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 5 of 17.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject of Ministers' salaries raised by Mr Jeyaretnam was widely debated in this Chamber in 1993 when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the revision in salaries of civil servants, judges and Ministers. In that debate, 19 Members including three Opposition Members expressed their views. The salary revisions were substantial as the Government was concerned about the declining quality of the civil service as Singaporeans shunned jobs in the civil service for the private sector. With the rapid expansion of the economy, it was clear to all or almost all that the salaries in the civil service and the political leadership were lagging behind that of the private sector. Sir, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam mentioned about huge surpluses. I can assure him that when Government salaries are increased, it has nothing to do with the surplus. The surplus runs every year to billions of dollars. Last year, I believe we chalked up a surplus of $7 billion. And what are we talking about? The Cabinet is only paid $17 million. If they are paid on the basis of the surplus, I am quite sure that money is much more. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam talked about the crying need of the population and that the Government has not met their needs. We have these surpluses. If Mr Jeyaretnam can identify the crying need, as he has mentioned, this would be looked into, but certainly Ministers' salaries have nothing to do with surpluses generated by the Government. Sir, this revision of salaries in 1993 came in about four years after the previous revision exercise in 1989. The issue was again extensively debated in 1994. This time, the debate was on the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government: Benchmarks for Ministers and Senior Public Officers, mentioned by Mr J. B.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the six-month grace period, as announced by the Minister, for developers. But, nevertheless, there are cost implications and I wonder how the implementation of this Bill will affect land which have been tendered but building plans have yet to be submitted to the Government. The other question for the Minister is that over the long term, will there be adequate places for all Singaporeans? And if there are not, will there be any plans for the Government to impose on old buildings to be retrofitted with civil defence shelters? If that is the case, who will bear the cost, Sir?”
“We do have in this country, and I hope it is still being continued, a system of appointing Justices of the Peace. I do not know how many Justices of the Peace we have at the moment in Singapore. Is it not possible to involve Justices of the Peace in solving these disputes that arise? There is a danger, as has been mentioned, I think, that information which is highly private may be leaked out and may be made use of by persons who may have other motives in mind. Therefore, I think it is absolutely necessary that whoever is asked to mediate should be persons of the highest integrity and should be bound by some strict rules of conduct and safeguards. So I want to know whether it is not possible to just use the Justices of the Peace that we have in Singapore. The other matter that I wish to raise is clause 14, ie, representation by agent. I can well understand the need to keep lawyers out of this mediation. But why is there a refusal to let a party be represented by an agent? Some persons may, but through no fault of themselves, be unable to express their problems and what is it that they are seeking. And if they are prepared to find somebody who will be able to speak for them and on whom they can trust, why is it not possible for them to be represented by the agent selected by them? The common law principle is that any person can do, what he can do by himself, through an agent unless some statute prohibits the doing of anything through an agent. Sir, I would ask the Ministry to consider whether clause 14 may perhaps work to the disadvantage of persons who may not be able to present their problems or the solutions as they seek as effectively as through an agent in whom they place their trust.”
“I understand that in the United States, the centres are known as "Neighbourhood Justice Centres" where more facilities are provided. It is almost like a one-stop centre for dispute resolution. The centres should, according to a report, "make available a variety of methods of processing disputes, including arbitration, mediation, referral to small claims courts as well as referral to courts of general jurisdiction." It may be that, in due course, the centres set up through this Bill should perform wider and more defined roles of dispute resolution. Finally, it is clear that many critical issues concerning the running of these centres and the training of mediators are to be dealt with only in the rules, as the Bill confers discretion on the Minister to enact these. The enforceability of such settlements, the powers and duties of mediators, the nature of disputes that such centres can deal with, these are issues which have to be provided for in the rules. It would of course have been better for these matters to be spelt out in the parent legislation. But the legislation merely provides a framework for these centres. I do hope that the rules will take care of such details to come. But as the general principles in the Bill are sound, Sir, I support the Bill. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only two matters to raise on this Bill. One is, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, the need to select mediators with care. He said that, apart from professional people, they could also be appointed from grassroots leaders. So far as I know, grassroots leaders are appointed largely by the People's Association or selected by them and who are very partial to the Government or the Party.”
“Such a division of labour among the various agencies will probably confuse potential users of the system and steps will have to be taken to define the scope of each type of mediation clearly. When is a dispute one that should be settled at the Community Mediation Centre? The Bill does not provide guidance on this, other than the phrase used in clause 11 which is, and I quote, "a case concerning a family, social or community dispute". This is perhaps an understandably wide phrase, but it can give rise to problems, which means that the rules to be enacted to give effect to these centres have to be drafted with care. For example, family disputes involving the distribution of matrimonial property may not be appropriately dealt with in such a forum. Legal rules relating to the distribution of, say, matrimonial property are complex and difficult to apply. In the event of a wrongful settlement, questions can arise as to whether the spouse can appeal or whether the settlement agreement can be vitiated on the basis that it is actually against the law or that it is doubtful whether the settlement is legal at all. Such examples can be multiplied - a dispute between parent and teenager, between consumer and trader, between landowners as to their common fence, between flat dwellers as to the repairing of leakages, and so on. It seems to me that the centres can be easily bogged down, either by taking too many cases or by taking cases that they cannot handle. At the moment, the Bill provides little guidance for this. Yet, another aspect has to do with the relationship between these centres and other dispute resolution mechanisms, such as the Small Claims Tribunals.”
