Chng Hee Kok
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether the new Securities and Futures Act will be made retroactive in the Links case. In other words, will the civil penalties be made retroactive in the Links case? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is somewhere in the new Bill [indicating].”
“Sir, one cannot appreciate the enormity of the problem of a poison pen letter unless he is a victim. Imagine the power of a poison pen e-mail done in the midst of a general election. By the time the truth is established, if it can be established at all, the harm is already done.”
“And this is because the transmission is now almost direct, that when orders are placed, they are placed not only with those who supply the items, the same orders are sent to the supplier's supplier's suppliers.”
“Sir, the Minister is aware that in the case of SingTel it is quite different because it is part of our asset enhancement exercise and a fairly large number of Singaporeans own shares in SingTel. Since the announcement of the Optus deal, share prices have dropped by some 30%.”
“This is a follow up of my earlier question. If the market sentiments are favourable, will the IPOs take place this year? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, PSA and Singapore Power would not have appointed investment bankers and proceeded with due diligence unless they have very serious intentions.”
“And in many cases, over a period of time, we would be happy to reduce our shareholdings down below where they are now and, maybe even divest completely. Because the original rationale for building up and maintaining these companies has to be reviewed and may or may not continue to exist.”
The complete record
Every one of 834 lines we hold for Chng Hee Kok, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 17.
“Consumption Tax Last year, I supported in this House the imposition of a consumption tax. But I am pleased to note that the Minister has decided to hold off imposition of a tax on consumption until such time as it may be needed. While agreeing with the principle of such a tax, ie, shifting direct tax to indirect taxation and giving the individual a greater measure of personal choice in his expenditure pattern, it should be delayed as long as possible. Careful study must be made to ensure that it does not hurt the lower income group. It will definitely hit the higher spending middle income group who will again end up paying more in taxes. To offset this, the Minister should review the tax system and reduce personal income tax correspondingly or introduce other personal reliefs for the taxpayer. This is to establish the principle that indirect taxation is to offset direct taxation. The experience of other countries has shown that such a consumption tax tends to have an escalating nature and will create a "black economy" where people evade the tax through exchange of goods and services through bartering. There are many areas and issues to be ironed out before this tax is imposed. Personal Income Tax I turn now to personal income tax. The Minister must be thanked for granting a 5% one-time personal income tax rebate, given perhaps in the spirit of celebrating 25 years of independence. In that same spirit, Sir, he could repeat what was done in 1986 and up the rebate to 25% instead - 25th anniversary, 25% rebate. This will be a real celebration which would definitely make life much better, especially to our "beleaguered" middle income who are already suffering from higher car taxes and what-nots.”
“Lastly, Sir, it is, or should be, commonsense that the option of having a good news budget is dependent on sustained economic growth and pragmatic and sound Government. Allow me now to comment on some of the key issues and measures announced in the Budget. Procreation Incentives While the series of incentives is good and necessary to redress our population problem, releasing these a little at a time, year to year, may, in my mind, have adverse effects. It could cause some unmarried Singaporeans, or childless couples, to wait another year to see what extras they may receive in the next year's budget. This may be self-defeating to some extent. Tinkering with the goings-on in our people's bedrooms is always a hazardous exercise, but greater circumspection should be observed in tackling this subject. Therefore, we should give the measures time to work. Just like courtship, there should be a cooling off period at times for a successful suit. Sir, I must point that the new incentives have created some rumbles among some of our better educated unmarried female Singaporeans. Some, I hear, are complaining that the declining scale in tax rebates for procreation could equate the value of our unmarried women to that of an old car under our PARF and new vehicle quota system. By reducing the quantum of tax benefit for child-bearing as a woman gets older, we may also be reducing the marriage prospects of our better educated unmarried Singaporean women. Their value is now equated with the reducing value of a car quota licence as the years expire. Before the age of 28, Sir, the unmarried woman's worth to the prospective groom in terms of procreation tax incentives is $20,000; and this value drops progressively and very quickly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. First, I wish to congratulate the Minister on his friendly Budget and thank him for returning to the public in the form of the 5% one-time personal tax rebate, the family and procreation tax incentives, lower corporate tax and other reliefs. Sir, studying the Budget, one cannot help but feel that the recession of 1985 is a long time ago. That we have recovered from that recession to register such strong growth in the last two years is a fitting tribute to our nation's 25th anniversary. It is a fitting tribute to the Government for its very able and expert handling of the economy and to our people for having the quiet resilience to pull ourselves together. It is no less an amazing feat that within five years of a recession, the Minister is able to present a Budget which has very quickly become a non-event - with its complete absence of bad news - not even for drinkers and smokers. To me, Sir, the Budget is not just a celebration budget as headlined in the Straits Times. It is a commonsense Budget. From the 1985 recession, we have always been mindful of the integration of our economy in the international business grid and that we face continual competition from other newly industrialising economies. It is therefore commonsense that we must continually fashion our fiscal policies to match. It is commonsense that our fiscal policies must be attractive to retain our talented and enterprising as they possess skills which are internationally tradeable. It is commonsense that by returning to the people more in the way of tax rebates it can actually add more to the economy as a whole. It is not a zero-sum situation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in this question and answer session. I would like to ask the Minister to review this question of PARF and ARF in relation to the quota system. Presently, as it stands, the quota system is a definite scheme. We know that it will control the number of cars because of the definite control numbers we set. So the point is that since this is to replace the price mechanism, contrary to what Mr Chay has suggested, I will say that we must work out a scheme whereby we can as quickly as possible phase out the ARF and PARF. Initially, to be fair to the new owners, could not this licence fee be offset against the ARF? At the same time, those cars which are bought on this basis will not have the full entitlement in future in the case of scrap value or for PARF consideration. In other words, if there is a $5,000 licence, the new car owner will not pay anything more. This $5,000 is offset against ARF and this licence will affect the future value of his car. What we are trying to do is to progressively transfer the investment value on the PARF into the quota system. Then that will also not affect the present owners who will only be affected when their cars reach the 10-year old mark. In other words, by May, I am sure a scheme can perhaps be looked into whereby we do not retain both systems at the same time. We cannot have the cake and eat it. The price mechanism was to control the car population. We have the quota. Now, we say let us run both in parallel. I am suggesting that one should replace the other more gradually. I believe that by May, the Minister can present something positive in that area.”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. The first question is on the low level of applications. Does it not indicate that the means criterion is too stringent? The second question is if the Minister is confident that not many Singaporeans will apply for assistance, will he be more liberal with the criteria and raise the level of income?”
