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 12 of 15.
“I am afraid the Minister of State has not really answered my question. But if it is true, may I suggest that slip roads be built around this factory so that the residents in the area can have a direct access to the expressway.”
“Sir, may I ask whether it is true that one of the key obstacles is the edible oil refinery factory right in the path of the expressway?”
“May I ask the Minister how many permanent residents of this sort are refused work permits if they apply for it? And if the answer is neglible, may I ask why incur extra work for the Ministry? Since he allows them to stay in Singapore, why not allow them to work without restrictions?”
“Sir, with respect to MRT, may I ask the Minister whether, instead of sterile names like North, East and West lines, he could change them to more colourful names like Nee Soon line, Bedok line and Jurong line.”
“Sir, despite what the Minister has said, may I ask why is it that at Area Offices, partial payments initiated by the tenants themselves are normally not permitted? I have received many such complaints.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is true that Edgar D'Souza has been granted Australian permanent residence. If this is true, may I also ask the grounds for such speedy approval by the Australian authorities, since the basis for such speedy approval may mean certain implications on Singapore's image.”
“Sir, although no warrant for the arrest of Father Edgar D'Souza has been issued, may I ask the Minister, in view of his latest reply, whether he intends to issue one.”
“Sir, may I once again ask the Minister why he cannot consider an enhanced compensation for the structures and their improvements by shopkeepers? Under today's policy, farmers do get enhanced compensation for their structures compared to non- farmers whose structures are compensated at residential rates. I believe that today the shopkeepers' structures are also compensated at the residential rates. So the proposed enhanced compensation is for the loss of livelihood which appears to be the case considering the effects of the new policy.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister, in view of what he has said, whether the policy could be modified to (a) give a higher preferential margin in the bidding, say, from the present 10% to 50%; and (b) to provide for enhanced compensation as in the case of farmers where their structures and improvements are currently compensated at higher levels than those of non-farmers. In this respect, Sir, may I also ask the Minister to have the Resettlement Committee look into other proposed modifications.”
“To ask the Minister for Finance whether he will consider giving tax relief to persons providing financial care for their younger siblings in situations where their parents are unable to do so.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps I may refresh the Minister's memory. What I asked was whether there are any conditions attached to the purchasers of the new shops, such as whether they are allowed to lease out the shops or whether the shops must be owner-occupied.”
“Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. As regards the new shops to be sold at the end of 1987, must they be used for owner- occupation, which means that the purchasers must use them for their own business? Or can they freely lease them to others? Secondly, will the new policy of $26,000 compensation for shopkeepers be applied to those already resettled, ie, already moved out but are presently on the waiting list for the allocation of shophouses?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider giving tax relief for those persons providing financial care for their younger siblings, in situations where the parents are deceased or are in no position to take care of their children. Sir, I am specifically referring to cases where relief would have been allowed for the parents had they been in a position to provide financial care for their children.”
