretion of the Minister and the Commissioner for Labour, and allow individual workers to refer their complaints to the Employment Arbitration Court.”
“In order to be fair to Dr Soin and to be fair to the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I move that Parliament do postpone the debate on this Bill until the Government has introduced the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and we could debate the two Bills together during the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill.”
“For that matter, our Government should channel the water conservation tax into water research and not the general revenue. Even if the levy imposed on consumers using more than 20 cubic metres of water a month does not yield much, the fact that our Government finances water research will serve to underline the seriousness of our water sit…”
The complete record
Every one of 268 lines we hold for Chin Harn Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Sir, the Bill before us is really a straightforward one with a specific and limited objective, to provide legal recourse for parents to claim maintenance from their children, nothing more, nothing less. Problem is, many of us proceeded to bestow upon the Bill attributes and aims which were never intended by it in the first place and, in the process, changed the Bill beyond recognition and turned it into a monster which we do not like. Based on what we built it up to be, we proceed to reject the Bill. Sir, despite repeated clarifications, the Bill is perceived, even in this House, as attempting to legislate various feelings and emotions like filial piety, moral obligation and love between parents and children. This, as I see it, has never been the intent of the Bill. Indeed, we merely fool ourselves if we think that we can dictate feelings, we can dictate attitudes through the passage of laws. The Bill has also been credited to be able to cause an upheaval, if not an eventual denial, of our Asian values and morality as children merely pay but not love their parents, because they are made to do so by law, as parents count their dollars and cents that they had spent on their children and demand just monetary returns from the latter in their later years. Sir, the flawed logic in this argument is obvious. The vast majority of Singaporeans will be unaffected by the Bill. Only those who fail to maintain their parents in old age will be. But what I find sinister and cynical is the contention that the Bill is somewhat a Government ploy to abdicate its responsibility of looking after the aged. Those who think so seem to forget that this Bill is not a Government Bill. It is not initiated by Government.”
“The parents who are targeted under the Bill are unlikely to be able to afford legal assistance. Legal aid may be more of a hindrance than help. There have been suggestions that the Government sets up a family court. Whether it is called a family court or a filial court or by any other name, the main consideration is that it provides a hassle-free avenue for help under the Bill. I have in mind the kind of machinery that is used in the Small Claims Tribunal and the Industrial Arbitration Court, where the parties are not represented by lawyers and where the legal procedure is very informal. Moreover, the proposed machinery for settlement of claims should be oriented towards consensus rather than confrontation. It should help to assuage the fear of those who worry about solid pillars of society being legally vandalised in public by irresponsible, recalcitrant and non-contributory claimants. The proposed machinery should have built-in safeguards to filter out groundless claims and publicity-seeking claimants. Considering the subject, I think the Bill should promote voluntary conciliation, mediation and settlement of claims and minimise messy litigation that ends in unpleasant adjudication. Sir, of course, if such a proposed machinery is considered by the Government, the statement at the end of the Bill regarding the expenditure of public money will have to be modified. I am sure the money will be well spent as, with the greying of Singapore's population, there will be more rather than less aggrieved parents claiming under the Bill with the passage of time.”
“What the HDB is doing, ie, making it easier for children to stay near to their parents and even grandparents in public housing estates, is a more realistic and pragmatic approach to the problem. Social companionship or personal care simply cannot be turned on or off like tap water, however much we wish it is so. Sir, I think it is a good thing that this Bill attracts a lot of attention and generates a lot of discussion. The criticisms, suggestions and queries made by members of the public may not be always on target, but now the public should know that the law, as a method of solving social problems, has its limitations. The Bill does not provide any solution for the problem of parents abandoned by their children who have migrated elsewhere, because Singapore cannot enforce its laws outside its own territory. Sir, this is precisely why I say I support the Bill only in principle. I do not expect the Bill to give us a clean-cut or sure-fire solution to every problem. But where I expect the Bill to be as sharp as a scalpel, it turns out to be blunter than a toy plastic knife. I am sure the mover of the Bill wants to help parents in need of assistance. But desperate parents seeking guidance from the Bill are referred to a law library or, more likely, a lawyer. If the intention of this Bill is to help discarded parents and not to make lawyers indispensable, the Bill can and should have a few more paragraphs to spell out a step-by-step procedure by which parents may claim the benefit of the Bill. Sir, the Bill seeks to throw a life-line to parents struggling in heavy seas and then expects them to haul themselves up like commandos from the water. I should have thought that at least a gangway is lowered for them.”
“Having said that, I must add that there are also parents in Singapore who need financial support from their children and are unable to get it because of the present gap in our laws. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is needed not only from the viewpoint of the aggrieved parents but also from the viewpoint of the State. After all, if some children refuse to help their parents who are without any means of support, the State has to pick up the tab in the end. That is why I cannot accept the argument that the support or non-support of parents is the business of their children and nobody else. If the parents continue to live in Singapore without any support from their children, they will become the burden of all Singaporeans who pay taxes in one form or other. To claim that some of these unfortunate parents are housed in charitable homes is to beg the question. Who support these homes? Some people find the idea of parents having to sue their children for financial support very offensive. I agree it does not make for an inspiring scenario. But what is the alternative that is as practical and equitable? For that matter, the idea of children having to sue their rice-bowl parents, or spouses having to sue their better-off mates, for support is just as offensive to many people. I do not really think anyone can fault the Bill on the basis of its underlying principle. Only parents or persons in a comparable position who have helped to bring up their children may claim financial support from their children. As for those who think the Bill should cover not only financial support for destitute parents but also social companionship for lonely parents or personal care for sick or disabled parents, I do not think these are problems that are suitable for legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I agree in principle with the Bill because I think it meets a need in our society. The Bill has aroused a lot of interest and discussion - for and against. The controversy is to be expected, as the subject of the Bill is an emotional one and the scope of the Bill is wide and general. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand, though I do not agree, why some people confuse the Bill with an attempt to legislate on filial piety. If it were so, I would not have supported the Bill because we cannot order or force people to love and respect their parents if they do not want to. What I find it difficult to understand is why some people keep on harping that law has no part at all to play in the relationship between children and parents. As it has been said, to err is human. A society of human beings must also be expected to make mistakes. Regrettably, human relationship, such as between parents and their children and between husbands and wives, is one area where the State has to intervene to put right human wrongs. Despite the general belief of parental love for children, the State has to make laws to protect children from abuse by their own parents. Similarly, the State has to make laws to require husbands to support their wives and children. This is precisely what the Bill seeks to do except that it is now the children who may be required to support their parents. I quite agree with those who say that many Singaporeans are already contributing to the financial support of their parents without any law requiring them to do so. I also agree there are parents who have expressly declined support from their children.”
