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 9 of 17.
“The question I am asking the Minister of State is that the numbers indicate that the overall demand is at least 10 times the supply. Am I wrong? Because you have a case of 22:1 in Queenstown, 15:1 in Tampines, and 5:1 in the less mature estates. So are we not talking about a demand of at least 10:1?”
“Sir, taking the Minister of State's point about the demand of 5:1 in less mature areas and 15:1 in Tampines, can we say that the demand now is about 10:1, which means that applicants may have to wait 10 years before they can get their flats?”
“The point, Mr Speaker, is that there is just not sufficient supply. The question I am asking now is this. At this date, what is the latest demand position against the current supply of 20,000 flats?”
“Sir, to many houseowners, it is not good news. The Minister of State is talking about a 15% increase over last year. But right now, I understand that the demand is outstripping the supply by 20 to 1 in some areas. For example, in Tampines, for 5-room flats, there are 8,000 applicants for 300-over flats.”
“Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Just a question for the Minister to consider, and this is the question of insurance against damage and theft of articles. When the articles are auctioned off, there is a surplus. The amount could be claimed within four months. Within these four months, there is really no insurance cover for the person who pawns his articles. Is there any way that this person can be protected? Under the present Bill, there is a gap of four months.”
“Sir, will this consortium be a SLF-led consortium? For the private sector that has been invited, will it be Government-linked companies only?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered the concern which I raised and that is the right of individuals and companies to enter into contract, especially the highly-paid staff. By making all term contracts, or contracts of a fixed number of years or term, void it means you are taking away the right of contract and some of these highly-paid staff may be required for a specific purpose. Under the present Bill, it makes the law very rigid and there is no room for employees who are very capable of taking care of themselves to enter into such contracts.”
“The second area of concern is that anyone who has been dismissed now, irrespective of his level of income or seniority in the company, can claim under clause 7, that he has been retired because of age. Again, this is a very dangerous precedent. I do not know what is the Ministry's procedure in handling such employees. Presently, those who are employed and paid a salary of $1,500 a month or below are covered by the Employment Act. There are established procedures which are followed, in which employees and employers know their rights. But with the Retirement Age Bill coming into force, the process is not very clear. A senior executive who earns a high salary can also claim that he has been asked to leave the company on account of age. Will there be a deluge or a great number of such complaints to the Labour Ministry? The present retirement age of 55 covering employees who are earning above $1,500 makes the system very flexible. With the change to the retirement age at 60 years, the rights are taken away from the company and the employee. It will be very difficult for companies to remove an executive or senior manager who has reached the age of 55 and who may not be very competent or diligent in his job. He will just sit for the next five years on the job, because the present Bill mandates that he be given a job until age 60. These are two serious areas of concern which I want the Minister to have a look and, as far as possible, be more flexible in the implementation of this particular Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my cautious support to this Bill. Sir, the Retirement Age Bill is a landmark legislation. It has tremendous impact on all employees. Presently, only employees earning $1,500 a month and below are protected under the Employment Act. But this present Bill, as we have here today, will cover all working people in Singapore. Although I am in support of moving up the retirement age, I think in resource-scarce and manpower-scarce Singapore, we have got to be careful in the implementation of this Bill. Therefore, I would like to urge the Minister to consider very carefully caution in two aspects. One is making void all collective agreements. This takes away the right of all individuals and companies to enter into contracts of employment. Up to now, it is only proper that we protect employees earning below $1,500 a month. But with this present Bill, which will become an Act if passed, it will protect an employee, whether he earns $1,000 or $10,000 a month. That takes away a great deal of responsibility from companies. There are many cases in which a contract of service for a fixed term is desirable and yet, under this present Bill, it is no more allowed. I believe even the Government service, especially the Ministry of Defence, has also a number of term contracts. I wonder whether the Minister will make them void or they will be exempted from the Bill. Sir, I think there are many instances where one may have an overseas project and a person is employed for a fixed term at $3,000 a month. It is more than adequate that he knows what he is entering into. He has entered into a contract of employment with a company for a fixed term. These employees need not be protected. But under the present Bill, it protects everyone.”
