Heng Chiang Meng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the approach taken by the Government, especially when I personally think that the economy may well recover in the second half of next year, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could take steps to rectify the situation on the ground, of which I am very deeply concerned.”
“Witness the prices of PCs when they first appeared and the prices of PCs now. Also, without an extensive infrastructure, motoring with a hybrid car will cause more inconvenience for the owner.”
“Sir, I did address you as Chairman. I only once, earlier on, addressed you as Deputy Speaker. Most of the comments I am going to say have been covered by the two earlier speakers. I just want to add that I understand that Newater is biologically very clean.”
“I dare say that Singapore is kept litter-free by the street cleaners, and not because there are no litter bugs. So the real long-term solution is to inculcate good environmental behaviour as part of our habits.”
“For example, one way could be to rank the distance of each household from the school, and the ranking to be used to allocate the available places based on the household nearest to the school having the pole position.”
“Sir, I find it difficult to understand why the Senior Minister of State should bring in other people's arguments, like people being sick, one parent looking after so many children. We are talking about distances away from the school. Let us not bring in other factors. But, in any case, her mind is already made up.”
The complete record
Every one of 723 lines we hold for Heng Chiang Meng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“Yes, Sir. I will put what I want to say in a question form, Sir. Sir, would the Minister look at situations where, like the self-employed, because they need to renew their business licences to continue their business, are not allowed to do so because they have not contributed to the CPF and, because they are not allowed to do so, they are threatened with the cancellation of licences and, therefore, their livelihood will be destroyed. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can look at this situation as well as right across all Government agencies, bodies, departments and ministries where such regulations may be present to cause further hardship to those already suffering financial hardship. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are genuine cases and we should handle them in a sympathetic way. As an MP myself, I have received such cases and there are, among them, some really genuine ones which we should support. So I will convey his particular request on the CPF to the Ministry of Manpower and, on the more general point of reviewing our rules and regulations, to make them more business-friendly, this is an on-going exercise. And whatever views or problems that businessmen face, please raise them either to me directly or to this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the approach taken by the Government, especially when I personally think that the economy may well recover in the second half of next year, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could take steps to rectify the situation on the ground, of which I am very deeply concerned. Sir, if you could bear with me, I would like to use an example to illustrate.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 1500. Sir, Singapore, being a highly urbanised place, the noise level and noise pollution are relatively high, compared to many other countries less urbanised. Like it or not, we have to bear with it if we want to continue living in Singapore. On the other hand, I must congratulate the Environment Ministry for doing a marvellous job in keeping the noise pollution within very acceptable limits. However, what I fail to understand is why does the Ministry still allow the use of the normal percussion piling methods in construction sites when these sites are situated very close to existing residential areas. The use of such a piling method, using a heavy block dropping on the top of a pile to hammer the pile into the ground, creates too much noise for nearby residents, regardless of the measurement of noise at the point where the noise is being generated. Sir, such a method is similar to using a hammer to knock a nail into a piece of wood, except that the dimensions of the hammer and nail are now increased by 1,000-fold. Besides noise, such a method also often causes stress to structures of nearby buildings, creating cracks in the walls of nearby buildings, and very often, conflicts between neighbours. I would like the Minister to consider banning the use of such piling methods in construction sites by reducing the level of permitted noise generated from construction sites when such sites are within certain distances from residential areas. After all, there are quieter, alternative piling methods which contractors can use.”
“I thank the Acting Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Yes, Sir, just one final point. Yesterday, Mr Ong Kian Min brought up this question of solar heating panels. I have brought up this issue before in previous Committee of Supply debates, and I wish the Government will give some financial rebates on this.”
“Witness the prices of PCs when they first appeared and the prices of PCs now. Also, without an extensive infrastructure, motoring with a hybrid car will cause more inconvenience for the owner. And the rebates that have been given so far do not take all these factors into consideration, resulting in the estimated overall costs to be higher than that of conventional cars, despite the perhaps cheaper initial cost of the vehicle. It is, therefore, not surprising that most dealers do not expect a high demand for the hybrid cars, despite the rebates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MA 1500. Sir, I am glad to see that the Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Conservation (IACEC) will now be put under the Ministry of the Environment and, from what I gather, the thrust of the Government's energy conservation initiatives appear to be focused on three measures: 1. To strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework for the conservation of energy; 2. To improve the market environment so as to provide an improved platform for all to conserve energy; and 3. To use the public sector as the leading edge and show the way for all to emulate. Sir, while these are good and admirable measures, I think a very basic fundamental point is missed. Energy is used by humans and, therefore, can only be conserved by humans. Yet, the measures are not focused on how to make Singaporeans as a whole use less energy as a behavioural norm. If every Singaporean can consciously use less energy in every aspect of his daily living, such behaviour will carry over from his home to his workplace. So, if each of us can conserve only a bit, the combined effects of the total population can lead to a huge decrease in energy usage. So I would like to really suggest that the Government start encouraging more Singaporeans to conserve energy. And I am very sure the Acting Minister would agree with this motherhood statement. Unfortunately, the example of the recent rebates given on the hybrid electric car, as well as other measures or lack of measures, does not give one hope that the Government is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. We all know that the use of any new technology is expensive.”