“Clause 13(2), Sir, is on the binding nature of the settlement agreement. The Minister has mentioned that after the settlement, the parties can pursue civil litigation if one party does not agree with the agreement. But, Sir, I think this may be too expensive and a costly procedure, especially in the case of mediation, one party may be seen to be giving more to the other party in the process just to get the dispute out of the way. Can this settlement not be registered with the Subordinate Courts or the Small Claims Tribunals where there are monetary issues involved, so that enforcement action can then be taken? Sir, finally, with the setting up of the CMC, it seems to be a logical device for ADRs, such as arbitration, for these CMCs to be used for settlement. In other words, there are several cases of civil contracts whereby not large amounts are involved, instead of the arbitration court being used, perhaps in future the CMCs may be used for such ADRs. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. It is an attempt to encourage settlement of disputes without the parties resorting to litigation that is both expensive and time-consuming. Singaporeans will have another accessible way of resolving their disputes with each other, at reasonable cost, we hope. This is most welcome, and I only have a few comments to make. The Bill attempts to set up a structure for community mediation in Singapore. As I understand it, this is distinct from commercial mediation and other court-based mediation such as that practised in the Subordinate Courts. Commercial mediation is being set up in the Singapore Academy of Law. This leaves community mediation to be tackled by the Community Mediation Centres.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Bill on the setting up of the CMC. As a Member of Parliament, I think most of us have at various times brought up disputes or issues which, I think, are best settled not by the court, but by a mediator. I think this Bill seeks to do just that. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister to ponder and answer. On clause 11(1), there is no definition of what is "family, social or community". In my view, the family should include ex-spouses, parents and siblings, because such disputes are usually very common. It should also include persons who are regarded as members of the family by the parties in dispute, for example, persons who are living together as husband and wife but are not legally married to one another and, of course, their respective children or next-of-kin. Also, on social and community cases, the line of distinction may be very thin, but it is still necessary to provide a definition. Apart from neighbours or residents living in the same neighbourhood, while eligible to be classified under one or the other category, how would the dispute between, say, a school teacher and a parent be classified? Clause 12(1) states that mediation is voluntary. It is not clear whether mediation services will be provided free of charge since participation or attendance is voluntary. If it is for a fee, then I think some sort of scale will have to be worked out. I submit that they should not be for free because they will then be taken for granted and the Government is under no obligation to provide such a service. Cost of litigation is always a deterrent factor and for this sort of mediation, I think it should be so as well to discourage frivolous pursuit of disputes.”
“Sir, the Minister has projected that our economic expansion will be 6-7% for the current financial year. My question to him is this: will he say that, with the current problems at the Johor causeway, the impact on us, even on a prolonged basis, will be minimal?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, on the Executive Condominium (EC) subsidy, the EC scheme was mainly established to cater for a group of Singaporeans and HDB upgraders who find that private property prices are getting out of their reach, and they would like ownership of private property. As a result, the land that has been allocated or being alienated for the EC is heavily subsidised compared to the market. The current EC pricing indicates that for similar properties without ownership restrictions, the difference is about 25-30%. 3.45 pm I am surprised that in one of the developments, a Government-linked company has in fact developed units of more than 2,000 square feet and intending to sell those ECs for more than $1 million. As the flats get larger in size, the Minister would be aware that the subsidy escalates. One can also imagine that if a person who can afford a million dollar property can best buy it from the private property market and not from the Government, which is what the EC is at the moment. I wonder what guidelines or controls has the Minister established with the designer of the Executive Condominiums, as this is going to be a feature of our housing supply system. If nothing is done about this, I am afraid it may go the same way as the HDB market. In other words, more people would like to have larger flats because the subsidy is higher. What will happen is that the developers of the Executive Condominiums would tend to build larger flats for that purpose.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5100. Sir, I think the Minister has given an adequate response to the point I was intending to raise on the HDB building programme. May I have your permission to move on to the next topic?”
“I really urge the Minister to consider creating a separate programme called the Lift Upgrading Programme on top of the MUP and the IUP.”
“Sir, like my colleagues before me, I rise in support of this issue on lift upgrading. This was raised by me in a Question for Oral Answer just last week. The Minister had indicated that we are spending close to $170 million a year on lift upgrading. Therefore, politically, I see that it benefits both the Government and the people. We can show that the asset enhancement scheme is now extended to a new scheme called the Lift Upgrading Programme. After all, $170 million is not small beer. By having the lift upgrading programme in a separate scheme, we can then target the precincts or the flats which require such upgrading. For example, in the current Interim Upgrading Programme in my estate, the latest batch, there are nine blocks of flats which qualify for interim upgrading, but only four blocks of flats can reasonably be done with the funds provided under the IUP for upgrading the lifts. But the other five blocks of flats just cannot be done because of the way the flats were designed and structured. It will cost a lot of money. Because the estates are not homogenous, it is almost impossible to have lift upgrading to be spread all over the precinct under the current IUP scheme. As we all know, almost all new flats do have lifts that stop on every floor. There is a lift landing on every floor. Obviously, this is a very popular item. The irony of it is that most of the flats which require some form of upgrading usually have older folks or senior citizens living in those estates as the younger ones tend to move into new estates where there is lift landing on every floor. But it is the older estates which are the ones where lift upgrading has to be done.”