“But why is car ownership still so important despite the overwhelming costs and reasons against it? Think of countries like Britain. A car does not cost as much as in Singapore, yet many middle income Britishers do not own cars nor crave for one. Many attired in bowler hats and high executive fashion still commute to work by train, travelling shoulder to shoulder with the lowest paid office boy. There is no shame attached to non-ownership of a car by most people, and few people drive to the office because it just does not make sense. I suggest that as a long-term solution to this perennial and intractable problem of consistent increase in the car population, the Select Committee should have studied this aspect of the car ownership question. Perhaps, we should think of a new public education campaign - to change our people's value system and attitudes, and reduce the inordinate pride and status attached to car ownership. Why not a campaign to show travel by MRT and buses for what it really is - a smart alternative to driving to work? Or reduce the negative image of travelling on such public transportation. We can at least convince our people - through a massive PR campaign - to show that you are not a failure because you did not own a car, or to show that you were smart enough to give up your car to opt for something far more sensible. Sir, I support the motion in so far as adopting the Report. But I would urge the Government to go slow, real slow, on the recommendation to impose a quota.”
“So if they can be integrated more fully, I think then the system can be better utilised. In fact, the Select Committee should recommend some form of cross equity ownership - MRT owning some equity in the bus companies and vice versa - so that this integration can be further promoted. Alleviation of congestion must also mean that no further land should be released for tender by URA in areas which are already perceived to be congested. In fact, the Select Committee should have envisioned and encouraged the setting up of alternative large scale business centres complete with full infrastructure. Control of traffic congestion must be a total approach. It calls for good land planning, a quantum improvement and integration of the public transport system and stiff measures on car usage. I am afraid I can only give the Select Committee a very low score for missing out on an otherwise golden opportunity to imprint a comprehensive solution. It instead opted for small measures to solve what may be a short-term aberration. After all is said and done, Sir, I humbly submit that we have all missed out an all-important point in the entire debate. I refer to this insatiable and incorrigible desire by Singaporeans to own a car, come what may, whatever the cost. Perhaps, the Select Committee and the Government should, in addition to considering all other measures to curb car ownership and usage, direct their attention to Singaporeans' value system and find out why car ownership remains at such a premium. Why do Singaporeans continue, despite our good and vastly improved public transportation system and the prohibitive cost of car ownership, to aspire to car ownership? The reasons, of course, are historical and an unavoidable part of our improved economic conditions and greater affluence.”
“The Select Committee should have made strong recommendations to extend the MRT network even to population and other centres which may now not appear to be economically viable. For example, a line should now be built to Changi Airport even though it is not likely to be viable. If you take into account the number of tourists that will be coming, and the number of people living in the East Coast area, it makes sense now to plan for such a line. Therefore, some cross-subsidy is inevitable and necessary if we wish to encourage more effective and wider usage. The Select Committee should have recommended a dramatic improvement in the quality of the bus service through special capital allowances or tax breaks to air-condition and upgrade all present buses. Furthermore, some of the money collected from car owners should be used to subsidise more feeder services to public and private estates after the bus service has been upgraded. This may be done again through the tax system. With a comfortable and convenient bus service, travelling on public transport will not be a tedium. The Select Committee should have taken a more detailed look at a full integration of the bus and MRT system, instead of treating them separately. Presently, Sir, because of competition between the organisations, the bus companies are not enthusiastic about feeding more passengers into the MRT system. When I respond to requests by residents for a bus service to serve the MRT system, the inevitable answer that comes back is no. I understand that because they are in competition, the bus companies are not quite prepared to feed more passengers into the MRT system for the long haul routes. By feeding more passengers into the long haul routes, It seems the bus compamoes will lose out.”
“It will be equally naive to argue that a quota system can be made equitable. It cannot be equitable and therefore places those without cars at a disadvantage. There is an argument put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee that new entrants into the car market is presently equally disadvantaged. This is not so. In the present system, they are not disadvantaged in relation to the present car owners, because the vast majority of cars are owned after the implementation of the PARF scheme. Therefore, almost all car owners are at one time or another first-time car owners. Since the quota system is by definition a restriction, hence demand must be greater than supply, this must inevitably lead to a sudden steep increase in car prices, despite what the Chairman has said. It will lead to higher residual prices and it is this high residual value which makes a car a bankable asset and a worth-while investment. A quota system can only accentuate this. It will only make it worse. Moreover, a quota system is fraught with all possibilities of speculation and the possibility of someone cornering the market cannot be dismissed. It is a real possibility. I am disappointed with the work of the Select Committee. The Select Committee should have focused more on the alleviation of congestion rather than car ownership. Alleviation of congestion means a detailed look at car usage control measures, the possibilities of an electronic pricing system, the use of roads on even or odd days, and even more expensive parking charges at congested areas instead of a two-tier flat rate system. This is in addition to a plethora of other possibilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall confine my remarks to the most controversial recommendation in the Select Committee's Report, ie, the recommendation to impose a quota system on car ownership. Sir, I will be stating the obvious if I say that car ownership is a very sensitive and passionate subject. Each time this issue is raised, there is a sudden increase in the number of new cars. I understand that since the release of the Select Committee's Report, new cars are being registered at the rate of 250 a day. This is more than 6,000 cars in one month. Last year, a similar debate also resulted in such a significant increase. This indicates nothing less than a strong desire to own a car before the Government implements additional curbs and restrictions. Any hint of control gets people into a frenzy into the car dealers' showroom. Owning a car, which says a great deal about who you are, is a passion which may not be easily doused. Ask any young Singaporean. After, or even before he owns an HDB flat, the ownership of a car is a very high priority. Such an aspiration can only be curbed at great political cost. It is also a great potential loss to the country in the form of a strong rationalisation for emigration. A number of people have emigrated because they say they cannot own cars. The recommendation for a quota system seems to run counter to the Government's stated emphasis on measures to curb usage. I favour control on usage. Control on usage has its great advantage of being equitable. It falls under the principle of equal misery. All car owners and potential entrants are equally affected. But not so for a quota system. It will be naive to argue that a quota system will not be an effective tool to control the number of cars.”