“Sir, the Acting Minister has also said that currently, only about 40% of solid waste generated is recycled. Even if the figure can be increased to 50% or 60%, we will soon be reaching the limits of recycling. Therefore, the Government must do more to get Singaporeans to reduce and to reuse products, ie, the 2Rs of what we call the 4Rs of environmental care - reduce, reuse, recycle and recover. 12.45 pm Sir, right now, the preferred method in this area of reduction and reuse, as I said earlier, appears to be orientated at the end of the process. That means you charge higher and higher prices for removing garbage, in order to persuade people not to generate so much garbage. As I said earlier, I doubt this will work in the long run. Sir, I like to see the Acting Minister put more emphasis on the beginning of the process, ie, try to educate, encourage and help people to generate less garbage, which is to reduce. And where it is not possible to reduce, then individual households and companies, or those who generate garbage, should be encouraged to reuse. Sir, there are a thousand and one ways of doing this, provided the Government is willing to do so. And the money saved in building less incineration plants and landfills could be better used to provide the means for the people to reuse and to reduce. I believe that if we can come out with some form of financial incentive to reward those who generate less garbage, perhaps we will see more success in this area. Furthermore, I think there are many NGOs more than willing to provide ideas and assistance. These are the NGOS in the environmental field. Sir, the other countries have also gone a long way in this direction. We can certainly learn from their experience.”
“Sir, yesterday, the Minister said that at the current rate of solid waste generation and disposal, we would need to build one new incineration plant, occupying about 7 hectares every five years, and one new landfill, the size of Sentosa Island every 25-30 years. He has put forward these statistics to show that this situation is not tenable. He said that his Ministry would look into a solution of closing the solid waste generation loop, ie, to have more recycling. I would like to suggest that he seriously consider another solution, in addition to closing of the loop, that is, the reduction of waste generation. To reduce waste generation is very easy to say but the real question is how. In this area, I am afraid that many of the Government's current initiatives are to increase prices to discourage the generation of waste. Is this really effective? Sir, like drugs, the pain of higher prices will become less effective with time and, therefore, more increases are normally needed to overcome the higher threshold of pain. The result is that we may, unwittingly, become a higher and higher cost country and become less competitive. Now, with privatisation of solid waste collection, the private collectors will be required to institute waste recycling schemes in public housing and landed properties to reduce generation of solid waste. Pushing this problem to the private sector will not resolve the problem at all. All it does is to pass the buck to the private sector on what originally was and still is a national problem. Moreover, if mandated to do so by law, I do not believe that the private sector will do a good and proper job. What may happen would be some activities to satisfy the bare minimum of what the laws require, with the higher cost being passed on to consumers.”
“Could the Acting Minister tell us the current status?”
“They take the lead to drink it first. Would you? I think we should not wait until an emergency situation arises, then we persuade others. Since it is quite clear that this is one of the steps we have to take to diversify our sources of water supply, perhaps education, including taking the first step, in drinking Newater should start now. Sir, as was mentioned earlier, another source of potable water is from desalination. The Government, I understand, is in the midst of planning for a pilot project plant to produce desalinated water. May I know when the project will be on stream, ie, producing water ready for potable use? I was told by some friends, who have had experience drinking desalinated water in the Middle East, that the taste will not be to the liking of Singaporeans, to say the least. As I have not drunk desalinated water, I do not know what it tastes like. I would like to know whether our water experts have tasted water from desalinated plants. And if the comments of my friends are true, what accounts for the unpalatable taste? Sir, may I also ask the Acting Minister how would the desalinated water or Newater be piped for potable use, if it comes to that point, especially for Newater? Will it be piped directly to the homes from the plants, or will it be mixed with our traditional sources of potable water? Surely if people are apprehensive of drinking Newater, if they can be mixed with our traditional sources of water in the reservoirs, perhaps this will overcome some of the psychological barrier. Sir, the next point I would like to ask is what about the other sources of water, such as water from other Malaysian states and Indonesia. We heard some time ago about these plans, but since then we have heard nothing much about them.”
“Sir, I did address you as Chairman. I only once, earlier on, addressed you as Deputy Speaker. Most of the comments I am going to say have been covered by the two earlier speakers. I just want to add that I understand that Newater is biologically very clean. However, Newater from the present pilot project is currently for non-potable uses, such as watering and for other industrial use. It is a pity, though I must say that I do understand why people are psychologically apprehensive of drinking what was previously water used for flushing toilets. Perhaps in this respect, the Acting Minister and maybe other Government leaders should take active steps in persuading Singaporeans to overcome this psychological barrier. An hon. Member: Maybe to drink it first! 5.45 pm”
“I dare say that Singapore is kept litter-free by the street cleaners, and not because there are no litter bugs. So the real long-term solution is to inculcate good environmental behaviour as part of our habits. For such behaviour to be habit-forming, we must start ingraining such behaviour into our children from a very young age by mothers at home to be reinforced in kindergartens and schools by teachers. Sir, I suggest that we start with the mothers. I can assure the Acting Minister that he will succeed in influencing latter generations to be environmental caring as many of our social and behavioral values are imparted from our mothers.”
“Sir, this is nothing new. There are many disadvantages we have in this area, such as small land mass, lack of forest and rural areas, high population density, or relatively large industrial base, and the like, work against us in sustaining a good environment. Yet despite these factors, as shown by the PERC report, we are able to maintain a good environment now, through the many initiatives that we have taken, such as tree planting, garden city concept, cleaning of our waterways, especially the Singapore River, and also all the other anti-pollution regulations. Sir, so far, these and many other programmes of the Ministry have served us well. However, I would like to take the World Economic Forum Report as an early warning signal, a wake-up call, so to say. The question we should be asking ourselves is: are we still doing enough? Are our current philosophy of what we are doing and the policies correct, not only for the short or immediate term, but also in the long term? Do we need to take stock of what we are doing now and examine them in the light of environmental sustainability in the longer term? Perhaps, the Acting Minister will enligthen us on these concerns. In doing so, I also have a suggestion for him. It is recognised that we human are the people who pollute our environment and, therefore, for long-term sustainability to work, there must be plans to make us pollute less. So far, most of the policies to make us pollute less are based on punishment. I put it forward that they have not been very effective. Just look at our anti-littering laws and our anti-littering campaigns. After so many years, it is still not effective. Just take a look at the place after a major event, litter is all over the place.”