“As an example, in the area of health care, although subsidies may be given to the subsidised patients seen in hospitals to offset the GST, they will not be able to escape from the effects of GST completely. Let me illustrate with a specific example. In our hospitals, there are far more outpatients than inpatients and a large proportion of the bill comes from the cost of drugs. As the list of standard drugs is limited, there will be many who will be on drugs that are not on the standard list. It is difficult to see how these subsidised patients can escape the effects of GST. I would like to put forward the suggestion that families who are in financial difficulties as assessed by community organisations can be referred to a committee coordinated perhaps by MCD and those deemed deserving of assistance but do not qualify for PA under the current stringent criteria, may be given rebates on the GST on expenditure in essential areas like health care, education, and certain food items. These GST rebates can be reviewed on a six monthly or yearly basis for each family under this scheme. Last, but not least, the Government must keep a close watch on profiteers. I suggest that for the first year of implementation of the GST, the Government should release a price list of the essential goods and services every month and this should be made known to the public through the mass media. In this way, we can prevent profiteering. With these suggestions, I support the motion. 5.20 pm”
“However, there are those whose spirits are willing but financially are unable to do so. In this instance, retirees who have CPF accounts and do not have much savings may find it difficult to put in $500 to benefit from the CPF ownership Top-up Scheme. After contributing to the CPF during their decades of working life, they feel that they should not be left out of the scheme just because they find it difficult to contribute $500 to the CPF account. I feel that these people are the ones that are the most deserving to benefit from this scheme. The Government should consider exempting all retirees of more than 55 years of age, who have previously contributed to the CPF, from the need to contribute $500 before they are allowed to benefit from the scheme. If I may, I will go further to suggest that the Minister should also consider extending this exemption to those in low income families who have already accrued some savings in the CPF account but have had to stop working because of extenuating reasons, for example, physically handicapped or those who have medical illness which precludes employment. I hope that the Minister will not consider it an excessive request to reward those who have toiled hard during their younger days and do not have much to look forward to in their twilight years. With the GST looming ahead, this exemption for these deserving Singaporeans will be indeed a silver lining. The measures to offset the GST have to some extent allayed some of my fears about its effect on the lower income group. It does show that the Government has taken great pains to ensure that the lower income group will not be adversely affected by it. However, we do recognise that there may be some families who may not benefit from these measures.”
“The 1993 Budget Statement, in addition to the usual hallmarks of our budget statements, has three important milestones, namely, tax incentives to promote an external economy, a CPF share ownership top-up scheme and measures to offset the GST. The importance of building an external economy has spurred the introduction of tax incentives to promote an external economy. We scan the horizons for lands of opportunity and we encourage Singaporeans to embark on a venture to scour these far away lands for the grail of prosperity. These measures give an added impetus to those who answer the call. More can be done. Just as we encourage the setting up of a single window clearance for businessmen wanting to invest in various places such as Batam and India, the Government should consider the setting up of one-stop total business centres. At these centres, businessmen can come for advice on the feasibility of going into various types of business; be briefed on the facilitation measures that have been forged through the EDB or TDB with these countries; be advised on the benefits of the tax incentives available; be directly linked up with financial institutions for financing; and be facilitated in forging link-ups with joint venture partners. Hence, in Singapore, a businessman may visit a one-stop total business centre on China, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, etc, where one can obtain a complete business package. Certainly, the private sector must take the lead in going overseas but we must give them the maximal chance to succeed. I will next turn my attention to the CPF Ownership Top-Up Scheme. It is a generous gesture on the part of the Government. I support the Prime Minister's view that it is not a handout but a dividend for investing in Singapore Inc.”