“And the Select Committee and the Minister had to perform the fine art of balancing the rights and needs of various conflicting interests such as creditors, bankers and financiers, workers, employees, shareholders, directors and a host of others, including, most importantly, giving the judicial manager enough powers and room to do a proper job of helping the ailing company to its feet. Sir, while there may be still some who may not be fully satisfied with the final amendments, I am sure that all will agree that the Select Committee and the Minister have taken all interested and very often conflicting views into consideration. For example, section 227B taken together with section 227H with respect to floating charges may not please the bankers. However, I agree with the Minister that every opportunity must be given to the judicial manager to succeed. The whole intention of these amendments on judicial management will be defeated if the manager fails to do a proper job because his hands are tied too much. In any case, I believe that the banks will be able to adjust to the changed situation because of the new legislation. Sir, I am more certain that regardless of happiness or unhappiness on the part of anybody or any party, all will agree that these new amendments will bring forth a new era in the business history of Singapore, a new era that is much needed and welcome by all. Sir, I fully support the Bill. 12.55 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure that the support, applause and congratulations for the Minister for Finance both within this House and outside would be deafening. May I with your permission, Sir, join in the din. The Bill before us is a first-class example of the democratic process of legislation at work. It is not just an ordinary Bill but one that will affect the business and economic well-being of Singapore. The Select Committee and the Minister have handled the Bill in such a way that few, if any, can be unhappy with the amendments. Sir, the Minister has told us that the Select Committee received 29 written representations and saw 47 persons representing themselves, their companies or various associations. It has produced a voluminous Report of 515 pages and the result is the amendment Bill. I am sure that all those who have given their viewpoints are happy because I believe most, if not all, of their representations have been taken into consideration. Sir, at the time when the Bill was first presented, there were two main areas of contention, as the Minister has pointed out. One was the automatic disqualification of directors under section 149. The other, of course, was the lack of rehabilitation for ailing companies. The business community wanted the removal of section 149 for good reasons. The Minister wanted the retention of the powers of section 149 for equally good reasons. With the new approach, I believe that both parties are satisfied. The new amendments on the judicial management were somewhat more difficult because there were just too many conflicting interests.”
“It is not the award. It is the figure itself.”
“Sir, may I have a point of clarification?”
“There are other examples but I do not suppose that this is the time nor the place to go into details. Suffice to say, Sir, I wish that sometimes those responsible for the implementation of policies take a look from the other side. The view could be altogether different although we are in the same boat. Yet very often even those adversely affected can understand the need for the Government policies. But, Sir, what they cannot understand is why the implementation can sometimes be so inflexible even when it makes sense to be flexible. These are procedures devised by the departments concerned. If there is a will, procedures could be changed to suit the circumstances. In the final analysis, even the law could be changed if it is necessary to do so. I can only hope that in the review, Sir, if there is going to be one, the process of implementation would be given its due share of consideration.”
“That the land policy has adversely affected many landlords is beyond dispute. It was necessary and in a way perhaps even beneficial to them as all could then share in a more prosperous and peaceful Singapore. Having said so, Sir, however, I think that its implementation could perhaps be better done so as to alleviate some of the adverse effects. In my amendments on the Budget estimates for the Ministry of Law during the Committee of Supply, I have already stated two examples. However, I must add that it is not that the officials in the relevant Ministries have some perverse delight in tormenting the affected persons but, Sir, it is more that in performing their duties to the best interest of their responsibilities, they sometimes do not see other conflicting interests, interests necessary for the progress of Singapore. For instance, in the example of land alienation, the tender system is sometimes a cold towel on the entrepreneurial initiative. But I agree that unless there is a better system, the tender system should stay. However, in order not to dampen initiative, I suggested a discount off the tender price for the originator of any proposal. I do hope that the relevant Ministry take this up. Again, in the example of land acquisition, I suggested that to help affected businesses to survive until the compensation award is given, perhaps a provisional award figure, not the provisional award itself, but a provisional figure could be given. This would help to keep the credit lines open, especially when the amount required to keep the business going may be lower than that provisional figure. Sir, these are some examples of flexibility that will help those adversely affected by our land policy without affecting the policy itself.”
“In the midst of this diminishing demand, there are also a number of factors which must surely influence the way land should be utilized in future and these are (1) a more affluent society and, hopefully, a growing tourist industry with increasing demands for better leisure and recreational facilities; (2) an aging population calling for redesigned housing facilities and amenities; (3) preservation and conservation of certain sites with historical links; (4) shortage of private land available for acquisition; (5) acquisition may have to be paid at current market values instead of the 1973 prices presently used. As more of Singapore population become property owners, the rationale for this policy is becoming less; and (6) Repeal of the Rent Control Act or at least amend some of its provisions. The reasons for this Act have faded into history. From these comments, it can be noted that: (1) A comprehensive policy for the utilization of land for Singapore in the coming years appears necessary at this juncture; (2) Formulating such a policy will not be an easy task; and (3) Whatever policy is framed, we must incorporate a built-in flexibility and ability to make early adjustments to changing market demands. Sir, to summarize, I think that to develop such a land utilization policy, it is essential to air and study many aspects. What I believe is needed is a committee, perhaps not too large, but at the same time representative of as many related fields as possible, to bring forth the outlines of a policy conceived as necessary for Singapore in the 1990s and beyond. Sir, I now come to Part II of my motion, and that is implementation procedures. I believe that our land policy has served us well, even though I think a comprehensive review is necessary at this stage.”