“It will be easier to strike the TOTO first prize three times in succession than to die from an earthquake here. But their resolute silence on this point baffles me and makes me uneasy. It is too well-known that people in charge of any matter in Singapore prefer to make the locks on their doors stronger only after a burglar has broken in. What happens in our shipyards speaks for itself. Working conditions and safety rules are only seriously reviewed after a tragic mishap has occurred. Sir, I hope the Ministry's experts will not wait until a high-rise building is damaged by a one-trillion-to-one earth tremor to come out with categorical statements that high-rise buildings are earthquake proof. Sir, in the absence of such statements, the occupants of high-rise apartments will continue to rush to the ground whenever their buildings shake a bit. 4.45 pm”
“Sir, I rise to comment on the matter of safety standard for high-rise buildings. Sir, the toppling over of a block of apartments in the Highland Tower condominium in Kuala Lumpur last year has made occupants of high-rise apartments nervous about living high up in the air. This is borne out by their reaction when Singapore very recently experienced some earth tremors. Whenever such a confidence-shaking event occurs, the Ministry's experts give public assurances that Singapore is not in an earthquake zone. This is true in so far as Singapore's known history goes. But in other parts of the world, volcanoes which have been dormant for centuries suddenly burst forth with catastrophic consequences for people living in their vicinity. Sir, what we would like to hear from the Ministry's experts is that they have taken whatever positive action within their means to prevent or contain a natural disaster. I have in mind the type of assurances given by the Ministry's officials after the Highland Tower mishap. They explained fully how high-rise buildings on hill slope in Singapore would not have the ground cut away from their foundations and would not topple over. They showed the various measures taken to prevent erosion of the base of high-rise blocks on hillsides by flowing or seeping water, above or below ground. Their explanation was very reassuring to me. Sir, in contrast, after the Liwa earthquake, the Ministry's experts do not sound very reassuring to me. I am sure other people besides me do not want to read or hear only that Singapore is not in the earthquake belt. They should show that the high-rise apartments are solidly constructed to withstand severe earth tremors, even if the odds of their occurring here are almost zero.”
“A very recent press report stated that 47 persons were hospitalised for food poisoning after eating in an Orchard Road hotel. This report, unless untrue, speaks for itself. I hope the Ministry will appreciate that the enforcement of food hygiene is important not only in food centres but also in five-star hotels and restaurants.”
“Sir, I understand all hawkers and their assistants undergo a course on food hygiene before they are given their respective licences. Despite this food hygiene course, some hawkers and their assistants are later suspended or fined because of poor food hygiene. If the food hygiene course has no lasting effect, the Ministry's requirement of medical examination for persons applying to be hawkers has to be relooked at. The hawkers or hawker assistants do not have to undergo any more medical examination after getting their licences. If they subsequently suffer from a contagious or infectious ailment, such as tuberculosis, the Ministry will not know. Perhaps the Ministry should consider regular or periodic medical check-ups, including X-ray, for hawkers and help to keep health care cost down for the customers of hawkers. Moreover, the Ministry's enforcement machinery seems to have overlooked food vendors who do not ply at food centres. An example is the food vendors who ply at various trade fairs and retail outlets. Then there are the food vendors who appear whenever there are festivals. The danger such food vendors pose to their customers is two-fold. The first is that some of these food vendors may have obtained their supplies from dubious sources because of lower costs. The second is that the food vendors do not prepare and cook their food at the points of sale but elsewhere. There is always a very real danger of such food being manufactured or prepared and cooked in unhygienic conditions. The customers who eat such food may suffer more than an upset stomach. The Ministry's effort to enforce the ban on the sale of unhygienic food in Singapore is not likely to succeed unless all possible loopholes are plugged.”
“I hope the privatised food centres will not turn out to be a threat to our environment as well as our cost of living.”
“Sir, the privatisation of hawker centres seems a simple, straightforward exercise. However, the proposed privatisation affects other persons besides hawkers and gives rise to other questions. These food centres were erected by the Government to benefit not only the stallholders but also the consumers who patronise the food centres. Sir, I am very much concerned that the Ministry does not adequately provide for the interest of the consumers after the proposed privatisation of the food centres. Sir, I anticipate the usual reply of the Ministry will be that free market forces must prevail in the operation of the food centres. The stallholders will lose their investment if they fix their prices too high as the consumers can go to other hawkers. Such a reply ignores the reality that the consumers may not be able to hunt daily for the cheapest hawkers nearest where they live or work because of various constraints. Besides, the stallholders are likely to standardise their prices at the highest level the market can bear so as to defeat any effort of the consumers to save a few cents. Sir, a more worrisome question is whether the privatised food centres will remain clean as well as cheap. The tons of refuse that are daily thrown up at these centres are now also removed daily by the Ministry's refuse collection system. The Minister very recently said that this refuse removal service might be privatised soon. If this does happen, it would raise the cost of operating the privatised food centres. Public sector workers are not covered by the Employment Act while the privatised refuse collection workers would be. The stallholders in privatised food centres might try to save cost by not having refuse collected on public holidays and Sundays because of extra pay for workers.”
“On the other hand, privatised enterprises do not have to worry about pricing themselves well above their cost level. Their only consideration is they do not price themselves out of existence. The Government has publicly assured that it will undertake to monitor and regulate the rate of charges levied by the restructured hospitals. But no similar assurance is given by any one regarding the rate of charges in the privatised food centres. It may be argued that hawker food prices are insignificant compared to the hospital charges. But, we hope, hospital charges are incurred once in a blue moon, while workers have to pay hawker food charges day in and day out. They amount to a tidy sum over a period of time and are a burden on the workers' pocket. Sir, the Government has convinced us that privatisation is very desirable from the Government's point of view. It remains to be seen whether privatisation will benefit the public as much as it benefits the Government.”