“And less government in the area of personal savings and, of course, personal choice and this is what GST aims to do, makes for a much less rigid system and will also provide Singaporeans with a much greater measure of personal freedom. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to take a few moments to address some of the statements made by Mr Ling How Doong. He said that a large proportion of the price of properties was due to the increase in the workers levy. I just want to dismiss his seemingly seductive but untrue point with a simple example. During the Gulf War period, terrace houses in some areas were sold for about $500,000. This day, those who have bought the houses can sell these same houses for about $800,000. During this period, I do not see how the price increase could have anything to do with the workers levy. So I think you can see the fallacy of his statement. Secondly, he decries the fact that our statutory boards, in being very efficient, can provide low-cost service and accumulate surplus. I really do not know how he wants our statutory boards to be run. Furthermore, he says why do we have to worry 20-30 years from now. He does not appear to have any long-term vision for Singapore. I wonder whether his statement reflects the view of the SDP, ie, SDP does not believe in worrying about the future of Singapore. Personally, I would be very worried if those who intend to serve the country do not have any long-term visions for the country. Sir, I will now go on to the Budget proper.”
“I think the question we have to ask is: does it now make Singaporeans more "kiasu", especially those in the high income brackets, and if this is so, does it lead to a lack of entrepreneurship? If this is so, oeen the suggestion of allowing CPF savings for business ventures should be considered. I see a problem here if we allow this to be done. I think the mechanics will be very unwieldy. That is why two years ago, I advocated then that an alternative way was to set an upper limit on CPF savings and progressively reduce CPF savings once a person has reached the upper limit. Presently, there are already cappings on CPF savings, on monthly salaries, on annual salaries above $100,000. So capping is not new. But my suggestion then was to cap the overall accumulated savings. I suggested then that the capping on these savings needed some study, as how much we need to set aside for old age depends a lot on the rate of accumulation of CPF and also depending on the age of the contributor. High income earners, in my opinion, are quite capable of taking care of themselves. And if this move of capping our CPF savings can be a further boost to entrepreneurship, then this policy must be reviewed. The capping of CPF contributions has several benefits. First, it frees the Government from having to debate with the people on how their CPF savings may be used. Second, the Government need not have to challenge the people to invest for higher returns. This is what we are doing now with the investments in gold and stocks and shares. Third, when we cap the CPF, there is more disposable income and increased investments and hopefully these investments will go overseas which is what we are aiming to achieve. Lastly, Sir, wherever possible, there should be less government.”
“Some of these smaller companies, from my own personal experience from meeting these people and also the points made by my colleague, Mr Chandra Das, yesterday, are making very good in-roads into very remote areas in China and Vietnam. However, the largest obstacle to these small operations is financing. In the Singapore environment, our banking industry is very conservative and these small businesses have very little or no access to funds. If we are serious in encouraging more small and medium sized companies to venture abroad, I think they must overcome this major obstacle. May I suggest that, besides taking money out from the reserves to upgrade HDB flats, the Government should seriously set aside $1 billion at least from our reserves to back up an insurance scheme. This insurance scheme will back up all the loans that are being provided by the banks. With such an insurance scheme in place, I think bank borrowings can be more forthcoming. Although it needs very careful study, this $1 billion if set aside, can encourage and help more small businesses to go overseas. This will in a way secure our future and our long-term well-being. If this is so, then I think this must be looked into. Mind you, this is not necessarily a losing proposition, because, after all, with an insurance scheme, there will be premiums levied on such loans. Sir, another aspect of encouraging our individuals to invest and venture overseas, and this again has been raised by the Senior Minister, is to lower our CPF safety net. I am surprised that, besides the announcement of the half a percentage point change in the CPF rate, the Minister has not made any substantial announcement in this area. There is no doubt that the CPF scheme has served Singapore very well in the past.”
“That is why I am very wary of the proposed plan to exempt businesses with sales turnover of less than $1 million from charging the GST. I think this will in the long term act as a dampener to growth and this will also lead to a lot of vertical chaining of businesses from importers to retailers, all with very low sales turnover. For certain businesses, eg, with high volumes and very low profit margins, the 3% exemption is worth avoiding. I think the Minister should be aware of this and I really hope that he will reduce this limit and as far as possible only exempt hawkers and the small traders, and bring the limit of $1 million down. Sir, this year's budget is also notable for another aspect, and it is very clear now that our internal economy, although it is the main engine of growth, as we have said in previous years, must be supplemented with an external dimension. Hence the call for Singaporeans to invest overseas. Our Senior Minister has alluded to a second wing in our economy. However, Sir, so far, this second wing alluded to seems to focus only on the large companies, the public listed companies and Government-linked companies (GLCs). I am no expert on the anatomical structure of a bird's wing, but I know that a bird's wing is made up of very large feathers, a lot of very small feathers and also the down feathers. The down feathers are equally important to the bird in flight. So if we take that analogy further, like the wings of a bird, the Government should not just focus on the large companies. I think the focus should be extended to the entrepreneurs and the small companies.”