“However, based on available demographic factors which indicate a peaking of the population by the turn of the century, the demand for land for housing seems to be a declining one. Industry and commerce Our emphasis in this direction is in the services and high technological industries. Smoke-stacked heavy industries are apparently out. The demand for land by these new industries in the brave economic world of Singapore will be lesser than those favoured yesteryear such as shipyards and iron mills. Hotels and other commercial needs may be the only exceptions in the more distant future as the tourist industry picks up. In this respect, may I specifically ask the Minister to reply to market allegations that the Government should be held responsible for Singapore's present hotel glut. Land transportation With the end of the road building programme in sight and the coming of the MRT, land demand for this requirement will diminish rapidly. On intra-private sector transfers, my comment is whether the Govenment should be involved from now on. What then, Sir, would be the major demand for land in Singapore in the foreseeable future? My guess is that it will come from the following areas: (1) land needed for social and recreational facilities; (2) land needed for hospitals, schools, libraries and the like. Sir, these demands are no longer basic fundamental demands though there may be some who will disagree. Nevertheless, these are necessary to improve our quality of living index. However, I do not think that these demands will be as great as those for the fundamental needs of housing, transportation and industry.”
“Need for a New Land Utilization Policy Our current land policy appears to be governed mainly by demand due to (1) defence requirements; (2) housing, both private and public; (3) industry and commerce; (4) land transportation, such as those for MRT and roads; (5) various essentials necessary to serve the economic needs of Singapore, such as the Port of Singapore and the Changi Airport; (6) institutions for everyday living, such as schools and other educational facilities, hospitals, leisure and recreational facilities. While most of the demands are public sector in nature, there are some which are more like intra-private sector transfers. These are the land acquired by the Government and resold for private development. Sir, let us examine some of these demands and see whether the demand for them can be justified in the context of our present situation as well as the future Singapore that we want. Defence Land for defence will never be enough. For defence training purposes, the more land, the more varied the terrain, the happier would be the Defence Ministry. If we accept this premise, then it is a matter of judgment to evaluate the amount of land that could be set aside for defence. How much must obviously be juggled with the other demands for land and not solely by how much the Ministry of Defence wants. Housing Eighty-five per cent of Singapore's population are now housed in public housing. There are also approximately 22,000 vacant HDB units. The HDB has said it will continue with its building programme, albeit at a slower pace. Taken together, Sir, these factors mean that the percentage of the population in public housing is likely to go up. How successful the new policy on population is going to be remains to be seen.”
“Sir, land has been, is and always will be the Achilles heel of Singapore. Because of the small area of Singapore, our economic survival and even our survival as a nation has always been a point of discussion. The small area of our land mass sets the parameters for many other factors affecting our nation's ability to survive - the population, water resources, economic activities, even social and recreational activities. However, Sir, the fact that we have had a very successful history since 1959 when we gained some form of control over our national destiny is proof that we have tackled this issue correctly. The Land Acquisition Act and our policies regarding utilization of land are our very special brand of land reform. Unlike other countries where these have been sensitive and difficult issues, the people of Singapore have accepted our own unique way. For this, Sir, we must thank our Government leaders who have so painstakingly explained why the Government had to acquire land at low prices as well as our people who realize that the only way for Singapore to progress is for all Singaporeans to work in harmony and that income and wealth redistribution is an important ingredient in the maintenance of this harmony. But, Sir, given the fact that much of our infrastructural development has been completed, I think there is now a need to review our policy on land utilization. In the context of today's Singapore and, more importantly, Vision 1999, perhaps the emphasis paid towards certain utilization of land in the past is no longer relevant today. What I want to say, Sir, can be briefly summarized into two broad categories: (1) the need for a new land utilization policy; and (2) the procedures of implementation which are just as important as the policy itself.”
