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 3 of 15.
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The Ministry should also be given police assistance to help them with detention and interrogation so as to enable the officers from the Ministry to stem illegal dumping at its source.”
“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 MC 1500. Sir, illegal dumping on vacant land, mainly State land in this case, is becoming a serious issue. All kinds of debris such as construction material, marine clay and, more seriously, toxic and hazardous wastes are some of the rubbish dumped illegally. Often, such illegal dumping is done in the rural areas, such as in Jalan Kayu or in Punggol. Not only do they give rise to additional land maintenance work and waste public funds in removing them, but also affect the environment and personal health of residents living in and near these areas. Given the increasing level of illegal dumping and the skill and speed of the illegal operators, I suspect that it is more an organised activity carried out by syndicates than ad hoc activities by unrelated parties. Sir, this is not surprising as there are good profits to be made in this illegal business. I was informed that the price per lorry load for illegal dumping was about $200, whereas one had to pay about $470 for a similar lorry load at the Government's dumping grounds. Perhaps the real reason is that the penalties are not heavy enough to deter this illegal activity, given the potential profits to be made in this business. When caught, usually, only the lorry driver is fined. The master-mind is seldom caught, as officers from the Ministry of the Envrionment lack the powers to detain and to interrogate the offenders. Hence, they are unable to trace the offence back to the top. Sir, I would like to suggest that the penalties for illegal dumping be increased to reflect the seriousness of this activity, especially when toxic or hazardous wastes are involved.”
“Sir, as the Minister has said that financial measures are not important in influencing responsible environmental behaviour, I look forward to the day when he comes to this House to abolish the fines and other financial measures enacted to discourage littering. Otherwise, I thank him and the Senior Minister of State for the replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“But again, it is not adequate. Environmental awareness does not automatically translate into environmentally responsible behaviour. We simply do not have the necessary social discipline. Otherwise there is no need for littering penalties and CWOs. Sir, public education in this important social behaviour must be augmented by financial incentives, whether positive or negative, as in penalties for littering. So if we are prepared to use negative financial incentives to punish environmentally and socially irresponsible behaviour, what so wrong with positive incentives to reinforce environmentally responsible behaviour? Why cannot, for example, we give tax rebates for household expenditure related to environmentally friendly practices? We already had done so in the past for expenditure related to gardening. Why cannot we do so again? Why cannot we give tax rebates to those who install solar heating systems? Why cannot we reduce the PARF for electric vehicles? Sir, these are only some examples which come to mind. I am sure the Ministry would have many others if only the idea is accepted. Today, we are already considered the most environmentally aware country in this part of the world. Let us also be the most environmentally protected country. Sir, with our small land mass, it is imperative for us to be so. And the only way to start on this difficult journey is to utilise all ways and means, including financial incentives, to inculcate environmentally responsible behaviour in individuals.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, last year, I spoke on the issue of improving environmentally friendly and responsible behaviour through the use of financial incentives. I am happy to note that the Ministry of the Environment has managed to persuade the Minister for Finance to do this. Because in his recent Budget, the Minister for Finance has provided for accelerated depreciation allowances for industrial noise and chemical hazard control. Sir, I do not wish to appear ungrateful. But I must say that it is not enough. Environmental awareness leading to responsible environmental behaviour rests with individuals, not companies. Company decisions are in fact made by individuals and such decision makers will by the nature of their trusteeship make decisions for the good of their company's bottom line. When such decisions get translated into environmentally friendly practices, Sir, it is usually incidental and not by design. Hence, I believe that to achieve responsible environmental behaviour, the Government must begin with influencing the individuals. In fact, if one can induce environmental awareness to be part of an individual's personal value system and environmentally friendly behaviour to be part and parcel of an individual's behaviour, there will be no need to persuade companies to behave in a responsible manner. They would do so on their own accord because their decision makers will do it as a matter of routine. It is the right thing if it is part of their value system. Sir, the current policy regarding the inculcation of environmental awareness and hopefully responsible behaviour in individuals is through public education. It is good and we should continue to do so.”
