Chuang Shaw Peng
Singapore
“Since the problem is most likely due to design, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the person responsible has carried enough insurance policy to cover the losses and damages? If not, would the Ministry ensure in future that all consultants should carry the appropriate insurance policy? Assoc. Prof.”
“I understand from the industry that a good number of professionals do not carry insurance at all. If such an accident occurs again when one of the houses, condominiums or schools collapses and the contractor is not insured, the residents will get nothing out of it because the person can just declare himself to be a bankrupt.”
“We must have self-cultivation, family cohesion, service to society and loyalty to nation. We must continue to enhance our multi-racial harmony and social cohesion. It is only then that we are able to lay down a very strong foundation for our society and country.”
“We could also emphasise the significant deterrent effects of death penalty on drug trafficking, and that more and more countries are beginning to emulate us in this aspect. We can put all these on the Internet.”
“Yes, Sir. I hope the Minister can see that there is a need to change our mindset and again I want to ask, in line with the call by Mr Lim Swee Say, that we change the mindset of our people. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has called on the Government to care for the people, in the light of our foreign talent policy.”
“It is very common for a team to put up a lot of money in preparing a tender, and if a tender is called after the tender prices are published and all the designs are made public, then the party calling the tender is effectively encouraging the parties to breach intellectual copyrights.”
The complete record
Every one of 107 lines we hold for Chuang Shaw Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“On another note, I would like to focus on one point which is related to private equity funds. Although there are now tax incentives for this industry, there is still no clear strategy by the Government to develop a vibrant private equity fund industry. So far, the Finance Ministry has given incentives for developing Singapore into Asia's premier fund management hub. This is to basically focus on promoting Singapore as a centre for managing Asian marketable securities investment portfolios of both Asian and Western clients, and for managing global marketable securities for clients. However, specific initiatives for developing Singapore as a hub for private equity fund management industry seem to be one thing in the new financial sector policy announcement. In this connection, we should note that the private equity fund management industry in Singapore is much less robust than in Hong Kong. There are much more new equity funds founded there every year. More funds are under management and more fund management companies have headquarters in Hong Kong than in Singapore. Singapore only captures a very small fraction of the private equity funds investing in the region, although we are strategically well located for such regional funds targeting for investment in the ASEAN countries. In this regard, what plans does the Finance Ministry have for the private equity fund management industry? What are the strategies in attracting more internationally reputable private equity fund managers or groups to establish their headquarters here? Now, many local enterprises are cash-squeezed, and news has it that Malaysian, Thai and Indonesian private companies are in dire need for capital injection.”
“7% of total loans, and $660 million is out of the 80% of total loans. I may surmise that the total loans' current status is only half as good as those compared to regional loans. And my guess here is consistent with the survey results of the various associations that our local companies are not doing well. I hence call on the Government to get the banks to make quarterly reports, instead of half-yearly reports, to increase transparency and market efficiency, and to work more closely with the associations to feel the pulse and the health of our companies. Having cited these figures, I am concerned that the proposed Budget is not meeting the needs of the current economic situation. The market has reacted so. If the Government is not reacting fast enough, would we get into deeper trouble which will cost us more to get out? The slow reaction of Japanese Finance Ministry's officials to their country's economic problem and Japan's slow recovery has presented to us vividly a classic example of why lagging and conservative policies may not be ideal after all. Yesterday, I called on the Finance Minister to have a more expansionary Budget. I urge the Minister not to allow the current economic difficulties to deflect our long-term infrastructure development plans and, hopefully, it will not affect the construction of underground road systems and the facilities needed to push our vital economic sectors. As demonstrated by the first phase of our MRT project, kicking off big infrastructure projects during an economic downturn enables us to construct these facilities at bargain prices. We should capitalise on the current situation by building more MRTs and LRTs because construction costs are low.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of those who were not present during my presentation yesterday, I beg your permission to give a summary of what I said. The main point that I put across was that the timeliness and accuracy of information for decision-making is extremely important in this fast-changing world. And this is even so in the preparation of a nation's Budget. I touched on the increasingly alarming reports of the banks' exposure to regional economies. Malaysian banks also sustained heavy losses. Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks like events are unfolding faster than information can be gathered, analysed and disseminated. Yesterday, we got the financial results of UOB. The figure for their classified loans for regional economies is $332 million, out of the total classified loans of the bank of $991 million. Since this is the first time the bank has made such a disclosure, there was no historical data with which I can compare and get the year-to-year difference. But it may be sufficient to surmise that the difference between the $991 million and $332 million, as just mentioned, was due to local loans, and the difference is about $660 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, $660 million classified local loans. A similar analysis of DBS Bank gives us a figure of $735 million for classified local loans. With just these two banks, the combined figure is a staggering $1.4 billion. I wish to highlight here that the $1.4 billion for the two banks must be telling us that there are many local enterprises who cannot service their loans any more. The figure will be bigger if we combine the results of all the big four, Hong Kong Bank, Standard Chartered, Citibank and other banks that lend to our companies. Further analysis shows that for UOB, the $332 million classified loan is out of the 19.”