“The size of the British Gas issue was so large that everyone could get his reasonable share, whereas in the RDC and the SNP cases, the total issues were so small that balloting was unavoidable. However, I am not disputing the principle, and again I would ask the Member to be more patient because in future we will certainly take into account some of his requests.”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister does not misunderstand me. I did not say that the British were fair to their public while the Singapore Government was unfair to its public. All I said was that in the British Gas method of allocation all the small lots were given shares, a minimum amount, whereas all the large lots or large applications had to be balloted. In doing so, it ensures, first and foremost, that there is a very widespread participation in the process. Secondly, it also takes into recognition of the fact that these shares which represent the ownership of the company belong to the people in the first place. However, I take heart that the Minister will speak to Temasek Holdings to consider this in future. In this respect, I would like him, if possible, to refer the Temasek management to the share issue of British Gas, where the use of a claw-back arrangement allowed the issuer, ie, the government, to reduce the proportion reserved for UK and foreign institutions when the demand from small investors was good. Sir, it was originally planned for this issue that 40% of the issue will go to the British public, 40% to the UK institutions, and only 20% to the foreign institutions. However, as a result of strong demand by the UK public, in the event, the individual British public had 64% of the allotment, the UK institutions had 24%, and only 12% went to the foreign institutions. I think, Sir, this method is very much more enlightening than the two recent issues of RDC and SNP. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there are distinct differences between these three cases. I repeat again.”
“That means even those with small sums of money can invest and pay for the shares over a period of time. Sir, if CPF funds are combined with this, it will surely encourage more small investors to be involved in the privatization programme.”
“But I do not understand why in the case of SNP, it was disregarded even though many investors would rate their investments in SNP as good as the one in RDC which was allowed. Thirdly, I would like to suggest that all citizens who apply for small lots be allotted shares while local and foreign institutions and those who wish to make large investments should undergo balloting. If the above were applied, Sir, I believe we would see many small investors participating in the privatization process. Also, those who use large financing facilities to apply for large amounts of shares would have fewer opportunities to speculate in the new listings. This obviously would lead to a very widespread ownership and a strong secondary market, since those who wish to make large investments would have to pay hefty premiums in the secondary market. True, Sir, there are some small investors who will obviously sell off their shares at a premium and make some money from the allotment. But then, Sir, these shares are theirs in the first place. These investments were made with their money. If the investments fail, as in the case of ECICS where I think they have taken a large amount of losses as evidenced by the supplementary budget estimates at the beginning of this sitting, such losses would have to be made good with Government, ie public funds. So if the Government has succeeded with some of its investments, I think the profits should accrue to the people of Singapore and not to foreigners or the large investors. Sir, finally, I would also like the Minister to consider the issuance of partly paid shares because this means allowing the man in the street to save and pay for his shares in the beginning but over a period of time.”