“And we are talking about existing applicants on the queue. What about new applicants who are coming on the queue? So I really would urge the Minister to have a complete overall view of HDB policies. Currently, when a resident approaches me with problems on housing, I find it is almost difficult to navigate through the whole manual on HDB rules to see what are the entitlements, how much one has to pay for resale, etc. It is almost impossible. You need a computer just to navigate the HDB policy. I really believe that moving towards some form of market mechanism will help to allocate resources in a manner which we wish to allocate it. Because, as long as you do not do that, you will have the example of the Bedok Reservoir Road flat which is in a very popular prime location. It is very logical for many residents living in that area to apply for the flat there, because if they do not apply for a flat in that location, they will lose out. And if they are able to get the flat, they know that they are going to have a big subsidy, a market subsidy. So if you do not do that, the demand for popular locations will continue to be there, and I cannot see how we can continue to build flats in those areas to meet the demand.”
“Sir, I think where policies have an impact on something like 90% of the population, I really will like the Minister to take a total, holistic approach, so to speak, because the market is now asking: Are there any more policies coming up in the short term? Is there in another three-, six-month, policy change? Because the current rate of demand for public housing is not going to subside. Mr Leong has already mentioned 150,000 applicants on the waiting list, and I do not believe this number will go down. The second comment I wish to make on this issue is that now that more than 86% of Singaporeans are already owners of public housing, is it not time for the Minister to look at the issue in perspective and to find out whether there is any ground to move public housing towards the market, instead of tinkering with the rules such as increasing the levy on the profit that can be made by HDB flat owners? In a case like flats in Bedok Reservoir Road estate, there are more than 20 applicants for each unit of flat. Is it not possible for public housing now to move towards the market, and allow entitlements, with two or three-tier pricing, such as first-time flat owners getting full entitlement, a large sum of money, or lower pricing? When we move towards the market, we do not need the levy on the profit made by present flat owners. When we move towards the market, the market will decide whether there is demand for new flats in any particular location. If we do not move towards market pricing, the current pricing of housing is artificial and demand will never go down. Despite what the Minister has done in the last few months, based on the current building programme of 30,000 flats a year, I believe it will take another four to five years to clear the 150,000 waiting list.”
“Sir, I commend the Minister for managing a very successful housing programme, so successful that every now and then he has to come out to make announcements on changes of rules to slow down the demand. And I have spoken in this House several times before why we should not have a housing policy where there is a demand distortion. When the subsidies are very high for larger flats, and the subsidies are high for Government flats in general, the demand will always continue to grow. With the current rate of economic growth at about 6-7%, or maybe 8%, the size of our economy will double in about 10 years' time. In 10 years' time, this demand for housing will never slow down, despite what the Minister tries to do. That was why on 13th April when the Minister made the announcement on the changes in the mortgage scheme, there was a hue and cry, but it died down very quickly. And close on the heel of the issue just one month later, on 18th May, further announcements were made to change the qualification criteria. A person must live 10 years in the flat before he could apply for a new flat and first-time flat owners must register by12th July, otherwise they had to pay $5,000. These two measures coming very close together caused a great deal of concern to the public. I have two comments. The first one is that it caused great concern to the public. It seems that a Government policy which has tremendous impact on Singaporeans has not been looked at on a total basis. It is sort of a piecemeal. There were two major policy changes coming, one month after the other. On top of that, after the announcements were made, there was modification to the scheme - the $5,000 for first-time flat owners may be paid through CPF and not cash, as a result of the outcry from the public.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SK 1500. Sir, under the current scheme of permanent residence (PR) offered to foreigners, I understand that a foreigner with adequate educational qualifications will get permanent residence and his family will automatically qualify for permanent residence as well. In other words, under the scheme that is offered to Hong Kong citizens with a minimum of "A" level qualifications, the family will qualify for permanent residence. Theoretically and practically, a Hong Kong citizen can marry a foreign worker who has worked in Singapore before under a work permit and if he applies for PR, the family will also qualify for permanent residence. I have a case of a Singaporean who has tertiary education. He has a polytechnic diploma. This Singaporean has difficulty in marrying a lady who has worked here on a work permit. As a result, the lady has returned to Malaysia. They have two children. The lady is not able to come to Singapore. I find this current rule rather unfair to Singaporeans. Whereas the scheme that is offered to a foreigner allows automatic PR qualification for the family even though that person had married a foreign worker who has worked in Singapore. Yet a Singaporean with adequate educational qualifications does not have the same right. Maybe the Minister of State would like to clarify this.”
