Goh Chee Wee
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to thank HDB and the Government for the upgrading programmes. We saw 4,900 units of flats in my constituency, Boon Lay, benefiting or about to benefit from the Interim and Main Upgrading Programmes. For older constituencies like Boon Lay, most if not all of the flats are eligible for main upgrading.”
“There will be no need to panic and rush to secure COEs at all costs and this will address the kiasu syndrome expressed by Mr Chew Heng Ching earlier on. 1.15 pm In short, the authority must lay out clear rules and regulations and devise a fair and workable system.”
“The actual cost savings to the taxi operators would, therefore, come only from the existing fleet of taxis which were subject to the old tax regime. Nevertheless, there are sizable savings which could be passed on to the taxi drivers.”
“We already have Mercedes and London cabs on our roads to cater for those who are prepared to pay more to travel in style and comfort. One day we might have Kancil and Daihatsu taxis to cater to the budget-conscious commuters, provided the vehicles meet LTA's conditions.”
“Until such time when the taxi industry is completely deregulated, I propose that the Government fix the price of COEs for taxis in the same way that the taxi fares are regulated. We do not expect the taxi fares to fluctuate monthly, neither should the COE price for taxis.”
“Sir, there is currently no plan to extend the MRT line to the cargo and engineering complexes. Any extension will have to be justified in terms of cost and ridership. We should also consider the fact that the cargo and engineering complexes in Changi are housed in a sprawling area and I believe they cover 70 hectares.”
The complete record
Every one of 409 lines we hold for Goh Chee Wee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“4% or more than half of the Singaporean workers earned less than $800 a month. If we deduct the employee's CPF, the take-home pay comes to $616. So 52.4% of Singaporeans actually earned less than $616 in take-home pay a month and 31.9% earned less than $462 a month in 1989. Are all these low-income earners part-timers and school children doing work during vacations? The answer is definitely no. We do not have hundreds and thousands of people working part time. As a matter of fact, the total number of part-time workers, and this includes the school children, who were included in the statistics were only 32,000 - this is according to the statistics - or 2.6% of the total workforce of more than a million people. This is a very insignificant number. So if we take out all the part-timers or school children of 32,000 from the statistics, it would hardly change the picture of the income distribution. Even if we assume that all those who earned below $400 a month were part-timers and school children, you still cannot run away from the fact that almost 50% of the full-time Singaporean workers earned less than $800 a month and 30% earned less than $600 a month. And this is before the CPF deductions. This was the 1989 figure, I should stress. We should see some improvement when the 1990 survey result is out. Sir, I presented some of these data last week, but I was laughed at when the Finance Minister simply dismissed what I said by claiming that most of the low-wage earners were school children and part-timers. Maybe the moral of the story is: it is safer to join in the chorus of praise for our great achievements; talk about the poor and you run the risk of being ridiculed. Then we have this woman journalist by the name of Sumiko Tan who was too anxious to demonstrate her wisdom.”
“Sir, retrenchment benefit is particularly critical and a help to low income workers who because of their low wages do not have sufficient savings of their own to tide over the period of unemployment. I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate this problem of low wage workers. During the budget debate last week, I quoted figures published by the Department of Statistics which show that in 1989 12% of the employed persons earned less than $400 a month and 34% of them earned less than $600 a month. The Minister replied that most of the low income earners were part-time workers or school children doing work during vacation. I was indeed taken aback by the Minister's remark. Unfortunately, the Year Book of Statistics from which I took the figures did not contain the detailed breakdown of who these people are. So I went back to check from the other relevant sources to verify the actual facts. With your permission, Sir, I would like to circulate a few tables which show the income distribution of our workers. [Copies of tables circulated to hon. Members.] These data are obtained from the Labour Force Survey of Singapore conducted by the Ministry of Labour and the Year Book of Statistics published by the Department of Statistics. The latest available data were those collected in 1989. Table 1 shows the number of workers by income group. Table 2 shows the income profile of our workers. If you look at Table 2, in 1989, 12.4% of the workers in Singapore earned less than $400; 34% earned less than $600 and 53.5% earned less than $800. Some may say that those earning low wages were the foreign workers. So let us take a look at the income distribution of Singaporeans. The figures are given in Table 3 and Table 4. Look at Table 4. 52.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for all the replies and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, let me speak on the next subject on food hygiene. During the previous budget debate, I raised the question of illegal food factory which posed a health hazard to the consumers. I believe the Ministry has stepped up action to stamp out the illegal food factories. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has succeeded in wiping out completely all the illegal food factories in Singapore.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, through public education and imposition of fines, Singapore has earned for itself the reputation of being a clean and fine city. The state of cleanliness in the public places gives tourists the impression that all Singaporeans are very well behaved. But if you go around the housing estates, you will discover, to your horror, how filthy the estate can be, especially during certain times of the day. It is litter, litter, everywhere. But in spite of all the campaigns and public education, the number of littering offences is still significant. The Ministry of the Environment has to employ a large contingent of enforcement officers to take enforcement actions against littering and spitting offenders. In the past the HDB officers are empowered to take enforcement action. But some town councils are reluctant to take on such enforcement role. So I would like to ask the Minister what plan does the Ministry have to resolve the manpower problem. Would the Ministry contemplate appointing volunteers, for instance, who would report offenders to the Ministry? And what other alternatives would the Ministry consider?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for all the replies and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 1.00 pm”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, let me turn to the subject of CFC consumption. Singapore has signed the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Under the Protocol, Singapore is obliged to reduce in stages the consumption of CFCs. I would like to ask the Minister of our progress in reducing the consumption of CFCs and whether we are able to comply with the schedule specified under the Protocol. I would also like to know how is our industry coping with the reduced supply of CFCs.”