“Only one-third of the total allotment of shares were given to this category. In the case of SNP, the ballot for those who applied for 500 shares, the minimum lot, led to eight out of nine applicants being left out. For SNP only about 15% of the share issue was given to those who applied for 500 shares. Sir, privatization is nothing new. In fact, it has become the trend in the Western world. It is, however, interesting to note that in almost every case privatization makes use of the stock market as a vehicle by which to allot shares to the man in the street; hopefully, their own citizens. In contrast with Singapore's recent examples, the British case displays an enlightened approach. When British Gas was privatized, every one who applied for 500 to 10,000 shares was allotted shares. In Singapore, those who applied for large parcels of shares were guaranteed a minimum allotment. But those who applied for small lots had to undergo balloting. By contrast, in the British Gas issue, those who applied for more than 15,000 shares had to undergo balloting while those who applied for smaller lots were automatically allotted shares. Sir, if these are public companies belonging to the people of Singapore, I think it is only right that we return back to the people what is theirs in the first place. Sir, if we want to achieve the widest public, Singaporean public that is, participation in privatization, it is essential that the basis of allotment be changed. I would thus like to suggest to the Minister to consider the following: Firstly, board lots should be as small as possible. In fact, why not as small as 100 shares? Secondly, the use of CPF funds for Government linked companies should be encouraged. This has already been stated and, apparently, will be the policy.”
“Sir, I would like to bring the House back to sometime in October 1980 when Dr Milton Friedman was here for the Singapore Lecture. At a forum he asked a senior Government policy maker about privatization and why the Government was so much involved in the economy. The answer given then was, "Yes, the Government is aware of it and, in fact, it is going to privatize some companies". An example of the Neptune Orient Lines was given. The next question asked by the good doctor was, "Who owns the NOL?" The answer given was, "The Government." He went on to ask "But who is the Government?" The answer given was, "The people." The good doctor then asked, "Does this mean that it is the people of Singapore that owns NOL?" The answer was "Yes." Then he asked, "Why should we be asking the people of Singapore to pay for the shares of NOL when they owned it in the first place?" Sir, I do not think despite the logic of the good doctor's comment that I will be able to convince the Minister for Finance to distribute shares free of charge to the people of Singapore. Nevertheless the Minister for Finance has stated very clearly that the privatization programme should provide for the widest possible public participation. Sir, I hope when he said "public" he meant the Singaporean public. However, if we look at two recent examples of privatization, that is, the listing of RDC (Resources Development Corporation) and that of SNP (Singapore National Printers), it was clear that the basis of allotment of shares showed many small applicants, most of whom I am sure are Singaporeans, ignored in the allotment. In fact, Sir, the small investors were left in the cold. In the case of RDC, three out of four applicants for 1,000 shares each were not successful.”
“Immigration Department (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QH-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr S. Chandra Das: Immigration Department (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QH-01 of the Main Estimates. The sum of $363,321,550 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $64,323,000 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N -”
“Sir, it looks like I am forced by procedure to withdraw because I would like to answer his questions. But I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head Q having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:-”
“Sir, may I reply to this? Whatever steps that the Government has taken, whether it is through the reply of the Minister for Community Development or others, I think we must realize that today those with criminal records are still treated like pariahs of society. I had some cases of people who came to see me. They had served and paid their due to the society. When a private company wanted one such person to be a messenger and he was required to have access to, for example, the air cargo complex, on the grounds of a record many years ago, he was denied a pass and thus he had to resign from the job. I have another case of somebody who was detained in 1959 for two weeks under the CLD, the Criminal Law Detention. Because of that he was refused a vocational driving licence. It was only after many appeals that I was able to convince the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Communications and Information, the hon. Member for Jurong, otherwise; that he has to consider the fact that it happened in 1959, some 28 years ago. Sir, I think there is a lot in this area that still requires something to be done. Another point, Sir, concerns the question of the responsibility of the CRO. I did not say that the CRO has to be responsible for the utilization of the information. All I suggest is that a strict classification be done so that, when departments ask for information, it should be strictly screened as to whether this information is required or not. And if it does not fall within the guidelines of the CRO, then I suggest the information should not be given or at least some type of information should not be given.”
“Although he pleaded the same type of excuse, I think the court ruled that he, in fact, was responsible because he knew that the kids were going to use the glue for sniffing.”