“Therefore, if we were to consider that all economically active citizens are workers of Singapore, ie, on the payroll, being economically active, then giving them a salary while they are under training is actually akin to the practice being presently prevalent in private companies and also the private sector as well as public organisations which send their workers for training. If this is not acceptable, could the Minister consider some sort of grant, as Mr Cyrille Tan has said, skills fund, or some sort of interest-free loan? The important thing to remember is that these workers need an income to fulfil their financial needs. As long as such income is not forthcoming, all the exhortations on the need for training will be wasted on them, not because they do not want to be trained but because they cannot afford to be trained.”
“Sir, actually what I want to say is on a later amendment, but since this subject has been brought up earlier by two other Members, I thought I would say it now so that the Minister can reply in one go. This is to follow up on the issue of structural unemployment brought up earlier by Dr Toh See Kiat and Mr Cyrille Tan. Like them, I am fearful that the unskilled and the poorly skilled workers, mostly aged 40-plus and above would face structural unemployment as Singapore's economy takes on the characteristics of a developed country. Sir, the 1997 Labour Force of Singapore showed that we still have about 722,000 with lower secondary education or worse. This is not a small figure and is about 39% of our workforce of about 1.8 million workers. They would be earning about $1,000 to $2,000 a month and supporting a family with teenage children. Essentially, this means that this group of workers has very little savings and can ill-afford to be out of work. Yet, in a competitive world, these workers will be the first to be retrenched and when retrenched they will be forced by circumstances to look for any unskilled job to keep self and family alive. Therefore, I would like to propose that the Government take the responsibility of training them and also other similarly unskilled workers, and that during this period they be given a salary to fulfill their financial requirements. Sir, this is not a new idea. Companies today pay, in fact, the normal salary for their staff on training courses.”
“Sir, earlier the Deputy Prime Minister had said that the banks had substantial general provisions. Is it possible for us to know what percentage of total loans would that be? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I leave it to the banks to put out information which is necessary in due course.”
“My fifth and final point, Mr Speaker, is that there should be a review of laws regarding the domestic treatment of hazardous wastes. Singapore has enjoyed a very good reputation regarding the domestic treatment of hazardous wastes. The Bill, however, puts additional procedures for those seeking to export hazardous wastes. In these circumstances, there will be a greater tendency to treat wastes in Singapore or to dump it. The Environmental Public Health Toxic Industrial Waste Regulations of 1988, as amended most recently in 1996, must be looked at to harmonise these regulations on national law with the present Bill regarding import and export. Otherwise, we run the temptation to improperly dispose of wastes in Singapore, rather than adhering to procedures for export or proper treatment. In this regard, I wish particularly to point out that it seems the penalty under the Environmental Public Health Regulations of 1988 is a maximum of $10,000 or imprisonment of 12 months, or both. This is in section 24 of the Act, as amended in 1996. In comparison, the present Bill sees a maximum fine of $100,000 for individuals and $300,000 for corporations. I therefore urge that the penalties under the Environmental Public Health Regulations be reviewed to harmonise with the present Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister's response, Mr Speaker.”
“I ask this particularly as there is no law at present in Singapore that mandates the assessment of the environmental impact of such potential investors. The third point I wish to make and ask the Minister's reassurance is for clarity for applicants for permits. Sir, this Bill mandates businesses to apply for permits for export, import and transit. I seek the Minister's assurance that this procedure will be simple, transparent and as even handed as possible, with the minimum of administrative discretion. In this regard, I would draw the Minister's attention to section 17 of the Australian equivalent to this Act - the Hazardous Wastes (Regulations of Exports and Imports) Act, 1989 of Australia. In that section, the Australian Act stipulates that the Minister must grant the permit upon being satisfied of certain conditions stated therein. There is no equivalent in our Bill. While I understand the Minister may be reluctant to bind himself, this would surely provide a greater degree of certainty for businesses in obtaining the necessary permits. My fourth point is with regard to Article 11 arrangements. Under the Basel Convention, as the Minister has stated, Singapore cannot trade in hazardous wastes with parties that are not also parties to the Basel Convention. Article 11 is an exception that allows bilateral, multilateral or regional agreements. The Bill, as is presently drafted, places considerable emphasis on such Article 11 arrangements. I wish to ask the Minister whether Singapore has entered or is negotiating such agreements. If so, I seek his assurance that such Article 11 agreements will abide by the same high standards found in the Basel Convention.”