“There have been reports in the press and the Minister has already rebutted it, that B2 and C class ward charges in hospitals should be exempted from the tax. Some suggested sugar and rice should be zero-rated, and even small television sets. In my discussion with residents yesterday evening, one resident did suggest that because the lower-income group can only afford to buy small TV sets, we should waive GST on small television sets. Sir, generally, GST exemptions are very very dangerous. I think it will lead to all kinds of economic distortions. After all, let us not forget that even the rich can use C class wards. In a free market, how do we ensure that all goods in a provision shop will not be passed off as rice and sugar, if sugar and rice are zero-rated? People, by and large, are very creative, in creating new ways to avoid any kind of Government tax or levy. The more exemptions we have, I fear there will be more avenues for avoidance and in the long run will lead to outright evasion. If we make GST comprehensive, with little or no exemptions, I think this will ensure minimal distortion in our economy. Calls for such exemptions are very persuasive, especially when you talk about helping the poor or lower-income groups. However, Sir, no matter how simplistic or simple this idea is, the Government must make an effort to explain and win the hearts and minds of our people and explain to them why even for basic goods and hospital services, it is best that they are brought into the GST and that help of any kind must only come in the form of offsets and income tax reductions which the Minister has already announced. If they are not adequate, certain areas not covered, this can be reviewed. But as far as possible, make GST as comprehensive as possible.”
“After 1st April next year, as is the case shown in Japan, I think consumers will loathe to part with their money resulting in a consumption slump. Nobody likes to pay money to Government on levies and taxes. And what will happen is that traders will be over-stocked and they will have to clear their goods. In fact, I predict that after the GST, there will be many post-GST sales. Price increases, contrary to what many people believe, will be minimum. The statement by the NTUC that they will keep their prices, especially on essential items, within 3% of the GST, will also be a further dampener on prices. In a free market like ours, a very fragmented market, meaning that traders can move in and out any time they like, it is very difficult to profiteer. Fears of profiteering, and I take it to mean that traders increase their prices just to take advantage of the GST, I think is a bit over-stated. With the changes in our consumer spending behaviour, a very strong economy and hence a strong Singapore dollar, a free market with endless supply of goods, and again a safety valve to our neighbouring countries as well - Singaporeans can travel to Johor if they find that Singapore prices are a bit high - and the pervasive presence of the NTUC, Singaporeans' fears on unreasonable price increases are really quite exaggerated. My alternative scenario, I am sure the Minister for Finance will hope that I am right, is not a wish but I believe that this will come about. Sir, I now move on to the subject of exemptions and zero-rating. Reading the reports in the mass media and from discussions with residents, a common topic relating to helping the lower-income group is the idea of exempting certain goods and services from the GST.”
