Eugene Yap Giau Cheng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he would like to put up a fence to prevent trespassing. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: We also do not want to put up a fence because when the land is being built, we have got to tear down the fence. That would be a waste of public resources. We control our expenditure very tightly.”
“Sir, I am making this amendment to stress to the Minister that the ethnic integration policy introduced in 1989 has in some way affected the quality of life of my constituents. I believe this probably has also an effect in old estates such as Queenstown and Bukit Ho Swee.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, not so long ago, in the New Paper, there was a report on a man who was supposed to be the executor of the estate of the deceased brother and he was trying very hard to withdraw the CPF money of his deceased…”
“It means "We are poor people. We do not have CPF. How can we buy our own homes?" Sir, I think we ought to do something for them. When they first moved into these homes, they had no trouble because they were young, the children were young, no space constraints, but today the children have grown up, they become adults - four, five or six of…”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to reconsider the policy of not allowing Singaporeans to rent 3-room flats. This policy is already 10 years old, introduced in 1982, and I recall that when it was introduced it was meant to encourage Singaporeans to own their own homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify a point which he made in his long speech? If indeed the purpose is to subject motorists to some inconvenience by not expanding or building more roads in the city area, then why was there an announcement in the press recently to expand the PIE?”
The complete record
Every one of 386 lines we hold for Eugene Yap Giau Cheng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“But I thought the cut-off age was seven years. Earlier when I listened to the Minister, he said that cars older than seven years cannot use unleaded petrol. How is it there is this reference to Mercedes and BMWs in his answer? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got the list. Although the cut-off age is seven years, the majority of the 32,000 cars which belong to this category are the BMWs, Citroens, Ferraris, Jaguars, Saabs, Volvos and Renaults. But the most important thing is that we have to create a price differential in order to encourage the 300,000 car owners to switch to unleaded petrol. And experiences from other countries, which do not provide this incentive, show that they just do not want to switch to unleaded petrol. So we have to maintain this differential to make it worthwhile for people to switch to unleaded petrol.”
“You would be reducing the tax for those using unleaded petrol. Similarly, you will be increasing the tax for those who cannot use unleaded petrol. Even without increasing the tax for those who cannot use unleaded petrol, you are already penalising them. There is already a relative difference in price. So why further increase the tax?”
“In relative terms, you are already punishing or penalising those who cannot use unleaded petrol. So why further increase the tax?”
“There needs to be a concerted effort to reach children as early as possible in the kindergartens and through to primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, and tertiary institutions to seriously uphold and practise values which will naturally show in better social behaviour towards our physical environment. Town Councils too have a role to play in helping to bring about this scenario, through publicity and support, wherever possible. But it is the Government that has the machinery to penetrate every area of our society to effectively achieve this end. So I ask the Minister: does he concur with my views and, if he does, will he go through and review the Town Councils Act again and again, work out a balance between the carrot and the stick, and put in the spirit to take us through the 1990s successfully?”
“And imagine the policing you have to do, to keep a look-out for them. They do not of course commit the offence at the same time which makes life more miserable. If you cannot catch them, you still have to support the policing staff, plus another group to clean up the litter. This too goes for the issuing of parking offences and so on. You can imagine how much trouble we create for ourselves if we do not take a long-term view of this. We have to take into account the ominous labour shortage we have on our hands. For not only does the Minister for Labour not allow foreign workers to work freely in unskilled areas, we have Singaporean parents who naturally want their children to do well for themselves in more skilled areas. We have a stupendous shortage of labour in the future. We know it is not good to attract labour into this area with better pay, so we need our people to train to be part of a skilled manpower and not part of a pool of unskilled workers. So I think we should consciously institutionalise a programme to bring up future generations of Singaporeans who are naturally lovers of the environment, lovers of doing things right, lovers of conforming to the law. This way we can achieve 100% even in this area of Singaporean life. We need to look again at our existing courtesy campaigns which cater to our general public and look to some Government departments, like the Ministry of Education, which can reach the younger section of our population to help achieve this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I lend the Bill 99% support. The other 1% will depend on how the Minister replies. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to urge the Government to consider the other side of the problem. It is very well to use the stick and we have used it often enough to good effect. But should we not now turn to the carrot more than to the stick? Let us make the 1990s a decade for Singaporeans to show greater love for their country and to reflect this in a more sensitive concern and care for the place they live in. We have arrived at a stage in our history where we have achieved for ourselves a standard of economic well-being close to that of a developed nation, and I think we should set for ourselves a more refined and gracious social lifestyle that is commensurate with our stage of development. Judging from reports of how some Singaporeans are behaving with respect to their environment, I think we have lots more to do. We should press on persuading and educating Singaporeans to show concern and love for the place they call their home. By this, I mean it would be very natural for them not to litter. It becomes natural for them not to park their cars illegally. It would be natural on their part to pay up their dues on time, meaning doing what comes right naturally. This idea will tie in quite nicely with the First Deputy Prime Minister's point on striving for 100% in productivity when he launched the 10th Anniversary of the Productivity Movement not too long ago. The illustrations he used were very vivid and I would like to borrow one of them. If you do not have 100% Singaporeans behaving themselves, but only 99% right, naturally then 1% of recalcitrants constitutes 1% of 2.6 million littering, misbehaving themselves, acting unsociably.”