“Sir, both my GPC Chairman and Deputy Chairman have already spoken on the Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environmental Task Force report called the 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index. What is interesting is that the study used 22 indicators covering issues, such as environmental systems, stress reduction, human vulnerability reduction, social and institutional capacity and global stewardship in environmental management protection and participation to arrive at the index. Sir, as Mr Chen has said, 122 countries were indexed on a scale of 0:100 with Finland scoring the highest with an index of 80.5, and Kuwait with the lowest with an index of 24.7. Singapore was ranked 65 to an index of 46.8, behind some Asian neighbours, such as Japan and Malaysia. I use this because, at about the same time, there was another report on the quality of the environment by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Limited. This report covered only Asian countries and Singapore scored ahead of the other countries, like Japan and Malaysia, as having the best environment in Asia, as I have just mentioned earlier. But why the difference? The answer apparently lies in the objectives of the two studies. The first report was to measure the ability of a country to sustain its environment as it develops further into the future. The second was to measure the quality of a country's environment, as it is now, at the prevailing time. So in other words, I take it that, while the quality of our environment is high now, very good, the question remains that: can we sustain it and continue to keep the quality high in the future as more demands, such as population growth and economic development, are made on it? The answer appears to be negative going by the World Economic Forum Report.”
“Sir, I find it difficult to understand why the Senior Minister of State should bring in other people's arguments, like people being sick, one parent looking after so many children. We are talking about distances away from the school. Let us not bring in other factors. But, in any case, her mind is already made up. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,890,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,390,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head M - 5.00 pm”
“Sir, "guillotine" time is 5.13 pm, I believe. Sir, although it is true that it is all within the one-kilometre radius and it might be nearest to the school for both pupils, surely if you are talking about distance, someone living next door should have a better priority than someone living one kilometre away. In any case, both are equally in the same situation by being nearest to the school, whichever school it may be, but at least the one next door is nearer than the other who is one kilometre away.”
“I would like to remind the Senior Minister of State that in the example she quoted about someone living 100 metres may get a place, and someone living 101 metres may not be able to get a place, at least in that situation anyone living 101 metres or more away will not be able to get a place too. May I ask her whether this is fairer than the current system where someone next door may not be able to get a place, whereas someone living one kilometre away can still get a place, depending on the luck of the draw?”
“For example, one way could be to rank the distance of each household from the school, and the ranking to be used to allocate the available places based on the household nearest to the school having the pole position. In this example, though within the one kilometre radius, those nearer to the school will have greater priority than those further away. This method, I am sure, will ensure the children could go to schools situated next door to their homes. I am also very sure that the Ministry could come up with many other ideas. The point is that the current system needs refining and perhaps it is time to do such refinements now.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 2100. Sir, when primary schools are situated in an HDB estate, the population density of the estate normally means that ballotting for Primary 1 places will take place under Phase 2C. This situation is made worse if the school happens to be a better known and popular school, when the estate is relatively new with many young parents having children of Primary 1 school-going age. Sir, this was the case last year in my ward when Rosythe School was relocated to Serangoon North Avenue 4. Many parents in the immediate neighbourhood, some of whom living just a stone's throw away from the school, were extremely disappointed when their children could not be accepted into the school, even though they live well within the one kilometre radius. These unsuccessful children were then subsequently given places in other schools, many of which are some distance away from their homes. On the other hand, depending on the luck of the draw, children living, say, one kilometre away may be successful. The result is that there will be many children travelling by buses every school day to their respective schools. Surely this defeats the purpose of having neighbourhood schools which, presumably, are to have pupils living close to the schools, so that travelling time for the pupils would be minimised. Sir, we have had this system for sometime now. While it has worked quite well in the past, I believe it needs fine-tuning now to satisfy the needs of a new breed of parents who are now very much more involved in their children's education, especially at Primary 1 level. I would therefore like to suggest to the Minister to review and fine-tune the system.”
“May I remind the Minister that because of the shorter waiting period as well as the reduced CPF payments due to the economic crisis, the ability to build up enough balances in the CPF for the 20% deposit has been greatly impaired. In that case, may I again ask the Minister whether he will consider the 5-room option too, Sir?”
“Sir, in relation to the Minister's answer, I believe that the HDB has a scheme to allow the 20% deposit payment to be made in two instalments for those who cannot afford it. May I ask the Minister to extend this to 5-room flats too?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could establish an Inter-Ministry Committee to review and amend, if needed, such policies, taking into consideration the effect on the poor and the diminishing number of opportunities for them to upgrade themselves. I would also like to ask the Minister that if he does so, whether feedback from the public would be solicited. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I thank Mr Heng for his helpful suggestions. Some of the issues are not new issues, like whether we should allow cooked food to be prepared in HDB households. There are, of course, conflicting objectives because there are externalities involved. The smoke may cause annoyance to neighbours and we should strike a proper balance between allowing for flexibility of resource allocation and not causing inconveniences or negative externalities to people around. But these are issues which Ministries should review from time to time so that we are not trapped in old positions, especially with the new challenges posed by changes in the world. His particular suggestions will be forwarded to the various Ministries for their consideration.”