“In my various discussions with grassroots leaders and residents, there is a general acceptance that these measures are at the moment quite acceptable to them. Despite what Mr Ling has said, the response from the Opposition bench is rather muted on this issue. So far, the debate on the GST has focused on two main areas. First, the effects on the lower-income group and, second, price increases or profiteering post-GST. I think the first area has been quite well covered by my colleagues. But I want to state that I am personally quite satisfied. I think most salaried employees and self-employed people living in 1-, 2- and 3-room flats will be better off after the GST. The biggest fear for most Singaporeans is that post-GST there will be high price increases and profiteering. Sir, let me hazard a guess and paint a different scenario. In the run-up to 1st April next year, I think the predictable consumer response is to spend and buy way above their immediate needs. People are basically human. What they will do is to spend, buy in advance of GST, just to beat the GST deadline. What will happen is that manufacturers, traders, merchants and retailers will respond very quickly. They will make sure that they will create goods, and ensure that there are enough supplies to meet this sudden surge in demand. Our Singapore market is relatively free and goods move in and out without any restrictions. Basically, there are very few imperfections except for controls on cars and so on. Most traders will react in such a manner and, to my mind, it must end up resulting in an over-supply situation. This year's forecast of 6-7% economic growth is very conservative. I think there will be a consumer led boom as a result of this move by all consumers, all Singaporeans trying to beat the GST.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very pleased with the categorical statement that he does not support a welfare state. That is why the comparison should not stop at percentages. What is the state of the economy of New Zealand? What is the state of the economy of Australia? Why are they changing? I think these are comparisons that are worth going through. They are profound questions that we must answer. It is not to compare that because it is 3% in Singapore, it will be easier to swallow than Australia's 15%. Do you want 11% unemployment today? Three years of no economic growth and many more years to come? About five or six years ago, the Australian dollar was worth about S$2. Today, if you go to Australia, you pay the most A$1 to S$1. If I am not mistaken, today, the rate of an Australian dollar to one Singapore dollar is about $1.10. Why is this so? These are economics. I would suggest, perhaps, my colleague, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, or Dr Ow Chin Hock, give Mr Ling some basic grounding in economics. Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Finance Minister. Since the consumption tax was first mooted a number of years ago, I have always spoken in favour of why a change in this direction is necessary. But I have also made it very clear that I have supported this idea on the condition that there must be corresponding changes in the direct tax system. I think the Finance Minister's very able and comprehensive handling of this very delicate issue has far exceeded my expectations. The need for this structural change is so compelling, contrary to what Mr Ling has said. I think it should have been done long ago. We have been able to wait to take such a protracted approach only because our economy is very strong.”
“Let me finish my sentence first. He will understand very clearly that Australia is trying to introduce the GST because their economy is in trouble. In Singapore, it is different. We are introducing GST to replace a direct tax system which we know the world is changing to. It is wrong, and it does not make us competitive.”
“If he had been here yesterday when my colleague, Mr Koo Tsai Kee spoke, he has pointed out very clearly--- Mr Ling How Doong rose ---”
“What is the purpose of the comparison? Obviously something is fundamentally wrong with that system. Mr Ling How Doong: A comparison of 3% and 12 1/2% GST.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to re-learn all my economics after hearing thislecture from Mr Ling How Doong. But I just want a point of clarification. Perhaps he will like to clarify whether he supports the New Zealand model or the Australian model. New Zealand today has a population of our size, with three million people, and welfare payments of $10 billion. Australia today has a population of 17 million or so, and welfare payments of $43 billion. Right now, unemployment in Australia is 11%.”
“I would like to point out the difference between "effective interest rates" and "nominal interest rates". There are some problems in this area. Many consumers are not fully aware that when they take up a loan at 5 3/4% interest rate on an annualized basis it is not the same as taking a loan on the same percentage interest rate but on a daily or monthly-rest basis.”
“There were cases of complaints that banks did not post their effective interest rates. Currently, all banks post the nominal rates, which vary from one bank to another, and there is no basis for consumers to compare. So why should not MAS impose upon banks to make sure that whatever loans they provide they should post the effective interest rate?”
“Sir, will the Minister explain if there were complaints against banks for not posting their effective interest rates and whether any action was taken by the MAS?”
“Will the Minister of State say that the Hotel New World incident is also an unusual event?”
“Sir, I am referring to the consequential damages. In other words, the Minister of State is saying it is not a civil matter. The HDB can claim in court for consequential damages. In view of the large number of renovations being carried out in HDB flats every year, does this concern not warrant further study of the current legislation on this aspect of HDB flats?”
“In other words, is the Minister of State saying that it is a civil matter between the HDB and the flat owner? The second question is: are contractors of HDB flats compelled to furnish insurance cover before they undertake any work in HDB flats?”
“Sir, under the present legislation, is the owner or the contractor of such unauthorised renovations compelled to pay for consequential losses suffered by the HDB?”