“I do not think it is unfair to consider curtailing his powers in this House for, after all, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, his Government has been very generous in allowing its wings to be clipped.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the intent and the spirit of the Bill to protect our country's reserves, safeguard the integrity of the civil service and maintain peace and harmony in Singapore. The checks and balances in this Bill are well-thought out and they are in place. However, during my visits to PAP branches in City East District, some people have expressed concern over the curtailment process of the Elected President's powers. The curtailment process, they feel, is inconsistent with the appointment process of the Elected President's powers. Let me illustrate. Currently, the Elected President's powers are being approved with a constitutional change by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, like what we are doing now. The powers will be conferred on the President when he is elected by the people with a simple majority vote. However, the current Bill requires a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament as well as a two-thirds majority vote in a national referendum for any amendment to curtail the Elected President's powers. The House can therefore see that we are giving the powers to an Elected President by a constitutional change approved by a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament and electing the Elected President to power with a simple majority. On the other hand, the curtailment of the Elected President's powers requires a two-thirds majority vote both in Parliament as well as in a referendum. This does not seem consistent. Would the First Deputy Prime Minister therefore like to enlighten this House on the logic behind this apparent inconsistency for, after all, you can never know, an unreasonable President may find a way to the office and it would be very difficult to curtail his powers.”
“No more do we have that stretch after stretch of palm oil plantations, coconut plantations, rubber plantations and the lot which our neighbours still have. Even the islands of Batam and Bintang still have them. They represent the piles of wealth our neighbours are bestowed with. Our plantations are gone and they are gone forever. We must, therefore, press ahead with a concentrated drive to put the soul into Singapore's future generation and bring about the blossoming of that special spirit of Singapore to take us successfully into the future. The Government's intention of having a set of shared values should be seen as a step towards giving Singaporeans this soul, and only then can we walk with our heads held high as true responsible Singaporeans.”
“Start a concentrated drive to put the soul into Singapore's future generation; ensure that a spirit that is dominated by compassion and goodwill with justice and other important values is not lost. The National Agenda, which I think is a masterly feat of engineering on the part of its creators, could be the vehicle to undertake or incorporate such a Singapore spirit. The spirit which should glow in every Singaporean's heart is a mix of responsibility and hard work, discipline and charity, courtesy and respect towards the nation, the family, the neighbours, and to oneself. The shared values that we want to develop and enhance will undoubtedly bring about the blossoming of that special spirit of Singapore within the young who can then pass that on into the future. Sir, the spirit must live on and endure! The inculcating of this spirit should not be the domain of the church or any religious organisation as part of a religion; it must be the concerted effort of all, preferably institutionalised like the productivity drive, in order to ensure that it becomes a permanent feature of the Singapore personality. If we want a nation of caring people, who would not think even of chasing old people out of the home into the corridors or return an act of parental concern with shameful neglect, then the caring nature has to become integrated into our future Singaporean. This caring nature should also extend to working life such that a Singaporean will not shirk or give what is less than the best that is expected of him. It is my hope that the driving force that compelled our forefathers to strive on against all odds will live on in the future Singaporean.”
“Such very distressing situations should have no place in our society where we strive for a more cultured life, more gracious living. One should expect more goodness, more charity in our present society built upon the very fat of a burgeoning economy. Sir, where is the soul of our nation? Have we somehow lost it somewhere along the way of progress? This is where a shared national ethos runs through the youngest to the oldest, the yellow-skinned to the brown, grey and other shades in between. For united we stand, divided we fall, so the adage runs. In fact, there seems to be now a greater urgency for all races, all faiths and cultures in Singapore to come together as never before. Our younger generation has been brought up in good times, during the economic prosperity of the 70s and the 80s; they have eaten the fruit of success. They have lived a life of instant satisfaction, the consumer culture of today and they cannot be expected to appreciate otherwise. Sir, we need to do something about this. Back in the 70s when Singapore was hard put to fight international competition on the economic front and our productivity was found wanting, somehow, the problem was diagnosed and the right steps prescribed to boost productivity. I remember then, how concentrated the onslaught was, with no letup. That was more than 10 years ago. But today we are still reaping the harvest of productivity. The National Productivity Board was restructured, we were bombarded with jingles and slogans to become productivity-conscious; the Prime Minister kicked off the productivity drive and Singapore's productivity has not lost that momentum ever since. The question, Sir, is, could we do something parallel to that?”