“Customers are not so much human persons as walking dollar notes who are valued according to their denominations, that is, ability to contribute to their privatised enterprise's coffer. The customers who can give most profit to them will receive A1 service with the broadest and friendliest smile. The customers who can barely pay for the services they receive will be given the minimum service without any superfluous smile. If privatised customers do not get a frown, it is because a smile costs less time and effort than a frown. I hope our privatised enterprises will never show such a commercial face to our public. But this is a very real danger that comes with our emphasis on profit-making as the bottom line for our privatised enterprise. With more and more privatised enterprises expected to make the scene here, our promotion of a caring and sharing society may be the first casualty. Sir, the Government has assured us, in the Budget Statement, that it is prepared to intervene where the people are too weak or poor to withstand free market forces. Such assurance does credit to the Government. As a matter of fact, the restructured hospitals do make a provision for patients who cannot afford the full cost of privatised health care. However, some people are relatively weak or poor because of the Government's intervention in the first place. I refer to our workers, whose wages are rigidly regulated in the national interest. The activities of the NWC and restrictive provisions in our industrial legislation all help to ensure that our workers contribute to the maintenance of Singapore's competitive edge. For instance, the NTUC sees to it that wage level does not outstrip the workers' productivity rate.”
“When we promote productivity, nothing gives more satisfaction than an increase in productivity, even if you are very rude when achieving it. Sir, it is the same with privatisation. Privatisation must be good since the Government has decided upon the privatisation of its departments and statutory boards. Of course, we are allowed to quibble on the word "privatisation". To the purists, the Government's effort to restructure its hospitals hardly counts as privatisation. A privatised enterprise should operate and behave like a private enterprise, without any help or hindrance from the Government. However, we have to accept that a privatised enterprise is one which is licensed to make profit from the public and one about which the Members in this House cannot ask too many questions. When a Government department or statutory board is privatised, we naturally expect the former department or statutory board to be self-sufficient and to be no longer a drain on the Government's revenue. We also expect the staff of the privatised enterprise to work harder than ever to make a success of their venture into the uncertain world of private enterprise and to be rewarded accordingly. What we are not prepared for is that the attitude of the staff and the services they render to the public may change somewhat after privatisation. We hope it is for the better; but if our luck is bad, it may be for the worse. I am not talking about superficial courtesy. One thing the staff of a privatised enterprise are sure to be instructed by their boss is that a toothy smile is good for business and profit, even if it is as artificial as their dentures. Customers may no longer be viewed as people whom the staff can serve and help, as they are now rendering a commercial, and not a public service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on an issue that crops up here and there in this year's Budget Statement but never forming part of the budget proper. I refer to the issue of privatisation, more particularly, the implications of privatisation. Some people, for instance, have voiced their fear that privatisation will lead to higher prices. My concern is the effect privatisation may have on our quality of life. I am also concerned with the principle of free market that is espoused by the Government though privatisation does not sit well with the practice of the Government elsewhere in the economy. Let me first say I understand and appreciate the need for the Government to privatise some of its functions. For one thing, we will have a leaner and fitter bureaucracy, which is in keeping with our image of a health-conscious society. No, I am not opposed to privatisation. I am only put off by the way privatisation is presented to us. Sir, whenever the Government decides to do something or other, the Government tells us what the Government has decided is the best thing we can do or have. Of course, the Government is very open minded about the whole thing and is prepared to hear what we have to say. In the end, we must accept the Government has decided correctly for us. From the absolute manner in which the Government expresses its decision, we can be sure the Government thinks it is on the right track. Sir, when we promote courtesy, nothing is to be prized more than courtesy, even if you smile with a mouthful of rotten teeth. When we promote a green environment, nothing is as healthy and pleasant as a green environment, even if your drain is slimy with moss.”
“It is easy to dismiss such matters as COE as being of no concern to the ordinary workers. Unfortunately, the buyers of expensive cars and homes do not get their money out of thin air. Whether they derive it in the form of salary, commission, fee, interest, dividend or profit, it is ultimately reflected in the prices paid by the lowly consumers. Sir, the Government has stated it is prepared to intervene to keep the cost of medical care affordable, for example, capping the fees of doctors. I should think the Government needs also to come out with a detailed statement as to how and to what extent it is willing and able to intervene in other areas. The benefit of the Government's public housing programme, for example, will not be appreciated by a young couple if their apartment swallows up a big chunk of their joint income. Sir, Singapore is one of the few countries which is small in everything except ambition. I think Singapore is simply too small to permit the free play of market forces. On a big ocean liner, any number of passengers can jump up and down on the deck as long and as hard as they wish. In a sampan, even a lone passenger should think long and hard about rocking the boat. Regulation will not necessarily stifle progress if it is administered in a flexible and imaginative manner. Sir, some form of regulation will also give the added bonus of social harmony.”