“My question really is this. Under the new scheme, the qualification of the spouse is not seen to be considered. As long as the potential applicant can satisfy the income and qualifications criteria, he is granted permanent residence. The spouse automatically gets permanent residence. On the other hand, in the case of a Singaporean who is similarly qualified - and wishes to marry a work permit holder, the latter's qualifications are considered. In other words it is not quite the same thing. I support the stand taken by the Minister about making sure that we bring in people withtalent. The point I am trying to establish is that the new permanent resident should not have more rights than the Singaporean.”
“Sir, will the Minister confirm that, under the new criteria, the income and educational qualifications of the permanent resident himself are the main consideration, and not the family's? In other words, are the qualifications of the wife of the potential permanent resident also considered? Otherwise, the Singaporean who has the same qualifications as the potential permanent resident can bring anyone into Singapore, including an ex-work permit holder, for example, and yet the same Singaporean cannot marry a work permit holder as the latter's qualifications are considered.”
“Sir, under the very liberal policy granted to Hong Kong residents, the Minister cannot be really certain of the numbers that will finally come to Singapore, will he? In other words, the Hong Kong resident may apply for PR as an insurance cover only but not make his way here eventually.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly on clause 6, (Section 27(2)(d)) which allows the HDB to prescribe a charge for late payment of rents and mortgage payments. As the Minister has mentioned, there is a real economic cost on late charges. One is the administrative expense which he mentioned. The other, of course, is the $30 million in rental arrears. If you take it over a period of one year, interest charges work out to something like $2-3 million lost. Sir, the HDB gets a subsidy from the Government and late payments by those who do not exercise financial discipline result in subsidies and costs to other taxpayers. I have only three points to raise with the Minister when he implements these charges. One, there should be sufficient publicity and time given so that all HDB tenants and flat owners will be fully apprised of the status of these late charges. Two, there should be a reasonable grace period for those who are not used to paying their bills on time; and lastly, Sir, the HDB should exercise some flexibility in dealing with cases where there is real financial hardship. Out of 11.1%, I am sure, some must have come from the lower-income group whereby meeting the payment is actually a real problem.”
“Sir, the Minister, of course, is right and the scheme is only cheap if more members are in the scheme. So my question really is, will the Ministry reach out and encourage those who have opted out to come back into the scheme? If more members opt out of the scheme, the premium will rise in time to come.”
“Sir, is the Minister fully satisfied with the publicity given to the Scheme and that those who have opted out have done so because they have misunderstood the annual premium to be a monthly premium. Have they fully understood that it is meant to be an annual premium?”
“From 1978 to 1988, ie, about five months ago, motorcycles including scooters increased from 98,000 units to 117,000 units. In other words, every year the number increased by 1,900 units. So if we take the statistics at the end of 1988, the total number of motorcycles and scooters now is in the region of 120,000. This number is in fact lower than the figure in 1983. It is about 20,000 units less than what it was in 1983. So if motorcycles are contributing to traffic congestion, then we should introduce this system in 1983. In 1983, there were more motorcycles. Yet we did not introduce the ALS fee on them then. Why should we do it now when their number has reduced? Generally speaking, at the moment, we have in all about half a million cars. This number is going back to about the same as figure in 1984 before the economic recession. So, is it necessary to introduce so many varied measures together at this moment to curb cars? I would urge the Ministry to conduct an immediate review instead of waiting for three months or six months later. Thank you.”
“Take for example the season parking fee in HDB estates, increasing from $25 to $50 a month. I believe this measure could be implemented in stages. The Minister's intention is to recover the cost of all the car parks. This is something which we cannot argue against. But the question is within what length of time should we recover the cost? I believe this is flexible. Also when calculating the cost, apart from the fees collected from season parking, we should also include the collections from hourly parking. Otherwise, how are you going to account for the collections from hourly parking? Therefore, if we take these collections into consideration, we shall be able to implement the increases in stages to recover the cost. The other measure which I believe may not be necessary is the imposition of ALS fee for supplementary bus services like Scheme B buses to enter the CBD. I believe this is a measure which is self-contradictory because such supplementary bus services are to supplement and form part of our public bus service system. Earlier the Minister said that we had to follow the rules of the market. Indeed the Ministry had already set the rules that buses could go into CBD free. Supplementary Scheme buses are also types of bus, the nature of their services is to help and lighten the burden of our regular buses during peak hours so as to encourage more passengers to commute by bus instead of by their own car to and fro city area. So the collection of ALS fee on Scheme B bus I think can be exempted. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) in the Chair] 4.20 pm Another measure which I think is unnecessary is the imposition of ALS fee on motorcyclists. I have some statistics to show that motorcycles including scooters do not contribute to traffic congestion.”