“First, compliance of the Basel Convention. I ask for the Minister's reassurance that Singapore will comply with the Convention in both letter and spirit. In particular, there are three key essentials of the Basel Convention that are missing from the Bill as presently drafted. These are: (1) Prior Informed Consent (Article 6 of the Convention) that Singapore must inform the receiving state of the nature of the waste and has received its prior consent to the shipment. (2) The prohibition of export to a country that is not party to the Convention; and (3) The duty to reimport wastes which have not been properly exported and the duty not to export wastes if the Government has reason to believe they will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner by the receiving country. None of these key essentials are specifically embodied in the Bill in its present form. Additionally, while the Bill should cover exports from Singapore to a territory of another state, it is not clear if it also covers the exclusive economic zone of that state. This should be clarified. By clause 17 of the Bill, however, the Minister is given the power to enact regulations to give effect to the Convention. I ask for the Minister's assurance that these vital principles of the Basel Convention would be observed, either by amendment to the Bill before it is passed by this House or in subsequent regulations he will make. The second point I wish to make and seek the Minister's assurance on is something he has already given; that consultation with the industry has been fully considered. There is one remaining issue on this point. This is with regard to new and potential investors. I ask the Minister to clarify if the criteria set out in this Bill will be screened in future investments.”
“Hopefully, there will be fewer misunderstandings with neighbouring states over what can or cannot be exported. The Bill reassures ASEAN and other neighbours that Singapore will follow international practice as regards movement of hazardous wastes. We are one of the most industrialised nations in the region. We are one of the leading ports. Without these safeguards, our companies may otherwise be suspected of foisting hazardous wastes on neighbours unknowingly, while our port may become a transhipment centre for such wastes. By enacting this legislation, we acknowledge state responsibility for transboundary environmental damage from hazardous wastes. With this Bill, it is now Singapore's duty to help ensure that our neighbours do not suffer environmental and health damage. A UN report has recognised that Singapore is one of the few countries in the region that has a legal, institutional and manpower capabilities to manage hazardous wastes properly. Mr Speaker, I want to emphasise that these duties are not taken on without some cost. The generation of hazardous waste is inevitable from certain industrial processes. If they are generated in Singapore, such wastes must either be treated and disposed of in Singapore or they must be exported for the same. When we change the laws on export, therefore, this can have an impact on our local environment. When we mandate new rules for industry in dealing with such wastes, it can also have an effect on our economic competitiveness. The Bill will require close coordination between the Environment Ministry and economic agencies and I am glad to hear from the Minister today that this has been done in the drawing up of this Bill. Having emphasised the importance of the Bill, I wish to seek the assurance of the Minister on five matters.”
“In the Bill, it is stated that the maximum penalty is $300,000. In the case of accidental release of the waste due to mishandling, the cost of the clean-up to contain the pollution, the loss of lives and the long-term impact on the environment could be much more than the penalty of $300,000. I would like to ask the Minister whether the offenders could be asked to pay for the cost resulting from the pollution created by them. This Bill does exclude marine and radioactive wastes. Could the Minister enlighten the House on whether there are other Acts that effectively control the transboundary shipments of these types of wastes? The latter, I believe, could be much more hazardous compared with those mentioned in the Bill. Sir, I support the Bill. Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Bill. The Bill deals with wastes that present serious environmental and health hazards, unless they are dealt with in an environmentally sound manner. The illegal trade in such wastes, both world-wide and Asia, is real and serious. There has been a lack of internationally accepted definition of what exactly constitutes "hazardous wastes" and what should be done about them. Such a lack of international understanding can lead to misunderstandings. Not too long ago, a Singapore company was alleged to have dumped detergent waste called "soap noodle" on a neighbouring island. This was resolved when Singapore agreed to ship the substances back, although under our laws, they are not considered toxic. By following the Basel Convention, this Bill incorporates international standards and approaches to an international problem into our national laws. It is further evidence that Singapore is a good citizen of the international community.”