“All these make good planning sense and I have no doubt that the nation would benefit from such an integrated approach. In summary, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The third point I would like to bring up is on clause 18(2). The Bill maintains that the competent authority is to grant outline permission only after having considered matters relating to the land use, intensity, type, form and height of the proposed development. What I would like to highlight is the word "form". Essentially, the competent authority has the subjective power to decide whether he likes the design put up by the architect. Would it not be better that the design aspect of the development, such as form, be left in the good hands of the design architects? In a free market economy, I doubt that the developer or design architects would be likely to put up a design which is not economically attractive. By not restricting the form, we can then make headway in encouraging our designers to be more creative and innovative. I believe this is something most of us would like to look forward to in the future of our nation. Having made all these comments, Sir, I want to state the fact that the Planning Bill 1998 has managed to capture the spirit of the previous Planning Act. To enhance its intended purposes, this new Bill contains several additional provisions which I believe would be welcomed by the members of the public. For example, the Bill now allows the competent authority to grant subdivision permission at the same time while it is granting planning or conservation permission. This saves time and energy. Clause 15(1)(h) gives the competent authority the powers to require the developers to design and construct buildings with better links between them. This requirement would not only increase public convenience but also allow for a better flow of pedestrian traffic.”
“This clause, which is already in existence in the current Act, states that not less than 30% of the floor area of any development on the land shall remain in the ownership of one person for a period of 10 years. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as the Deputy Chairman of the Property Committee of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry which is currently carrying out a joint development of an office building downtown. Land in Singapore is getting scarce. In order to achieve better development potential, owners of different plots of land have the tendency to amalgamate and develop their land collectively. If a new company is formed to undertake this joint development, then no technical difficulties will arise from the imposition of the 30% condition. However, there are cases in which the owners prefer to hold the amalgamated land as tenants-in-common, instead of forming a company. Upon completion of joint development, subdivision would take place and titles would be issued to the various owners as tenants-in-common. By an instrument of partition, each owner would then receive his space entitlement proportionate to his original land contribution, save and except that 30% of the floor area of the development shall remain in the names of the owners as tenants-in-common. Under this arrangement, many inconveniences will arise because consent must then be sought among all tenants-in-common for matters such as mortgage and sale, and this is not easily achieved. Hence, I would like to call on the Minister to consider modifying the condition to encourage joint development of small plots of land so as to allow larger scale comprehensive development of higher quality. I am convinced that solutions to this are readily available.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on an island republic such as Singapore where land is scarce, the law of economics dictates that real estate bears great value. It is a well-known fact that real estate accounts for a major portion of assets in many companies and for many individuals as well. Hence, an Act as important as the Planning Act carries with it the power to effect changes that will have strong and far-reaching implications on the population's distribution of wealth. The 1998 Planning Bill effectively sums up the Planning Act of 1990 with some revisions. With due regard, the current Act and the subsequent amendments have served our nation well in all aspects. The steady transformation of Singapore's skyline over the years, I believe, is only one of the positive results of the sound master planning by the competent authority. By this virtue, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill in principle. However, there are several areas which I feel deserve further study. In putting forward these points, I hope to map out the concerns that this Bill would have on the parties directly involved in the real estate industry. First, I would like to comment on clause 15(1)(f). The condition for granting approval gives the competent authority enormous power to take any amount of land out of a development at no cost. It would definitely be more persuasive, and appear more reasonable, if it is stated more specifically in the Bill that the acquired land is to be used for such purposes as substations, road widening, open space for landed estates, and so on. For the acquisition of any land for public scheme or purposes not related to development, the Land Acquisition Act should be used, instead of this one. Next, I would like to touch on clause 15(1)(g).”