“Sir, if you think the examples I am giving are chicken-feed, let us take the case of housing. Private housing is out of reach of most young people who are not share brokers or remisiers. But public housing is no help to them either. I am not sure whether private housing prices rise because of public housing prices or vice versa, but they definitely rise in tandem. Housing prices, of course, have not reached the absurd proportion of the COE for motorcars. I will not be surprised if the present boom in the share prices may cause the COE to cost more than the car itself. No matter how much we subscribe to the free play of market forces, I do not think I can bring myself to accept such a situation as normal or desirable. Sir, more seriously, many Singaporeans are wage-earners who are confused by these sky-rocketing prices when the official price barometer, the CPI index, shows it is still fair weather. Moreover, Singapore workers have been told over and over again to restrain their claims for higher wages in order to maintain Singapore's competitive edge. On the other hand, they read in the newspapers that the senior managers and executives here have one of the highest take-home pay in the world! Obviously, high managerial salaries and perks have the blessing of the Government. Sir, it seems to me there are too many conflicting signals. The President's Address may not be able to deal comprehensively with all the Government's policies. I hope the Ministers will add more flesh to the skeletal framework of the Presidential Address. One point they should touch upon, in great details, is where and how they intend to draw the line of balance between market forces and regulation. Rising prices must sooner or later affect consumers, the vast majority of whom are workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to make a few comments on the Presidential Address. It is a most business-like Address as it clearly and concisely sets out the Government's policies on the further economic development of Singapore. The Government, to its credit, has also not forgotten the social needs of Singaporeans. Sir, however, there are one or two grey areas which I hope the Government will clarify. The President, in his Address, touched upon privatisation and the free play of market forces and the need for Singapore to maintain its competitive edge. The Government has also accepted the need for it to intervene, whenever necessary, to prevent hardship to Singaporeans. Sir, I agree privatisation will enable Singaporeans to have a bigger stake in the prosperity of their country. At the same time, privatisation may also result in a higher cost of living. Private sector discipline should bring down the cost of a privatised enterprise but this does not necessarily mean its prices will be lower. For example, the operator of a privatised food centre may run it more efficiently and economically than a Government department, but the prices will not be lower. This is because other factors come into play. The operator and the hawkers have to pay more for the food centre and the stalls, respectively. Even if the hawkers do not pay more for their stalls, they will charge what the market can bear, which may be well above their cost. As for the advice to shop around for the lowest prices, it is easier said than done. Sellers also know unity is strength and maintain uniform prices. Forget about such obvious gimmick as a $1 roast pig. Even the $1 chicken rice seller does not keep up his gimmick too long.”
“Perhaps, the Government may consider enacting legislation to ensure any necessary price increases as a result of the proposed GST will not be more than what is required to cover the GST. Sir, sellers have the habit of conveniently rounding up price increases, always to their own advantage. The extra few odd cents make a difference to those with a small or fixed income. I hope the Government, in adopting the Report, will additionally consider ways of not only spacing out the timing of inflationary price increases but also minimising the extent of inflation itself. The CRC's Report does not deal with whether there are elements of inflation which are controllable. The Government has shown from time to time it is prepared to rein in the free play of market forces when the Government views it as socially desirable to do so and the circumstances allow it to do so. On the same basis, the Government may consider ways of controlling inflation, apart from the measures recommended by the CRC, if it is not beyond the means of the Government to do so. Whether it is socially desirable to do so, I have no doubts how those with a small or fixed income will view it.”
“Sir, one pleasing aspect of the CRC's Report, I find, is the implicit assurance that market forces will not be allowed to rage full blown through the Singapore economy. This is obvious in education, health and public housing. There is one point, however, which the Report does not touch upon but which I think should be made known. Some foreign armchair critics allege Singapore workers' wages are rigidly controlled by the Government. They are under the misapprehension that the free play of market forces will push up wages higher. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. If the Government allows the employment of workers to be governed by market forces, employers will bring in more foreign workers who cost less. An uncontrolled influx of foreign workers can but only push wages down for Singapore workers. Singapore seamen can testify how they lose out to foreigners on jobs and wages under free market conditions. Sir, my reason for bringing out this point is that the Government has its grounds for not always allowing market forces to have free play. Inflation is similarly a phenomenon that is not uncontrollable. The CRC's Report recommends the spacing out of necessary increases in prices to make the effect of inflation more palatable. The difference is that the full force of the increases will be felt later than sooner. But to the low-income group and retirees, it would be more meaningful to minimise inflation than to package inflation more attractively. The recommendation of the CRC that, for example, price increases should not be allowed to be rounded up to the disadvantage of consumers will, I think, help to minimise inflation.”
“Sir, a retiree with a small fixed income is, of course, beyond redemption. The CRC's Report shows inflation in Singapore has been more gentle than generally perceived. But given time, even the most gentle rain wears down the hardest stone. An average yearly inflation rate of 2.5% will mean $1,000 is worth less than $750 in terms of purchasing power over a period of ten years. Inflation has necessarily a different perspective for low-income households and retirees than for more affluent groups. The persons crowding together in a sampan barely afloat in the water will fear even the tiniest wavelet while the passengers riding high in an ocean liner will not even feel the movement of a wavelet. The CRC has recognised the different effects of inflation on different income groups by recommending three separate Consumer Price Indices for this purpose, instead of the existing single Consumer Price Index. However, the reliable measurement of inflation in relation to low-income households and retirees is only a very small part of the problem these people face. The much bigger part of their problem is how to cope with the effect of any inflation. The CRC is right in concluding inflation is inevitable in Singapore's circumstances, that is, scarce natural resources and heavy dependence on imports. But the CRC does not go into the question of whether inflation is completely or partially beyond the control of the Government. If it is completely beyond the control of anyone in Singapore, then there is nothing we can do except to grin and bear it. But if there is some element of inflation we can control, then we should be doing something about it.”
“I think such effect is a matter for concern as the CRC's Report clearly shows that inflation, granted though it is gentle inflation, is inevitable in Singapore's circumstances. The CRC's Report also implies that Singaporeans who are in employment or are carrying on a profession, business, trade or any other work are more or less cushioned against inflation. The further implication is that the lower a person's income, the thinner the person's cushioning against inflation. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. COST REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (Motion) Debate resumed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was reported to have praised the Cost Review Committee (CRC), under the chairmanship of Mr Lim Boon Heng, for doing a good job in thoroughly analysing the cost-of-living situation in Singapore. I do not think more than a few Members in this House will grudge the CRC such praise by the Prime Minister. The CRC's Report is a weighty volume as befitting the gravity of its subject. I find it heavy going to wade through the Report, which is as thick as a good-sized novel. But, of course, it is much more factual, realistic and objective and has no fairy-tale ending; the CRC does not promise we can live cheaply thereafter. While I have no general criticism of the CRC, I have comments to make on certain aspects of the cost of living which the CRC does not deal with. The people at the bottom of the pile will always be hardest hit by any inflation. How can persons in households with monthly income of not more than $1,000 ensure their standard of living does not fall further as their nominal income is slowly but steadily eroded by inflation over a period of years? Another point is that, in a greying society coupled with longer life expectancy, retirees will form a growing group. Moreover, with the family nucleus tending to consist of only parents and their children, more retirees can be expected to live by themselves. What will be the effect of imperceptible inflation on the standard of living of retirees with a fixed income over a period of years? To be fair to the CRC, its Report did touch upon the low-income households and the senior citizens, but with a different emphasis. It may be beyond the scope of the CRC to project the effect of rising cost on the standard of living of various groups or categories of Singaporeans.”