“I wonder how successful the pilot project has been and whether the project will be extended to other housing estates. I would also like to know whether the Ministry of the Environment has any plans to launch a nation-wide campaign to promote recycling in offices, in the factories and at homes. 4.15 pm”
“Sir, let me next talk on the subject of waste recycling. Sir, I believe that much can be done in the area of recycling so as to reduce wastage and conserve our valuable resources. The modern age is characterised by a "throw-away" mentality. We throw away many things, even though they can be re-used or recycled. A good example is the disposable crockery which are discarded after they are used. Another example is the plastic container and other packaging materials which are thrown away instead of being re-used or recycled. Even in the offices, there are a lot of wastages. Just look at the amount of paper wastes which are churned out in all the offices in Singapore. I wonder how many people have the habit of writing on both sides of the paper today and I wonder how many people use the other side of the computer form as writing paper. Years ago, I remember that the Government directed the various Ministries to re-use envelopes for sending mail. So the envelope was used again and again. I think the Government was then embarking on an austerity drive. But as the Government becomes richer, this practice has stopped. So perhaps it is time to re-start the practice again. Sir, at homes there are a number of things which we can do to encourage recycling. Instead of throwing everything down the chute or garbage bins, the residents can be asked to segregate the wastes into paper, plastic and other wastes. The waste paper, for instance, can be collected and sent to the paper mills for recycling. The same can be done in offices and in the factories. Last year, the Ministry of the Environment did a pilot project to encourage the residents in the housing estates to sort out the refuse and discard them in separate refuse bins.”
“55 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, one of the major campaigns launched by the Ministry of the Environment last year was the Clean and Green Week. The programme was aimed at promoting public awareness in the protection of the environment and care for the nature. The GPC for the Environment fully supports the Ministry's efforts to create greater awareness among our population of their role in preventing environmental pollution and preserving a pleasant living environment. We notice that a good cross-section of our population were involved in the campaign. They included the schools, grassroots organisations, business community and the mass media. I would like to ask the Minister for his assessment of the effectiveness of the campaign, whether the campaign has achieved its objectives and whether our people are more aware of what they are supposed to do to protect the environment. I believe many people still associate the Clean and Green Week with merely keeping Singapore clean, but it actually goes beyond that. There is a host of environmental matters which one must address, such as conservation of resources, waste recycling, depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, etc. I believe that during the Clean and Green Week the Ministry of the Environment had tried to introduce all these concepts and concerns to our people, but I do not know how much of these ideas have sunk in. So perhaps in the subsequent years the Ministry should take a more focused approach. For instance, they can just focus on one or two issues, like waste recycling, so that our people would have a more in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. So I would like the Minister's comment on this. 3.”