“What I have observed and witnessed in our midst and which has given me a greater sense of disquiet that does not seem to go away are blatant negligence and abuse inflicted upon well-meaning, if at times, too trusting parents by their adult children. You would imagine such things happening only in the Chinese serials and then, even that often dealing only with the cruelty of mothers-in-law towards their hapless, dutiful daughters-in-law but certainly not a son misguided and instigated by his wife to drive out his mother from the very home which she had so magnanimously signed over to him, never dreaming that she would be served such a turn for her selflessness. Then, there was this old man made to live in the corridor in front of his flat where he was stripped naked and water thrown on him for a bath and where he was given his food, a bowl of plain white porridge most unceremoniously. Sir, there cannot be any mitigating circumstances that can justify this gross lack of compassion. I cannot imagine what dark, unfeeling and unthinking mind could bring forth such treatment as when a man deserted his wife and son to go abroad. After an absence of 10 or more years, and with no financial support of any kind for his family, he sent word that she should sell the flat that she had been occupying all this while and keep half the proceeds; the rest belongs to him, an action that is tantamount to evicting her from the home that she had largely paid for. What distresses me most is that these acts came from relatively young persons whom we feel should know better, given the advantages of our present prosperous times. Is there something that is lacking, that we have not provided for?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Speech. However, Sir, I am rather unhappy. I am a little perturbed by what I have seen and encountered within our society. I get reminded of that saying that usually wealth within a family does not extend beyond the second generation. I have a strong wish to see a future generation that will treasure and, just as patiently build upon, add on to the past achievements of this generation of leaders. Progress, as seen in the economy, defence, education, health, housing, industry, technology and welfare, has been won at a price and to see continued progress requires further inputs, discipline and, of course, self-sacrifice. What I fear most is a lost future generation, a generation that carves itself in ugliness and impatience. The ugliness and the impatience are signs and symptoms of a generation gone a little jaundiced, and I feel strongly the need to see that such a situation does not become common-place. Sir, look at that driver who is slow to take off at a traffic light. He is tooted from behind to get him to move on. He is irritated, he gets out of his car, he goes to the vehicle behind him, opens the door and punches the driver. He returns to his car, he drives off, feeling satisfied with what he has done. Within an HDB estate, we see cleaners go out early in the morning to clear the litter and rubbish which some Singaporeans have thoughtlessly thrown down the stairs, along the corridors, and into the compounds the night before. These people could have more thoughtfully thrown their litter down the rubbish chute or into any rubbish bin where the litter rightfully belongs. See how they behave?”
“As long as more people can afford to stay there, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Can I just ask the Minister of State what he means by "a good class residential development"?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TG 5100 of the Development Estimates. Can I ask the Minister whether there are plans to develop the piece of land in Tanjong Rhu since vacated by shipyards and boatyards? In finalising these plans, will the Minister take into account the social, economic and political considerations? As this piece of prime land is perhaps one of those very few left, we should put it to good use. What I wish to see is that this piece of land will have on it good recreational, food and entertainment facilities, and a real good mix of housing types so that more people can have the opportunity to live and enjoy pleasant environment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TD 5100 of the Development Estimates. In moving this amendment, Sir, I just want to know the answer to two questions. (1) What are the recreational facilities that will be developed in Pasir Ris and Changi? (2) More importantly, what is the role of the private sector in this programme?”
“I think in all reviews, Mr Speaker, Sir, in all possibility, all criteria will have to be reviewed. I am afraid that will be affected. RENUNCIATION OF SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP (Particulars) 4. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Singapore citizens have renounced their citizenship in order to emigrate and acquire citizenship of other countries for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.”
“Sir, I thought I have been very specific because the Question was on whether the allocation of hawker stalls has been suspended. However, on the other part of it, ie, the review part, what I can say is that we will do all we can to complete the review as soon as possible. There will not be any delay.”