“I am glad that the Minister for National Development has this morning explained very clearly that car parks are not included in the HDB's pricing of the flat. Unfortunately, Sir, this explanation was not made clear when the measures were announced. If the measures had been very clearly stated or explained, I think much heat would have been taken out of this debate. A 100% increase in car parking charges, even though I agree with the figures mentioned by the Minister, is something which many HDB residents find very hard to accept. I accept the principles and the figures presented by the Minister. Having said that, Sir, I still urge the Minister to review this matter and see how it may br phased in so that the pattern of increase can then be accommodated by each individual car owner. A sudden structural change in expenditure together with the other measures will mean an additional $70-$80 monthly expenditure which is very hard on many residents. Lastly, Sir, although I accept in principle the $80 calculation, I still urge the Minister to look into this measure to see how he can phase in this $80 without undue hardship for the residents. Sir, I support the measures proposed by the Minister for Communications and urge that the Minister for National Development will also do a review. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. But I hope that the Minister for Communications and Information and the Minister for National Development could immediately review the relevant measures instead of waiting for some time before they carry out the review. Because I feel that some of the measures that are introduced now could be postponed or might not be necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in this debate. With due respect to my hon. colleagues, our constituents did not elect us to outdo each other in Parliament in a contest of amendments. I think whatever we decide today, whatever amendment is carried, the people will be similarly affected. The Minister for Communications made it very clear that the measures must have effect for us to change the travelling behaviour of the public. I accept that, Sir. What we must try to achieve today in this Chamber is to make sure that there is quality in the debate and that ultimately Members and, of course, the public, will learn from what has been discussed here. Sir, the latest measures, except for the HDB season parking charges, are directed against car usage. I accept and I support that, Sir. Except for the evening ALS hours and extending the ALS restriction to motorcycles, I support the curbs to prevent congestion in the city. But in any event, I believe that the Minister for Communications and Information will direct his officials to review these two particular measures in view of the sentiments expressed by the other Members. I am confident that more modifications will be required as it is quite difficult to predict a change in the desired fashion on travelling behavior. I think there are many instances to illustrate this as we have seen from the fringe car parks when the ALS was introduced. The main objection to these various measures actually is directed against the 100% increase in HDB season parking charges. The first major objection from feedback I received is that the number of HDB flat owners are under the impression that when they paid for the HDB flats, they are paying partly or wholly for the car park.”
“Sir, will the Minister inform the House when such land will be made available for use and whether they are sufficiently large?”
“I thank the Minister for his assurance and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Question for the Senior Minister of State. Is the Minister convinced that the present legislation is adequate?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, some time in January, the Straits Times uncovered what a free sex cult which was operating as the Children of God in the past. Now it assumes a new name - as New World Vision. Sir, this cult has been banned in many countries because of its quite clearly immoral teachings. More recently, Sir, we have also read of an obscure religious sect that preaches communal living. The report stated that it has been accused several times of breaking up families. I believe formal reports were filed against this sect but no action was taken. Sir, this matter has surfaced several times in the past. But I wonder whether the law has been too lax in this area. I understand that these activities are covered under the Societies Act. Perhaps the penalties are not a sufficient deterrent, which is why these activites have re-surfaced so many times. Sir, reading these two reports, there are quite clearly many perpetrators involved. But I do not see any action by the Ministry to bring these perpetrators to justice. I wonder if any relentless effort is being put in this area. Parents as well as Singaporeans by and large are generally concerned. I have two questions for the Minister: Will the Ministry look into making sure that there will be strong deterrent measures against the kind of activities I have mentioned? At the same time has the Police or the Home Affairs Ministry done enough in this area?”
“Encik Yatiman Yusof( In Malay): Mr Chairman, SBC, beside performing its functions of informing, entertaining and educating its viewers and listeners, also has a political and social role to play. As SBC is a statutory board, we can perceive the possibility of conflicts arising in its management of these twin functions. Mr Chairman, in past decades, when SBC was the only established transmission centre in this region, the attraction of its programmes was so strong that competition was hardly an issue in our minds. But now SBC is facing increased competition not only from RTM but also from Radio Zoo-101.6 and, to some extent, TVRI and TV3. I wish to point out, Sir, that in this regard, the Malay community is the group most affected by this tide of competition because, coincidentally, the majority of these foreign channels use Malay as their language of transmission. And modern technology is such that these new channels are just a "push-of-a-button" away. The question I would like to raise here is how SBC can play its social and political role, particularly while trying to win over viewers and listeners from the Malay community, whom we seek to educate as a component of the Singaporean culture while, at the same time, dissuade from turning more to foreign transmissions. Mr Chairman, in my view we should allocate more resources in this area because investment for this purpose, in the long term, is something that must be done. We can introduce popular programmes and earn higher advertising revenue while at the same time balancing the different roles because, if we do not, we would lose our influence among Singaporean Malay viewers and listeners. Such a loss would be a loss beyond measure. Thank you.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, recently some 18 airlines, working under the name of Market Development Programme, announced that air fares for excursion tickets would go up by some 10% this month. This grouping put forward such dubious arguments like stabilizing air fares and that, in fact, it is good for the consumers, otherwise they will have to pay even higher fares. According to the newspaper report, the Market Development Programme sets and enforces minimum air fares in Singapore. Sir, price fixing in any form cannot be condoned in a free market like ours. It penalizes the consumer and I agree with the Executive Secretary of the Consumers Association of Singapore when he says that this act is immoral. It should be left to market forces to set the air fares. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore was reported as saying that it does not regulate air fares. However, these published fares are filed with the CAAS. I was, however, disturbed when the CAAS spokesman was quoted as saying that the proposed fare levels represent a decrease in discounts rather than an increase in air fares and that the new fares are still lower than published fares. I think the implication, quite clearly, is that the new fares are reasonable, never mind the collusion to fix prices. Sir, this recent episode is not the first time that the airlines operating out of Singapore have fixed air fare prices as a group. My surprise is that the Ministry has not come forward to state its stand on price-fixing. In many countries, fixing of prices by a grouping of suppliers is illegal for very obvious reasons. Should our consumers be not similarly protected?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I shall take up this matter at another sitting. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I understand from some transport operators that because of the rapid growth in trade, they have invested heavily in equipment to move containers. I am referring to the container trailers. I also understand that even though the operators are prepared to pay for parking facilities, there are just not adequate parking facilities. I tried to raise this issue with the Ministry of Communications and Information and I was told by an official that they register the trailers but they are not responsible for the provision of parking lots, and suggested that I approach the Ministry of National Development. I spoke to someone in the Ministry of National Development and he said, "Yes, we provide parking lots but if it is in the Jurong area, it is under the Jurong Town Corporation which is under the Ministry of Trade and Industry." So I am forced to take up this matter officially today to seek the indulgence of the House on a small matter as it seems. Sir, the container trailer is a very important part of our support industry for trade. Therefore, I think the buck must stop somewhere. I hope that the Ministry will be able to give me a satisfactory reply. At the moment, the Home Affairs Ministry, ie, the traffic policemen, are having a field day. They are booking all those container trailers which are not parked legally in designated parking lots.”