“According to the survey conducted by the World Executives' Digest, the Singapore top executives are now the highest paid in Asia. This is not NTUC's statistics, but this is a survey conducted by World Executives' Digest. Singapore Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) grossed annual salaries of US$114,000. It goes down the line, Hong Kong US$96,000; Australia US$92,000; South Korea US$87,000 and so on. Sir, I do not begrudge how much the managers earn. They can earn as much as they wish. But what I cannot accept is to point our fingers at the poor workers and say, "Hey, your salary is too high" when it is the managers' pay which is growing out of proportion. What I have found most objectionable is the suggestion to reduce the foreign workers levy or to bring in more foreign workers, which will bring down further the wages of those who are already earning miserable wages. Sir, I must remind employers that they cannot expect to make money or continue to make good money in a country if the people are discontented and feel that they are unjustly treated. One of the main causes of discontentment and social unrest, as had happened elsewhere, is the wide disparity in income between the poor and the rich. I am not saying that this is going to happen in Singapore, but employers would do well to help narrow the income gap by raising the wage level of low income workers, not depressing it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel compelled to say something in the midst of all these calls for restraining wage increases. Yesterday, many MPs have expressed concern over the rising cost of doing business in Singapore. Many pointed their fingers at the rising wages. Some suggested the deferment of the increase in CPF contribution rate. Some suggested that we bring in more foreign workers to contain the wage increases. Sir, I am very concerned and worried about the way things are going. Let me quote the statistics which show the income distribution of the wage-earners in Singapore. The latest published figures are contained in the Yearbook of Statistics 1989. The 1990 statistics should be available some time this year. In 1989, out of a total workforce of 1.26 million, 156,000 or 12% earned less than $400 a month. 428,000 workers or 34%, which is one in three, earned less than $600 a month. And I checked the figures published in the latest CPF Annual Report and it also showed that about 10% of the CPF contributors earned less than $400 a month. The wage level in 1990 and the beginning of this year could be higher than in 1989. But we are still talking about almost one-third of our working population earning less than $600 a month, and one in 10 earning less than $400 a month. I am sure all will agree with me that with the rising cost of living in Singapore, $400 a month or $600 a month can hardly be considered as sufficient to support a family. So what do we do to help these low income earners? Bring in more foreign workers to further depress their wages? It does not make sense. I must say that while the wage level of the Singaporean workers is now below those of many of the other NIEs, the wages of the senior executives and the managers have gone up tremendously.”
“Mr Speaker, perhaps the Minister can provide some figures to show that out of all those who have successfully bid for a Certificate, how many of them have actually bought a car with the Certificate, how many of them have actually transferred or sold the Certificate, obviously for a profit, and how many of them are still holding on to the Certificate hoping to make more profits.”
“So here we are, the Government is now proposing to make the co-operatives pay more to the Central Co-operative Fund bringing them closer to what commercial firms would pay by way of income tax - the application of the principle of equal misery. Between paying income tax and making contribution to the Central Co-operative Fund or the Singapore Labour Foundation, I would of course prefer making contribution to the Singapore Labour Foundation for the simple reason that the money collected by the Singapore Labour Foundation could be used to finance projects and programmes which would benefit union members and workers and their families. I therefore support the provision of the Amendment Bill which allows the co-operatives to contribute to the SLF. I would also like to add that every year, NTUC Fairprice pays patronage rebates to the customers. For instance, in 1988 NTUC Fairprice paid out $7.2 million as patronage rebates. This is equivalent to about 40% of the total surplus. So with the proposed increase in contribution to the Central Co-operative Fund or SLF and the patronage rebates paid out of the surplus of the co-operative, the contribution made by NTUC Fairprice to the Government and the community will be sizable, certainly far exceeding the amount it has to pay, if it is required to pay corporate income tax. I hope this will put to rest any allegations that the co-operative has undue advantages because of its tax-exempt status, and my comments apply not only to NTUC Fairprice but also the other NTUC co-operatives. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the co-operatives which will be most affected by the Amendment Bill are the NTUC co-operatives such as the NTUC Income, NTUC Comfort and the NTUC Fairprice. These co-operatives were set up to fulfil a useful social objective, for instance, NTUC Fairprice helps to stabilise prices and keep down the cost of living. So far, the healthy surpluses made by NTUC Fairprice have enabled the co-operative to expand its network of supermarket outlets to various parts of Singapore. From time to time, the co-operative receives requests from the residents of the new housing estates and their Members of Parliament to open new outlets in their estates. But NTUC Fairprice has to compete with other supermarkets and stores in the tender for premises. The co-operative does not receive special preferential treatment from HDB. I would have preferred that we continue with the present arrangement which requires the co-operative to pay only 5% of their surplus to the Central Co-operative Fund. In this way, the NTUC co-operatives could continue to use their financial resources to further improve and widen their services to the consumers and the community. But I am also aware of the complaints which some of the Fairprice competitors used to make, that is, NTUC Fairprice is not competing on an equal footing because it does not pay corporate income tax. If NTUC Fairprice is not efficiently run and fails in its business, I suppose no one would view the co-operative as a threat. But as the co-operative grows bigger, you can only expect complaints from the competitors.”
“Sir, as I have said, we must find ways and means to draw more Singaporeans into the workforce instead of letting in more and more foreign workers. Extending the retirement age and making part-time job available are some of the measures which we can take. Sir, I would appreciate the Minister's response to my comments and suggestions concerning part-time employment.”
