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 2 of 15.
“May I ask something specifically of the Minister? If a bicycle is used on the public thoroughfare without a headlight, and if a policeman happens to be standing by, would the policeman ignore such an offence, or would he try to stop the cyclist and take down the particulars of the cyclist? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Like I have said, there is a range of options open to the police officer. In some situations, they have given warnings, which is also an option. In other cases, they have issued summonses. So I would say it depends on the facts of each case.”
“May I ask of the Minister of State whether the police will step up enforcement because I had personally observed policemen actually ignoring such infringements? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It depends on the nature of the offence. Like I have said, in the more serious offences, for example, cycling against the flow of traffic, police indeed have issued such summonses. Indeed, over the years, the number of summonses has gone up. I will inform the police of the Member's concern and, where appropriate, enforcement would be carried out.”
“Sir, I do not believe it is a matter of subjective view. Would the Minister of State ask some company to do a survey because, currently, without registration, most bicycles are used on the roads without headlights or reflector lights at night. And very often, for some strange reasons, the bicyclists normally wear dark clothings, making them both a danger to themselves as well as to other road users. Just for the Minister of State's information, I had a personal experience where I nearly knocked into a bicyclist. Thereafter, I made it a point to observe such bicyclists on the roads. From my own personal survey, I would say that the majority of them do not use headlights. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have assured the Member, we have got the rules which are there. Indeed, all cyclists should be reminded that they are also part of the traffic and therefore they should abide by the traffic rules. Having said this, whilst enforcement is important, on the other hand, given the wide range of cyclists where you have young children and the elderly, we should also remember that public education is another arm that should be embarked on. Indeed, police will take these two approaches of enforcement and public education.”
“Sir, is the Minister of State aware that there are many bicycles being used at night on the road without headlamps or reflector lights? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think it is a subjective view, but there will certainly be bicyclists who flout the law. I want to assure the Member that what the Traffic Police will do is to step up public education. This is one focus where Traffic Police will put more effort, targetting, in particular, the elderly, working through, for example, SAGE and the People's Association as well as foreign workers through their employers.”
“We want all Singaporeans of all income groups, races or religions to be one people and have common shared values. Some of the ways that are in place to promote integration in our society already exist such as volunteerism and mutual help. My Ministry, CDCs, grassroots and self help organisations and voluntary welfare organsations have various programmes that bring our people together to care and share with one another, their time, resources and expertise, and in the process foster and strengthen ties. Our National Education Programme will also develop better understanding and instinctive bonding across races starting from the young. All these will work towards strengthening community bonding.”
“In addition, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore is also working with relevant agencies such as the Trade Development Board to see how we can further develop Singapore as an international maritime centre. COSMPOLITANS AND HEARTLANDERS (Socio-economic disparity) 16. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Community Development (a) what is the assessment of his Ministry on the socio-economic disparity between the cosmopolitans and heartlanders of our population; (b) whether this socio-economic disparity is fast growing as a result of our globalisation and injection of foreign talent into our society; and (c) what strategic measures are being taken by his Ministry to counter this disintegrating factor of our multi-racial society. The Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister used the terms "cosmopolitans" and "heartlanders" of our population, he was referring to the outlook of two broad categories of people and reiterated that both were important to Singapore's well being. Each has its own distinct contribution to our society. For example, the heartlanders play a major role in maintaining the core values and our social stability and give us our Singapore brand name. Cosmopolitans, on the other hand, extend our economic reach and help Singapore to run as an efficient, high performance society. We should not look at cosmopolitans and heartlanders in terms of socio-economic status as this is not an issue. What is more important is that we must pay attention to community bonding and help all Singaporeans to understand each other and their contributions. The promotion of social harmony must be the concern of all sectors of Singapore society and not just the Government.”
“Since then, the proposal has been reviewed from time to time. One main issue surrounding the project is its high cost, recently estimated at 810 billion baht or about S$35 billion. There are also concerns about the impact of such a project on the environment. While there has been renewed discussion on the Kra Canal project recently, the Thai government has yet to come to any decision. According to a report in the Business Times on 28th August, Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai told reporters that, and I quote: "There is no plan to build the canal for now. It is still being studied and it is not a simple issue." However, if the project were to finally proceed and a shipping route across Southern Thailand established, the Canal would undoubtedly divert some shipping away from the Malacca Straits and Singapore Straits. These would be mainly ships which transit the Straits without intending to call at our port. However, as Singapore is a major shipping hub, the majority of vessels at our port come here to discharge and load cargo, undergo repairs and take bunkers, ship stores, water and other materials. Hence, the challenge for PSA depends not on whether there is a Kra Canal, but on whether we remain competitive as a shipping hub which ships choose to come to because it makes good economic and business sense. Even without the Kra Canal, PSA faces intense regional and international competition. Therefore, we never take our hub port status for granted. Our port must always be prepared to face new challenges and be proactive in maintaining its competitiveness. This is why PSA continually strives to ensure that it delivers the highest level of service at competitive rates, and that it has excellent connections to ports in the region and worldwide.”
“Question No. 14, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, there is no indication that Pulau Ubin is being used as a temporary hideout by illegal immigrants wanting to come into the main island of Singapore. There were only three occasions when illegal immigrants landed on Pulau Ubin in recent years, one case involving a single illegal immigrant in 1998 and two cases involving 10 illegal immigrants in August this year. All the illegal immigrants were arrested by the Police Coast Guard (PCG) soon after landing on Pulau Ubin. Police investigations revealed that these illegal immigrants were left to fend for themselves on the island by the smugglers. Police have also ascertained that the smugglers landed the illegal immigrants on the island by deceiving them that it was part of Singapore island. The Police Coast Guard will continue to maintain close watch over Pulau Ubin. Through its Pulau Ubin Police Post, Police will continue to work closely with the residents to detect any suspicious characters there. Given the terrain of the island and the close co-operation between the Pulau Ubin islanders and Police, illegal immigrants will not find a safe haven there. KRA CANAL IN THAILAND (Impact on viability of Singapore ports) 15. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether the development and operation of the Kra Canal in Thailand is likely to have a substantial impact on the viability of ports in Singapore. The Minister for Communications and Information Technology (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Sir, the idea to build a canal across Southern Thailand linking the Andaman Sea with the Gulf of Thailand was apparently first conceived in Thailand as far back as the 18th century.”