“Sir, for the reasons and examples which I have mentioned, MTI must play a wider role and coordinate at the micro level in more detail and, if not, to go to the extent of scrutinizing the policies of other Government ministries so that the wider economic implications are taken into consideration. The Minister will have my support if MTI's role is expanded in this direction.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, as the Ministry that is in charge of Singapore's economic development, MTI acts as a macro economic planner by setting broad policy objectives to ensure that our economy continues to grow. Ever since the recession of 1985, fears have been expressed by business on almost all Government policies that have fiscal implications. In general, businesses are apprehensive of those policies that have an impact on their cost of doing business. To go one step further, it may be argued that policies relating to the use of land, the mode and control of land transport, and of course, the control of foreign workers and foreign maids have both social and economic implications-not only on businesses but the population at large. In the case of land transport and housing, due to our limited land resources, what we do today will have economic and other implications for the next generation of Singaporeans. On a specific policy like the foreign workers' levy, no distinction or differentiation is made on the impact on different industries and different kind of enterprises. For instance, local companies which are significantly export-oriented are no more favoured than one which produces for the local market. Bearing in mind that market share and trade channels take considerable time to develop, a blanket policy like the foreign workers' levy may easily damage such a local enterprise. This is an undesirable consequence as we are seeking to help some local companies grow into multi-nationals.”
“In fact, direct contacts between Phnom Penh and Bangkok have already taken place. This is playing into the hands of the Vietnamese which has always used divisive tactics in its dealings with ASEAN. I wonder if any of this contributed to a lack of progress and success at the second Jakarta Informal Meeting. Of more concern to me is that Singapore was singled out for regular mention as taking a tough stand. It gives me the impression that there is no unified stand among the ASEAN countries. My questions to the Minister are: what and how unified is the stand of ASEAN towards a comprehensive peace settlement in Cambodia? Secondly, what is the Minister's comment on his perception of Singapore as a hardliner in the Cambodian peace process in view of what Mr Chandra Das said of the huge marketplace that will open up in future at the end of the peace settlement? Lastly, what is his assessment of a comprehensive peace settlement in Cambodia being achieved before the end of next year?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after years of pressure from the international community and, of course, the ASEAN countries, Vietnam has decided to pull out from Cambodia. The Vietnamese have announced that they will withdraw their army and their forces by the end of next year or even by September this year if a comprehensive settlement can be reached. Sir, I think we must have no illusions as to the reason for this withdrawal. There is really no change of heart from the point of view of Vietnam or the Soviet Union. The withdrawal and the improvement of international relations in the last two years is a result of very practical reasons. The Vietnamese economy is in shambles - a bankrupt economy. The main backer of the Vietnamese in Cambodia is the Soviet Union and they themselves are facing great economic difficulties. And this is the main reason why the Soviet Union has decided to withdraw from Afghanistan even though no solution has been found to solve her internal problems. Sir, the prospects for durable peace in the region seems to be close at hand. I therefore support the Government's stand that there must be a comprehensive solution to the Cambodian problem, a settlement of both the external forces, factors which involve powers like the Soviet Union, China, Thailand and Vietnam and, of course, an internal settlement or national reconciliation. Any partial solution promoted by Vietnam which does not include national reconciliation internally will see another Afghanistan in the region. ASEAN has played a key role and a significant role at this crucial stage and we cannot afford to waver. Like Dr Lau, I worry that one ASEAN country and I am referring to Thailand is already talking about making Cambodia a marketplace even before an overall settlement is reached.”
“If there are shortcomings, then this scheme should be modified. Only then can we guarantee that the benefit of the public and the hawkers' interest will be looked after.”