“First, the Criminal Records Office should review its policy of giving information. Information should only be given to relevant departments so that only relevant information is given to those who need it for a relevant purpose. Sir, one method could be a strict classification of information according to the seriousness of the crime or when it was committed. Then all requests to this Office should be classified according to the need for information. The information released then can be appropriate to the need. Sir, the second point is that departments issuing licences and passes should review the need to screen applicants and ask for a completely clean record from birth. Right now, it appears that there is no discrimination at all. What is required is some flexibility. Thirdly, I think the public sector should also be treated more like the private sector where screening process is not available to them, except, Sir, for some sensitive and security positions. Finally, I would like to propose that the Ministry of Home Affairs together with the Ministry of Community Development and perhaps relevant bodies form a committee to look into this issue. Sir, before I give the Floor to the Minister, I hope he will not answer by saying that the Criminal Record Office only issues information and that he is not responsible for the utilization of this information. Sir, it is like a gun vendor saying, "I only sell the gun. But if the gun is used to kill somebody, please don't hold me responsible." In this respect, I would also like to remind the House that in the UK, I believe a shopkeeper was charged for selling glue indiscriminately to young kids.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QF-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I would like to speak on a topic which I think everyone of us is aware of but thinks that it is another person's problem, not ours. I am referring basically to the rehabilitation of our fallen citizens with criminal records. I am aware that organizations like SCORE are doing a marvellous job but I believe that that is insufficient. The task of forgiving and welcoming our prodigal sons back into the fold, Sir, should not be left to these organizations alone. It should be the responsibility of the whole of our society and, in that respect, Sir, I think it should start with the Government. Firstly, I would like to ask why most, if not all, Government agencies ask for screening of applicants for all sorts of licences and passes, regardless of need? I am aware that in some situations security screening is necessary but now it appears that screening is a normal process. Almost all departments want a clean record, regardless of when offences had been committed and if they do not get a clean record the applicant will definitely be unsuccessful. Secondly, Sir, the worst is for employment purposes. Unfortunately, the public sector has access to screening processes. Again in this area, with the screening facilities available to them and, in a way, the "kia-soo" attitude of the employers, applicants with criminal records for jobs in the public sector do not really have a ghost of a chance. I am aware that this is a social problem larger than the Government department's concern. However, Sir, the solution to this issue must first start with the Government re-examining some of its policies.”
“Neighbourhood Policing Scheme (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QC-06-8102 of the Development Estimates.”
“Singapore Police Force (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State that, as long as these reasons are valid, may I have his assurance that there will be no plan to link Seletar Road with Ang Mo Kio New Town? And secondly, should there be such a plan, would he seek the opinion of the Member of Parliament for the area?”
“All I can say is that this is where I think we have gone wrong. We tell the people what to do, what is good for them. All I am saying is that, please, give them a chance. Let them decide for themselves what is good for them. And they are just asking you to give them a chance.”
“Mr Chairman, may I have a point of clarification. I really do agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on his lament that people do not listen to people. I thought he knew I was talking about hardship cases. His explanation is correct if we are not talking about hardship cases. An ordinary person must depend on his skills to survive. But unfortunately when you come to these hardship cases, Sir, they are not ordinary persons or else they would not be hardship cases. I am talking only about the hardship cases and I believe that some help should be given; such as in the form of at least giving them some stalls where there is already traffic generated by those with culinary skills so that they can at least benefit from those traffic. I am not talking about the ordinary cases or the ordinary applications or those who drive Mercedes Benzes. I am talking about the hardship cases!”