“Yes, we have disallowed a few that were known to have pollution hazards. In fact, as a matter of interest, in the early eighties, another investor approached us to produce titanium dioxide using the sulphate process and we had turned it down for the reasons which I have just stated. ALLOCATION OF HAWKER STALLS 3. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for the Environment whether the allocation of hawker stalls has been suspended and, if so, why. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (for the Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are currently 902 approved hardship cases, and only 119 vacant hawker stalls in food centres. These hawker stalls are mostly in unpopular food centres. They have repeatedly been offered to applicants for hawker stalls, but they have not been taken up. My Ministry is therefore reviewing its policy on hawker stalls and pending the outcome of this review, it has stopped allocating hawker stalls and processing new applications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of it but I will ask PUB to look into it. INVESTMENTS IN CHINA 14. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give the estimated value of investments by Singapore companies in the People's Republic of China and how these are affected by recent events there.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as of March 1989, there were 674,710 water meters installed in domestic premises. COMPENSATION TO RESETTLEMENT CASES (Statement by the Minister for National Development) 1.29 pm”
“My Ministry is in the process of amending the Environmental Public Health (Food Handlers) Regulations and the Environmental Public Health (Food Establishments) Regulations to introduce tighter control measures, including heavier penalties against recalcitrant hawkers and restaurant operators. The amended Regulations will be ready in three to four months' time. Sir, we will study the systems of countries with high hygiene standards, such as Japan, to learn how to upgrade the education of food handlers and our supervision of food handling. Food vendors in Singapore must learn about food and personal hygiene and they must adopt a sense of responsibility to consumers by dropping their old and dirty habits and picking up clean ones. My Ministry is very pleased to note that there is today a greater awareness amongst members of the public on food hygiene and food poisoning, brought about by wider publicity given on these topics by the press media last year. Members of the public are now more inclined to report to the Ministry whenever they come down with diarrhoea or other symptoms of food poisoning when they consume food bought from eating establishments. Health inspectors from my Ministry will carry out full investigations into every complaint and report of food poisoning made by members of the public to my Ministry. CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL II (Effects of repatriation of illegal Thai workers) 6. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the recent repatriation of a substantial number of illegal Thai workers has affected the construction works of Changi Airport's Passenger Terminal II and, if so, whether there will be a delay in its operation date scheduled for mid-1990.”
“Sir, 191 cases of food poisoning were reported in 1988 as compared with 135 in 1987 and 91 in 1986. The majority of these food poisoning reports were made by members of the public to my Ministry. Inspections of eating establishments carried out by my Ministry throughout the year, however, showed that there has not been a deterioration in food hygiene standards amongst food handlers in 1988. The number of contraventions on food and personal hygiene by food vendors was less in 1988, 6.7% of premises inspected compared to 9.1% of premises inspected in 1987. My Ministry, however, will continue to step up checks against all food vendors in food establishments. Sir, every licensed food establishment is placed on a schedule of inspection. On an average, eating establishments and food stalls are checked once a month. Those with poorer records are inspected more than once a month. My Ministry takes a very serious view against improper practices of food and personal hygiene amongst food vendors. Every restaurant manager, every eating house proprietor, every hawker, food caterer and anyone involved in the sale of food must be fully responsible and accountable for the standard of hygiene of food sold by him and the cleanliness of the premises where food is prepared. Sir, since September 1987 licensees of eating establishments, including hawkers, are given demerit points whenever they are convicted of any food hygiene offences. Those who have accumulated 12 points within 12 months will have their licences suspended for two weeks. And if they continue to commit further offences, their licences may be revoked.”
“Sir, firstly greater public awareness. Greater public awareness through campaigns, mini-campaigns, exhibitions, widespread publicity and talks. In fact, Members of Parliament have actually spearheaded some of these campaigns and I would like to thank them for it. The other is greater or more selective enforcement action in areas that are more litter-prone, spitting-prone. So all these efforts have actually worked together and have a fairly good influence on a large section of the population. The people today are more civic-minded; they are more aware that spitting and littering are bad social habits and refrain from them. What future plans do we have to further reduce bad habits? Sir, we will carry on with our publicity education programmes. We will also step up our selective enforcement action in areas that are litter-prone, spitting-prone. We will think of new ways, new ideas, to discourage the population from spitting, littering, other bad habits, and of course if Members of Parliament have any useful ideas, we welcome them to share with us. For instance, I think last year Mr Chew Heng Ching suggested that we go on a more carrot-type of method to discourage litterings. Since then we have tried in three constituencies, I believe, Telok Blangah, Tampines and Toa Payoh. Today we are assessing the effectiveness of the competition and of course, if successful, we will introduce them to more constituencies. DEREGISTERED TAXIS (Diesel tax refund) 5. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will consider allowing taxi diesel tax refund to be pro-rated on a daily basis instead of monthly basis when a taxi is scrapped.”
“As in the 1987 Annual Economic Survey, progress of SMEs has been reported in Chapter 2. There is therefore no necessity for a separate chapter on SMEs.”
“Many SMEs have benefited from various development incentives and assistance schemes. We read about them every month in the SME Newsletters which come as inserts to the Productivity Digest. But I just quote a few examples. First, local investment commitments increased from $295.1 million in 1987 to $347.8 million in 1988. The number of local enterprises has increased from 64,200 in 1987 to more than 71,000 in 1988 and the recent survey on 29 SME participants in LIUP (Local Industry Upgrading Programme) showed, between 1986, which is before participation, and 1987, which is during participation, average output per worker increased by 23% and average value added per worker increased by 16%. Sir, the Government has fulfilled its role very well in helping SMEs. The role of the Government is mainly to provide a conducive environment for business to grow in, the infrastructure and the necessary incentives and assistance schemes. The Member for Cairnhill asked for information regarding venture capital fund. Sir, the venture capital fund was established in 1985 with $100 million. So far, part of the $100 million has been used to help set up two Singapore-based venture capital funds and these venture capital funds have invested in several SMEs in Singapore. Some of the funds have also been used to invest in five other venture capital funds overseas. The object of this is, of course to give Singapore a window to high technology so that we can gain access to information relating to high technology start-ups and some monies have also been directly invested in 10 companies, of which three are local SMEs. The total commitment so far is $35 million. The Member for Cairnhill raised the question of a separate chapter for SMEs.”