“These increased cost will naturally be passed on to the consumers. The prices for food will certainly be increased and this will incur extra burdens on the people. Some hawkers may even be forced to close down their business because of the increased rentals. The livelihood of these hawkers and their family will directly be affected. On the other hand, because of the privatization, certain hawker centres, which have all along been selling a whole range of foodstuffs, may even be monopolized by one or two types of food industry. Through tendering system, some centres may even be deminated by one race. I would like to ask the Minister to assure us that measures will be taken to ensure that after privatization, these stalls will still be selling goods to cater for various races, and the stalls will be operated by people from the various communities. Another question that merits our attention is the question of food hygiene which at present is under the stringent control of the department. Yet different kinds of food, which are not hygienic, are still being sold. Some carry germs and have caused food poisoning among the consumers. When these hawkers centres and markets are privatized and to cut cost, some hawkers may compromise on the standard of food hygiene. In such instances, how is the Department going to ensure effective control over them? Sir, I would like the Minister to understand that not every hawker earns a high income. In fact, many hawkers live from hand to mouth. If privatization is to be carried out, I hope it would not take place in haste. It should go step by step. It should be given lengthy study. I suggest that one or two markets or food centres should be selected for a pilot scheme to see whether such scheme is feasible or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this debate has focused much on senior civil servants. I think it is very delightful to see that at least one Permanent Secretary is attending this session to follow our proceedings, Sir. I must compliment the Minister and his Permanent Secretary for taking this very seriously. Further, Sir, let me compliment those Ministry officials for their successful action in apprehending the illegal hawker in the case which was already mentioned by the Member for Boon Lay. I just want to stand up to add my outrage at what he has done. I think the sheer size in terms of the volume of the food was staggering. For most of us, on the morning when the Straits Times published the picture of the maggot-infested intestines, our appetites were literally spoilt. That is only for Singaporeans. But what about the tourists? Tourists who are not aware of our high health standards. What will they think of us? Most of them will not make an appearance in any hawker centre, Sir. Sir, the $500 penalty which was imposed on him is extremely light. A quick calculation shows that it is maybe less than one cent a spring roll and therefore it is definitely not going to be a deterrent, Sir. I think the public is outraged. It is time we passed legislation to control it, to make sure that it is a deterrent. I am sure the Minister will have the full support of the Members. Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to express my views on the question of privatization of wet markets and food centre and the question of food hygiene. If these centres are to be privatized through the tender system, then I think the rental for these stalls will be increased and thus resulting in the increased cost for the hawkers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I have only one point to raise with the Minister. This relates to the subject of properties which are pledged to financial institutions. We are an international financial centre. A great number of properties are pledged to financial or banking institutions for raising funds. If a property pledged with the banks should be confiscated under this particular Act, I think the bank or the lending institution will be placed at a disadvantage. I do not think the Bill has adequately addressed this point. I think it will be very difficult for a lending institution to find out from the person who is taking a loan whether the property he is pledging to the bank is the subject of a possible corruption case. I do not know whether the Minister will like to look into this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I think this Bill is timely in view of our economic and social development. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member Mr Peh. Sir, we are a transition generation. The majority of us here had a chance to live through the old part of Singapore. We were part and parcel of the sights and sounds, hustle and bustle of the old Singapore. We understand what is communal living in the old days. However, the majority of younger Singaporeans do not have the opportunity. They are living in HDB flats. So therefore I welcome this Bill which I think is perhaps a little long overdue. I have only one concern to raise with the Minister and this relates to those property owners who are affected by the designation of conservation area. I believe the Minister has the authority to direct conservation measures. I am afraid some of those who are affected may not have the financial means to carry out any conservation works. If this is the case, would the Minister consider some means of financial support or help? Or will the owners be unduly penalized? Perhaps, the Minister may like to give some re-assurance on this point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a comment on the Minister's reply to my point about unit trusts. I welcome the principle that it should not be used by large institutional investors to take advantage of our unit trusts outside the ambit of investment companies. But the point nevertheless is that unit trusts perhaps should be best taxed at the unit holder's level, which some countries have done, because then some of the individuals may not be subject to tax and some will pay their own personal national tax rate but not a fixed rate or a blanket rate if the unit trust is taxed at the level of the trust.”
“This is particularly useful for public companies in which a major shareholding change is outside the control of many shareholders, particularly the minority shareholders. By allowing losses to be carried forward, this Bill will, in fact, benefit a large number of minority shareholders who can now have the advantage of the tax benefit. What I want the Minister to look into is to have a liberal interpretation of what is meant by the same business or same trade which allows losses to be carried forward. On the one hand, we want companies to upgrade, and to improve, to go into new technology and new services. However, by restricting to the same trade, we are encouraging companies to remain where they are just to take advantage of the carried forward tax losses. Presently the Bill allows only for losses to be carried forward if the company remains in the same trade or in the same business. A more liberal interpretation will help our companies to diversify and that should, of course, in the long run benefit Singapore, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to implement the tax changes announced last year. I have two points to raise. The first relates to the taxing of profits made by unit trusts. Under the new amendment, unit trusts which previously were not subject to tax are now subject to tax. Sir, unit trust is actually a method or conduit, a means by which investors collectively come together to invest in a larger portfolio of shares or money instruments. They do so because they can take advantage of professional management. At the same time by having a larger portfolio they minimize or lower their risk. Therefore, it is no surprise that the inves- tors in unit trusts, or so-called unit holders,are actually small investors. On their own they do not have the means to go into the market to buy a large number of different shares to diversify the risk. So they buy units in the unit trusts. Sir, if this Bill, as it stands at the moment, goes through, it will penalize these small investors. Most investors in the stock market, in the securities industry, are not subject to tax at the moment. But if we tax unit trusts at source, we are, in fact, penalizing the small investors. Another factor is that in countries like Hong Kong, Japan, Europe, including the UK and even the US, unit trusts are not subject to tax. So therefore by doing otherwise, Singapore is actually impeding the progress of the fund management industry. Of course, this must result in a negative impact on our securities industry. So I hope the Minister will clarify or re-do this particular section of the Bill which classifies unit trusts under investment company. The other point I want to raise is on clause 13 which allows for tax losses to be carried forward to subsequent years. I welcome this change.”