“The grace period of four years should be sufficient in most cases. The amendment gives the Minister the power to extend the grace period on a case-by-case basis for a further two years. This will provide more time for those who have actively tried to upgrade themselves during the four-year transitional period but, despite their hard work, failed to do so within the four years. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“These are the staff in the construction company. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So they are in-house. Mr Heng Chiang Meng: They are more or less in-house. I want to know whether these people would be required to be registered. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: This is one situation which I will bring to the Land Surveyors Board's attention. They can look into it and respond to the Member accordingly. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 - Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, after line 14: to insert - "(2) The Minister may, upon an application made before the expiry of the transitional period by any person referred to in subsection (1), extend the transitional period of 4 years referred to in that subsection for that person to practise as a land surveyor in respect of surveys other than cadastral surveys for a further period not exceeding 2 years.". Sir, as I have indicated in my Second Reading speech, a small group of surveying technicians currently practising on their own have expressed the concern that their firms may be phased out after the Bill is passed. The Bill already provides a four-year grace period for these surveying technicians to either join firms which are run by registered surveyors or, if they wish to continue practising on their own, upgrade themselves to become registered surveyors. It will take about three years for a surveying technician to obtain the necessary qualifications.”
“Sir, I do not think the Minister of State has answered my question regarding those people doing very simple, non-cadastral work, not as professional services, but as staff members; for example, as the engineer in a construction company doing work within its own construction site. These people are not providing professional services. But as I have said, these people are doing some simple work, for example, some measurements here and there from certain reference points, as part of their job. Under the present definition, these are actually survey works. I am trying to say that for this type of work you do not need a registered surveyor to do it. There are quite of lot of this type of very simple work. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Can I ask the Member whether these people who are doing the survey work are offering their services?”
“In this respect, I would like the Minister of State to confirm that the registration only applies to those professionals offering professional services for a fee and they do not apply to staff of companies that actually do such simple surveys for their company. May I give an analogy that if a doctor were to prescribe medicine for somebody, even if it is a matter of just a panadol pill, then obviously, he needs to be a registered practitioner. But if I feel sick, and on my own, I take panadol, it is self-medication. Certainly, I do not need to be a registered doctor to prescribe panadol for myself. So, in this respect, it is the same thing. If I ask somebody to provide a non-cadastral survey for me, then I am asking a professional for his services. Then he should be registered. But if one of my staff, for example, were to do a simple non-cadastral survey on my construction site, then it is as if that the company is prescribing self-medication. I would certainly like the Minister of State to confirm that there is no need to register such persons. Sir, to reiterate, I support the intent of the Bill to register all those who provide professional surveying services. I am only concerned with the implementation of the intent. I therefore hope that should the implementation be less than satisfactory, the Minister of State or his successor would present another amendment Bill to this House at a future date.”
“But of course, they cannot do the more complicated or more complex tasks and also certainly not the title or cadastral surveys. In this way, at least there would be sufficient practitioners in the market to provide a competitive environment. The reason that I am asking for this is that survey work is a whole range of very simple surveys to very complicated surveys. It is not like architectural work where the minimum standard involved is relatively much higher. But there is a range. For example, in the construction company that I work for, we do a lot of very simple non-cadastral surveys on site and these are done by our own professionals. They could be civil or structural engineers, and they can do this. It is not that they cannot do it. Of course, the starting point is that the proper cadastral survey is done by a fully registered professional. But from the reference points, it is really not difficult for somebody who is trained in engineering to do very simple surveys within the site. So, once you remove the word "cadastral" from the Act, as it is the intention of the amendment, then the question arises: would this type of very simple non-cadastral surveys be caught now by the legislation? Does this mean that anybody doing this type of work, whether the person is providing a service for a fee or whether the person is doing it as a staff of, let us say, a construction company has to be registered? Would the current engineers that are doing it now, where they actually are very fully competent to do it, have to be registered too? And if so, would they have to take any additional examinations because, as I said, these are all very simple survey works and anybody with some understanding of simple engineering skills should be able to do it.”
“Sir, may I declare my interest as an employee in a construction and property development company which would have, on many occasions, used the services of these surveyors and, in fact, our own staff do perform non-cadastral surveys and they are unregistered at present. Sir, I want to thank the Minister of State for his explanation. In particular, I really want to thank the arrangement that his Ministry has made with the Singapore Polytechnic for the advanced diploma course and also the additional amendment to extend the period from four to six years upon application. I must say that I fully agree with the need to register practitioners in this profession for the reasons mentioned by the Minister of State. However, my apprehension is not in the need to register but in the method of registration. Right now, the amendment as it is requires these people to be registered as assistants of currently registered surveyors or people who qualify under current standards to be registered with the Land Surveyors Board. I understand that though there are more registered surveyors, actually the number of registered surveyors currently practising, that means providing professional services for a fee, is only about 20. This means that there is a possibility that if we cannot get more into the market, we might end up a closed shop and a very uncompetitive market situation. Hence, I would like the Minister of State to assure this House that if such a situation arises, he would change the method of registration to, for example, having a second registry for non-cadastral surveys or even certain types of non-cadastral surveys. Then at least these people who perform the simpler non-cadastral surveys can be registered in their own names and probably maybe different standards be set.”
“Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister that if DBS were to do the same thing, would the Government, as the largest shareholder, use its influence? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Government, as the largest shareholder, cannot act against the commercial judgment of the banks. DBS has only 40% Government ownership. So they have to act in their commercial interest. They have taken over POSBank. There is a certain understanding that POSBank has come with a social mission and DBS inherits this social mission. It is not something which they can wash their hands off. There are parts of it which need to be gradually rationalised, eg, the lower interest mortgage loans which POSBank used to provide and which DBS has said, over a period of a few years, it will have to adjust those to market rates. Also, on deposits and savings deposits, some adjustments will be necessary. But I am sure that they will take their time and do it in a moderate way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the short answer is that we have reason to believe, and we satisfied ourselves, that Mr Akbar Khan was acting with the endorsement of the Malaysian authorities.”
“We hope they would be helpful to them when studying the problem. As for bringing the matter to the World Trade Organisation or the International Court of Justice, this is not a matter in the purview of the WTO, nor is it a treaty between the two countries, because the agreement was signed between SCANS on the Malaysian side and CDP on the Singapore side. But as I have informed Members, we are taking legal advice, including advice from QC, on our rights in this matter. That also answers the question on legal action. We are taking advice on our rights. Could GIC or Temasek offer to buy? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that would be very dangerous. Individual investors invested on Clob on their own. This was over the counter. These were not shares which were listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. They were shares listed elsewhere and not subject to our disclosure rules or corporate governance standards. Investors went in hoping to make a good return. There was no arrangement that if they made a good return, the Government would collect a small percentage, and if they went down, the Government would bear some of the loss. So for the Government to go in with GIC or Temasek to offer to buy these shares from Singaporeans, I think, would be a very, very dangerous precedent. The whole idea that individuals must take responsibility for their investment and must consider carefully and decide and take the rough and the smooth is there. What the Government can do in this circumstance, which has arisen, is to take up with the Malaysian authorities to try and get the matter resolved and that, as I have explained to Members, we are in the process of doing. Why does the SES consider Mr Akbar Khan's offer?”
“Sir, I have a number of supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. (1) May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, since the statistics from Clob show a diametrically opposite picture from that in the Malaysian White Paper, whether SES or even the Government would inform the Malaysian government of these statistics through normal channels? (2) May I also ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the issue of frozen Clob Malaysian shares could be brought up to international organisations such as WTO or even the International Court of Justice for resolution since it was clear that the trading of Malaysian shares on Clob was all along completely legal and the freeze was because the MCD had changed its rules regarding nominee shareholdings on 31st August 1998, coupled with SCANS not fulfilling its legal obligation of transferring the shares to individual accounts with MCD? (3) I would also like to ask him why CDP, as the umbrella nominee holder for Clob Malaysian shares, has not taken any legal action on this issue so far? (4) Since any private sector party is not precluded from making an offer for Clob Malaysian shares, could an organisation such as GIC or Temasek make an offer to purchase the shares at reasonable prices? In this respect, why is SES even considering the offer from an individual such as Mr Akbar Khan? Who is he? Does this mean that any future offers for Clob shares by any individual, regardless of the background or standing, will also receive the same consideration from the Stock Exchange of Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will of course extend copies of the analysis from the Business Times as well as the statistics I have given to Members today and the graph to the Malaysian authorities.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and his Senior Minister of State for their replies and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Although I have been bringing up this issue of tax incentives for pollution prevention and control and for environmental protection for several years already, I want to do so again this year. The Minister is well aware of this issue and the arguments for it. I just want to remind him that he is not doing enough to encourage the move towards greater environmental protection. Compared to the tax and other financial incentives given annually to promote the financial centre, the Green Sector is not even getting peanuts. Yet, environmental issues are the most pressing issues facing mankind today. By actively and aggressively promoting the growth of the green industry in Singapore, we can achieve two desirable goals. One is the growth of the industry and its related clusters to serve the region and, of course, to serve Singapore. We can become the green hub of the region. It will add another layer to our industrial base, thereby adding diversity to our economy. Given the worldwide trend towards environmental protection, the economic and business benefits to Singapore would not be small. The other goal is the encouragement of our companies to invest in environmentally friendly machinery and processes in their operations. This can only result in a cleaner and greener environment for all Singaporeans. Surely these are desirable goals to strive for. However, there is a need to have a champion, just like that for the financial centre. I truly hope that the Minister will be the green champion. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.24 pm”
“Sir, the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation has established April 2002 as the deadline for the world-wide withdrawal of larger, older civil aircraft for use by operators. The main reason for this move is noise. The larger older aircraft are much too noisy. However, the United States has set its own deadline at 31st December 1999, that is, end of this year. As most of these larger older aircraft are currently used in the US, there is fear that these aircraft may be sold for use outside the US after the end of this year, ie, after the US deadline but before the Convention-set deadline of April 2002. Sir, the fear is so real that the European Union has acted to prevent the transfer of these aircraft from the US to the EU. Although this appears to be a Ministry of Communications' issue, the real issue here is noise. I am concerned with the noise pollution which would be generated should these aircraft come to Singapore. Since noise pollution comes within the purview of the Ministry of the Environment, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: Are the noise pollution standards set by the Ministry of the Environment stringent enough to prevent these aircraft from using Changi International Airport? If not, should we not take preventive measures to stop these aircraft from coming here? My question must be taken within the context of the following: There are many of these aircraft. If they are not allowed or not permitted for operations in the huge first world markets of the US and Europe, then there is a strong likelihood that they would be used in the third world market, including Singapore. I think we should take some preventive measures.”
“Sir, last year, we were spared the haze of previous years, not because the problems at source were resolved but because of two factors. The first was the effect of La Nina, which accounted for a very wet period during what otherwise would be a dry season. The other was that large-scale burning of forested land by plantation owners did not take place, not because they realise that it was criminal to burn the forest, but because they were not investing in new planting areas. We certainly cannot depend on these two factors for the prevention of future occurrences of the haze. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House what steps have been taken to prevent future occurrences. Are the Indonesians cooperating on this issue? Have we been able to rope in international agencies and non-Government organisations to help Indonesia, Malaysia and ourselves to tackle this problem?”