“Sir, I will take the point on SMEs. The Members for Cairnhill and Thomson have suggested an SME Board to give more attention, better attention, and more focus on SMEs. Sir, as of now, there is still no need for a SME Board. Please allow me to explain. First, Members may recall that the SMED (Small Medium Enterprises Division) was established in 1986, and only as a small department in the EDB then known as SEB, which is the Small Enterprises Bureau. Today, the SMED is a division of the EDB and working side by side with equal importance, equal effectiveness, as the IDD (Industry Development Division) and, as if to emphasize the importance of SMEs, the chief of the IDD is today the chief of the SMED. The EDB has found this arrangement very good to assist the SMEs to respond very quickly to the changing economic conditions, to help them to grow, help them to develop higher value activities and gain their rightful position in Singapore's new economic structure in the 1990s. There is therefore no need to have an SME Board. The Member for Leng Kee raised the point of performance indicators. Sir, the EDB keeps close contacts with various SMEs through periodical visits and in this way it monitors the progress of SMEs and help them of course to further develop. The banks of course keep close tabs on their ability to pay. Sir, the EDB is satisfied today with the present arrangement and there is no requirement for actual performance indicators as such. The Member for Leng Kee asked whether the Government has done enough. Sir, the Government has done more than its fair share. Figures to that effect were given in a table which accompanied a Question for Oral Answer raised by the Member for Cairnhill a month ago.”
“Roughly, in Lim Tua Tow Market, the size of a lock-up stall is 8.1 sq metres, compared to Beo Crescent Market, 6.7 sq metres; Chong Pang Market, 6.7 sq metres; Bukit Timah, 6.5 sq metres; North Bridge Road Market, 4.4 sq metres. Then there is another ---”
“Sir, Mr Chin also suggested giving merit points as an encouragement to those who conform with our requirements in food handling and food hygiene. I think this is a good idea. We will ask the officers to consider this. He made some remarks on outdoor catering services. We do check outdoor catering services once a month and spot checks are also carried out on them when we come across them, say, for example, at void decks. But whatever we do, in my view, we also require consumers to play their part and here we have made it for the convenience of the public by making it a requirement for such services to state their advertisement licence number in the advertisement in whichever press they place them in. If there is any doubt in the minds of the public, of course, the public can always call us up. The hon. Encik Ibrahim Othman wanted to know how the Ministry of the Environment ensures proper food handling and personal hygiene of hawkers, including proper attire. I have mentioned this briefly earlier on. I would just add that in our inspections we do also advise hawkers on the importance of wearing clean attire to give a better presentation to the consumers. Sir, you have said that there is not enough time. There are plenty of points which I have to reply to. But I would like to reply to one specific point raised by the Member for Braddell Heights before I go on to the others, in case you cut me down. The Member has said that we have singled out his constituency for special treatment. First, let me assure him that the hawkers in his constituency are not that attractive for special treatment. He made the point that his Lim Tua Tow Market is the smallest, or one of the smallest. I have some figures here which I have just picked up this morning.”
“We have considered Mr Chin's idea of conducting courses for hawkers. Oft-times we have come out with the answer that it is really not necessary but, as he has raised it again, I will ask my officers to reconsider this point. But maybe I can suggest that we consider also getting hawkers, ie, those who have got their licences suspended after collecting 12 or more points in the Demerit Points Scheme, to undergo a course before we re-issue them a licence. I think Members will support me on that.”
“Violation of hygiene standards and fines meted out - this was mentioned in general by the Member for Boon Lay. I remember discussing this topic sometime ago in a Question for Oral Answer raised by the hon. Member, Mr Chin Harn Tong. I remember, in gist, I said that we should not look at these fines only from one aspect of punishment. Fines, the risk of losing one's licence and furthermore adverse publicity, all these taken together are actually sufficent detterents to deter people from breaching food standards. Nevertheless, my Ministry will amend the Environmental Public Health Regulations to increase the maximum fine for the first offence to $1,000. The second and subsequent offence will carry a maximum fine of $4,000 or a jail term not exceeding three months or both. The MP for Changi expressed his concern over cutting corners on food hygiene, especially in relation to privatization. For this reason, I agree with the hon. Mr Chin Harn Tong on the importance of conducting courses for food handlers and making them more aware of the importance of food hygiene and food standards. We do have an on-going programme to educate hawkers on proper food and hygiene practices. For instance, we call hawkers up in groups and in this briefing session we do show slides and transparencies to impress upon the hawkers the importance of keeping clean personal hygiene and also to keep food clean. As far as I can remember, as of last year, we covered 3,000 hawkers and we will carry on with our programme of creating awareness among our hawkers on the importance of food hygiene. We also do conduct periodic health checks and educational checks on food handlers. These checks are directed not only at the food handlers but also on their assistants.”