“And if there is more than one application, it will be ballotted, which means that you can continue to apply for years without being successful. In the meanwhile, I would like to ask, who takes care of these hardship cases? I know that the allocation of stalls is not the Ministry of the Environment's responsibility. But at the same time, this is a hawker problem and I think they have a responsibility to these applicants. I would like to urge the Minister to intercede with his Cabinet colleague to look at this problem.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir. I did not submit an amendment but I would like to bring up this subject under the Environment Ministry although it may involve the National Development Ministry. The reason is that my amendment under the HDB unfortunately was never reached. This is in regard to the allocation and the process of approving applications for hawker licences for hardship cases. I understand that the Ministry's policy right now is not to give any more licences to non-hawkers who apply for hawker licences unless they are hardship cases. Under this criterion, after they have gone through a difficult and rigorous examination, they are finally given a letter to go to the HDB for allocation of a stall. And then what happens? Normally, the stalls that are given to them are those stalls where business has failed not once, twice, but even three, four, five or six times before. The business climate in those areas is so bad that it is impossible for anybody, much less a hardship case, to really succeed in doing business there. And on top of this problem we are giving these stalls not to ordinary persons or to persons who can make a success out of things in a normal way, but to persons who are in financial hardship. And this may include widows with three or four kids. Moreover, they must be over 40 years old. I really do not understand the reason for placing the minimum age of 40 years as the criterion for hardship cases. I can understand that if they are not hardship cases; because we do not want young and able bodied men to work as hawkers. But I cannot understand the minimum age requirement for hardship cases. Sir, the allocation mechanism is such that you can only apply for a particular stall once a month.”
“Sir, in view of the Minister of State's reply which covers the general situation in Singapore, may I ask why would not the HDB pass this function to the Town Councils, especially since Town Councils are in a better position to provide specific answers to specific needs in accordance with local conditions?”
“If the Minister of State knows the precise locations, he will know that these industrial parks are situated far away from residential areas. And may I ask him whether in view of this he will reconsider his answer.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he knows the location of Ang Mo Kio Industrial Parks 2 and 3 which are in my Constituency?”
“I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $30,357,040 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,315,884,400 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -”
“If this figure could then be made known to the owner, the lending institution could perhaps be persuaded to allow utilization up to 100% of the provisional award. Liquidity for the business then continues and the business perhaps will be saved.”
“I am aware of that, Sir. That is why earlier I begged leave to withdraw the amendment. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SC-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, land is one of the most common collateral used by businessmen to borrow funds from financial institutions. Since a property usually assumes 1973 prices once it is gazetted for acquisition, the financial lending institution normally freezes the borrowing account of the business. This is purely a defensive move since the final compensation award is uncertain and could well be below prevailing market values. The difficulty for the business then is that, through no fault of his, he finds his line of credit dried up. His ability to continue business suffers tremendously unless he has alternative sources of financing. The process of determining the award at 1973 prices, Sir, normally takes months, much longer if the land owner decides to contest the acquisition order. In the meanwhile the business suffers and may die a premature death. In the context of the current situation, Sir, may I suggest that the following be instituted to alleviate the problems of businesses caused by land acquisition: (1) If it is possible, amend the 1973 Act to pay prevailing market values. Sir, the Prime Minister has said in this House that the Government had to play Robin Hood. Perhaps in the early days this Singapore version of land reform was necessary. Is it necessary now? Should the Government not pay prevailing prices for the land it now acquires? (2) If this is not possible, could the Government compute a provisional compensation award as soon as possible? After all, with all the experience of past cases it should be an expert now.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“If we did not have a tendering system, businessmen or entrepreneurs who develop close associations or who have frequent dealings with the relevant departments would have an undue advantage or be seen to have an undue advantage over other competitors who may be better developers but have no such opportunity of close contact or frequent dealings with the Government department. This would give rise to malpractice or the appearance of malpractice, both of which would be bad. Developers who thought of the project first would not lose out as their proposals would have an edge over others in competition by open tender. Tendering therefore is the best method in ensuring fair competition, not only in the alienation of land but also in other types of Government services, goods and public projects. No doubt the person who first applied might feel unhappy, but tendering is a tried and tested practice enshrined in our State land rules to avoid favouritism, opportunities for malpractice and corruption. I think we should stick to it. But if the Member can devise an equally fair method which is practical and not cumbersome, my Ministry is prepared to consider it.”