“I should therefore like to know whether the Government has any plan to enact comprehensive legislation on noise pollution in future.”
“Sir, there are laws in Singapore to control the pollution of our environment, for example, proper disposal of rubbish and indiscriminate burning of substances in open air. But, as yet, there is no comprehensive set of provision to regulate noise pollution which can endanger health as well as impoverish the quality of life. Sir, we have to live very closely together with one another as living space is a scarce commodity in Singapore. The need to tolerate the hustle and bustle of living side by side with or on top of one another goes without saying. But living in close proximity to one another need not have to mean doing so with unnecessarily loud, distracting or irritating noises. Sir, my concern is that, with the passing of each year, more and more of Singapore will be built up and the level of noise pollution will become intolerable. It would be impractical and unrealistic to ban all noises above a certain level of decibels on a 24-hour basis. I do not think anyone in or outside this House wants to ban the banging of cymbals, gongs and drums at religious festivals. But it is pointless for Singaporeans to slog themselves out to own homes if they cannot have peaceful enjoyment of their homes at any time. A balance has to be found between the need for such peaceful enjoyment and the need for Singapore to allow vital economic activities to be carried out, even if these activities are sources of noise pollution. One way may be to restrict noisy activities at night, say, between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am. Another way is to confine noisy activities to non-residential areas, if possible. Or to use less noisy modes for carrying out noisy activities or to use noise-dampening materials, for example, on expressways.”
“Sir, in the debate on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill on 14th September 1992, I had my reservation about the public punishment of litterbugs because I was concerned that their punishment might turn into their humiliation. It seems the concern was not groundless. Sir, the first batch of ten offenders who served their sentence at East Coast Park on 21st February this year had to run the gauntlet of the media and curiosity seekers. The event also attracted journalists from Malaysia and Reuters. Sir, the offenders were conspicuous in their green vests bearing at their back the legend "Corrective Work Order". There was no escape from the unwelcomed publicity focused on them, even if some tried to avoid identification by wearing dark sun glasses. One woman had to use her long tress of hair to cover her face from the prying cameras. Sir, in future, offenders may have to wear face masks. With so many cameras on the scene that day, the passers-by might have thought that the SBC was filming one of the serials. I urge the Ministry to have a re-look at the matter. There is no sense of proportion in the punishment of litterbugs. Serious criminals such as murderers and drunken drivers are spared similar public humiliation in serving their sentences. I should have thought that the aim of the Corrective Work Order is to make litterbugs understand the anti-social nature of their offence. After their ordeal of public humiliation, I do not think many of them appreciate the anti-social nature of littering. It is more likely they would appreciate the importance of not getting caught when littering. I wish, therefore, to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for the convicted litterbugs to wear the vests with the words "Corrective Work Order".”
“Sir, the Ministry's proposal to privatise hawker centres seems reasonable. The privatisation of hawker centres enables the Ministry to decentralise the administration of hawker centres. The privatisation scheme also enables the hawkers to own their stalls. The stallholders will also be responsible for the upkeep and management of their centres. Sir, the Ministry is obviously giving itself a good deal. Whether the hawkers think they are getting a fair deal, I am not so sure. But there is one group of people the Ministry has omitted from all the consideration in the scheme, ie, the consumers. What should consumers do if they feel they are not getting a fair deal at a privatised hawker centre? Boycotting the centre might not be convenient if travel time and cost to the next nearest centre outweigh the satisfaction from boycotting. Complaints to the management corporation may be useless if the complaint is against the most successful hawker in the centre with tough employees to back him up. After all, in the Government's own experience, even societies of highly educated professional persons are not able to discipline themselves satisfactorily without some prodding from the Government. Sir, I should therefore like to know how far ahead is the Ministry's plan to privatise hawker centres. I should also like to know whether privatisation will result in the increase of prices at hawker centres to the detriment of consumers.”
“As such, it is a visible target which serves as a convenient punching bag for businessmen to vent their frustration against the rising costs of doing business here. Yet, rising land costs also affect workers as badly as they affect businessmen. Workers find the costs of owning homes increasingly expensive as well as their cost of living on the up and up, although the Consumer Price Index proves them wrong. Sir, I think it is high time that the businessmen did take a hard-headed look at the matter of the high cost of doing business here, instead of mindlessly repeating and echoing the perennial refrain of rising labour costs. The workers under the leadership of the NTUC have been very disciplined, patient and supportive of both the Government and the businessmen. The success of Singapore in the recent decades has been built on this tripartite cooperation. Sir, there is a limit to such cooperation if businessmen keep on blaming workers for the high costs of doing business here. Businessmen would do well to follow up on the faint pointer the Government has shown in this year's budget regarding the costs of doing business here. 2.10 pm”
“Yet strangely enough, businessmen who react to wage increases as if they have red ants in their pants, seemingly accept the rising land costs as something as natural as falling rain. While many businessmen may grouse about the rising wage costs, probably a few businessmen may murmur about rising land costs. Yet, it would be hard for any person to claim that wage costs have risen more steeply than land costs. In the last 20 years, the price of a piece of landed property may have shot up 20-, 30- or 40-fold, depending on its locality, while the average wage rate of workers, excluding the top executives, may have risen five-fold at the most. Wage increases are understandable because the rising level of prosperity in Singapore must affect the standard of expectations of workers. Moreover, the rising cost of living adds to the pressure for wage increases. Sir, on the other hand, land costs are not so easy to understand. The wage costs of construction workers cannot vary too much from the wage costs of other workers during these past 20 years. The costs of building materials cannot have risen by 20-fold in 20 years, if the Consumer Price Index is any reliable guide. The inference is that the price of a plot of unbuilt land rose by leaps and bounds over these past 20 years. Sir, I am not making this point of rising land costs with a view to hoping the Government might revive the Rent Control Act to tame the profiteering landlords. The point I want to make is that the local businessmen should be more imaginative, more discerning and more business-like when tackling the problem of the high costs of doing business here. Sir, the cause of workers is championed by the NTUC, which is a high-profile organisation.”