“The workers also feel that they have nothing to lose if they walk out of the company any moment. I believe something can be done to improve the situation. Sir, under the Employment Act, the employers are supposed to provide certain employment benefits to the employees. These include sick leave, annual leave, medical benefits, etc. The Employment Act actually does not distinguish between full-time employees and part-time employees. In other words, the statutory benefits stipulated in the Employment Act should also apply to the part-time workers. But so far, the Ministry of Labour does not strictly enforce the Employment Act in respect of the part-time workers. I believe it is time that the Ministry drew up some rules for the employers to follow. In principle, the employers should follow the Employment Act and provide the statutory benefits to their regular part-time workers on a pro-rated basis. In other words, the part-time employees should enjoy statutory benefits proportionate to their hours of work. The employers should also follow the Employment Act when it comes to giving notice for termination of service. I must state again that what I have said should apply to the regular part-time workers who have been in continuous employment with the same employer. I am not referring to those casual part-time workers who work one day and absent the next day. I wish to inform the Minister that a number of big multi-national companies are already providing fringe benefits, besides paying wages to their regular part-time employees. They follow the Employment Act as far as possible. As a result, the part-time workforce is stable. It benefits both the employers and the employees.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to look into the question of part-time employment in Singapore. Sir, while there has been mounting pressure on the Government to let in more foreign workers, there is still a sizable pool of potential Singaporean workforce which has not been fully tapped. They are the housewives, the young retirees (those who are not supposed to have retired) and others who will be prepared to enter the workforce if part-time employment is available. Compared to many of the developed countries, the percentage of part-time workers in the workforce in Singapore is relatively low. There are a number of reasons which can explain why part-time employment is not widespread in Singapore. Apart from the question of wages, part-time workers are seldom regarded as a regular and permanent workforce of a company. They are regarded as casual workers who can be dispensed with easily. There is no commitment between the employer and the employees. The employers can just terminate the service of the employees as they wish and the employees can just refuse to turn up for work when they do not feel like working. To enlarge our labour pool, I believe part-time employment can be promoted as a regular and permanent form of employment. Companies should devise work pattern and work schedule which would enable those people who cannot work eight hours a day to work, say, four hours a day. To inculcate a sense of loyalty and commitment to the company among the part-time employees, the employer should seriously examine the terms and conditions of service of the part-time employees. Presently, many employers just pay wages to the part-time workers. There are no other fringe benefits.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $199,117,200 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $413,197,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head I -”
“My third question concerns vehicular emission. I understand that currently the Registry of Vehicles and the Traffic Police are authorised under the Road Traffic Act to book offending vehicles which emit excessive amount of smoke. But the enforcement action cannot be 100% effective. Sometimes we can see vehicles, especially the heavy vehicles like lorries and trucks, emitting heavy smoke on the road. But the ROV officers and Traffic Police were not there to book them. I would like to ask the Minister: if a member of the public reports such cases to the Ministry, would the authority take action against the offenders? Would the Ministry encourage members of the public to make such reports and, if so, who should they call - ROV, Traffic Police or the Ministry?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, under this amendment, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, on the disposal of toxic wastes. Sir, some of the industrial wastes generated by the factories and industry are highly toxic and cannot be disposed of easily. As our industry expands and new manufacturing and processing plants are set up in Singapore, the problem of industrial waste disposal will become more complex. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of the Environment has the necessary expertise to deal with such problem. I would also like to know how are the toxic wastes being disposed of today and are facilities available in Singapore to enable the companies to dispose of their toxic industrial wastes safely. My second question concerns air pollution. Currently, industries are required to install pollution-control equipment to clean the gases released into the air to safe levels, as specified in the Clean Air Act. There have been complaints, especially from the residents living in and around the industrial estate, of air pollution caused by the industry. Their main complaint is the smell. But each time a complaint is made, the Ministry of the Environment would reply, and in fact it looks like a standard reply, that "the air quality as monitored by the Ministry's Anti-Pollution Unit is within safe limits." Nevertheless, the smell remains there in the air. Perhaps this is caused by gases which escape the Ministry's detection or that the gases pose such a pungent smell that even a small quantity causes irritation. I would like to ask the Minister whether further control could be implemented to improve the situation.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I am all for the measures to be taken to improve the standard of hygiene in our food establishments, hawker centres and restaurants. As the Minister has said, the food vendors are required to source their supplies from licensed food manufacturers and licensed food establishments. But when a vendor, say, a hawker stallholder, sources his supply from a licensed food establishment, he is not aware whether the food he has sourced is contaminated or not. Take, for instance, you do not expect a noodle or kway teow soup seller to take a sample of his noodle or kway teow and send it to the laboratory for testing every morning. But under the present law, the hawker or the food vendor will be the first one to be prosecuted if the food is found to be contaminated even if he has sourced the food from a licensed establishment. This, I think, is not fair to the hawker or the food vendor concerned. I hope the Minister will review this policy. The Minister may wish to clarify on this matter.”
“Yes, if we can advance to a stage of using credit card. But I think we still have not reached that stage. A possible alternative is for the hawker centre management to arrange with all the stallholders that payment would be made only at the central cashier counter. When a customer sits down and orders his food, his purchases would be indicated on an order chit which could be presented to the cashier for payment when he leaves. The individual stallholder would be credited with their sale collections at the end of each day. I hope the Minister will consider all the suggestions that I have made.”