“Sir, the Minister is a very lucky man. I think generally, Members of this House will understand his manpower problems and certainly will like to see more money for his Ministry. On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“To make it mandatory, I think, will inconvenience too many people. Right now they can easily do it by bringing a photograph and the passport to the Immigration Department. Finally, he talks about conducting programmes in kindergartens and primary schools to teach our young children how to protect themselves against potential abductors. This is not really MHA's matter but something is being done along those lines. Police have published some books, Mr Policeman Series, Constable Ah Chai column and Young Generation magazine.859 There are also crime prevention proficiency badges and regular talks and visits by Police. Mr Jeyaretnam takes the same tack, asking for some lay people, outside people, to be involved to hear complaints. As he himself has said, visiting Justices of the Peace visit our institutions at least once a month, and these are all respected members of the community. They come sometimes unannounced, and they go anywhere they want. There is free access. Very often, they will take complaints and they will inspect the conditions of the prisons and look into the welfare of the prisoners. Those are the two areas. And whatever complaint is registered. It is sent to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. In fact, there is already a system of lay involvement. I do not think there is a need for more. It ultimately depends on the people who run the system and the system itself. Similar to the answer I gave earlier, the system works - appoint the right person to the right job. The Director of Prisons oversees 17 institutions. The Superintendent runs his own institution and he is statute-bound to make sure that it is well run. So I think there is no need to institute such a separate body.”
“I think that is very clear because the light is on top of the vehicle. Another suggestion that he mentioned was for buses to light up. I think that can be considered. I will ask Traffic Police to look at it to see whether making buses light up will help road safety. His third suggestion was how to encourage more volunteers to help man road safety. We have got very good VSC officers who are Traffic Police officers. Also there is a scheme where Traffic Police, together with AA, have got people who are on the roads looking out for good drivers. So we want to encourage good behaviour, besides penalising bad ones. On abducted children, Mr Peh has made a string of suggestions. First, whether we should treat abduction of children as kidnapping to deter potential abductors. In practice, whether a case is considered kidnapping or abduction hinges on whether ransom is demanded. If ransom is demanded, it will be considered kidnapping. So it is up to AG to frame the appropriate charge, depending on whether ransom is demanded. Secondly, he suggests that Police immediately alert the Immigration Department on receiving information on kidnapped children. I would like to inform him that this is already being done. Once it is confirmed that a child has been kidnapped, Police officers handling the case will immediately telephone the Immigration Duty Officer at the various checkpoints to prevent the child from being spirited out of the country. Thirdly, he says, why not require a change of photographs for children in their passports every two years. I think we leave it to the parents. Because after all it is for their convenience that they do it themselves diligently, otherwise they may have difficulties getting in and out either in Singapore or at other countries.”
“And indeed this is what Traffic Police is doing - talking to the motor insurance industry, in particular to see, for example, whether we can set up centres where accident vehicles can go for verification, so that there is no question later on as to whether or not a particular damage was due to the accident and also setting up a system of authorised workshops so that those who really send in fraudulent claims, or conduct staged accidents, can be blacklisted. That is the point I want to make. Let us not throw up in despair. We are doing what we can. But certainly if we find proof of a staged accident, like I said in the House, the penalties can be very severe. On road safety, Mr Choo Wee Khiang has highlighted the fact that there have been several accidents on our roads recently and the need for us to continue to be very diligent in our efforts, both in terms of Traffic Police and more so, in terms of Singaporeans, to take care on the roads, whether you are a motorist, a cyclist or a pedestrian. Let me just, because of time, highlight some of the recent improvements made by Police. For example, Police, will intensify public education efforts on road safety. In addition, Traffic Police and LTA are reviewing road safety measures in accident-prone areas. Possible measures include improving the lighting conditions of the road, adjusting the timing of traffic lights, because some of these accidents took place near traffic junctions, and relocating pedestrian crossings. So these are the focused moves that Traffic Police will do in conjunction with LTA. He has made a few suggestions: why not install sounders for motorcycles? I think it is quite difficult to monitor. There are so many motorcycles on the road, unlike the vans where there are these beepers with a light.”
“Sir, I have spoken before in this House about why Government has to be competitive and why we must privatise services, wherever possible. On this particular subject, on the MHA, my stand is no different, Sir. I mentioned in my speech earlier about the manpower shortage and suggested that officers should be deployed to undertake essential policing jobs rather than non-essential ones. The Minister has already made mention of the fact that we should not have Police officers, especially Traffic Police officers, just going around patrolling the streets and enforcing compliance with rules and regulations. If the HDB and URA can have car park wardens just to issue summonses, I do not see a need for skilled, well-trained Police officers doing such a job. On a broader basis, in the Ministry of Home Affairs itself there are other such services, and in some countries, even the prisons service has been privatised, MHA also runs the Driving Testing Centre and so on. Sir, I urge that, in view of the labour shortage which the Ministry is facing, we like to see more Police on the road, keeping it safe for Singaporeans, that it tries its best to privatise as much of these non-essential services as possible. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me first reply to Mr Chng. Sir, indeed, I gave a full reply in the House to Mr Chng that day saying that more can be done. It is not a situation where we throw up our hands and say nothing can be done and therefore the perpetrators can carry on what they are doing. We said that there is difficulty in getting evidence but how to tackle the problem, what is the root of the problem, work with the motor insurance industry, and work with the workshops.”