“It is enough to make a person go vegetarian. But even so, it may not be of much help seeing the E-coli outbreak was partly caused by contamination in white radish sprouts, a vegetable. Also, what new diseases or outbreaks the introduction of laboratory altered genes into our food would generate is beyond anybody's guess at this stage. My questions to the Minister are these: What is the Government's policy on these issues? If outbreaks occur in Singapore, are we truly prepared for them? Should we not legislate for the labelling of genetically altered food? With labelling, at least the consumers have a choice. To take this point further, should we even stop the import of such genetically altered food? Would the Ministry promote an on-going programme to educate the public on these matters? 4.00 pm”
“Several countries in the region had been hit by very unusual food-related diseases. A notable example in the past few years were:- (i) in 1996, an outbreak of food poisoning in Japan caused by E-coli resulted in about 9,000 cases and 12 deaths. School children were also implicated and schools had to be closed and disinfected to contain the outbreak; (ii) in 1997, Hong Kong had the chicken flu. 18 persons were infected and 6 of them died. To break the chain of transmission, the authorities had to destroy about 1.5 million chicks; (iii) in 1998, the fish farming industry in Hong Kong was hit by the algae bloom known as red tide. About 1,500 tonnes of toxic farm fish had to be destroyed; (iv) currently, Malaysian pigs have been hit by a virus outbreak known as Japanese encephalitis. At least, 34 human deaths have been attributed to infection by this virus since the outbreak last October; (v) only yesterday, I read a newspaper report about the use of growth stimulants in pigs in Malaysia. According to the report, the residue of stimulants used could damage the health of consumers. Perhaps it is worth reading a part from the report. I quote, "We want to tell the world our experience with pigs, fed with growth stimulants. We can distinguish pigs fed with such chemicals from the deformed reproductive organs of the female pigs. We can imagine the harm it could do to humans who consume pork contaminated with growth stimulants." Again, sometime ago, there was a spectre of the mad-cow disease in the United Kingdom. The funny thing is that these viruses affecting cows and chickens were not supposed to affect humans. But, somehow, some form, perhaps mutated because of the drugs and chemicals given to the animals, had managed to jump the inter-specie gap.”
“In the illegal landfill situation, the problem resulting from illegal landfill could cause pollution to our water resources. As the Chairman of the GPC has mentioned, sometimes, illegal dumpings of wastes contain traces of toxic or hazardous material and it could cause our environment greater and, long-term damage. I would like to ask the Minister how many such illegal dumpings have been detected in the past one year. For illegal landfill activities, like the one I have described where it is carried out in certain low-lying areas which could be used for agricultural purposes, what would the Ministry do in controlling such unauthorised landfill activities? Under the current law, in what ways could such an environmental culprit be effectively dealt with?”
“This takes place in vacant lands near residential housing estates, lorry parks or any places where illegal dumping could be done without being caught. I observe that there are mainly two types of dumping behaviour. One is the small-timer who just wants to save some money by not disposing their waste at the official dumping ground and indiscriminately disposing their wastes as and when it is available. Usually, the truck drivers just unload the wastes and they carry it to any vacant land where they could be undetected. The second type, I think, is more important and deserves some attention. There are illegal dumpings which are planned and well-organised. They could be operating as illegal waste collectors and landfill operators for significant financial gains. One example where this could happen is when a company or individual tenders for a piece of land which is of low lying and can be used for agricultural purposes, and the operator can use the premises as an illegal landfill and for the collection of construction wastes. The second example is that a company can disguise itself as a town council or private estate conservancy contractor and make use of the rubbish bin centres and facilities provided by the Ministry of the Environment for illegal disposal of their wastes collected either from a commercial or industrial waste collection service. In other words, the company is making money from the collection of wastes from other places and the people living in housing estates and the Ministry of the Environment are made to bear the cost of the final disposal of the wastes. Irresponsible waste disposal will cost much more money for the people who subsequently have to put in the effort to clear the mess created by such illegal dumping.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, first, let me thank the Minister for the amendments to the Environmental Public Health Act relating to heavier penalties for illegal dumping. The Bill is due for second reading later this week and I am very sure that we will welcome the enactment of heavier penalties for illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is not only against the law but also a crime against the community and environment. Such crimes against the environment sometimes may have long-lasting effects, especially when the wastes illegally dumped contain toxic matter and/or heavy matter. As a community, we must never tolerate illegal dumping. We should not take this as a small petty offence. However, for the law to be effective, the perpetrators of these illegal acts must be caught. Unfortunately, the authorities cannot be in all places at all times to catch these offenders. The authorities need the help of the community to catch these people. I would therefore like to suggest that the Ministry of the Environment look into some form of empowerment to be given to the community to assist them catch these offenders. Right now, I do not have any concrete ideas of what type of empowerment would be needed. Certainly, I do not propose empowering our average Singaporeans to personally confront these offenders. It will be just too risky to do so. All I am suggesting at this point is for the concept to be studied and accepted, and if needed, I will be most pleased to help contribute concrete ideas on the form that such empowerment should take. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, illegal dumping of construction and other waste materials has been repeatedly reported in the local newspapers recently.”
“If we look at our tax system, it came into being when Singapore was a colony, when the world consisted of many closed economies, when we were limited by our shores and our vision by Whitehall. Now, we have changed. More significantly, the world has changed. So it is time for us to have a comprehensive review of our tax system to support Singapore's dream in the next millennium. I support the Budget with the hope that the Minister could be persuaded to initiate a comprehensive review of our tax system so as to maximise the potential competitiveness of our companies on the world stage.”