“No, Sir, I am asking questions. I am asking: whether the Minister could do this or do that. These are all questions.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to review other aspects of this issue which affects the ability of lower income Singaporeans to improve their financial situation. May I ask that he looks into the various Government policies which, though well-conceived and implemented with good intent, have the unintended effect of disadvantaging the lower income groups' ability to improve themselves. For example, would the Minister review the policy of prohibiting the sale of cooked food prepared in homes? Would the Minister consider reinstating the past policy of allocating hawker stalls and school tuckshop stalls to deserving applicants instead of tendering them to the highest bidders? Sir, these are some of the traditional ways in which the poor could improve their financial situation but today they are no longer available because of Government policies. Would the Minister also review HDB's policy of not permitting second-time direct purchases from HDB if the second unit is of a lower category from the first even though both purchases could be within HDB's general policy of two direct purchases from HDB? Surely, the removal ---”
“May I ask the DPM whether he would ask MAS to use moral suasion to tell the banks to look at the other way of charging, ie, to give some sort of rebates to customers who use their lower-cost services? For example, payment through the Nets electronic funds transfer or through Giro. Instead, right now they are all looking at trying to charge or increase fees on cash payments or counter services or cheque payments. I would like to ask DPM to tell the MAS to use its power of moral suasion. It is a very powerful weapon, Sir. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Heng over-estimates the power of the MAS. It is not for MAS to tell banks how to charge or to tell PUB or SingTel how to charge and how to discriminate between counter payments or Giro payments or cheque payments. These are adjustments which will have to be made. There is a Committee on making Singapore a cashless society. The Service Improvement Unit has been studying this for some time. I believe discrimination ought to be made between the different forms of payments. How to do it, whether you push one up or push the other down, depends whether you are currently making too much money or too little money. If it has got surpluses, then it can give it as a rebate. If it does not have surpluses, it may have to make it as an extra charge. I think that will vary from case to case.”
“In this particular business, such financial assistance is quite common. In fact, one of the reasons why the South Korean companies and the Japanese companies, amongst the Asian countries, are very successful in this business is because of the Exim-type of loans provided by their respective countries or by institutions supported by the Government. This will certainly help Singapore companies to compete with companies like the Japanese and Korean companies. And, more importantly, it will put us on the same footing as a lot of other western companies too and, in fact, some form of equal partnership can be formed between the Singapore companies and the foreign companies. Thirdly, financial incentives for Singaporeans and companies in Singapore should be given for them to use environment positive products and processes. This type of financing incentive will certainly encourage the greater usage of environment positive products and processes in Singapore leading, I believe, to a very much better environment here.”
“Sir, the projection of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank made in 1997 for environmental infrastructural projects such as water, sewerage, power and waste management in South East Asia alone was about US$20-US$30 billion annually. As the countries in this part of the world become more affluent, demand for such environmental related businesses, together with non-infrastructural products and processes, will, in fact, be much larger. And if we consider the countries of China and India and South Korea, if these countries are included, the size of the potential market in such businesses in this region could be as high as about US$50-US$60 billion annually. Sir, Singapore is a small country and we are constantly on the lookout for suitable business and industrial niches and, therefore, I think Singapore, being right in the middle of Asia, cannot ignore this potential niche. We have been successful in niches such as finance, electronics and specialty chemicals. We are now promoting IT, telecommunications and the life sciences. Surely, given the potential of the environment-related industry, we should also promote this particular sector to be located in Singapore. I hope that the Ministry sees such a potential and gets EDB to have a serious look at these businesses. I also hope that the Minister, when he asks EDB, will also consider the following initiatives to help Singapore develop into an environment industrial park. Firstly, there should be schemes to support and encourage environmental technopreneurs to start up new companies similar to those given to IT entrepreneurs. Secondly, an Exim-type of financing facilities to be made available to support projects in emerging economies in the region.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their replies. I am sure that most of us are quite satisfied with the replies and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $392,143,270 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $579,366,700 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head I -”
“Sir, I am not going to withdraw my amendment yet. While the Minister and the Senior Minister of State have given replies to a lot of questions, I still would like to hear the Minister's comments on my idea of a comprehensive masterplan, including the total approach to resolving some of the issues that affect us and, environmentally-wise, are we using the business community, the people and all resources available, including, for example, financial measures such as the stick and the carrot? Secondly, since we still have time, I would like to ask the Minister for his views and comments on what his Ministry would do in view of the many reported forest fires in Sumatra and the possibility that it might affect us in terms of the haze. And should the wind direction change and bring the smoke from these fires to Singapore shores, whether the quality of the air that we breathe in will be as bad as the last time, about 11/2 years ago, when we experienced the haze. I think his comments on this would be very useful to us.”