“Despite the tax concessions in this year's budget, some businessmen are already moaning that the upping of the rate of CPF contributions by half percentage point this year will add to the cost of doing business here. Some other businessmen are saying that they have to cut down their employees' medical benefits or make their employees share medical costs because of the proposed 2% capping on tax deduction for medical costs. Sir, workers are understandably irritated by this kind of talk by businessmen. Workers get the impression that the businessmen do not see them as human beings at all, but as work objects, that is, tools or robots for doing as much work as possible at the least cost to employers. It is bad enough that the businessmen do not consider workers are entitled to have some human dignity. What makes it worse is that the businessmen talk as if the wages of workers are the only significant item of cost of doing business in Singapore. It is a good example of insulting the intelligence of workers as well as injuring the spirit of tripartism. That is why I am glad to note that the sweeteners in this year's budget include property tax rebates. For residences, the rebate is confined to those with an annual value of not more than $10,000. For commercial and industrial properties, there is a one-off 25% rebate for the year beginning on 1st July 1993. The significance of these rebates lies not in the amount of rebates but in the fact that the rebates have been given. Sir, the giving of property tax rebates implies the recognition that land costs as well as labour costs contribute to the costs of doing business here. Rising land costs mean rising costs of doing business, as much as, if not more than, rising labour costs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1993 Budget provides much food for thought. Whether it will provide as much scope for debate is a different matter. It is a budget that seeks to give something to everybody. As it is simply not possible to give everyone all he or she wants, just as it is not possible to please all the people all the time, many people may have tiny bits of adverse comment to make on the 1993 Budget Statement. Sir, but I do not think there will be any grand argument against the 1993 Budget because it is a good example of positive and decisive policy-making by the Government. It represents a watershed in fiscal policy as the Government proposes to raise a portion of the tax revenue from the consumption of income rather than wholly from the production of income as at present. Sir, I leave it to my fellow Members in this House, who are more competent to talk about it, to expound all the advantages or disadvantages of income tax versus the GST for this purpose. For myself, I do not think the Government can be faulted for partly replacing income tax with the GST in order to safeguard Singapore's competitive edge. If we accept that the key to Singapore's future lies in trade and investment, then we have to accept whatever measures that are needed to promote trade and investment. On this basis, I do not think any reasonable person, in or outside this House, will begrudge the many sweeteners in this year's budget for the business community. Unfortunately, some businessmen are never satisfied. Sir, I suppose businessmen, to be successful, must never be satisfied with what they have or what they are given. Give them one metre, they will ask for one kilometre.”
“And while these efforts have borne tangible results, this anti-social disease is still evident in a small section of Singapore society. I support the introduction of the Corrective Work Order to be issued against offenders under this Bill. May I ask the Minister what sort of work would these offenders be required to perform. I hope the work to be done would not demean them so much so that society will look down upon them. Self-respect is very important to us Asians, Orientals. We want to preserve our family honour. The officers who supervise corrective work need to be sensitive so as not to hurt the feelings of the offenders. If our objective is to be constructive, those who perform corrective work must be treated with care. I would like to ask the Minister in what locations the offenders will be doing their work. May I, like my colleague from Aljunied GRC, suggest that offenders be required to perform cleaning work in the welfare homes run by certain social organisations. These homes do have a need for volunteers to carry out such work. The supervisors of these homes could also supervise them. In this way, at least the offenders would be doing something useful for society. I hope the Minister for the Environment would consider these suggestions. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, if the proposed nature of corrective work is as indicated in the Explanatory Statement, I think the larger interests of the community will be better served by giving an offender an option to work out his sentence in the relative privacy of a selected charitable institution. By so doing, the Bill would kill four birds with one stone. (1) The offender would be spared any additional embarrassment by being enabled to do his corrective work away from public attention. (2) The offender would thereby be less resentful of the order to do corrective work and more likely to recognise and accept his obligation to protect the environment and the environmental public health. (3) The offender might consequently become more aware and more understanding of the needs of the residents in the charity homes. (4) It would definitely help to solve the problem of the shortage of voluntary helpers for charity homes, at least on a temporary, if not, permanent footing. 1.45 pm Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I view this Bill as an innovation in the manner in which we deal with those who commit the offence of littering. This approach is, to my mind, constructive in the sense that we seek to impart a moral education on the offenders, ie, that they should not litter. I hope the public will view this measure positively, so that we may all appreciate our responsibility in maintaining cleanliness. Mr Speaker, littering is a long-standing problem in our country. It has prevailed even today, despite so many cleanliness campaigns being conducted year after year. The message that we need to keep the country clean has also been spread to students in all schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think any Singaporean who believes in good law and order and who values a clean, healthy and pleasant environment would disagree with the Government on the need for this Bill. By and large, Singaporeans do support and observe the campaigns to keep our environment clean and healthy, even after the campaigns have been long over. Nonetheless, some people may, from time to time, break the laws or rules for the protection of the environment and environmental public health. They may have done so out of sheer bad habit or laziness or even in a moment of inexcusable forgetfulness. Some may have done so deliberately out of spite. If there are such people, I think they are a very small minority. However, I agree that people who break the laws or rules for the protection of the environment and environmental public health must make up for their misconduct. Ordering the offenders to do corrective work seems to be a more constructive alternative to the usual sanction of fines and imprisonment. But I do not think I am wrong in saying that the aim of the Bill is to reform rather than to punish the offenders. An order to do corrective work is intended, figuratively speaking, as a mere rap on the knuckles and not as a stroke of the rotan. In keeping with the tenor of the Bill, I hope an assurance can be given in respect of the Bill that an offender will not be publicly humiliated by being ordered to do corrective work publicly in the immediate vicinity of where he stays or works. Any such unnecessary embarrassment may breed resentment and defeat the aim of the Bill to reform the offenders.”
“Is there a permanent solution to the problem? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, a permanent solution would be to totally enclose the plant and to have the gases from the enclosed plant deodorised before discharge. This is going to be expensive and can only be imposed if Colex is given a longer lease on the land. We have asked URA to decide, from the land use point of view, if the plant could be allowed a longer period of lease at its present site. 1.30 pm”
“May I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? (1) What is the level of public awareness of the danger of Aedes mosquito? (2) Since swing-fogging is an effective method of killing mosquitoes, why is it not frequently used to wipe out Aedes mosquitoes?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister when the existing stallholders would be offered the option to buy over the stalls, as the Ministry has taken a long time over this matter.”