“They have put this in place some two or three years ago. But it is causing a lot of difficulties for companies. Recently, for example, we allow companies to buy back their own shares. One would think this is a simple issue from the tax angle. These companies are returning back the capital to its shareholders, ie, capital which they feel they cannot use to the best of their ability. Again, IRAS is saying that if these funds do not come from contributed capital, that means capital that was contributed in the first place, then these funds which are being used in a buy-back scheme would also have to be taxed. How do these funds arrive in the first place? These funds arose because companies are able to generate some capital gains and therefore they put these funds into some form of capital reserve. It is part of the company's capital formation. These funds are therefore returned back to the shareholders in a buy-back scheme. But they are not contributed capital, having arisen out of capital gains. If they are taxed, then it is actually equivalent to IRAS taxing on capital gains. Again, it is causing problems and distortions. My main point is that these tax matters are knee-jerk reactions. Because the world has changed, because there are financial innovations, because the way businesses are done all over the world has changed, and the taxman is so worried about the tax base, they come up now with all these ad-hoc interpretations which in essence, as I have said earlier, distort the way business is being done and it does not help our companies when they compete with other companies in the international global marketplace. The reason is very simple - shareholders want after-tax returns, not before-tax returns.”
“There are compelling reasons why, in a modern economy, group taxation should be adopted. It is not because others are doing it, but because it is a very rational thing to do. There are more issues, such as tax on remitted income and capital gains tax. Our tax system is based on a territorial principle. However, today, the world is one big marketplace. There is globalisation. There is freedom of capital and funds flow. There are WTO regulations and a host of other liberalisation measures which have made the world into one big marketplace, and our companies are competing in that marketplace. Our territorial principle of taxation compounded by the absence of group taxation really hampers our companies not only from competing in Singapore compared to the rest, but also in other countries. Again, financial innovations have made nonsense of what constitutes capital gains and income. Therefore, to preserve the integrity of our tax base, the IRAS has come out with all sorts of interpretations to remove what they deem as tax loopholes. But in doing so, they distort the very basic fundamentals of our tax system. Sir, let me give some over-simplified examples. If a company in Singapore were to have income overseas, such income, as long as it is not remitted to Singapore, will not be taxed in Singapore. It will be considered as income earned outside Singapore, not derived from Singapore and not remitted to Singapore. On the other hand, if this company were to use these funds to pay for the expenses of one of its subsidiaries overseas, then IRAS, under present interpretation, will most probably deem this as remitted income to Singapore, although the funds do not actually come to Singapore. This is what they call constructive remittance. Sir, this is a new interpretation.”
“The United States, European countries and even Australia have some form of group income taxation. I am not asking the Minister to have group taxation in Singapore just because these countries are doing it. But I would like to ask the Minister why these countries have group taxation. If you look at it, the answer is simple. Because a group of companies, related to each other, through ownership and management, constitutes a single economic unit for the purpose of strategic management and financial planning. Sir, there is a very important phrase here. These companies within a group should not be considered as different entities, but as a single economic unit. Our current tax system ignores this economic reality and thus helps to create economic and business distortions. I suppose it provides good business for tax planners and tax consultants. But on the negative side, it uses up a lot of management time, wastes resources and distorts strategic planning in trying to achieve the tax plans to beat the irrational system. Sir, the point is that group taxation recognises this. Thus, it helps the single economic unit, that is, the group, to maximise its potential. Sir, this is not a new issue. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the pros and cons of group taxation as well as the way to move towards such a system with minimum dislocation, cost and loss of the tax base, if only he is willing to consider this. In fact, while I do not wish to go into any detailed argument on this, there is ample literature on this. For example, in 1994, the South African Government commissioned the Katz Commission to study this whole issue, amongst other issues. If Members are interested in this report, I can make it available to them.”
“The only way that we should compete is to provide the means to make our people, entrepreneurs and companies stronger and better than the foreign competitors. In this respect, I am not disappointed because the Government has provided ample resources for these goals. But, Sir, in the larger sense, I must still admit that I am disappointed, not because of this Budget, but because the Minister did not make long-term changes to our tax system; changes necessary to promote Singapore as a total business centre, not only for the region, but for the world. This Budget and the past Budgets have done much to promote Singapore as a premier financial centre. But I ask, despite my own background in the financial area, why only the financial centre? Why do we stop there? We want to be a first world economy competing not on low cost but on high productivity. We want to be an industrialised country, not just only a centre for financial services. We want to attract top-notch MNCs to set up headquarters in Singapore, whether world headquarters or regional headquarters. We want our home-grown companies to be world beaters, both in Singapore and abroad. Sir, if we want these and more, it is time for us to have a comprehensive review of our tax system. We need to have a tax system compatible with these goals and not one which provides obstacles. For example, take the issue of group income. Other Members have spoken on group income in relation to single purpose or single property companies. Here, I am thinking of group income on a very much wider basis because our overall tax system still treats companies within the group as individual tax entities. Not only is it wrong but it is out of step with the rest of the advanced economies in the world.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Some might say that this is a very appropriate Budget for the times that we are in. It is indeed a good Budget! After last year's off-Budget measures and after what the Government has come up in terms of the various programmes, this year's budgetary response is very appropriate to the times that we are in. And as the Minister has said, the Budget was carefully calibrated to respond to the regional crisis. Sir, I take heart in the use of the term "calibrated" because it denotes a sense of exact measure, not more, not less, but just right. It also means that the response would change accordingly depending on how the regional crisis develops. Indeed, Sir, it is a very pragmatic strategy in these changing and troubled times. In this House, a number of MPs have called on the Government to take care of our own people in these difficult times and that we should be more careful in giving PRs, employment pass and/or work permits to foreigners. Sir, I too support this call. In fact, I have had the same comments from my own ground. But, Sir, in the larger scheme of things, I would like to caution the Government to be very careful on this issue. There is a need to have a very fine balance of helping our people and making sure that we do not reject the foreign talents that will be very necessary to our economy. Sir, we cannot afford to be a closed economy. We should not over react, close ranks and help our people to the long-term detriment of our economy and, ultimately, our nation. Sir, closing ranks and rejecting foreign talents is not the way to compete. We have in fact only one resource, a point often mentioned in this House; our human resource.”