“Sir, will the Minister say that there is a general perception in the Singapore public that CPF contributions form part of the wages of employees and most employees are in fact quite comfortable with having more money in the CPF? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is correct that Singaporeans do consider their CPF contribution as part of their wages, including the employer's contribution to the CPF. The fact that most CPF members are using their CPF saving to meet their housing cost, I think, gives concrete expression to this acceptance that CPF is part of their income.”
“Sir, my first question is: will the Minister confirm that the Ministry has no objection to legal firms paying more than six months' bonus to their employees? My second question is: has the implementation of the flexible wage system been affected by the recent ruling of the Industrial Arbitration Court on SIA and its unions, and whether there are any adverse effects on the further implementation of the flexible wage system?”
“And what we must bear in mind is that what is necessary for North America is not healthy and necessarily good for Singapore. Therefore, I strongly urge the Minister to commit this Bill to a Select Committee so that some of these additional safeguards and provisions can be worked out, Sir.”
“The only remedy is to take the company to Court on oppression and if the case proven, will result in a liquidation of the company. I, therefore, welcome this law, especially it relates to companies which are not listed on the Stock Exchange, as this seems to be a prevalent problem. However, if the new sections 216A and 216B are also applicable to public-listed companies, we have a situation, which has already been mentioned by Mr Leong, whereby a shareholder owning one share or 1,000 shares can take action on behalf of the company against the directors, or on behalf of the company. This, in my view, will likely lead to increased litigation where a simple complaint against a public-listed company to the Stock Exchange will usually provoke a response from the directors. So the new section 216A which applies to public-listed companies can have a lot of dire consequences for our stock market. You can imagine a situation whereby a minority shareholder has some information which he thinks is relevant and if the Court grants him leave to take action on behalf of the company. This will likely affect the share price. And in trying to protect the minority shareholders, it may penalise them. In some European legislation, as a safeguard, the intending litigants must usually hold a certain proportion of the shares, and Mr Leong has already suggested 5%. In other words, one cannot take action against SIA unless one owns 5% of the shares and not 1,000 shares. So by providing a legal framework for redress which, I believe, is based on the Canadian model, it is something which we must try to avoid. Derivative action is very popular in North America, especially in the US.”
“Share prices are very volatile and why should shareholders be penalised and be awarded damages at the time when the shares are removed from his ownership. He could have wanted to keep his shares for the long term. On the other extreme, for the large investors, especially majority shareholders, they can also have a serious problem. The majority shareholders, by virtue of the fact that they control the majority of the shares in a company, have the right to control and manage the company. A sudden loss of a shareholding of some or all of the shares due to an error in the computer can mean that the majority shareholders lose control completely overnight. And taking a hypothetical example, this can happen even to Temasek which may not be a major shareholder of Singapore Airlines through such an error. What is the recourse for Temasek? They go to Court but the name cannot be reinstated. They are only entitled to damages from the CDP. It raises a lot of other interesting questions, especially if it relates to a controlling shareholder. If such a shareholder loses his shareholding or part of it, and he reinstates his shares by buying in the market which breaches the take-over code, is he obliged to make a mandatory general offer again for the rest of the shares? Sir, clause 22 on the derivative actions provides an effective remedy to minority shareholders. I welcome this clause. I think it is very useful and very important, especially for closely-held private companies. Presently, the minority shareholders or companies which are not publicly listed and have no recourse to the law are not able to dispose of the shares. They are not able to take action on behalf of the company against the directors who abuse their position.”