“As to the suggestion made by Mr Yatiman and the Member for Fengshan on expanding the scope of responsibilities of the Ministry of Community Development so as to enhance liaison among people and community development or setting up a Racial and Religious Relations Department specifically for the promotion of racial harmony and religious tolerance, the Ministry of Community Development in fact has already been doing this through several existing bodies such as the Social Defence and Community Relations Division, the Feedback Unit and the Social and Psychological Advisory Council, as well as through programmes of other departments and with the participation of the grassroots and civilian organizations. We welcome and will carefully consider any good suggestions by Members, so that we may formulate appropriate plans to do the work better. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Fengshan has also brought up the point of giving the Feedback Unit greater autonomy, human and financial assistance. What I would like to explain is that the Feedback Unit is led by an independent supervisory body which is made up of five MPs and three members of the public. The Unit carefully considers all views of substantial evidence and then passes them on to the relevant departments, and where necessary to the First Deputy Prime Minister for personal attention. At present, the Unit is manned by a director, two executive officers and three clerks. It will review its financial and manpower requirements regularly. If found necessary, manpower and budget will be increased. I would like to express my thanks to various MPs for their concern and valuable contributions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Siglap. 1.48 pm”
“This can be done through encouraging various races to have inter-communication through participation in various activities organized by grassroots organisations so as to strengthen the friendly ties among various races within the constituency. Mr Yatiman also came up with the idea of setting up a community liaison committee in each constituency. This, indeed, is a good idea. Advisors to the grassroots organisations could look into how they can best serve the community by setting up this kind of committee to suit the unqiue requirements according to the demography and the religion in each constituency. But what is more important is that, as advisors to grassroots organisations, we have to set good examples and free ourselves from any religious and cultural biases, and try positively to have closer contact and rapport with the various groups by making a conscious effect to understand the customs and beliefs of various races so that we may be able to fully associate ourselves and interact freely with the community. Only in this way can we effectively perform our heavy duties as the representatives of the people in uniting various cultural and religious groups together.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if we wish to encourage individuals to be more actively involved in national affairs, we must stress the close ties that exist between the State and the individuals like the teeth covered by the lips, similarly there shall be no home without a nation. Therefore, it is only right that we place nation before self and be more involved with the affairs of the State and the community. It is also necessary that we remind Singaporeans, particularly the young, that a better life is not to be equated only with tangible satisfaction like a university degree, money, a house, expensive car, overseas trips and the like. Satisfaction and better life should include the warmth of the family, friendship, concern from friends and colleagues, friendly neighbours and the regard and esteem the society and the State place on us for our contributions. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the various races can appreciate this concept, I am sure there is little that stands in the way of building a better life and a more beautiful future. The Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Yatiman, mentioned in his speech the other day that it is necessary for us to coordinate our work and views, and at the same time maximize the use of our limited physical and human resources in order to strengthen social cohesiveness. I agree to his views. We will continue to make use of various measures and means like through effective corporate planning, Review Committee, Task Force and Advisory Council, etc. to tackle various issues relating to community development. Mr Yatiman also suggested that grassroots leaders be given the special task of building up closer community relationship. Sir, the basic task of grassroots organisation is to promote social cohesiveness.”
“And if ever someone thinks of trying this out, I would suggest he first makes a study of the nature of the various ingredients and their respective chemical properties so that he will not end up blowing himself up when the melting pot explodes. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we should do instead is that everyone should take pride in the fact that we are a nation characterized by our multi-culture and multi-religions. This characteristic indeed is one solid evidence of freedom and democracy, a way to a richer and more colourful life for all Singaporeans. Therefore, I believe that we should adopt the approach of "diverse tunes in one song" in handling the various cultures, customs and religions, to achieve the result of "identity in diversity". In other words, we should let our cultural lives be enriched by allowing individual ethnic cultures to flourish and blossom. If we can acheive that, I am sure there will be much greater harmony among all races in Singapore. It is generally true that most Singaporeans are still relatively family-oriented. For this reason, I believe a core value that is built upon this concept will be readily acceptable by all. However, my anxiety lies with the fact that over-emphasis in family life can result in disinterest in national and community affairs by the people. Although it is the wish of everyone to be in a position to provide the best for his family in this highly competitive society, however his time and energy are limited. So, many professionals while expending their resources on their own careers and for their families leave the welfare of the unfortunate people totally to the State and look upon community welfare service as a waste of time and effort, a job for the fools.”
“Therefore, I hope that all Singaporeans, particularly those who are parents, are fully aware of this fact and try to avoid making such serious mistakes when bringing up their young. The President also stressed the importance of three other core values. They are: putting society above self, consensus through discussion, and racial and religious tolerance and harmony. Being closely inter-related, none of these can be done away with in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. To place nation above self is to be concerned with community and national affairs, to play a part in the service of the nation by participating in or discussing social affairs and national issues with calm and sincerity. When dealing with major issues of the community or the nation, our priority should be that of the welfare of our people. For these reasons, it is necessary that we should further promote mutual understanding and respect for the religions, cultures and customs of the various ethnic communities. By so doing can we clearly identify our common aim, one that will enable our future generations to live peacefully and harmoniously together in their pursuit of a beautiful and better life for Singaporeans? Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days, several Members have already talked about how mutual understanding and respect for the cultures, the religions and the traditions among the various races can be promoted. I am sure most Singaporeans can see why it is impossible to create one culture and one religion for all Singaporeans as if we were preparing some kind of magic potion, by mixing the various religions and cultures into a common melting pot. To think that this is possible is indeed naive.”