“Is there no better solution? Perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us. Sir, if possible, I would like the former policy of covering the drains be reinstated. Besides protecting the integrity of protecting our water resources, it has also the added advantage of protecting the residents in our housing estates. Since the removal of such covers, accidents of residents, especially the older folks, falling into the drains have increased. Sir, this is especially important in the light of our aging population. Sir, I am also concerned with clauses 37 and 38. These are new clauses relating to the registration and work of plumbers. Does it mean that, with the enactment of these clauses, one can no longer be a "do-it-yourself" person with regard to simple plumbing repair jobs in the house. For example, would the changing of washers in taps at home or even faucet heads at home by the home owner become offences under this law? Must he always employ a registered person to do such jobs? Sir, could the Minister please clarify on this? Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, if he disputes the compensation amount, to expect him to resort immediately to the courts may be too much to ask for. He may not have the financial means to do so. Moreover, resorting to the courts is still quite foreign to the average Singaporean, especially taking on the Government that he respects. Sir, this is something desirable that the average Singaporean will not want to take on the Government that he respects and we should not encourage Singaporeans to go to the courts at the slightest excuse. Sir, I think a better way would be to provide for a panel of arbitrators. Those unhappy with the compensation amount can then appeal to this panel for a review. Only when the dispute cannot be resolved at this level, should the conflicting parties resort to the courts. We are moving towards a more civil society with greater mediation between conflicting parties. My suggestion would be in line with such goals. I think the Minister should consider this option. Sir, the Bill also provides for drainage, both to prevent flooding as well as to collect as much water as possible to augment whatever sources of water we currently have. On this issue, I have a point to make. It concerns the covering or the absence of covering of the drains in our housing estates. Some time ago, the policy was to cover all drains in order to protect the integrity of our water sources, of which the surface runoff water into the drainage system was one such source. Subsequently, to reduce the incidence of mosquito breeding, the covers were removed which is the current policy. My question is this: Does this mean that the protection of the integrity of water from this source is no longer important? Is the current policy the best solution to handle two conflicting demands?”
“If we consider the amount of water that is used in flushing, the recovery of water from this source is not something to be sniffed at. As the Minister had explained, clause 5(2)(b) which empowers the Director to tunnel or bore under any premises, street or building, taken together with clause 5(5), will pave the way for the scheme. I envisage that when the scheme commences construction, there will be inconveniences created for some. Sir, for the sake of a better system for all, I would urge all those affected to bear with such inconveniences. All in all, I think the DTSS is a win-win solution to the management of waste water treatment for the Government as well as for the people. However, I understand that the total cost of the scheme may be in the region of about $6-$7 billion. I would like to hear the Government issuing a categorical statement like what it did for the construction of the MRT - that such costs will be considered as infrastructural costs and eventual charges to consumers will be based on recovery of operating costs, not total costs. Sir, I am also glad to see the inclusion of clause 5(7) under which compensation is paid to those adversely affected by the construction and the maintenance of public sewerage systems. Sir, it is better than asking aggrieved parties to seek redress under civil law. However, I do not see the need to resort immediately to the courts in case of a dispute, as provided under clause 49. One must remember that the Government is a huge machinery and going to court may be a matter of routine for many Ministries. On the other hand, those affected may be the average Singaporean with a property which happens to lie in the path of the construction and/or maintenance of public sewerage systems.”
“Rightly so, Sir, and that is why this Bill should be supported. The Bill seeks to ensure that Singaporeans are entitled to modern sanitary facilities with the appropriate wastewater treatment facilities in such a manner that the moment we flush our toilets, all things are taken care of. Except, of course, when the toilet bowl is choked; but then, that is a different story. Sir, what is exciting, both in the boldness and the scale of the concept, and the proposal, is what the Ministry intends to do with the Deep Tunnel Sewerage Scheme. The benefits from this scheme are many. With this scheme, in which the collection and treatment of wastewater will be deep under ground, air pollution and health risks will be minimised. Land currently used for wastewater treatment plants, including the buffer zones, could be released for other types of development. I am sure the Minister for National Development will be happy with that. With the freeing of such land for residential and other clean uses, we can expect that residents living near such treatment plants will be overjoyed. Not only would they lose the privilege of having their noses assaulted by the foul smell - my apologies to Professor Low - emanating from the treatment plants; but they can also look forward to an increase in the value of their properties. The Government, too, will benefit by having more land for other uses. However, I think that the Ministry should also use the opportunity of the DTSS (Deep Tunnel Sewerage Scheme) to separate domestic wastewater from industrial wastewater. Because domestic wastewater is free of heavy metal and other toxins, it is cheaper to treat domestic wastewater for more extensive recycling than what we are doing now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as a young boy, my mother used to encourage me to be diligent in my studies by threatening me with a fate worse than death; that, otherwise I will grow up to be a nightsoil carrier. In those days, there were still many, many homes with the manual bucket system served by nightsoil carriers, and being one probably meant that you were at the lowest rung of the social and job ladder. Luckily for me, her tactics worked. On the other hand, luckily for Singapore, she was not entirely right in her opinion of the low social status of a career in wastewater management. Otherwise, we would not be at where we are today; with Singaporeans having modern sanitary facilities in their homes and workplaces, a system of well-designed and well-run wastewater treatment facilities and even now planning beyond this to a future of deep tunnel sewerage systems. Sir, in the 1950s, only buildings in parts of the city and eastern Singapore enjoyed water borne removal of human wastes through sewers. The greater part of the country was still served by the manual bucket system. The transformation from that scenario to where we are today is no small feat. It could only be possible with the entry and retention of top brains and good people in the industry and the Ministry. For that, we have to thank the people in the Ministry of the Environment. They have done a good job and we should appreciate what they have done for us. For those who do not, I suggest you visit the toilets in the rural areas of some countries in the region. You will then have a good idea of what going to a toilet for most Singaporeans was like in the fifties. Things have, of course, changed for the better. We are now more demanding in matters of health, especially those of public health.”