“The customers can buy coupons from a central cashier and use them to pay the individual stallholders. In this way, the stallholder need not handle cash. Of course, some may find the coupon system cumbersome. So other alternatives can be explored. An hon. Member: Credit card.”
“The other matter of concern to the Ministry and that of the members of the public is that the food handlers usually handle food and money at the same time. This is again an unhygienic practice. The Ministry suggests that the food handlers should not touch the food with their bare hands. They are asked to wear gloves. But if the hand which handles food also handles cash at the same time, then wearing a glove does not help to improve the practice of hygiene unless the hawker remembers to take off the glove each time he handles cash. Perhaps the hawker centre operator can introduce a coupon system. Under the coupon system, the customers can buy coupons from a central cashier and use them to pay the individual stallholders. [Interruptions.] A clean coupon, and not re-usable.”
“Sir, the Ministry of the Environment announced sometime ago that it had decided to privatise the hawker centres in phases. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has finalized the plan and schedule of privatisation. The privatisation exercise would affect the existing stallholders. In fact, the livelihood of some of the stallholders may be in jeopardy if they fail to secure a stall after the hawker centre is privatised. I suggest the Ministry give ample notice to the stallholders concerned. They should not be caught by surprise. As we know, there are shortcomings in the way the stalls are designed in the existing hawker centres. The space for each stall is small and there is inadequate washing area. I suggest the Ministry take the opportunity of privatisation to upgrade the hawker centres. Make it a condition that the successful tenderer must introduce some specific improvements to the existing centre. What I have in mind is the provision of central washing facilities for all the crockery items. Presently, each stallholder in the hawker centre provides his own utensils and crockery and does his own washing. Very often, the crockery are not properly washed. This is very unhygienic. That is how infectious diseases spread. So why not centralise and, if possible, mechanise the washing of these crockery? We can require the successful tenderer to provide centralised and mechanised washing of crockery for all the stallholders. In fact, the hawker centre operator can provide a standard range of crockery items for use by the stallholders for a fee. The operator can be responsible for clearing, washing and providing crockery to all the stallholders. In this way, we can improve the cleanliness of the crockery and the standard of hygiene at the hawker centre.”
“It has also charged a number of licensed eating establishments for various offences. However, it appears that the penalties imposed on the offen- ders are not stiff enough to serve as an effective deterrent. I recall that in January this year, after two illegal food operators were fined the maximum of $1,000 each, one of the two culprits was photographed sporting a cheerful smile and making a "V" sign in a triumphant mood. This was reported in the Straits Times on 26th January. I am sure the Minister has seen this. He is showing the "V" sign to the Minister actually. So what is the Minister going to do? Sir, I believe there must be stiffer penalties for such offenders. One could reasonably equate the sale of unhygienic food to a criminal offence. The consumption of such unhygienic food could cause food poisoning. It could even threaten the lives of those who consume the food. And unlike a criminal offence which might cause hurt and injury to an individual, food poisoning can hurt tens and hundreds of people. I would like to ask the Minister for the Environment whether the Government would consider further enhancing the penalty to deal with such offences. I would like to suggest that in cases where the offence is serious, ie, causing serious food poisoning and endangering the lives of those who have consumed the food, a mandatory jail sentence must be imposed. Besides that, the offenders must be made to pay compensations to victims who have suffered food poisoning.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, food poisoning cases are on the increase. Last year, 1,631 people suffered from food poisoning compared to 1,145 people in 1988. No less important is the fact that the level of food hygiene in some of our restaurants and stalls is enough to turn one's stomach. Over the last few months, we have been treated periodically to horrific accounts of hordes of cockroaches and traces of faeces prevailing in the kitchens of even some popular licensed eating establishments and stalls. Following complaints made by customers who frequented these eating places and suffered food poisoning as a result, the Ministry of the Environment inspected these premises and brought to light the disgusting details of dirt and filth which accompany their food preparation. If the details are not sufficiently nauseating, worse still follows when the methods of food preparation of illegal manufacturers are periodically exposed as their rural hideouts are raided. We were told of popiahs or spring rolls made in shanties adjacent to open sewers, meat fried next to rubbish dumps with water drawn from a dirty well, flies hovering everywhere, etc. I must commend the Ministry of the Environment for stepping up enforcement action over the last one year. The Ministry has succeeded in uncovering a number of illegal manufacturers which operate from their remote and unhygienic rural hideouts. I suggest the Ministry keep up with the vigilance with the view to stamping out all illegal food factories in Singapore. In the last one year, the Ministry has brought a number of illegal food manufacturers to court.”