“With the introduction of the Bill, Singapore, once again, plays a responsible role as a world citizen to help in preventing environmental pollution. This Bill plays a very important role in controlling the movement of transboundary hazardous waste to assist the world community in tracking and prevention of illegal movement of hazardous waste which would eventually lead to illegal dumping. This Bill also helps us by ensuring that no hazardous waste would be illegally imported into Singapore, and no one could possibly carry out illegal waste treatment activities without the knowledge of the Government, because from now onwards, all imported wastes will be tracked. Handling and management of hazardous wastes, while the wastes undergo transboundary shipment, is one of the important issues. We should not only be concerned about the tracking of the movement of the waste, but also how the waste is handled and stored during shipment. Mishandling could result in damage of the container and cause leakage of the waste. In case of fire, the waste could be released into the atmosphere and the impact on the environment could be worse than illegal ground dumping. We should therefore need other laws to deal with the handling and storage of the waste in the process of shipment. A severe penalty should be considered if the waste is mishandled during its shipment. In the Bill, it is stated that both the individual and the corporation could possibly be penalised. I would like to ask the Minister whether both parties will be charged if anyone should have flouted the regulations. I believe that to sentence an individual with a mandatory jail term would be a more effective deterrent than just asking the corporation to pay the fine.”
“Despite what the Minister has said that companies will be fined a maximum of up to $300,000 and individuals will be fined up to $100,000 or a maximum jail sentence of two years, I think for these people who illegally traffic in hazardous waste, thereby affecting not only the environment, but also generations of Singaporeans to come, the punishment is not stringent enough as compared to those who deal in illegal drug trafficking. So I would advocate heavier punishment on the individuals concerned. After all, in the final analysis, Sir, it is the individual who is responsible, not a faceless corporate body. With that, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the term "hazardous waste", it is implied that the substance concerned has no commercial value and, if accidentally released or improperly disposed of, it would endanger life and cost long-term contamination to our environment. In hazardous waste management, proper and professional effort is needed in waste handling, tracking, storage, treatment and disposal. It helps to ensure that there is no accidental release of the waste and the waste does not fall into the wrong hands, which would lead to illegal disposal for financial gain. The actual treatment of hazardous waste and its subsequent disposal could be quite costly, and it will also add cost to the production. Unscrupulous businessmen and waste treatment companies might take advantage of the lack of control in places where the anti-pollution laws are not effectively put in place and dump the waste over there. I did come across a newspaper report that drums of industrial waste were just dumped next to a children's playground in a foreign country.”
“Because of the ease of such substance, through the example I gave earlier, it could leak into the collection of mainstream garbage. It is important that the Minister assures this House and the people of Singapore that all equipment containing radioactive substances are properly controlled in Singapore. Sir, as an added control, I would like to ask whether we have radiation detecting equipment at our central rubbish dumps. If not, could the Ministry look into the procurement of such equipment to make sure that the rubbish that we collect do not contain any radioactive material? Sir, coming back to this Bill, I would like to seek the following clarification from the Minister. (1) Do we require registration of all those who generate hazardous wastes? If not, how do we prevent hazardous waste from becoming part of the mainstream garbage? (2) Do we require that some type of hazardous wastes must be exported? Sir, we must remember that Singapore is a small country and perhaps there are some hazardous wastes that should not be disposed of in Singapore. (3) The Minister has already mentioned that Singapore is a major transit point. Therefore it is important for us to control transit of hazardous wastes. He has given some comments on how such transit items could be controlled. While I can safely presume that there will be adequate control of legal transit of such wastes through Singapore, what about illegal traffic of hazardous wastes? How do we control this and how do we deal with illegal traffickers? It appears to me that while we punish drug traffickers with the death sentence, the punishment for illegal hazardous wastes trafficking is comparatively light.”