“Sir, I would like to reply to the various MPs according to the topics and issues raised. The Member for Boon Lay wants to know how the Ministry plans to further tighten control on illegal food production and the example he quoted was the ngoh hiang factory and I think the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC raised the same question. They are, of course, concerned with the very petty punishment that the factory got away with. Sir, we will continue to check retail outlets and ensure that the food sold is only obtained from licensed sources. Of course, if we catch any person engaging in any illegal food production, we will take steps, and tough steps too, to press for deterrent measures on them, including confiscation of property such as vehicles and so on. We will also take steps to close the factory down. The MP for Tiong Bahru GRC feels that the recent penalty meted out on the illegal ngoh hiang factory was a bit too light. For the information of Members, four charges were made against the illegal ngoh hiang factory. These are (a) selling unclean food; (b) operating a food establishment without a licence; (c) preparing food under insanitary conditions; and (d) polluting a water course. The first charge which the Member mentioned was heard in court on 24th February and the operator was fined $500 which was the maximum fine for that particular offence. The second, third charges are fixed for hearing in court on 16th May 1989 and the fourth charge is coming up for mention on 20th April 1989. The second, third and fourth charges carry heavier maximum fines. Furthermore, imprisonment is also prescribed for the second and third charges. Sir, my Ministry will be pressing for deterrent sentences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The total Skills Development Fund levy collected in 1988 was $24 million. Some $61 million was committed for training in the same year. The programmes that were sponsored include, amongst others, the training of technical skills, productivity and QCC-related training, computer-related training, BEST and COSEC. Altogether 274,000 training places were taken up by these programmes in 1988. MEDISAVE FOR ANNUAL MEDICAL CHECK-UPS 10. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Acting Minister for Health whether he will allow the use of Medisave for annual medical check-ups. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Medisave scheme was introduced specifically to meet the hospitalization needs of the average Singaporean worker and his immediate family. Since the implementation of the scheme in 1984, my Ministry has already extended Medisave to cover services not originally considered such as day surgery, radiotherapy and expenses incurred for delivery of the third child. My Ministry plans to also extend Medisave to cover the catastrophic illness insurance scheme. My Ministry currently has no plan to further extend the usage of Medisave. We need to be sure that the current 6% Medisave contribution rate could still provide adequate savings to meet the individual's hospitalization needs during his or her old age before considering any further extension on the use of Medisave.”
“Sir, the scheme has just started. 18 for 1988 is considered quite good. As to how many will qualify for 1989, I do not have the figures. I do not know who have applied. Maybe at the appropriate time, the Member for Cairnhill may want to ask the same question and I will be too pleased to give him the answer. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND (Particulars for 1988) 9. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, in respect of the Skills Development Fund for the year 1988, (i) how much was collected, (ii) how much was paid out for the training of workers and managers, and (iii) how many of them were trained.”
“Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Communications and Information what will be the impact on telephone service and the cost of that service to residential customers over the next 5 years as a result of the recent reorganization of the Tele-communication Authority of Singapore.”
“He would not have known about it. The fact that it was publicised gave everybody the knowledge that Mayflower, Kelong, well-known restaurants, were in trouble. In fact, when the Kelong case was publicised, we had calls the next day from various consumers, I suppose patrons of the restaurant, asking about the status with regard to Kelong itself. Why? Perhaps they were going to hold functions there or they wanted to hold birthday parties or wedding parties. "Should I go?" So the very fact that people are aware, and are afraid, is sufficient adverse publicity for the restaurants. I would also inform the Member that on several occasions when such things happen, the restaurants will be the first to come and tell us, "Please, if you can, do not give us adverse publicity." So I do not think that demerit points alone or a fine is sufficient to deter anybody. I think it is basically the total system that works. And we hope that all the systems that we have will deter restaurants like Kelong, Mayflower, or others who are callous to be more careful with the way they handle food. The other question is whether I can assure the House that violation of such a nature in future will be more severely punished. Yes, I can assure him. We will certainly ensure that in future we will make sure that people who are callous, and so on and so forth, with food handling practices will be duly punished. At the end of it all, I think the consumers have a part to play. The Government cannot play all this role by itself. Every Singaporean is a consumer, the silent majority. And if every Singaporean makes it a point to demand clean food, good food, then I think that we can together ensure that food sold in Singapore is clean and healthy. TELEPHONE SERVICE (Impact and cost to residential customers) 4.”