“On staged accidents, this question was raised by me in an Oral Question and the Minister of State a few days ago had given a measured reply indicating that police has investigated such complaints. The short answer is that there is really very little the police can do. The legislation is not adequate at the moment. At best, the victims and their families have their lives threatened or endangered on the road. This is very cold comfort. Worse, they would then be fleeced by the workshop operators who actually charge them exorbitant rates for the service. What the answer has conveyed is that since the law is inadequate and the police is not able to do very much, it sends a very bad signal to those perpetrators and culprits. It will simply tell them that the police have been trying to do a lot but actually they cannot do very much. As a follow up to my Oral Question, I would like the Minister to consider this as a serious issue. We do not need someone to be killed on the road before we take tough action. If the law on touting is not sufficient to arrest this problem, and as one of my Parliamentary colleagues has just suggested to me, maybe we should charge that person for attempted murder if there is evidence because he endangers life on the road and that is a very serious problem.”
“Sir, I just cannot help but make a short comment in reply to Mr David Lim. That is the purpose of the law in a country. Just because certain people have psychological problems, for example, prone to stealing, it does not mean that we should not have laws against theft. At the end of the day, we have to find deterrents to certain problems. If a person breaches a certain law, that person must be punished. When I support the curfew on teenagers and the ban on under-16s, it is precisely for that purpose. We try to limit the areas which they can go wrong. We do not want them to step out of bounds and become criminals. Sir, can I move to my next amendment, unless the Minister of State wants to reply?”
“What all this means is that delinquency and a host of other related problems are very much a multi-faceted one. By the time the police is involved, much harm has already taken place. The lucky ones may get away with a stern warning. But the not so fortunate ones will have their criminal records with them for the rest of their lives. Therefore, this issue is not strictly a police problem as many have mistakenly believed. I believe that an Inter-Ministry Committee has been put in place to look into this problem and the imposition of a ban on under-16s from discos and tea dances is only one measure to prevent the problem from escalating. It will be useful for the Minister to enlighten us on the workings of this Committee and elaborate on some of the possible measures that will be implemented to arrest this problem.”
“Sir, the upshot in juvenile delinquency, rioting and teen violence is a cause for concern. There is also a rise in the number of female delinquents. Contrary to popular belief that delinquency is a problem of broken homes, some of these delinquents seem to come from affluent families as well. They are at an age not to realise that if caught and charged for misdeamours it may result in an uncertain future. Hence, we must implement measures to prevent such young Singaporeans from having their careless behaviour criminalised. I therefore welcome the implementation of the ban on under-16s from tea dances and discos. This is but one measure. Another measure which should be considered is the implementation of a curfew on teenagers in selected popular locations. Young Singaporeans are drawn to the bright lights and reading media reports. There seems to be a trend in believing that it is fashionable for young people to be members of a gang. When enforcement measures are implemented, unfortunately, a breach will bring the young offender face to face with the law. A tough decision will then have to be made by the enforcement agency, which is to prosecute or not to prosecute. Prosecution of a young offender is often viewed negatively, especially when a custodial sentence is imposed after conviction. Parents are inevitably the first persons to declare that their children are not bad or guilty, even when the evidence before them is overwhelming. Delinquents often cite parents' behaviour, such as neglect, abuse, indifference to over-indulgence or over-protectiveness or being too strict, as a cause for their behaviour. Such parents even blame the schools for their children's poor behaviour.”
“The other measure is the freeing of manpower from non-essential areas and deploying well-trained officers to jobs which are crucial to the effectiveness of the Police Force. I shall speak more on this subject when I move a separate amendment on the privatisation of services. A third and perhaps most important measure is to review the salaries and terms of service of the organisation. I am in support of this measure as we must not take our low crime situation for granted. This low crime situation is due mainly to the effectiveness of the police in deterrence and crime solving. This effectiveness must be maintained if we are going to give Singaporeans the Best Home. Peace time security is no less important than preparing for external defence. Hence, I am most concerned that the restructuring may mean that we see less foot patrols, less bicycle patrols and less policemen on the roads. Such presence may seem to be unproductive and wasteful. But it is these very efforts which deter crime. It is these efforts which give our citizens a sense of security and confidence. How can this be measured or valued? Just like how do we measure or value National Service. Our police, aptly named the Home Team, is constantly in direct contact with Singaporeans and tourists alike and their morale and pride must be maintained at the highest level. Sir, this House would like to be assured by the Minister that the reorganisation will enable Singaporeans to continue to enjoy the safety and security which we currently have, and that his Ministry will do its utmost to make our Home Team into a world class Police Force, if there is such a measure.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has recently announced that 32 new Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) will be set up when the current Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs) are revamped. These NPCs will serve as one-stop centres to provide a comprehensive range of services. The Minister has also disclosed that currently, our NPPs are understaffed. The NPCs can solve this problem because 120 officers can man each NPC at any one time, compared with the current 15 officers per NPP in the 92 NPPs nationwide. Sir, I applaud the efforts of the Singapore Police Force to be constantly on the look-out to improve the manner we handle internal security of our country making Singapore safe for Singaporeans. My concern is that this very restructuring may compromise the security and safety of Singaporeans. In my view, the introduction of the NPCs is in actual fact a move to downsize the Police Force. I do not believe for one moment that this is done to cut down employment of police officers, but rather, I believe the Ministry or the Police Force has got a manpower shortage problem. As with all employers in Singapore, the Singapore Police Force also faces a similar problem, ie, shortage of manpower. More so in the uniformed services as generally Singaporeans shun such jobs. I understand also the staff turnover is high which means that we have difficulty in keeping those already recruited into the Force. This problem, Sir, could perhaps be solved through several ways. One is of course the recruitment of non-Singaporeans which the Police Force is already doing. More should be done as there are well-trained police personnel who are more than happy to make Singapore their home.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just seek a clarification from Dr Ong Chit Chung? He mentioned earlier that the S&C charges increase which the PAP Town Councils are contemplating will be offset by the grants for those living in 1-, 2- and 3-room flats. Is it not possible that, in some cases, the residents may suffer from some marginal increases because of the fact that the Town Councils comprise different areas which were amalgamated after the last general election?”