“It is only a guide for safety assessment and there are different interpretations and much is dependent on the expertise of the people making the assessment. When we deal with the GM food issue, we must be careful in the adoption of the term "substantial equivalent" in approving the sale of GM food here. The consumers' long-term health safety must precede commercial and scientific interests. Sir, the consumers in Singapore are ignorant about GM food and their health implications. They deserve to be better informed about what scientists are doing to their food and what they are eating. If nothing is done, GM food will flood the market and the people will continue to consume the food by not knowing the implications. If GM food should go wrong one day, the Government has to be responsible for not keeping the consumers adequately informed of the matter. I feel that we should consider mandatory measures by asking the GM food producers and importers to disclose the content and what they had done to the food and compulsorily labelling all GM food sold locally. Mandatory labelling allows consumers to decide for themselves whether they like to eat GM food. I urge the Ministry to seriously consider the labelling of GM food and the compulsory disclosure of the content of GM food sold locally. 4.30 pm”
“On the contrary, it could also cause it to reproduce so quickly beyond the control of human beings. From the manufacturer's point of view, GM food could be produced at a much lower cost, lower risk in production, fetch better price for the product and will be more marketable if the consumers preferred the characteristics of the food to be enhanced. These include the colour, flavour, size and any other preferred ingredients. There are also hopes that there will be increase in productivity of the developing nation in increasing the food production. To the consumers, they may get cheaper and better looking food, but the impact on health due to the food is relatively unknown and uninformed. In a recent conference sponsored by the OECD held in Edinburgh, consumer groups, scientists and legislators were gathered to discuss the matter concerning GM food. The term "substantial equivalent" used to assess the safety of the GM food was debated and strongly criticised by the consumer groups. The modern GM technology was compared to the early days of nuclear power technology development. Scientists then expounded on their incredible potential without realising or warning about the danger of nuclear power. The scientists were urged to be more truthful about what they did not know on the issue of GM food. The term "substantial equivalent" was introduced by the OECD in 1993 to assess the safety of GM food. It was adopted three years later by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation, and has been used ever since. But even some scientists have criticised it for not being accurate enough to prove that GM food is safe.”
“In this way, while the Ministry keeps the broad parameters of ensuring that Singapore has safe food, the final choice lies with the consumers, with us, Singaporeans. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, I support the views put forward by my GPC Chairman, Mr Heng Chiang Meng, on the labelling of genetically modified food. What is genetically modified food? It is food containing ingredients coming from the genetically modified crop. These are crops which have genes taken from other organisms, plants and animals and inserted into the genetically modified crop. Soya bean is the most commonly grown GM crop, followed by corn, rape seed and potato. In theory, anything containing these crops or lecithin, which is made from soya bean, could come from the GM ingredients. We consume food every day which is genetically modified but we do not even notice it. If you ask the manufacturer whether the food is genetically modified, from experience of other advanced countries, clear answers are hard to get. Therefore, it is hard to know whether it is GM food or it is safe to consume, unless they are forced to disclose by law. The dangers of genetically modified food are unknown. The main concern is that food has subtle and long-term effect on health and we seem to be making a significant change to our food supply without checking whether or not it will be having any impact on our health. There are also concerns about the effect of introducing genes which are resistant to virus, herbicide, as GM crops are certainly a cross-breed with weeds. Morally, there are also other problems, like introducing genes of animals into the food which may cause religious and also moral concerns. It also causes certain species of plants to lose their nature of reproduction.”
“Soya bean is also used in many of the food we eat. We also eat the meat of animals which feed on soya-based feed-mill. The reality of the matter is that the US is the world's largest exporter of soya beans, and that is, about 50% of the soya bean crops in the United States are already genetically modified. So can we honestly say that the food that we consume in Singapore, especially processed food, contains none of those beans in one form or another? Sir, in light of this, I support the rationale and practical approach taken by the Environment Ministry on this issue. We should not irrationally condemn all GM food as unfit for human consumption. On the other hand, if there are reasonable alternative sources, then obviously we should avoid GM food as much and as long as possible. However, I believe that on this issue, individual consumers should have the final say on the type of food they wish to consume. It is therefore the Government's responsibility to provide all available information for our consumers to make their choices. And here, Sir, I am referring to the subject of labelling. I think the Ministry should implement a labelling policy immediately. I am aware that there are technical difficulties involved - issues such as threshold. For example, what percentage would the use of GM food in processed food have to be before labelling them as containing GM food? Despite all these difficulties, I think an imperfect labelling policy is better than no policy at all. I do not think that we have the luxury of waiting for a perfect solution to this issue. Let us start, Sir, with some form of labelling and change the labelling specifications and standards with improving technology and testing techniques.”
“Sir, in recent times, there has been much talk, and unfortunately much misunderstanding, about genetically modified (GM) food. This is not surprising as the idea of having food that we consume, a product of some form of modification by the addition of a gene from another source using biotechnological techniques, can be quite discomforting, to say the least. What sort of impact would such food have on us and our descendants, since GM food is unlikely to occur in nature even with the most sophisticated form of cross-breeding? Are we not playing God? How would they square against our religious and ethical beliefs? What sort of impact would such organisms and food have on the environment and the ecology? Sir, I do not really know what the answers are. The technology is new, only about 20 years old, and I doubt that there are many in the world who would say that they have the complete answers to all these questions. All I can say, Sir, is that GM food is here to stay. The world needs it. The fact is that the spectre of Malthus' prediction is not upon us is due mainly to the advances scientists have made in the production of food. GM food is but just another step in the same direction. In fact, with populous countries, like China and India, on the way to becoming middle class countries, and with rising affluence, we will have more demand on food. The demand on food in the world can only intensify in the future. Sir, as a matter of interest, even in Singapore, can we really say that we have not been really consuming GM food? Take the ubiquitous soya bean and the products made from it. We take it in the form of soya sauce, bean curd, soya milk and in various forms like tou chiu, tou gua, tou pok, tou kee, and various types of tou.”
“Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister earlier talked about sovereign risk. He said that the Government would be more unequivocal about telling the people of Singapore that whenever they invest in foreign assets, they must take on the sovereign risk of the foreign countries in which these assets are based. And whether they invest in Malaysian shares in CLOB or in Kuala Lumpur, the shares are nothing but pieces of paper, representing assets that are basically based in Malaysia, or at least controlled in Malaysia, because these are shares of Malaysian companies. In this respect, perhaps the Government should also be very clear that it is going on to a disclosure-based type of investment regulations for the people, rather than merit based, because whenever the Government tries to be too paternalistic about this, it is always the case of the investors saying that if they make money, it is through their own diligence and smartness. And whenever they lose money, it is the Government's fault, and I do not think any government can be in that position.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the IT revolution has become too important for the Government to ignore and to be treated as simply another area of development. Instead, it should be treated as an essential public service, similar to health, education, housing and security. Anything less will be to the peril of our future.”
“But it is not cheap. Singapore CableVision recently announced the slashing of prices for its broadband Internet access service via the cable modem. The reduced prices would be $76 per month for those who subscribe only to the broadband service. To many Singaporeans, let alone the poorer ones, this is certainly not cheap. Sir, I am concerned that, to date, SCV has only about 8,000 subscribers to this service, including the 5,000 who were on the trial service. This means that since they opened up in December last year to all and sundry, they have only increased it by about 3,000 subscribers. However, so long as SCV continues with its high rates, there will be many who would prefer to use the much slower dial-up service, especially when some are provided free. If it were just a matter of time spent on the computer, I would not be so concerned. But we know that there would be more and more Internet services needing broadband access. If because of the high charges, many Singaporeans continue not to use the SCV broadband access, then there could be more and more Internet services denied to them. I urge the Government to take over the ownership of such electronic highways. They are like our expressways and should be publicly owned. Internet service providers can then rent them from the Government and provide the competition so necessary to improve quality and efficiency while reducing cost to the consumer. The events in the arena of the dial-up services have shown that this can be done and would be done, if only there were competition. Moreover, with public ownership, the Government can then charge a policy-dictated price that may not necessarily be an economic price. The losses could then be subsidised from the Government's general revenues.”
“Yet, for such a man to come out with such an IT plan, even if the computers were used to play games in Government offices, is, indeed, visionary. I think all of us in Singapore owe him much. I know I do, as I would have never purchased my first computer, an Apple IIe, without the encouragement of the loan. And I thank him for his part in making me a bit less computer illiterate today than what I otherwise would be. Sir, this story is related not so much as to add to the legend of Mr Hon (though I hope that it does), but more to illustrate that visionary thinking and speedy action are needed in this area. We should be bolder, much bolder in our plans to reduce the digital divide as soon as possible. We should aim for a 100% PC ownership in every home, similar to the goal of 100% home ownership. We should ensure cheap and fast access to the Internet for without such cheap and fast access, the computer is just a machine and not the gateway to information and the future. We should harness the assistance of the private sector through a system of tax incentives. These are but some of the ideas that I can come up with for the moment. But I am sure that the civil servants could come up with more, if given the go-ahead. Sir, more importantly, the mindset must change. We should not make investments in this area on the basis of economic returns alone. Instead, we should look at such investments from a communitarian perspective. If the digital divide persists into the future when the use of IT becomes that much more pervasive, can our community survive the divide? In this respect, I would like the Government to reconsider its policy on the ownership of broadband electronic highways, such as those provided by cable. Cable modem access to the Internet certainly is fast.”
“The Government also implemented a scheme whereby public sector employees could obtain cheap loans to purchase personal computers. We were surprised as few of us, other than those in the Electronic Data Processing department, knew much of computers. Later, I heard it whispered at the corridors of City Hall and Fullerton Building that the late Mr Hon Sui Sen, the Finance Minister, had personally lobbied for this programme. I heard that he was told that the staff would only play games with the computer, as few then knew how to use the personal computer. So why should the Government spend this money to put computers in the department when they would be used to play games? His retort was reportedly this: "Let them play games, as it would teach them how to be familiar with the computer. However, someone somewhere will know something and he will use the computer for improving his work. And if that happens, we will progress." Sir, that was exactly what happened. The computer in my department was first used mainly to play games, I must say. Subsequently, somebody came out with a VisiCalc program and also other programs and we were able to use such programs to improve our work. And the rest, as I said, Sir, is history. Sir, I am aware that today in this House there are some who knew exactly what happened then. I have no idea whether the version that I have just related is true or not. If not, Sir, I stand corrected. I hope however that I am correct, not because I am afraid of being corrected but because such stories are the stuff of legends. We must remember that the late Mr Hon was known as an extremely prudent and careful man with money, especially those belonging to the nation.”
“Since at the point of making investment it is not possible for the investor to know whether his investment is going to succeed or not, I think it will be a fair choice to make. On digital divide, I do not have to stress the importance of this issue. Enough of our leaders had brought up this issue for all Singaporeans to know that, if not resolved, it will lay the foundation for economic, social and perhaps, even communal divisions, in the future. Even the world's superpower and the powerhouse of IT and the Internet, the United States, is concerned about the digital divide, as evidenced by President Clinton's recent State of the Union address on the subject and his budget proposals for a multibillion-dollar plan to help poor Americans and minorities get access to the Internet and make it as universal as the telephone. Hence, I was very pleased when the Minister for Communications and Information Technology recently unveiled a $25 million plan to bridge the digital divide and help every Singaporean go online. At least that is the objective. I just hope that it would be the thin end of the wedge to seriously address this important issue. If so, I hope that the wedge will thicken very quickly for there is so much to be done. Perhaps, if the House could bear with me, I would like to relate a story while I was with the Monetary Authority of Singapore. It was in the late 70s and personal computers were just coming into prominence. In those days IT was not known as IT, not even known as IS (Information Systems). But in those days it was known more as EDP (Electronic Data Processing), because computers were then mainly mainframes and used in the backrooms for processing voluminous data. One day, we were told that every department was to get an Apple computer for its use.”