“First, the hon. Mr Chin wants me to list out the five restaurants and the snack bars that have been given demerit points. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I do not have the names of the restaurants and the snack bars. So I cannot provide him the answers. But if he wants, I can arrange to send them to him. The other question concerns Mayflower Restaurant. Why was this popular restaurant given such a light punishment, so to speak, by the court? Mr Speaker, Sir, first, we have to realize that we have no jurisdiction over the courts as to what they want to do or not want to do, in terms of meting out punishment. Secondly, I agree with him that, in today's context, the fines may not be a sufficient deterrent. But I would go on to say that we have to look at the whole system of punishment and not only one particular aspect of it. We have the demerit points system, we have the fines, we have adverse publicity. However, I cannot recall the case of Mayflower Restaurant as clearly as I can of the Kelong Restaurant. The Kelong committed certain offences in relation to public health regulations. They caused an outbreak of food poisioning. And what happened after that? Generally, I would think that only demerit points or stiffer penalties will deter restaurants such as Mayflower or Kelong from repeating offences like that or prevent them from being callous. But I think the important thing is that we realize many managements of such well-known restaurants are afraid of adverse publicity. And here I would compliment the press for doing their bit in terms of providing the type of publicity so that consumers are aware of the status of each restaurant that is serving food to them. If the press had not come out with such publicity, I think Mr Chin would not have read about it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was actually limiting my discussion to Mr Hendrickson. My point is that Mr Hendrickson carried out some surreptitious meetings with Mr Francis Seow and some other lawyers and encouraged them to stand for election, take the Government on. I said that Mr Hendrickson has so far not denied these things. That is one. The other point is that I was actually discussing about Mr Hendrickson, as I said earlier on. I was not discussing about detainees and so on. My point is that there was a point made by Mr Hendrickson that there is no credible Opposition in Parliament. Then I said, "What? No credible Opposition? What is the Member for Potong Pasir doing here in this Chamber?" In fact, I was giving him an opportunity to say something against what Mr Hendrickson has done. I wonder why he is not happy that I am speaking in support of him being here.”
“The professionals know how to look after themselves. In fact, some of these hawkers and taxi drivers have already approached me in my Meet-the-People session and have raised this question. What question? The question is, can we qualify to apply to stay in America? My answer, "I don't know. But if you want to know and you are serious about it, then I will help you to enquire at the United States Embassy." If the United States Embassy can assure these taxi drivers and hawkers that they can absorb all Singaporeans, our hawkers can have a stall in the hawker centres in America to sell their kway-teow, their mee rebus, our taxi drivers can have a licence to drive taxis in competition with those in New York, then our workers can be guaranteed a job in America and have a standard of living they enjoy here today, I may be prepared to go along with Mr Hendrickson to turn the Singapore Parliament into an American-style Parliament. But if he is not able to guarantee these things, then I say to Mr Hendrickson and to other foreigners with similar designs, "Please, keep clear of our domestic political affairs."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before lunch I was making a point that Singapore's political development must be left on its own to evolve and it ought not to imitate the gun-slinging trigger-happy Texan cowboy of the Wild, Wild West. Sir, unlike many other countries in the world, Parliament in Singapore must be a place where people's problems are discussed seriously with both Government and Backbenchers. None of us should become a marionette to any foreign power, lest decisions be taken that cannot serve the general interest of all Singaporeans. IfSingaporeans feel that the Member for Potong Pasir is inadequate, or for that matter any one of us, it is up to Singaporeans to decide who they want in Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that the covert goings-on between Mr Hendrickson and Mr Francis Seow are definitely not in the interest of all Singaporeans and Singapore. Let Singaporeans choose whom they want and the form of the Government they want. Foreigners should keep their noses out of our porridge. Sir, in his over-zealous attempts to promote his own country's interest, Mr Hendrickson has gone beyond the bounds of his host country's hospitality. If only he had asked himself this one very sober question, should the group of people he has cultivated turn out to be a disappointment, should it be a mistake Mr Hendrickson should never have committed, then has he plans to offer every Singaporean a place in America? A place in America, well, we will find our own way there. I think we have got enough money in the CPF to pay for our plane ticket. But when we are there, can Mr Hendrickson guarantee us a standard of living that we all enjoy here in Singapore? Sir, I am thinking particularly of the workers in Singapore, the taxi drivers, the bus drivers and the hawkers.”
“Has Mr Hendrickson considered what the consequences would be should this group of people eventually fail him, worst still, fail all Singaporeans? Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore, like the United States, upholds the principles of parliamentary democracy. There are as many as 20 registered political parties in Singapore and every one of them, including any aspiring Singaporean who wants to stand even as an Independent, can do so without let or hindrance in any election or by-election. There is really no need for any foreign power to play the role of godfather. Without a thorough under- standing of the culture of the Indian people, the Malay people, the Chinese people, Mr Hendrickson assumed the role of a guardian mentor and hoped to pattern the political development and democracy in Singapore according to the American mould. In any case, even if he had a thorough understanding of all the varied cultures in Singapore, he had no right to interfere in our domestic political affairs. If his chosen puppets do not perform as he had wished them to perform, it is not going to be him who will suffer but surely all Singaporeans. Surely he must know that there is such a thing as what is meat to one can be poison to another. Singapore's political development must be left on its own to evolve. It ought not to imitate the gun-slinging, trigger-happy, Texan cowboy of the Wild Wild West. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unlike many other countries in the world, Parliament in Singapore must be a place where people's problems are discussed seriously with both Government and Opposition.”