“In this way, those who do not go to the university can also aspire to a good life if they have the positive work attitude and work diligently. The President's speech also touched upon some of the core values or national ideology that Singaporeans should follow and promote. One of them is the preservation of the family structure as the fundamental unit of society. I believe that most Singaporeans of the older generation will agree with the move to preserve this good Asian tradition. We have, often enough, heard our elders say, "I am prepared to slave like a cow or a horse and sacrifice everything for the sake of my children and family." But, our younger generation may not share the same thought. Many of them even see getting married as digging their own grave, and having children as seeking trouble for themselves. They do not have the traditional family concept. Therefore, in order to successfully propagate the family concept, we need to take the bull by its horns and focus on our younger generation, starting from the homes and schools, with support coming from both the Government and the community. As for family education, I believe that parents should not pamper their children too much as this will result in children being convinced that parents are there to satisfy their every need and whim, while they can sit back and wait for things to be handed to them on a platter. Worse still, many families with maids expect the maids to wait on the children in every way in everyday life. I have my reservations about these children growing up from such environment being able to cope with an independent life without stout spirit and resolve and face the challenges of the nation. They may not be in a position to pay the price for the good life they aspire to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as for education, the Government has given stress to improving the education system. It plans to increase the number of places in tertiary institutions and to allow to use CPF for university education so that more people will be encouraged to pursue higher education. With high hopes placed on their children to have higher education, parents naturally welcome such opportunities for their children. Therefore when the news was released, it was well received. But we have to face the fact, that those who can enter university are limited. This is true with any country. The Government has done all within its power to create maximum opportunities, in the context of limited resources for more intakes of qualified candidaes. With these restraints, it is quite impossible to provide place for the vast majority who intend to receive university education. Faced with this situation, we have to be practical and allow those who have been excluded to pursue other different courses according to their ability and interests, so that they may feel confident in their future and they could play an important role in their respective industries. With this in mind, I hope that in improving the education system, we focus our efforts on preparing the youngsters to cope with the adversities of life, help them to learn from their mistakes and failures, and spur them on to strive to better themselves through the learning process. It is also our responsibility to see that traditional virtues are inculcated in our young at home. These include the spirit of respcting and enjoying the work they do - They have to believe that with a positive and correct work attitude towards whatever they do they could enjoy good life.”
“Quite clearly, sometimes well-intentioned and necessary policies become points of contention. What is much needed is careful thinking and I hope that with the expertise we have in our civil service, the Government should look for more creative solutions to problems. The Minister of State for Community Development (Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address the President clearly sets out a practical goal for our people, that is, creating a clear and better life for all Singaporeans. He also pointed out that we have to safeguard our national security and maintain political stability within the country if we are to realize this goal. In addition, we have to overcome problems of scarce resources in land, water supply and human population. Other than these challenges, we must remind each and every Singaporean that the good life we aim for is by no means dependent on the work of the Government alone, but by the collective efforts of everyone, regardless of his family background, be he poor or rich. It is important that people make full use of the opportunities the Government has created for them, and with the necessary efforts and diligence on their part, they will set themselves on the way to success, both in their academic pursuits and their careers. It is through this process that a firm and solid foundation is laid for a bright future of good life. It is more important that we continue to strive for self-improvement, to constantly better ourselves and to hold a more positive attitude to learn better ways to deal with people and work, and to play our part for our family and society. Such are the ways to a better and more meaningful life and the only way for the Government to ensure the successful implementation of its plans and measures.”
“In the name of curbing the growth of car ownership, the Government takes no cognizance of the fact that this growth is a direct function of growing affluence. Growing affluence and car ownership is a worldwide phenomenon. As we grow more affluent, everybody wants to have a car and the Government should have applied its expertise to find alternative solutions to ease traffic congestion, such as imposing a heavy utility charge on week-days. With the fine network of expressways, Singaporeans want the freedom on four wheels in their leisure. This is something we cannot stop and I predict that the next thing the Government will do is to look into raising the so-called AR. This will result in a bigger burden on young people who enter the workforce and wish to own a car after a few years. Sir, instead of creative solutions, we see the usual time-honoured fiscal measures more tax, more charges, and expect the problem to be solved. There is no doubt that there is a consensus of opinions in these two instances I quoted revenue generation. There is consensus. They say the Government is out to make more money. What have we lost in the process? We lose in the process perfectly good arguments of the undesirability of our young to grow up with alien values, as already expounded by the Minister. He has explained to us why it is not desirable to have too many foreign maids in Singapore. Of course, the Minister for Communications has also explained on several ocassions why we need to keep our roads free of congestion. These are valid, good arguments but as far as Singaporeans are concerned, the very measures adopted mean that the Government is only interested in money and not really looking for solutions.”
“Even in cases where consensus is difficult to arrive at, especially in fiscal measures, I think the Government should implement its policies with a higher degree of finesse and creativity. They should apply the concept of incrementalism coupled with feasible alternatives. Incrementalism, Sir, is moving in small steps to achieve an objective. It is a concept familiar to strategic planners. This morning you saw one example about the foreign maids levy during Question time. I think you do not need a clairvoyant to predict that the numbers will grow substantially to what it is today. What does the Government do? In one move, it expects to smother and send all foreign maids back home. It did not recognise the problems of working mothers and, more importantly, they have not implemented this in smaller steps and offer alternatives to those who depend on the maids. The most obvious alternative is the cheap and easy availability of child care centres, as the Minister has already pointed out. But all the other measures and options which he has spoken of, like sharing family work, are all very impractical measures which many housewives and working mothers will find hard to implement. He also raised the question of aged parents taking care of grandchildren. Again that is not very practical because many aged parents, not because they want to enjoy themselves, but find that it is a physical strain to take care of young children. They will like to take it easy and, if possible, the physical effort to be passed on to a maid, I think they will be more than pleased to help look after young children if there is a maid. Another example is the land transport policy.”