“I doubt very much that EDB would dare to claim that it can do so. Instead, general guidelines could be used to ensure that abuse of the scheme is minimised. Sir, if such a scheme were to be adopted, it would bring up two other issues. The first is that of the possible loss of too much tax revenue. After all, the scheme as proposed creates a very big tax shelter for high taxpayers. To prevent this, there could be a limit on the relief given. For example, the relief could be limited to, say, 50% of the taxable income of a taxpayer. It could also be a graduated scheme, higher percentages for those with lower taxable income to lower percentages for those with higher taxable income. The second is that of capital gains. Our current system is based on "no deductions for investments and thus no capital gains tax on gains from investments". Allowing tax deductions for venture companies would mean that the investor stands to gain from both ends; tax relief at the point of making an investment and no capital gains tax at the end when they are successful. My answer to this issue is: why not? After all, we are encouraging a speedier fusion into a new world and a new economy. If this scheme promotes that objective, what is the loss of some tax dollars as compared to the benefits to the economy and community of the future. However, if the Government still cannot accept such thinking out of the box and feels an instinctive need for order and symmetry, then I suggest a choice be given to the business angel at the point of investment. And this is, "Take the tax relief option now and pay capital gains tax when your venture succeeds later. Or forgo the tax relief now and you do not have to pay capital gains tax when your venture succeeds".”
“In Singapore, we do not have enough individuals who are prepared to be angels. I would certainly like to see more business angels. With more angels, we will be able to support more idealistic budding technopreneurs. We will be able to build a critical mass of individuals having some form of financial support. This is important as creativity will come from such individuals, not from corporations. It is here that I have a bit of disagreement with my colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh. Sir, his call for more privatisation includes clusters of funds to be managed by the private sector. If this be the case, nothing much will be changed. The rules for managing other people's money, whether by the private sector or the public sector, will be the same. One still has to be very prudent, very careful and very circumspect in decision making, because you are managing other people's money. And that is why I am suggesting the incentives for individuals. It is only when individuals are making investment decisions with their own money that they can afford to be more generous and can afford to take more risks. So I would like to suggest that the tax treatment in this area be changed to encourage the emergence of more business angels. Under the current Venture Capital Tax Incentive Scheme, the investor must invest in approved companies and can only claim relief as and when the losses from the sale of shares of the venture company are incurred. Sir, this is certainly not enough to encourage the growth of business angels. Instead, the Government should allow relief for such investments at the point of making the investment. Also, the need for the venture company to be approved should be scrapped. The approving process implies that EDB can spot winners and losers.”
“As an example, we are always fond of quoting the participation of Americans in their civil society and their financial contributions to charitable and educational causes, and how we should emulate them. But how many of us realise that one reason for their generosity is the regime of high tax rates in the United States and the tax shelters that such generosity creates for them. Does it matter what the original reasons are, when in the final analysis, the nation benefits from a more involved citizenry? Sir, these days, we are bombarded with calls to be more entrepreneurial and to take greater risks by our leaders, in particular the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister. The Government has also done much to develop an environment which allows technopreneurial companies to start up and thrive. As a matter of interest, only in last Friday's Straits Times Forum page, the National Science and Technology Board came up with a long list of initiatives implemented by the Government. Sir, the first point of concern addressed in this letter was that of adequate financing being crucial to the development of technopreneurship. How true! And I applaud the truism of that statement. But what I would like to add is that what the Government had done is still inadequate. Very often, many a bright idea has died an untimely death from the lack of seed money. While there may be venture capitalists, these people would not normally finance start-up ideas. Often, they want to see more concrete evidences of potential successes than a dreamer with an idea, a burning ambition and a willingness to work 25 hours a day. Luckily for technopreneurs-to-be, before venture capitalists, there are the business angels, normally individuals who are more willing to finance dreamers with their own money.”
“I think the Government can afford to be more generous with the treatment of tax deductions to designated institutions and projects. For example, some institutions and projects could be designated as S21 institutions and projects. Contributions to such institutions and projects could then qualify for double tax deductions. Or if this is too generous, maybe 1.5 times tax deduction. A strong signal will then be sent to all and sundry, that is, this is the direction we want to go, and the Government will do all it can to encourage all Singaporeans towards that direction. Double tax deduction as a means to promote desired objectives is not new. It had been done before; with success, I must add. Surely, it will not be misplaced in this instance. More importantly, Sir, those supporting such specific institutions and projects, though initially encouraged by the greater financial benefit of higher tax deductions, may begin to identify with such institutions and projects. With time, ownership and subsequent involvement then becomes that much easier. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for suggesting financial methods to encourage the attainment of the high ideals and goals embodied in S21, I know that I take on the danger of being branded as crass or gross. How can I bring in the idea of sullying S21 with Mammon? If so, I make no apologies for it. First, let us not forget that however crass the idea may be, money is a strong motivating factor. Second, we need not be so altruistic that we forgo one of the strongest motivating factors to reach our objectives. Remember that the goal is to get greater involvement and participation. Once that goal is reached, very often the reasons why one started to participate and be involved in the first place are often forgotten.”