“But, however, by excluding foreign offences, I also share the views of Mr Chew that there does not seem to be any provision in the Companies Act which allows the Minister now to disbar or disqualify someone from acting as a director in case of an offence committed under a judicial system which is very similar to ours, for example, an offence under Malaysian law. I wonder what will the Minister do in the event that he needs to disqualify such a person from acting as a director, as asked by Mr Chew. Sir, I move to clause 16 on the setting up of the Central Depository Pte Ltd, or very commonly known as the CDP. A number of points have already been raised by Mr Chew and Mr Leong and I shall like to focus only on the part of the Bill relating to section 130J. Section 130J prohibits a shareholder or depositor from applying to a Court to rectify the register of the CDP. In other words, if a shareholder or a depositor's name has been removed by fraud or computer error, a person has got no recourse to law to have his name reinstated. Without his knowledge, in other words, a person or shareholder of a company may wake up one morning to find that he is no longer a shareholder until three months later when he receives a statement of account from the CDP. His only recourse is through the Court and his only remedy is damages and not reinstatement as a shareholder. Sir, this raises several issues. One is that in the case of damages, there is no provision in the Bill at the moment which makes it mandatory for the CDP to take up adequate and sufficient insurance in the event of a loss in the Court. On one extreme, small shareholders will be penalised because it is very expensive and time-consuming to seek legal redress. It also raises the question of how would damages be determined.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to declare my pecuniary interest as a director of a public company. Sir, I support the general provisions in the Companies (Amendment) Bill but I would also like to support the views of the GPC for Finance and Trade and Industry that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for the various points which were raised and some other points which I shall be bringing up. Sir, clause 18 revamps the existing section 154 which disqualifies a person from acting as a director or manager of a company. The present section 154 is a very blunt instrument which makes no distinction between executive and non-executive directors. Although the new section 154 makes no such distinction, the present new section 154 gives the Court the discretion. Therefore, in that case, I believe the Courts, in time to come, will make some distinction between the directors who are working and are responsible, and those directors who are not doing a job which is executive in nature. This should go some way towards addressing the concerns of directors who are now appointed to several boards of companies, especially those who are serving in the Audit Committees. The new section, however, restricts the disqualification only for offences committed under Singapore law whereas the existing provision of section 154 actually disqualifies a person when he is convicted of a law outside Singapore. The advantage of the new section 154 is that by excluding offences outside Singapore, it is much easier for Singapore businessmen and Singaporeans to invest and work outside Singapore, especially in countries where the judicial system is quite different from ours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware of some of the kind of charges which are non-medical in nature? For example, I have documentary evidence of a bill in which a video tape of $8.40 has been charged for recording the surgical procedure. Will the regulations cover such items rather than give a broad category of items which will be charged medically?”
“Sir, will the Minister of State confirm that several Town Councils have implemented improvement projects in their towns and that Mr Chiam is only using this as an excuse for not taking these projects off the ground?”
“Tommy Koh is willing to serve in this Chamber, the NMP scheme will be very much like the NCMP scheme which will become another accepted feature of Parliament. There are other Singaporeans who have the ideas and the eloquence, but do not have Prof. Tommy Koh's advantage of a public platform. If such a Singaporean is not brought into this Chamber, and over time whose views may be listened to, then I think Parliament and the country will be the poorer for it. In an affluent Singapore, not many have the stomach for the hurly-burly world of politics. Their refusal to pitch into the rough-and-tumble of politics has, in many instances, deprived our society of their contribution to good government. It is no disgrace to admit that however wide a net our PAP Government may cast in seeking to recruit future leaders, and however good the catch, we will still miss a number of good people, the ones that were allowed to get away. With the NMP scheme, the many talented people in Singapore who have a wealth of experience in public matters and high intellect will have a platform to air their views. They can help to crystallise the viewpoints and feelings of people on the ground and a wider segment of our nation on sometimes important and critical matters that will affect the long-term future of our society. On such important matters, the NMP scheme does not make the nominated person any less qualified to articulate the concerns of Singaporeans or make their views any less important or relevant. Sir, the 81 Members in this Chamber do not have a monopoly on good ideas or eloquence and I commend to my colleagues to support this motion.”