“Sir, the Minister in his reply, when I asked for different permissible noise measurements for different situations, said that they are already doing that. I would like to ask him why his Ministry allows the (bang) drop hammer type of piling to be used for sites next to occupied houses as well as for sites next to isolated areas. Sir, I made that noise to show that in this Chamber, such a noise is very loud. But if I make the same noise in the middle of the road outside, I assure you that nobody will notice it at all, because the general noise level is much louder than probably the noise I made just now. Sir, I do not understand why, for example, 75 dba is allowed for construction sites next to occupied houses as well as construction sites in isolated areas. Using the drop hammer method of piling, the same noise level is created. To somebody who is living next door, the noise level would be high. The effect would be different for a site further away. I see no reason why the noise level for the site next to occupied houses cannot be made much lower so that they cannot use this method. There are less noisy methods of piling. This is why I do not think that presently the Environment Ministry enforces different measurements for different permissible noise levels for different situations. Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I raised the question of clauses 18 and 20 in combination. Clause 20 recognises a gap in the law regarding control of land pollution and these have not been addressed in the present Bill except to say that there will be regulations. Clause 18, I suggested, was quite sweeping potentially. I would ask the Minister if he would like to clarify these points.”
“It may not be as effective as section 42 of the Hazardous Wastes (Import, Export and Transit) Act, under which officers of the offending company are presumed to be guilty unless they can prove that they have exercised the necessary due diligence of trying to prevent the offence. This provision should be used instead of the current clause 71; perhaps if not now, then in subsequent amendments. It will certainly compel the officers of more companies to look seriously at preventing pollution. Finally, Sir, environmental issues involve the whole community. More significantly, the community interest is increasing these days. The recent furore in the possibility of a new golf course on the banks of Kranji Reservoir is a case in point. This is good for the development of a civil society in Singapore. We should encourage such a development. I would therefore like to request the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee to ensure that all those interested in preventing pollution of our environment be given an opportunity to say their piece. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, clause 36 empowers the Director of Environmental Pollution Control to call for a study on environmental pollution control, if needed. I suspect that such a study could be similar to an environmental impact assessment report required in many countries to ensure that damage to the environment by a particular development is minimal and acceptable to the community. Such a study could be time consuming and expensive. I would like to see the onus for calling such a study vested in the Minister rather than the Director. Clause 37 is a new clause on the self-monitoring of one's own pollution. This is a much-welcomed provision. Increasingly, industries must be required to self-monitor. The provision, however, could be improved with several additions. For example, I think it should require the owner or occupier not only to self-monitor but also to go through the results and identify the infringements for the Ministry. In this respect, I would expect that any self-respecting company would not purposely want to pollute, but rather want to help prevent pollution. And this definitely would help the Director to do a better job. Also, while there are penalties for the unapproved alteration of the monitoring equipment or system, there is no provision for penalties on submission of false particulars or for failure to submit the monitored data. I think such provision should be included. Sir, I also support the provision of enhanced penalties for offences relating to pollution. It is time for the Government and for us to be tough on offences against nature and the community. In this respect, clause 71 taken directly from section 67 of the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act may not be adequate.”
“The reason is that though noise levels can be measured objectively, noise pollution is relative. In other words, what may not be noise pollution to one person could be pollution to others. It all depends on the general level of noise of one's surrounding and the level one is used to. I am sure that one of the most difficult tasks ever performed by the Ministry's officials is that of trying to persuade one of two contending parties that what the latter deems as noise pollution is not noise pollution as defined by the Ministry's regulations. For example, if one is unhappy about noise, the Ministry officials will put a monitoring device at the noise source. If the measurement of the noise at source is below the Ministry's limits, they will say that it is not noise pollution. But to somebody who is not used to that heavy level of noise, it is certainly pollution. Therefore, I am saying that in cases like this, there would be a difference in perception simply because noise pollution is a very relative item. Hence, in coming out with the standards relating to noise pollution, I hope the Ministry would take into consideration the neighbourhood in which the noise is being generated. Instead of just using one standard measurement of noise level at the source of the noise for all situations, the Ministry could perhaps use differing measurements for different situations. For example, I would expect that construction sites next or near to schools, hospitals and residential homes should only be allowed to generate noise levels much lower than those sites further afield. The hours of operation could also be much more curtailed so as not to cause noise pollution in such neighbourhoods.”
“Surely, the sea around us is just as important as our inland water. Perhaps, it is covered under some other legislation such as Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. Sir, if so, then this Bill is not complete in that it should include major items like the discharge of toxic substances into the sea forming part of Singapore's territory. I fear that with different legislation under the purview of other Ministries, things may fall in between stools. After all, clause 4 of the Bill empowers the Ministry to authorise town councils and statutory boards to perform or exercise all or any of the functions, duties and powers under the Bill and the regulations. So control of pollution originating from items such as motor vehicles and discharging of toxic substances into the sea could be part of the Bill with the enforcement of compliance either delegated to other competent agencies of the Government capable of doing the job or in the case of smoky vehicles, by the Ministry itself. Clause 20 of the Bill provides the Minister with powers relating to land pollution. Sir, would this provision overlap or conflict with the Environmental Public Health Act? Would the powers and jurisdiction of the Director under this Bill and the Commissioner of Public Health overlap? For example, toxic and hazardous wastes are currently controlled under the Environmental Public Health Act (Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations. If these wastes contaminate the land, which regulations would take preference? Perhaps this provision addresses a gap in the current regulations relating to land pollution. If so, could the Minister explain? Noise pollution is probably the most difficult type of pollution to define and to enforce.”
“For example, air pollution may originate from factories, smoky vehicles or the burning of joss papers. Are the culprits to be equally punished? Once this Bill is passed, it will be in the hands of the Executive to promulgate the rules and regulations and to enforce compliance. By the nature of the subject, the Bill is long on principles and short on details. I would therefore request the Minister to make a categorical statement that in carrying out the duties under the Bill, his Ministry's officers will carry the big stick but will walk softly. On air pollution, despite the Minister's comments on his cooperation with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the assumption of certain responsibilities from LTA, I am still surprised that motor vehicles come simply under clause 12(5) as "any other sources". After all, I would estimate that about half the particulation pollution in the air originates from vehicular sources. Motor vehicles are the major single source of pollution in this respect in Singapore and they deserve more attention than to be classified under "any other sources". Moreover, with the spread of motor vehicle ownership amongst the public, the people need to know what responsibilities they have with regard to pollution in the form of more specific items in the Bill. The Bill should be more specific on this. Otherwise, we might as well have a Bill which simply states that this Bill empowers the Ministry or the Minister to enact all regulations to control pollution from all sources, and that will cover everything if you do not want to be specific about the items in the Bill. On water pollution, I would like the Minister to explain the reason for excluding the discharge of toxic substances into the sea that is part of Singapore's territorial waters.”