“A more general question, Sir. I share the concerns of my colleagues. Is the LTA doing anything about the paper on the "World Class Land Transport System"? It is not collecting dust, I hope.”
“Sir, saying that touting and staging of accidents are part and parcel of the same problem, will the Minister of State agree that $1,000 fine seems rather low under today's conditions and, at the same time, in view of the fact that we have so far failed to bring many of these people to book? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I say, these possible offences are linked - touting, submitting of fraudulent claims and, possibly, staging of accidents. But, of course, touting encompasses a host of activities, not just touting on the roads. Touting can also take place in a retail setting. But I think Mr Chng's point is that if a person is caught for touting with regard to possible staged accidents, then higher penalties should be imposed. I can ask Police to consider this point. PASIR RIS MRT STATION (Construction of covered linkways) 4. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Communications whether covered walkways from the Pasir Ris MRT Station to nearby bus stops and a vehicle drop-off and pick-up point will be constructed and, if so, when construction is expected to commence.”
“But I have asked Traffic Police to work with the motor insurance industry - I think that is the nub of the problem and the way to a solution - so that they can come together and agree on a practice, for example, of authorised workshops. To do this, I think, the industry must come together, because if some break ranks, then it does not work. So we will see what arises from these discussions.”
“Sir, I think Members of this House have from time to time also received similar complaints from residents as well and we can all agree to take a serious view of this matter as it endangers lives on the roads. My question to the Minister of State is whether the current legislation is sufficient to tackle this problem and whether the penalties are sufficient deterrents. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, if a person is caught for touting, as had happened, he is punished under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act for which a person, if liable and convicted, can be fined not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. If it is a second or subsequent conviction, he may be liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both. Of course, if a person is convicted of staging an accident, then it depends on what consequences have arisen. If, as a result of the accident, people are hurt, then a range of penalties is open under which he may be liable, including for serious cases, even under section 304 of the Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or voluntarily causing grievous hurt or hurt or mischief. It depends on what arises from the accident. I think the penalties are in place. The question, of course, is how to ensure that there is sufficient evidence. In any case, I would like to assure Mr Chng and the House that we would take a comprehensive approach. Police is at the end, ie, when a report comes in, we investigate.”
“Sir, in view of the fact that lift upgrading is already part of the Main Upgrading Programme and also a small part of the Interim Upgrading Programme, why does the Minister not agree to a general asset enhancement programme - let's call it Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) - to complement both IUP and MUP?”
“Sir, the Minister is aware that this sum of money set aside in the Interim Upgrading Programme is not adequate, especially considering the fact that not all the estates that are chosen for upgrading are homogeneous, in other words, not every block requires lift upgrading. Therefore, if the money is channelled to blocks of flats where lift upgrading will be done, then there will be very little money left for general upgrading.”
“Sir, I did not realise that this is such a serious problem. What has the Ministry done by way of publicity on this issue, besides taking enforcement action?”
“Sir, what is the average waiting time; and secondly, in view of this mis-match, will the Minister consider increasing the supply of flats under the Transitional Rental Housing Scheme?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I share Mr Chiam's sentiments that we should not inflame the Malaysians or aggravate the situation. Nevertheless, this is a very serious discussion. The point I am trying to establish with Mr Chiam is this. He is a lawyer. It is precisely because it is a legal document, and that is why we have the International Court of Justice. The question I asked him really is this. We did not take up the subject of water. It is the Malaysians who took it up. On and off, they make threats about cancelling the agreements or not supplying water. It is very serious. He is absolutely right. It is our life line. The point I am trying to establish with him is that since this is a legal document, therefore, as a lawyer, he must realise that at any time one side can breach the agreement. The question that I want to ask him is, when there is a breach of this water agreement, from his point of view, is it good enough for us to take it up with the International Court of Justice? And in the meantime, what do you do about the water?”
“I feel that the NCMP should look squarely at the situation now in Singapore, as compared to that in Taiwan. If we do not have this rule of law, we would have been fighting or even throwing the microphones around here in this Parliament Chamber, like the way they do in Taiwan. The NCMP should not be worrying unnecessarily over imaginary matters and say Singapore is a country where the people are full of fear. The opposition Members and the NCMP should realise that we are now debating on the motion to thank our President for his Speech at the Opening of the Ninth Parliament. We should look at what we are going to do in the 21st century and not what happened at the general election. I think we should have more constructive opposition parties. We should discuss things like Singapore 21, our vision to make Singapore a better home for everyone in the 21st century.”