“Nevertheless, budgetary measures such as those in this year's Budget are matters of judgment and timing. Whether or not the Minister's judgment to remove or reduce the tax relief measures now is correct, we will never know. The removal of these measures is not that major in that economic growth will be visibly affected. All it means is that we will have lost some time in the global competition of being there first. Unfortunately, in today's fast-paced global market place, especially in the new technological engines of economic growth, speed and being there first is of the utmost importance. Sir, I would have expected that after the recession the Government would use the Budget to signal a more forward-looking policy for Singapore. Unfortunately, in this year's Budget, there are few such signals. I would thus like to touch on three areas where such signals should be set. These are: (1) Tax deduction for contributions to S21 programmes; (2) Tax deduction for venture capital; and (3) Closing the digital divide. Sir, in S21, we have come up with a first class vision of what we, as Singaporeans, want Singapore to be. We agree that we should take a more participative role as Singaporeans; active citizenship, civil society, helping our less fortunate and less able fellow citizens, and so on and so forth. All these call for greater resources from the average Singaporeans, in terms of willingness, time, effort and money. While the Government cannot, in the short term, do much to promote greater participation in the first three areas, that is, willingness, time and effort, there is much it can do to encourage more monetary contributions from Singaporeans.”
“5% will only take effect in the year of assessment 2001. In other words, there is a claw back of tax collections in this section to IRAS for this year resulting from the removal of the 2.6% rebate. What would this sum be? Based on simple arithmetic and the same corporate profit base, it would amount to $728 million. This is based on 0.5% is equivalent to $140 million, and therefore 2.6% would be equivalent to $728 million. Moreover, 1999's collection was based on the actual corporate results in 1998, a year in which most corporate profits were ravaged. On the other hand, this year's tax collection would be based on last year's corporate results. We all know, Sir, that most corporations had been reporting much improved corporate figures for last year. Thus, I would expect the taxable base for this year, which is based on last year's corporate result, to be much higher than that of Year of Assessment 1999. Based on this, Sir, I expect the increase in the collection of corporate tax could be much higher than $728 million, yet the Budget book shows only an increase of $550 million. I am not against the Government taking a bigger bite of the expected bigger economic pie. But I question the timing of this policy. We have just recovered from a recession. Private sector wealth of individuals and corporations has been badly mauled. In the light of economic globalisation and competition, the Government has been urging the private sector to take greater risks. Sir, a most appropriate and correct call, but how can the private sector do this when, at the first sign of recovery, the Government implements measures to nip the rebuilding of such private sector wealth so necessary to provide the basis for taking greater risks?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate. The budget is indeed a conservative and a prudent budget. The economy has recovered. How else could the Government finances show a turn around of $8.3 billion last year - from a projected deficit of $5.1 billion to an unexpected surplus of $3.2 billion? Yet, in spite of this unexpected sterling performance of the economy, the Minister has seen it fit to remove or reduce almost all the measures given in prior years to reduce the tax burden of taxpayers, individuals as well as corporations. The result, as we can see, is a projected Government surplus of $2.5 billion for the coming fiscal year. Given the Finance Ministry's well-known bias of underestimating revenue and overestimating expenditure, this figure could well be much higher. Sir, I would like to bring the attention of this House to just one item, that of corporate taxes, as an example to illustrate this. In the Budget book on page 21, the revised collection in 1999 from corporate taxes is estimated to be $6.2 billion. The projected figure for FY 2000 is estimated to be $6.75 billion, an increase of $550 million. Let us then look at the Minister's Budget statement on Corporate Income Tax section. In it he said that the revenue loss arising from the reduction in corporate tax rate from 26% to 25.5% would amount to $140 million. In other words, a 0.5% reduction amounts to a loss of $140 million. There is nothing wrong with this, except that we must not forget that 1999's revised collection was estimated after a rebate of 10% from a tax rate of 26%, or effectively a 2.6% rebate. This rebate has been removed from this year's budget while the loss of $140 million will only take effect from next year, as this drop of 0.”
“Another VWO effort is the Christian Outreach to the Handicapped's day activity centre which trains autistic youths aged between 13 and 18 years in independent living skills (such as taking a bath, making simple meals, sweeping the floor, making their own beds and clearing their own things). The very low-functioning autistic persons without family support and who need residential care can be admitted into the seven homes for disabled persons run by VWOs. Two more homes are in the pipeline. MCD will continue to work with the NCSS and VWOs to ensure that there are adequate services and facilities to meet the needs of the disabled, including the autistic.”
“I am afraid the Minister of State misunderstood me. I have asked a very specific question, ie, if a policeman were to observe a bicyclist without a headlight passing by him at night, would he ignore the infringement? Or would the policeman actually stop the cyclist to take down the particulars of the cyclist? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As a law enforcement officer, I would expect the policeman to at least warn the cyclist and to inform him that he is violating the law. That is the least that he can do. AUTISTIC CENTRE (Setting up) 6. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Community Development if his Ministry has plans to set up an autistic centre to cater to the needs of autistic persons who are above 12 years old. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development (Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon) (for the Minister for Community Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, presently, there are several voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) that provide services for autistic persons above the age of 12. Autism occurs in varying degrees of severity. With the appropriate training, the majority of autistic persons can remain in the community. The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and the Autistic Association (Singapore) in a joint effort started the Autism Youth Centre (AYC) in March this year. The AYC provides autistic youths aged between 12 and 21 years with social and learning skills. The AYC has just been allocated new premises at an HDB void deck at Hougang Avenue 6, and will move there as soon as renovations are completed. This location will enable AYC to reach out to more autistic persons and help them to integrate better with the mainstream community.”