“Sir, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. Sir, I support the Bill not only because it is a necessary consequence or consequential legislation so as to give legal effect to the fact that Singapore is now a signatory to the Basel Convention but, more importantly, as a small country with no hinterland and with major international sea and air ports, it is in our own interest that we support the international control of the transport of hazardous waste. Sir, the Minister in his address has stated that, under the obligations of the Convention, we would take the necessary measures to ensure that the generation of hazardous waste, both in terms of quantity and hazard potential, would be reduced to a minimum. Sir, that is good. But there are those who do not generate hazardous waste as part of their normal business but use equipment containing hazardous substances. For example, although radioactive substances are not covered under this Bill but under other legislation, in nature, they are certainly no less hazardous than substances and wastes covered under this Bill. I would therefore like to ask the Minister how we should control the disposal of equipment, especially medical and laboratory equipment, containing such hazardous substance. Without strict control, Sir, such substance may become part of the normal mainstream garbage which, in our case, may be incinerated, thereby poisoning our environment. Sometimes, it is used as landfill, thereby affecting our land and water supplies, or even recycled, thereby affecting all those coming into contact with the recycled material. Sir, as I have said earlier, radioactive substances are not covered under this Bill.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Minister agrees with me that we should tap the ET business in the region. I also agree with him that much has been done to attract these ET companies to Singapore. However, the fact that we still lack the breadth and depth shows that we have not done enough. I would like to say, "Look towards the financial centre promotion as an inspiration." We should promote this sector in the same way that we promote the financial centre. With that, I would like to thank both the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their answers and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“This method of charging is not feasible. I think the Government should look at it in a more comprehensive manner. We should look into how we could reduce the amount of refuse we generate now rather than using price mechanism to increase charges later when the problem becomes acute. In a family, I think most of the refuse are from packaging, like plastic bags, cartons, etc. We should give some incentives to the manufacturers to reduce unnecessary packaging and think of some innovative ways for our people to dispose of their cans and bottles. I think we should encourage the old karang guni trade, help them to develop so that they could collect the refuse to be recycled. I urge the Ministry of the Environment to take positive measures to reduce the amount of refuse generated annually and not to solve the problem through increasing the burden of the people by raising their refuse collection fees.”
“When that day comes, I am certain that such standards would be used as trade requirements under the objective of supporting sustainable development. The developed countries would use any excuse to increase non-tariff barriers. Linking it to environmental protection issues would be a good way. I think it is better for us to be prepared for that day. To assist the companies, especially our local SMEs, to achieve ISO 14000, I would like to propose that financial incentives be provided. It would help to defray the initial costs of achieving such standards as well as encouraging the acceleration of its adoption. 1.30 pm The Minister for the Environment was formerly the Minister for Trade and Industry. I am sure he will agree that the potential threat to our exports is very real. We have already seen how it happened with ISO 9000, where companies producing goods for MNCs had to be ISO 9000-certified. Believe me, Sir, the same will also happen with ISO 14000. We must not be caught napping. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, in the past 10 years, Singapore's refuse was increasing at the rate of 6% per year. But in 1995, the increase was 10.3%. According to newspaper reports, Singaporeans generated 7,529 tonnes of refuse per day last year and by the year 2000, it was estimated that refuse generated per day would be increased to 9,500 tonnes. Faced with this increasing amount of refuse, Government's solution is increasing the refuse collection fees and said it would also consider charging a fee according to the amount of refuse generated. But in Singapore, most people live in flats. They throw the refuse through the rubbish chute directly down to the collection bin downstairs. It is not possible to calculate how much refuse they throw.”
“It may even make the difference between a desirable foreign investment coming to Singapore and going elsewhere, especially when countries become more and more politically correct in this area. Sir, on my third amendment, today, one of the key issues in economic development is sustainable development. As I have said earlier, the Prime Minister was at the UN last month representing Singapore as one of four countries to start a new initiative in sustainable development. Sir, sustainable development is more than just a passing fad. I believe that more and more countries would move towards adopting policies supporting sustainable development. It is, however, not something which can be achieved in one giant step, but instead is an uneventful process that needs to be re-evaluated and reinforced as it proceeds. That is why I believe that we, especially our companies, have to start going green now. A great majority of our companies, especially the local SMEs are not green enough. Sure, they all comply with the minimum legal requirements on environmental protection and environmental health. But do they have environmentally friendly processes and production methods? Do they have clean production techniques? Are they using as much renewable resources as possible? Sir, what I really would like to see is our companies adopting standards higher than the minimum legal requirements. One way is the adoption of the new ISO 14000 standard. It is an internationally recognised standard. There is also an important facet to this suggestion. I see the day when most companies in the developed economies will possess environmentally sound technology and achieving ISO 14000 standards.”