“Besides plastic bags, there is a whole range of packaging materials used by restaurants, fast-food chains and supermarkets which are non biodegradable. They pose the same ecological problem. The solution calls for the use of substitute materials and the recycling of these packaging materials. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether positive action should be taken by the Ministry to deal with the environmental pollution matters which I have just mentioned.”
“The CFCs are very dangerous because the CFCs can make the hole bigger. Can you ban the shops selling aerosol? Can you read this letter to the Government?' So I am doing this now. Will the Minister please take note? Sir, another source of pollution which would have long-term effect on the earth and the environment is the large quantity of plastic packaging materials, including shopping bags, which are being used and discarded away these days. Plastic bags now in use in Singapore are the traditional non-biodegradable types which become solid indestructible trash when thrown away. According to estimates, Singapore shoppers snap up more than 4 million plastic carrier bags every month. Our supermarkets and department stores have been very generous in handing out the plastic carrier bags. How are these bags being disposed of? They could be burnt in the incinerator together with the other household garbage. But it gives out carbon dioxide and possibly other noxious fumes. And if they are thrown away and even buried as refuse, the plastic refuse will remain there for hundreds of years. They will not disintegrate. There are biodegradable or photodegradable bags which are good substitutes. The photodegradable bags disintegrate after being exposed to daylight for a certain period. There are manufacturers of such photodegradable bags in Singapore but there is little local demand. The products are primarily for export. Here again, public education will be useful. The supermarkets and stalls should be persuaded to use the photodegradable bags. Consumers too should be educated to understand the problem of environmental pollution caused by the use and disposal of the plastic bags.”
“This is where I believe the Ministry of the Environment can work with private organisations and the consumer bodies to educate the public and to create awareness. For instance, the CFCs are commonly used as aerosol propellants. There should be a campaign to educate the public not to buy aerosol products which contain CFCs. There are substitutes for CFC gas. The manufacturers should be asked to use substitute gases. The Government should ultimately ban the use of CFCs in aerosol products. But in the meantime, we could require aerosol manufacturers to label on the cans or containers whether the product contains CFC. Consumers should then be encouraged to buy only those aerosol products which do not contain CFCs. Just to illustrate the kind of education which we can introduce to create awareness, let me read some of the letters which I have received from a number of small school children sometime last year. The students were, of course, guided by their teachers in writing these letters. But in the process, they learn and education starts from the school. Let me quote this letter from a student of Dover Court Preparatory School. The letter reads: 'Dear Mr Goh Chee Wee. I am a student at Dover Court. My name is Olof. I come from Sweden. I am eight years old. I am learning about the earth. I know that there is a hole in the ozone layer. I want to ban making and using aerosols with CFC. So can you try to ban this also, Mr Goh Chee Wee?' That is one. There is another letter also from the same school. We know he is guided by the teacher, but this is the education process. It reads: 'Dr Mr Goh Chee Wee. Hello, my name is Chris Sani. I came from Thailand. I am nine years old. I am studying about the earth. I have found that the CFCs are eating the ozone layer.”
“Sir, while still on the subject of environmental pollution, I would like to raise a question concerning our role in the global action to protect the environment. Sir, environmental issues had dominated the agenda of many of the world forums in recent years. There is now a world-wide concern that pollution caused by man's action is threatening the earth and its inhabitants. The prevention of ecological catastrophe calls for global action. Not until recently do people talk so much about the damage to the ozone layer in the atmosphere caused by the use of chemicals like CFCs. The damage to the ozone layer which shields the earth from an overdose of ultra-violet rays have disastrous consequences to human beings. The prolonged exposure to ultra-violet rays causes skin cancer and other diseases. There has also been talk about the greenhouse effect which causes the earth to become warmer and warmer. The increase in the amount of so-called greenhouse gases such as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to such a greenhouse effect. The Singapore Government has supported the world-wide action in environmental protection. It has become one of the first countries in the developing world to sign the Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. As a signatory to the Protocol, the Government is obliged to take positive action to reduce the consumption of CFCs in Singapore. While the Government is taking positive action, I believe there is a lack of awareness among the population as to what role could they play and what action could they take in the world-wide campaign to protect the environment.”