“Sir, has the Telok Ayer Festival Market succeeded in bringing back night-life to the city centre? Regarding the complaints about the Telok Ayer Festival Market being warm and stuffy during the day, is there anything being done to improve the ventilation there?”
“Sir, littering in public places is an anti-social habit which is fairly universal. Singapore is trying to bring such dirty habit under control through education by way of the anti-litter campaign, and enforcement action. However, in spite of such actions, there are still too many cases of littering by, for example, motorists throwing away rubbish from their moving vehicles, contractors' lorries spilling earth and other things on the road through carelessness or overloading, contractors throwing away rubbish beside deserted roads, and some householders throwing litter in any convenient places away from their homes. We also still hear of cases of killer-litter in HDB housing estates. Has the Ministry of the Environment relaxed in its enforcement against litterbugs, or has the number of littering cases increased despite the Ministry's efforts? Should sterner action be taken against the offenders? Should an anti-litter campaign be mounted throughout the year instead of occasionally? Should the Ministry explore more innovative ways of getting the public's cooperation in fighting such anti-social habits? Sir, perhaps, members of the public can help by taking down and reporting the registration number of littering motorists. The problem is how is the Ministry going to persuade the public to do so?”
“Sir, the Ministry of the Environment's action against overcharging and other anti-social practices in the Newton Food Centre is praiseworthy. Besides blatantly fleecing the tourists, they threaten and bully Singaporeans for whom the food centres are intended. Moreover, the hawkers concerned grow fat with their ill-gotten profits at public expense since they, until very recently, pay a subsidised rent. It is a pity that their greed would damage the image of Singapore as a tourist attraction which the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board is going all out to promote. Now the Ministry of the Environment has posted a "guide on food prices", as a Ministry official has put it, at Newton Food Centre, how about doing the same at other food centres patronised by locals as well as tourists? After all, as the hawkers pay subsidised rentals for their stalls, they should not be allowed to overcharge customers. Similarly, hawkers should not be allowed to operate in very unhygienic conditions, as in some food centres. Tables are left uncleared for a long time, piled up with dirty dishes and unfinished food. The unswept floors are also dirty and wet, with stray dogs, cats and even birds scavenging around the scraps. As dirty food centres are not conducive to healthy living, the recalcitrant hawkers responsible for such unhygienic conditions should be punished accordingly. Sir, while the effect of its recent enforcement action in Newton Food Centre is still fresh in the minds of all hawkers, I suggest the Ministry should follow up by taking stern corrective action against hawkers who are guilty of overcharging or of unhygienic practices.”
“The latest announcement by HDB to sell shophouses does not invalidate what I have just said because those shops, which are not bought by the occupiers in certain cases, will be sold to the highest bidders. Sir, from the viewpoint of workers, the situation may be likened to a person being given a leaking pail and a time limit to collect water from a low-pressure tap. The low-pressure tap is the National Wages Council-regulated wage system and the pail is the pay packet of a worker. The leaks in the pail represent the unnecessary increases in the cost of living manipulated by various public bodies. Sir, if it is reasonable to expect workers to moderate their demands or even tighten their belts in the national interest, it should be also reasonable to expect statutory boards to reduce their surpluses or even unlock their coffers in the national interest. I do not think it is reasonable to expect workers to march strictly to the tune of productivity, when the various public bodies provide the accompanying music to the tune of profiteering under the banner of free market transaction.”
“Even if the prices are fixed to protect the consumers, the stallholders may be compelled by their high operating costs to short-change on quantity or quality, or both. I do not place much faith on the argument that consumers have the free market choice of shopping around for the best value for their money. One reason is that consumers cannot do so regularly because of the constraint of time and extra transport cost. A more telling reason is that, with the eventual privatisation of all food centres as proposed, all the food centres would be equally expensive. Once there used to be many coffee-shops operating in rent-controlled premises which served as a check on the prices charged by HDB coffee-shops. These non-HDB coffee-shops have gradually disappeared because of urban redevelopment. I do not think an extension of the Rent Control Act would be the answer nor the regulation of prices alone at food centres would be enough to ensure a fairer deal for consumers. A better way would be to ensure the stallholders at food centres and HDB coffee-shops do not feel compelled by high operating costs to jack up prices or cut down on quantity or quality. Public food centres and HDB coffee-shops are built on land which has been acquired at controlled prices. Even if economic rents are to be charged for food stalls at food centres and coffee-shops to cover their actual construction costs, the monthly rent surely cannot be as high as $15,000 per stall or $50,000 per coffee-shop. Sir, balloting, rather than bidding, would surely help to prevent the inflationary trend of prices in food centres and coffee-shops because of ever increasing bids.”
“Sir, it is easier to identify wages as a production cost item than to assess the part played by the cost of living element in the fixing of wages. In an industrial system like Singapore's, where there are negotiations on wages or wage increases, I am sure the cost of living aspect would not be far from the mind of the negotiators. The only question is how far. The Consumer Price Index or CPI, published by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, does not help to answer this question. I am not saying that the CPI is not the state-of-the-art in its field. I am sure the CPI is a work of art in its portrayal of a stabilised cost of living on paper. But individual negotiators on wages may be influenced more by their actual cost of living than what the Government has published to be their notional cost of living. Moreover, what individuals perceive to be their actual cost of living are likely to be influenced by what they themselves have read, heard or learned about Government policies or plans which are bound to affect their cost of living. I refer to the proposal, for example, to privatise the food centres. The Government's proposal to privatise the food centres is a good illustration of my point on how popular perception of cost of living can be influenced by Government policy. Members in this House may recall that the successful bidder for a stall at the Newton Food Centre was prepared to pay as much as $15,000 a month. It is also not surprising for the successful bidder of the tenancy of a HDB coffee-shop to pay a monthly rent as high as $50,000. But these high rentals, though initially paid by the stallholders or coffee-shop operators, must in the end come out of the pockets of the consumers, the vast majority of whom are workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance is to be congratulated for drawing up the 1992 Budget on the prudent principles of a balanced budget. As such, it does not stir up the emotions. I have not heard any loud cries of joy or pain over the Budget, in or outside this House. However, I have some comments to make. My comments are concerned not so much with what has been stated as with what has not been stated in the Budget. Sir, the Budget Statement mentioned about the low productivity figure, the higher labour cost relative to Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong and the relatively higher cost of manufacturing in Singapore. It is clear from the Budget Statement that the economic barometer reading for Singapore in 1991 is the most ominous since the 1985 recession. It is nowhere expressed but nonetheless strongly implied that something must be done about wages to maintain Singapore's competitive position. I do not think there would be many people who would dispute that wages have to be pegged to productivity gains for Singapore to remain competitive. But, I wonder, all the same, shouldn't something be also done about pegging the prices of consumer goods and services to wages? I expect there would be many objections to what I have just said. One would be that any control or regulation of prices would be inconsistent with Singapore's free market system. A second objection would be that a comprehensive regulation of prices would be difficult to administer, while a selective regulation of prices might not be effective. A third objection would be that it is not sure whether wage increases would be the cause or effect of price increases.”