“He could have been very naive in his thinking. He said that the Malaysians could not just say that they wanted to cut off our water supply. He may give the wrong impression to the people of Singapore. For example, the water supply problem, we should not take this matter lightly. We should not ignore the matter. I hope Mr Chiam could understand. At the same time, I am very happy because last Sunday, in the Lianhe Zaobao, we read that there are not many Singapore cars going to Malaysia while there are many Malaysian cars coming to Singapore. So from there, we can see that the people of Malaysia do love Singapore. They enjoy coming to Singapore. So I feel that the strained relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, to a certain extent, may be due to the adversary views of just some politicians on us. On the whole, I think most people in Malaysia still like to come to Singapore. In this respect, we should thank the people of Malaysia for their love towards us. Another point is, as what Mr Goh Choon Kang had said just now, there seems to be no law and order in the Taiwan society now. I have many friends in Taiwan and they told me that this was only a temporary phenomenon, and after some time, Taiwan would restore its law and order. But now, Taiwan seems to be a paradise for criminals and why is it that in Singapore, it is hell for the criminals. Mr Jeyaretnam, the NCMP, seems to have forgotten this because Singapore is a society which is governed by the rule of law. Because we have very strict laws against criminals, therefore, in Singapore, only the criminals need to be living in fear. Yesterday, he was talking about the fear in Singapore which is a self-inflicted fear.”
“In referring to the kucing kurap, are some of them Members of Parliament in Malaysia, Sir? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe Mr Chiam must have been very busy with his law practice that he probably did not have the time to read the Lianhe Zaobao. In Lianhe Zaobao, every day there are reports of people talking about this matter. Yet, he thinks it is not possible. With regard to the cutting off of water supply, it is not my speculation. I read from the newspaper that some Malaysian leaders had proposed to do so. Of course, whether or not it will be cut off, we do not know. Although the two agreements provide for water supply to continue until 2011 and 2061, it is very easy for them to cut off our water supply by using some excuses. For example, they can tell us that they are repairing the roads in Johor Baru and the pipes have to be removed. Three months later, there will be no water coming to us. I hope Mr Chiam will think about it. Do not take this matter lightly. It is not as simple as he thinks. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have been listening to Mr Chiam since the day before yesterday, and I am very puzzled because Mr Chiam does not really state his stand on the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He is only saying that we should have more trading relationship with Malaysia. He did not tell us his stand on this present situation of our relationship with Malaysia. Perhaps Mr Chiam may be like the two other opposition Members, forgetting one very important aspect of the recent development in our relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, that is, the views of the Malaysian politicians on our people and our leaders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam that perhaps, legally, he may be correct. But is he not aware that Malaysians have threatened to cut off our water on several occasions and even in the recent past?”
“Sir, it is not sufficient for the Government to urge Singaporeans to be more competitive in the face of external threats and pressures. The Government can and is capable of doing much more.”
“I therefore take this opportunity to urge Malaysian politicians to heed the words of the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohammed, who on 9th May 1997, in an interview with Asiaweek has stated categorically that Malaysia/Singapore relation is back to normal. Sir, let me move on to another aspect of competitiveness. Of late, Singaporeans have been treated to a splendid example of what competition can do. I am referring to the advent of Mobile One (M1). It has indeed got Singaporeans talking. Telephone charges started to fall like ten-pins in a bowling alley. In other words, before M1, Singaporeans were paying uncompetitive rates despite the rebuttals and denials in the past. When Singaporeans compared, sometime ago, about mobile phone charges and prices with those in other countries, SingTel was always ready and quick with a reply. No question now that consumers were right. Sir, another unseen and more important aspect of M1 is that SingTel has got no alternative but to improve productivity and technical expertise. It has no other option. This is good for Singapore. As long as SingTel was a monopoly, we cannot keep up with the technological age. Now, they have no choice. Sir, the SingTel and M1 episode is a positive example of what the Government must do to improve our internal competitiveness. Every service in Government must be looked into with the view of privatising that service. Every policy should be looked into with the view of deregulating the policy. Sir, the United Kingdom has gone to the extent of privatising its prison services and I see no reason why more Government services in Singapore cannot go the same route. Privatisation and deregulation of Government services and policies will bring about efficiencies and, more importantly, hone our competitive skills.”