“This being so, it goes to show that the views of PAP MPs are, in fact, supported on a non-partisan basis, that means, the views of the PAP are current and are not necessarily wrong. They are quite correct. Sir, the NMP scheme is quite unlike the NCMP scheme. When the public elected four Opposition Members to this Chamber, the NCMP has no further role to play. The NCMPs are, by definition, Opposition Members - MPs whose main task, it seems, is just to take the Government to task, without offering any alternative programmes. In contrast, the NMP is non-partisan and that person may be selected to represent such special interest groups as business or even the arts. The first two NMPs served barely nine months - I think a very short period in parliamentary life and this comes from very personal experience. In their defence, I think we should not judge this need for NMPs on the performance of Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye. What we must do is open our minds to the possibility of Singaporeans like Prof. Tommy Koh sitting in this Chamber as an NMP. I have spoken to a small number of Singaporeans and, if I conclude correctly, the public is not fired or excited by this idea, as they feel that NMPs will not be able to represent their interest. However, when I suggested Prof. Tommy Koh as an NMP, the response was rather different and very positive. I think this is because Prof. Tommy Koh has the intellect, stature and eloquence and Singaporeans listen to him. In short, it is the person rather than the post which will make the NMP scheme work and be acceptable to the people. I therefore look forward to the nomination of Prof. Tommy Koh when this motion is carried in this Parliament. For the long-term, if Prof.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. Sir, I agree with the Member for Bukit Gombak - and it is not very usual that I do agree with him - that in a general election, a bunch of crooks may be elected into this Chamber to form the Government. This age-old warning of the PAP can now be best understood by people coming from the Opposition. Sir, the Member will now understand why the PAP Government felt the need to have an Elected President. It is for this eventuality and possibility of a bunch of crooks coming into Parliament that we feel the need and necessity for an Elected President. Sir, the argument that this bunch of crooks can come to Parliament to change the Constitution also reinforces the argument that Parliament should have Nominated MPs. If such a bunch of crooks comes into Parliament in future, I think the Nominated MPs can then help to check abuses or whatever misdemeanours that may be committed by the government then. Unfortunately, the problem really is that the NMP can only be activated by a motion of Parliament and in such a case, with a bunch of crooks running the Government, it is very unlikely that they will then agree to support such a motion. In fact, going by this argument, the NMP scheme should be enshrined and Parliament should have no more say in whether we should or should not have NMPs. Sir, the NMP scheme was born on the need to widen the representation of the public through a non-partisan viewpoint. The point made earlier by my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that the first two NMPs that we had in the last Parliament have made points which were so similar to those made by the PAP MPs.”
“Sir, I have a number of supplementary questions. (1) Will the Minister of State agree that the multi-storey carpark is part of the infrastructure and has a sunk cost? (2) There is better land utilisation at multi-storey carparks. In other words, a 5-storey carpark will house more cars than a surface carpark. In view of this, in his review, will he say that parking charges for multi-storey carparks should be lower than surface carparks?”
“I shall take it up on another occasion, Sir. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $35,396,100 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $3,594,100 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P --”
“The Minister has not answered my question, Sir.”
“Sir, due to the generosity of my colleagues who have not moved some amendments, it has given the Minister a great chance to explain in full about the foreign maids, but my question was directed more at the ---”
“Sir, I was just talking about the foreign workers levy. I will raise two quick questions with the Minister. In the debate on the Budget statement, I indicated that certain businesses, like the marine industry, are very cyclical in nature. So our ship repairers have to catch the wind as and when there is business. In the face of a coming slowdown in the world economy, I think it is, to my mind, a bit foolhardy, at this point in time, to actually pull the brakes on the marine industry by imposing the dependency ratio which was not done up to now. In view of what I have said, Sir, will the Minister reconsider this point and see whether this dependency ratio should be revised? The second question relates to the availability of foreign workers. There is a general perception among the people I spoke to that large companies have easy access to foreign workers. But this is not so of small and medium-sized companies. Small and medium-sized enterprises tend to be local Singapore-based companies. The general complaint is that only the large multi-nationals, foreign companies, the larger companies, have easier access to foreign workers. Will the Minister care to reply?”
“Yes, I have. Can I take the other cut now?”
“I would urge the Minister, instead of giving me a reply to say that this will be referred to the Community Development Ministry, to take a more detailed look at this matter, and perhaps work together with the Community Development Ministry. Sir, the second point on the foreign workers levy, I want to raise two questions with the Minister.”