“In fact, Mr Hendrickson's deliberate exercise is an insult to the Member for Potong Pasir who has in his own ways contributed to the business of government. Sir, at this juncture, I would like to persuade the Member for Potong Pasir to join Singaporeans and register to all foreign powers that they should not in future interfere in Singapore's domestic political affairs. And he can easily do this by supporting the motion of the Member for Braddell Heights. The Member for Potong Pasir is a valid Opposition Member in Parliament. He is here because of the wishes of the people of Potong Pasir, not because of any foreign power. Is Mr Hendrickson saying that the people in Potong Pasir are wrong in electing him? Then what about the PAP? Those of us in the PAP who are here are here because of the wishes of the majority of the people in the constituencies we represent. Again, is Mr Hendrickson saying we are wrong? Sir, under the guise of championing for a credible Opposition, Mr Hendrickson was, in fact, trying his hand at being a chess player, moving some pieces about in the hope of checkmating the Government. He played a very very bold game indeed. What can he expect from these moves? If he had succeeded, how would Singapore have figured out in his plans? But in my view, the most important point is: whose interests would have been served? Singaporeans' interests or Mr Hendrickson's interest? I think, in doing what he did, Mr Hendrickson is, in fact, insulting the intelligence of all Singaporeans. Does he imagine that Singaporeans are so naive that they cannot exercise their crucial judgment in selecting their own leaders? Surely not. Then what about the other scenario?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the hawkers appealed for lock-up stalls. At that point of time, when we were resiting the street hawkers, there were more than enough lock-up stalls to accommodate these hawkers who were selling different wares along the streets. There was therefore no need to convert them into lock-up stalls. As of today, there are still plenty of lock-up stalls around and therefore there is no need to convert any more market produce stalls to lock-up stalls. MR FRANCIS SEOW (Release from detention to attend High Court hearing) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 4. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether Mr Francis Seow will be released from detention in time to make preparations for and to attend the High Court hearing on 18th May, 1988 of the application for habeas corpus on behalf of his clients Patrick Seong and Teo Soh Lung.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just have the question again? Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, on 1st December 1983 the Cuppage Road Market Stallholders Association appealed through the MP to convert the empty vacant stalls for the sale of household wares and sundry goods. I am asking the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether his Ministry would consider this request which was made in December 1983.”
“For similar appointments, in other words, same distance from the city, same facilities provided, our comparisons show that it is competitive. We have not been charging unreasonably.”
“I will have to consult the JTC and come back. BG Lee Hsien Loong: It is a very complicated bit of algebra which I do not want to confuse Members with. But basically the principle is, when you lease a piece of land for 30 years and build a factory building on it at the beginning of 30 years, when 30 years are up, the factory building reverts to the Government together with the land because the lease has expired. If you have a 30-year lease and 20 years have past, and you now build a factory building, in 10 years' time when the lease is up - technically and legally, we will be entitled to take the whole thing back, including the factory. But, of course, if we did that, 10 years before the end of the lease, nobody would build a factory building. The property will go to pot because they know it is all going to go back to the Government. Therefore, there is a pro-rated scale. The closer the end of a lease, you build, the greater the discount on the premium when you renew the lease. It is as simple as that. In fact, there has been no JTC rental revision upwards. Members seem to be greatly alarmed, but we did not do that. We removed the discount, yes. But the discount was due to expire after two years, in fact one year extended to two years, time is up. We took the opportunity to revise the rates to the market rate. In the process some came down, some went up. I take the Member for Chua Chu Kang's point that it is a bit difficult to establish the market rate in Singapore because JTC owns such a big part of industrial property in Singapore. It is a question which has exercised the Ministry. We have tried to establish a parity by comparing our rates with rates in other NICs, in Hong Kong and Taiwan.”
“Again, Mr Chairman, Sir, there is a formula I have here. But I do not know how I am going to do it, now that I should not be showing things outside this House. But if the Member would like, if he would have patience with me, I would just tell the House that the formula is based, very roughly, on current lease, renewed lease, economic lifespan of the building and actual construction cost incurred by the current lessee, and from there we work out the premium.”
“Sir, I did not say that when there is demand the price will go up. I said that the price will reflect the demand. As of now, there is no indication that we will increase the rentals.”
“Sir, in fact, JTC is embarking on a programme to build more factories because there is demand. And as long as there is demand, then of course the price will have to reflect the demand. Let me assure the Member that whatever rentals these people pay are in a way comparable to private flatted factories that are available today. If you want to see a graph of it, I can show it to you, not outside this House. We can always get it photostated and show it to you.”