“Even with Malaysia's multi-media super corridor, the double digit growth in the information technology business will see Singapore willy-nilly being a niche player as long as our manpower is well trained and our Singapore One infrastructure is in place. In short, Mr Speaker, the tremendous growth experienced by Asian economies and the even more impressive growth in new technologies business will ensure an ever growing economic pie which will benefit all newly emerging countries. As countries in the region prosper, they feed into the economic growth of each other. What is good for Malaysia is not only good for Singapore, but all neighbouring countries. Conversely, a setback, as we saw in Thailand recently, will equally have the opposite effect. The days of "beggar thy neighbour" policy is long gone and our neighbour, Malaysia, must come to realise that economic competition is not a zero-sum game where there is a vanquished and a victor. Hence, the continuing daily reports of Singaporeans being held up and delayed at Johor, unscheduled checks on Singapore investors in Johor and calls to boycott Singapore ports is not the way to encourage Singaporeans to visit and invest in Malaysia. Sir, despite the fact that Singapore is a major investor in Malaysia, I have been told that inspection checks are being conducted on Singapore businesses in Johor. Two businessmen told me that the manner of the checking process tantamounts to harassment. I cannot see how this will not hurt Johor's image in attracting further investments into Johor. I must add, however, that this is probably the handiwork of over zealous officers, but it does not help. Nevertheless, such action cannot have a positive impact on Malaysia's tourism and investment drives.”
“Herein perhaps lies the underlying reason for the manner in which Malaysia has treated the current controversy. As Malaysia improves economically, it is flexing its muscles and aims to overwhelm Singapore in diverting investments and trade. Multi-million dollar mega-projects, such as the multi-media super corridor (MSC), the new sea port and the airport are aimed directly at Singapore. Their belief is that success in these projects will see lower investments in technology businesses into Singapore and, of course, decreasing the business done by our ports. I think such a vision is, of course, made on the assumption that other countries and economies are at a standstill. However, we know this cannot be so. Even as Malaysia is building its infrastructure, both legal and physical, the stock of inward FDI into East Asia is, as at 1995, a staggering US$350 billion. For Singapore, we need only to attract about 1% of that level of investments a year and that is a high level of investment for Singapore. Malaysia perhaps may need to attract two to three times that level of investments of Singapore. Hence, the point I am making here is that the pie is too vast for any country to dominate. Only China, through its sheer size and stage of economic development, attracts about 37% of all FDI into East Asia. Even as Malaysia makes attempts to divert freight to their own ports, the continuing growth of trade in near double digit figures in the region will mean that our port will continue to grow as long as we have a competitive edge. Even as Malaysia hopes to divert traffic to her new international airport, the growth in air traffic for both cargo and air passengers will see Singapore continuing to be an important air traffic centre if we are up to par on the job.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address highlighted one issue which is very much in the news of late. The buzzword in the message is competition. Sir, when industrial enterprises compete, they compete for market share, profitability and, of course, long-term well-being. In other words, companies compete with each other in the same industry to have the largest market share. This will ensure profitability and long-term survival. But when we say nations compete against each other, what is the nature of this competition? Do we compete with other nations to be on the top of the class in terms of per capita GDP? Does Singapore compete with her neighbours for a larger share of the market? If this is so, this begs the question: what market are we talking about? Sir, in the simplest form, the market in question is Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). In other words, countries compete with each other to attract the most investor dollars to their shores. This is the competition that has heated up in the last decade. As more and more emerging economies are beginning to realise that the fastest way to generate economic growth is foreign direct investments, the competition in that sense is becoming aggressive. FDI creates jobs, helps to transfer technology and know-how and enables the host countries to improve their balance of trade. The failure of command economies like those in Russia and China has, of course, helped accentuate this flow of foreign capital. Sir, the World Economic Forum's 1997 report on the competitiveness of nations has placed Singapore on the top of the league. Other Asian countries in the top ten positions are Hong Kong in second place, Taiwan in eighth place and Malaysia, which was placed tenth position last year, is now ninth in the ranking.”
“Thank you very much. I am glad that the ---”
“I think what is important is that the Member must understand that the policies which the Government pursues, should they affect any one particular segment of society, any one particular segment who are not able to pay for those services will be taken care of. It is very important that we must make sure that subsidies are allocated in a manner which will benefit those who are affected directly. For example, in the case of transportation, a general subsidy is not going to help us improve our bus system and our mass rapid transit system. A general subsidy will only create inefficiency and over time, certainly a decline in the service. What the Member must realise is that subsidies must be applied directly and given to those who are affected by bus fare increases and MRT fare increases. If the Member has anything to say, I am prepared to give the floor to him.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen. Sir, before I move into my speech, I was intrigued by the point raised by the Member for Hougang who stated that the free market policies which Government has been pursuing have been very divisive and are not good for Singapore as we try to build cohesion at the same time. I am intrigued. Perhaps he can elaborate and explain to this House the policies which we have pursued that have not been in the interest of Singapore and have been divisive. The Government has always made it very clear that in the areas of education, housing and health, the Government will provide subsidy. Outside of these three areas, I think the free market policy has always shown to be beneficial to us. The recent general election in the United Kingdom has also shown very clearly that the Labour Party had to move to the centre. Had it not moved towards policies which are more in line with what the Tories, the Conservative Party, had been pursuing, it would never have been elected. In other words, even countries with staunch socialist instincts, very strong feelings for the underdog, have no choice but to move to the centre. And today the platform is that they even agree to nationalisation which is unheard of before the last general election. I think it is very important to bear in mind that free market policies must always be pursued to prevent a situation whereby we misallocate our resources. To make sure that we do not have, as explained many times in this House by the Frontbench, a situation of distortion in demand. In other words, when you give things free, whether you are rich or poor, one will always take it.”