“Sir, besides Aedes mosquitoes, are there other types of mosquitoes in Singapore which are equally harmful?”
“Lastly, Mr Chin wants to know the problems encountered by managers of specified buildings in which smoking prohibition law applies. If the managers of specified premises in which the smoking prohibition law applies want to act, I do not think they will face real difficulty in explaining the law and requesting their customers to extinguish the cigarettes. If in the event that they do come across a very difficult customer, they can always contact the police or the Environment Ministry for assistance. It is usually the reluctance on the part of the managers to act that becomes a problem. And managers are reluctant to act not so much out of fear of intimidation or reprisals, but because they are just not willing to offend the customers for reasons of future patronage. So I would like to stress that managers of such premises, and indeed operators of vehicles, where the law applies, have a responsibility to the comfort and well-being of their non-smoking customers. With the enactment of this Bill, managers will be duty bound to act against those who smoke within their premises or inside the vehicles, as the case may be. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---”
“With this exemption in place, the smoking prohibition rule would not apply even if a cinema or a theatre in a private club is in fact accessible to the public. So this is an anomaly, Sir, and one of the objectives of the Bill before the House is to address this anomaly. With the removal of the exemption, the smoking prohibition law will apply to cinemas and theatres in private clubs for as long as they are accessible to the public. But if these facilities are used only by members of the club and their guests, the law will not apply. Next, Mr Chin wants to know the current legislation on the prohibition of smoking in taxis and buses and the changes that will be made with the enactment of this Bill. Let me deal with taxis first. Under the existing legislation, a taxi driver is not allowed to smoke in his taxi regardless of whether the taxi is airconditioned or not. On the other hand, passengers in a non-airconditioned taxi are allowed to smoke while those in airconditioned taxis are not allowed to smoke. These rules are clearly spelt out under the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Rules of 1976 which are currently being administered by the Registrar of Vehicles. As far as buses are concerned, the driver, the conductor and passengers in a public bus on a scheduled route are not allowed to smoke regardless of whether the bus is airconditioned or not. This prohibition is made under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act administered by the Ministry of the Environment. So with the enactment of this Bill, smoking will be prohibited in taxis, airconditioned or otherwise, and all public buses which will include those that are hired or chartered to transport school children, office or factory workers.”
“I must say that the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act may have inconvenienced some smokers, but I do not think it has reached a point to cause them to cut down their smoking or even to give up smoking entirely, except perhaps for Dr John Chen's friend who, I am happy to know, has found that this particular Act has prompted him to give up smoking. On the subject of reducing the number of smokers in Singapore, I believe the Government has an on-going programme to warn the smokers on the harmful effects of cigarettes and also to advise them on how to give up smoking. This is the national smoking control programme organised and administered by the Ministry of Health. Dr Chen also wants to know the list of vehicles my Ministry intends to gazette for which smoking is prohibited with the enactment of the new Bill. Sir, he may be pleased to know that the following public service vehicles as defined under the Road Traffic Act will be gazetted as specified vehicles where smoking is prohibited: (i) Private buses hired for the transportation of workers, including company buses, used for the transportation of its employees; (ii) School buses, taxis, regardless of whether they are airconditioned or not; (iii) Omnibuses or public buses on scheduled services. This last category of vehicles is already being gazetted under the existing law. If I may now turn to the queries raised by Mr Chin Harn Tong. Firstly, he wants to know why the current exemption on the prohibition of smoking for cinemas and theatres in private clubs is removed from the Bill. Sir, the existing exemption for cinemas and theatres in private clubs was included in the Act when it was first introduced in 1970.”
“Sir, I support the amendments, but I have some points to clarify with the Minister. (1) Why are cinemas and theatres within private clubs no longer to be exempted from the prohibition on smoking? (2) What is the present law on the prohibition of smoking in taxis and buses, and what changes will the Bill make to the present law? (3) What are the problems encountered by managers of specified buildings in implementing the no-smoking rule? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Dr John Chen and Mr Chin Harn Tong for speaking in support of the Bill. Before I answer Dr Chen's question on how many offenders under the present Act have been prosecuted, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to Dr Chen and this House how effective the present legislation has been in bringing about a smoke-free environment in specified places. Sir, overall, smokers are observing the no-smoking rule rather well, especially in such places as airconditioned restaurants, airconditioned departmental stores and supermarkets, lifts, medical clinics, hospitals and cinemas. We owe this success to the peer pressure from the non-smokers as well as the cooperation of the management of these premises. However, in places such as billiard saloons and bowling alleys, the situation is not as good. 75% of all offences on smoking are committed in billiard saloons and bowling alleys. The managements of billiard saloons and bowling alleys must therefore exercise greater responsibilities towards their non-smoking customers. Dr John Chen also wants to know about the profile of smokers in Singapore. Unfortunately, the statistics of the profile of smokers in Singapore are kept by the Ministry of Health.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, is it an offence to give away foodstuffs that have passed the expiry date? Secondly, how do companies dispose of food products that have passed the expiry date?”