“While punishment is needed for the wrongdoers, what is more needed is the encouragement for people to change their attitudes and behaviour. Earlier, I said that adults must set good examples for children to follow. Perhaps, I should also have added that the Government should set examples for adults to follow. However, after all that is said and done, despite being an urbanised society with a high per capita vehicle ownership, the world's busiest sea port, a major hub for air transportation, a major petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing centre and other activities which can give rise to heavy pollution, our environment remains relatively good and clean. The level of pollution in Singapore's environment is below the limits prescribed by America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who, as I believe, has one of the world's most stringent standards in this area. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do want to take this occasion to congratulate the Minister and his staff for a job well done. However, this is not to say that they have done all that is to be done and can therefore rest on their laurels. As I said earlier, they could do so much more for the environmental cause, especially tackling the problem from other angles. Sir, coming to the Bill itself, I find little to quarrel with it. This is not surprising since the Bill is a piece of legislation to give power to the Government to enact rules and regulations to prevent pollution of the environment. The devil is therefore in the details and the enforcement of compliance with the rules and regulations. The legislative powers in the Bill are wide, and rightly so. The rules and regulations arising from legislation will be tough with heavy, perhaps even draconian penalties. There is, however, Sir, pollution and pollution.”
“The Ministry of the Environment, through its support of the Singapore Environmental Council and the various "green" non-government organisations and its "clean and green" programmes and campaigns, certainly champions the environmental cause. I think the Government is doing a good job. But good is not enough. More must be done. On the industrial level, the Government has done very little. Other than giving vocal encouragement and some minor financial incentives, the Government has done little else, except for punishments. In fact, Sir, this Bill under debate is the very example of this approach. It is nothing more than a series of "Thou shall not do this" and "Thou shall not do that" and "If thou disregard these edicts, thou shall be punished". I am not saying that this approach is not needed. All I am saying is that it is not sufficient to change habitual behaviour. Make no mistake about that; pollution is not because one wants to pollute but because of personal convenience, one pollutes. In the case of industry, it is usually because of convenience to the company and lower costs. I see no reason why there cannot be financial incentives for those who are prepared to spend on equipment and procedures to reduce pollution at source. For example, why cannot the Government give double tax deduction incentives for expenses relating to the attainment of ISO 14000 standards? Why cannot individual taxpayers be given tax deductions for the installation of solar heating systems in their homes? If the Government really wants to change the mindset of Singaporeans with regard to pollution of the environment, there should be encouragement as well as punishment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for permitting me to speak on this Bill. Sir, for a highly urbanised and densely populated city state such as Singapore, the quality of the environment is a crucial factor in our living standard. In this instance, Sir, I am using the word "standard" in the broadest sense, not just economic affluence. In fact, without a high quality environment, economic affluence may come to nothing. The environment in Singapore, some one and a half years ago when we were badly affected by the haze from Indonesia, is a case in point. Yet, despite this motherhood truth, we still pollute our environment. Yes, Sir, we are the polluters of the very environment that sustains us and that is why an Environmental Pollution Control Bill is needed and this is why this Bill must be supported by all in this House. But Sir, if we are the polluters of the environment, then surely to control pollution, we must start at the source of the problem. Although it is beyond the provisions of this Bill, I would urge the Minister to expend greater efforts to minimise the generation of pollutants. This means tackling the very sources themselves. On a social level, education plays a key role, especially educating the young. Parents, teachers and religious leaders must be brought into the picture to teach our future generations that environmental pollution is as sinful as the most heinous crimes. Such values must be made part of our future generations' psyche. In this respect, we, as adults, must set good examples for our children. We must try, for our sake as well as for their sake. Here, I must hasten to add that Singapore is doing much in this area.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $361,798,920 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,012,148,200 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S -”
“Currently, this proposal is being discussed with the Ministry as a concept paper. But, Sir, I do hope that when the time comes to implement this idea, the Ministry, together with private sponsorship, will provide adequate funding to ensure its success. More importantly, I hope that the members of the community, those that are interested, will come forward to volunteer for this very exciting project.”
“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, the clean up of the six rivers and canals in and around Singapore and Kallang River basin, namely, Singapore River, Kallang River, Geylang River, Whampoa River, Pelton Canal and Rochor Canal, took about 10 years, from 1977 to 1987. It removes the major sources of pollution which include farm wastes, sewage, illegal disposal of waste water from street hawkers and vegetable wholesalers and industries. Sir, today, the rivers are biologically clean and alive. With the beautified banks and surrounding areas, these water bodies provide a source of visual, recreation and leisure activities for many Singaporeans, especially since these rivers are located downtown in the midst of built-up areas. Yet, Sir, 10 years of planning and hard work could easily be destroyed by only a few months, or even a few weeks, of neglect. Pollution of the rivers is never ending. The sources of river pollution are extremely widespread. River pollution can come from any land area which drains into the rivers, regardless of how far that land area may be from the rivers. Sir, today, the Ministry of the Environment installs vertical gratings at selected outlet drains and float booms at strategic locations in the rivers and canals to protect the aesthetics of the water bodies. But no government can ever hope to stop or even minimise pollution of rivers without the cooperation and assistance of the community. It is in this regard that I would like to congratulate the Ministry for agreeing to a suggestion of my GPC for the establishment of a specialised community group for monitoring, restoring and protecting the aesthetics of these water bodies.”