“It must be startling news to all that every month Singaporeans throw about 72 tonnes of rubbish into major rivers, drains and canals. In the housing estates, people are throwing rubbish away indiscriminately. They litter the open space, playground, common corridors, anywhere, except their own apartments. Old habits die hard. We still need to continue with our public education programme. I suggest we start or re-start a campaign to inculcate the habit of keeping our environment clean and green. We can join in the celebration of the Earth Day, which is now an international movement to protect the environment and to save the earth, so to speak, or we can designate a certain day of the year as Environment Day. On that day, let us encourage the residents to clean their estates, stop littering, spruce up public places and plant more trees. To stress the importance of keeping the air clean, we can encourage our population to refrain from driving their own vehicles on Environment Day. They should instead take public transport, particularly the MRT. The Ministry of Health can also come in by asking people not to smoke on Environment Day. Sir, I believe that we have to continue with our public education programme, and I would appreciate the Minister's response to all the suggestions I have made.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I would like to raise two issues: one concerns the public education programme to keep Singapore clean and green and the other concerns the global action to protect the environment. I will first touch on the public education programme. Sir, Singapore has done relatively well in keeping our environment clean and green. Due credit must be given to the Government in creating a modern city with the much needed greenery and cleanliness. We have cleaned up a river, we have launched anti-littering campaigns, we have planted hundreds and thousands of trees, and the Government has also imposed stringent standard on emission from vehicles and factories. Much of this has been achieved, apart from campaigns and education, by the use of legislation like imposing fines on offenders, but our people are still littering. In 1988, 6,600 people were convicted for littering. When the Ministry stepped up enforcement last year, the figure rose to over 10,600, and most of the offenders were in the 21 to 30 years age group and had been exposed to public health education programmes on littering. Obviously, the message on littering has not sunk in. Just look at the Singapore River and the Kallang River. The Ministry of the Environment had done a remarkable job of cleaning up the two rivers. The Ministry officials had received gold medals, as promised by the Prime Minister. But today, people are sabotaging the good work. They are either throwing rubbish into the rivers or into the open drains which find their way into the rivers. The Ministry of the Environment's workers are fishing out two lorry loads of rubbish from the Kallang River everyday.”
“Sir, I support the way the incentive scheme is packaged, ie, a larger quantum of tax rebate is to be given to women who have their second child at an earlier age. Although some Members of this House have suggested extending the tax incentives to all women, irrespective of their age, or raising the cut-off age which qualifies for the second child tax rebate, I still believe that some differentiation according to the woman's age is necessary. I am not against giving incentives to all women for having a second child. I think the suggestion merits consideration. But the present incentive scheme is introduced to address a very specific problem, ie, of late marriage and of late child birth. So the Government must therefore give a clear signal, a signal to the men and women that they stand to gain more by settling down and having their children early. If we give the same quantum of rebate to all, regardless of the age of the women at which the child is delivered, then we are not sending a clear and right signal. Sir, I support the financial policy of the Government and that, of course, includes the one on procreation.”
“Sir, during the debate on the Budget Statement last year, I commented on the Government's tax incentive scheme to encourage procreation. The Minister for Finance announced then that the $20,000 special tax rebate would be extended to the fourth child. I pointed out that it was not sufficient just giving tax incentives to parents to have the third or fourth child. A pressing problem was that people were getting married late. For instance, in 1977, the average marriage age for men was 27 1/2 years. In 1987, it had risen to 29 years. For women, the average age of marriage was 24 in 1977 and it went up to 26 in 1987. And for the better educated women, their marriage age was even later. Associated with this problem was the delay of child birth. As the Minister put it, from 1980 to 1989, the median age of mothers at first birth increased from 25.3 to 27.4 years of age and for the second birth, the median age of the mother increased from 27.6 to 29.8 years. I therefore suggested last year and I quote what I said: '... a complete review should be made on the present incentive scheme and formulate a comprehensive and drastic policy to encourage people to get married early and have babies early through tax incentives and other methods.' [Hansard, Vol. 53, col. 93]. Specifically, I suggested that the Government gives tax rebates as incentives to those who get married and have children early. When I made this proposal, I suppose no one took my suggestion seriously. No one really paid much attention to what I proposed because I was not a Minister. I am now really glad that the Minister for Finance has decided to implement tax incentives along the lines that I proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to give a very short speech of two minutes.”
“In answer to my question just now, the Minister said that there is no control over the number of new taxis introduced on the road. But I believe there is still a quota. The taxi operators have to apply and each of them is given a limit, a quota, on how many new taxis that they can introduce. But of course, as the Minister said, the quota is large, so that the taxi operators can actually introduce new taxis as and when they wish. My question really is whether there would be a complete de-control. And hence my second question, which the Minister did not answer, is: can an individual or group of individuals come together and then form a company, and bid for the entitlement to own taxis? I will give an example of the yellow-top taxi drivers. Presently, the yellow-top taxi drivers are not allowed to transfer the vehicle ownership to their children. So can their children go and bid for a licence to own a taxi?”
“Sir, can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government has ever turned down any potential investment based on environmental considerations?”
“I must stress that in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours, employers must be fair and seen to be fair in their employment practice and in their treatment of people of different races and religion. It will set a dangerous trend if the employers are allowed to openly stipulate their choice of candidates' race and religion in the advertisement. It bears repeating that job advertisement should only specify the skills and qualifications required for the job. Employers should not disqualify applicants because of age, sex, race or religion. Sir, I would like to see that action is taken to eliminate such discriminatory job advertisements. So far the Government has not stated its stand on this matter and I would appreciate the Minister's reponse to my comments and suggestion.”
“Mr Chairman, under this amendment I would like to talk of the discriminatory job advertisement. Sir, during the debate on the President's Address, I brought up the question of job advertisements which discriminate applicants on the basis of age, sex and race. I suggested that such advertisements should be outlawed. My colleague, the Member for Kebun Baru, further elaborated on this matter and highlighted the job advertisements which not only specified age and race, but even religion. Subsequently there was an exchange of letters in the press on this issue. One of the advertisers which specified religion in his job advertisement defended his position by saying that since the founder and the owner of the company is a Christian, they require the company supervisor and management staff to be Christians too and they therefore consider it appropriate to have this requirement specified in the advertisement. Sir, I totally reject such an argument. I do not know what religion do people like Wee Cho Yaw, Lien Ying Chow or Tan Chin Tuan belong to. Assuming they are Buddhists, I am not sure, but assuming they are Buddhists, does it mean that when OUB, UOB and OCBC put up job advertisement for senior officers they can specify that only Buddhists need apply or that Christians will not be considered? Sir, no doubt in the selection of candidates for a job the employer is likely to be influenced by his preferences, or even prejudice based on age, sex, race and to a lesser extent, religion. But allowing such preferences to be openly stated in the advertisement is tantamount to our society endorsing such a discriminatory act.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for all the replies, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“So you want me to withdraw the amendment?”
“Mr Chairman, I have a few more points to raise. But I presume there is no time.”
“Whereas in the private housing estates, the ENV truck has to go from house to house to collect and clear the refuse bin one by one, and separately. The irony is that all the household units pay the same fee. I am curious to know whether the ENV refuse collection service is a profitable, self-financing or subsidized service. Are there any cross subsidies? If so, who is subsidizing whom? Is the rich subsidizing the poor, or the poor subsidizing the rich?”
“I suggest the Government introduce some schemes to encourage and help the private sector contractor to upgrade too. The other matter which I would also like to raise concerns privatization - the privatization of refuse collection service. Presently, the collection and disposal of domestic refuse is done by the Ministry of the Environment. Of course, we pride ourselves as being the only major city in the world which provides good and efficient refuse collection service 365 days a year. But in line with the Government's thinking of privatization, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry is contemplating privatizing the refuse collection service. With the formation of town councils, I believe some of the town councils would be interested to ask the private sector companies to tender for the job of refuse collection. This in a way is to provide some competition to the Ministry of the Environment. I would like to ask: what is the Ministry's reaction to this plan? Does he think that the private sector operators are able to compete and provide the same or better level of service as the Ministry and at a lower cost? While still on the subject of refuse collection, I would like to point out an anomaly on the charges imposed on the HDB and private residential units for refuse collection. The refuse collection fee charged by the Ministry of the Environment is $5 per household unit. So a dweller of a small HDB unit therefore pays the same fee as the owner of a big bungalow. It is only common sense to see that it is much more cost effective for the Ministry to do collection of refuse at the HDB estates than at private housing estates. By just making one round at a HDB estate, the ENV truck can clear the refuse of hundreds and thousands of units.”
“Sir, Singaporeans are churning out more and more rubbish. So as the country becomes more affluent, more rubbish are produced. And we produce paper waste, food waste, industrial waste and other forms of garbage and in increasing amounts. Some of the refuse can be incinerated; some cannot be burnt and must be discarded or dumped somewhere. The Minister has just said that presently the non-organic refuse were dumped at the Lorong Halus and Lim Chu Kang dumping grounds. The Ministry imposes a dumping fee at the dumping site. But refuse loads which are below one tonne are exempted from the dumping fee. This has encouraged the refuse collection operator to use small lorries to carry the refuse to the dumping ground. So the exercise has become very unproductive. Instead of using a bigger truck to carry the refuse, the contractor would break the refuse into smaller loads, use small vehicles or make frequent trips. This has resulted in a long queue at the dumping site each day. So something must be done to overcome the problem. And I would ask the Minister: would the Ministry review the matter and come up with a workable solution? My other observation is that many of the waste disposal operators are still using open lorries to carry the waste. Sometimes you can see waste paper, rubbish and dust flying all over the place. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider some schemes to encourage these operators to upgrade their operations by purchasing proper refuse collection vehicles and equipment. The Ministry of the Environment has done much to mechanize this operation. It has used modern trucks with compaction equipment in refuse collection and has mechanized its many operations, including road-sweeping.”
“So I would like to ask the Minister whether the inspection and measures taken by the Ministry are adequate to ensure that the imported fruits and vegetables do not contain harmful amounts of pesticides and other chemicals. Mr Chairman, I have another cut under Solid Waste Management. Shall I proceed later?”