“The schools can organise excursions and tours to places where the children could see for themselves environmental protection at work, places such as sewerage treatment works, water treatment plants, etc. There should also be movies and documentaries on matters relating to environmental protection for the children to watch. The Singapore Environmental Council is already doing some of these programmes, but is hampered by lack of funds. I am sure much more could be done. We should also encourage adult Singaporeans to be more environmentally friendly through fiscal incentives and/or tax reliefs. Why can we not have a comprehensive system of financial incentives to encourage individuals to be more environmentally friendly? For example, as a start, we could encourage greater use of solar heating systems by granting financial concessions for the installation of such systems. Also, why can we not give some financial aid to owners who install water collection systems for non-potable use? We could also encourage greater usage of electrically driven cars through financial incentives. Why not bring back the tax rebates for the maintenance of gardens? Sir, we used to have that, but it was scrapped some time ago. I recommend that we bring this back because every tree and every plant would help to improve our environment. These are some of the examples by which the Government could encourage greater use of environmentally friendly practices. The cost to the Government would not be very much. However, the impact would be tremendous, especially by putting Singapore at the top of the world's green league. Sir, I believe that such reputation will become more and more important in the future.”
“Sir, on education on environmental awareness and protection, it is a truism that protecting the environment is not just the work of the authorities but also the duty and responsibility of the people. So it is, indeed, sad that after so many years of educating our public on environmental protection, we do not seem to have improved very much. Our anti-littering campaign is a good example. Sir, we have had education, fines and even CWOs, yet today, the extent of littering is still a shame to Singapore. I do not subscribe to the effectiveness of punishment as a means to protect the environment, although punishment to achieve deterrence does have its place. Sir, at best, punishments are only a temporary deterrent to the polluter's lifelong habits. To them the only crime is that of getting caught, not the pollution to the environment. Protecting the environment, unfortunately, requires discipline, if only to walk a short distance to throw a piece of paper into a trash bin instead of littering. This type of discipline can only come from the habit of instinct, not from the fear of punishment. Such instinctive behaviour can only come from values gathered at a very young age, the younger the better. I would therefore like to see the Ministry concentrate more on educating the young in environmental protection. As a start, environmental protection should be made part of the National Education Programme. We should also have programmes for mothers on how to inculcate their children with the right values to be defenders of the environment. Children pick up most of their lifelong values together with mother's milk. So if we can educate the mothers, we will educate a whole generation. The Ministry could also help to organise environmental clubs in every school.”
“Sir, we need to attract the best in the world to use Singapore as the centre for this business in the region. The opportunities are tremendous, including the value added for our economy and our people. The jobs created will mainly be of the technical, professional and managerial types. This niche will be another high value-added and clean industry, similar to that of Singapore's financial centre. In fact, Sir, in considering the promotion of this niche, we should look to the financial centre for inspiration. Back in 1968, when the first tax incentive was given for the Asian Dollar Market, I doubt anybody then would dare to envisage today's size, depth and complexity of the financial services offered by our financial centre. But then, Sir, we had faith; and the grit to institute concession after concession to promote the growth of our financial centre. I see a similar analogy in the environmental business today. We can be the premier regional centre in this business. We must have faith and must be prepared to fight to get the business to be based in Singapore. As a start, Sir, I would like to propose a package of financial incentives similar to that for the financial centre, the establishment of an Environmental Park similar to that established for the Science Park and that the Ministries of the Environment and the Trade and Industry, including the Economic Development Board, going all out to woo the best companies in the world to Singapore. It is only a befitting follow-up to the Prime Minster's initiative in New York last month when he attended the 19th Special Session of the UN General Assembly and announced the Singapore Technical Assistance Programme for Sustainable Development for developing countries. Sir, can I move to my second topic?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Last year, the Member for Ayer Rajah brought to the attention of this House a comprehensive presentation on establishing Singapore as a regional centre for environmental technology, business and training. The Ministry of the Environment apparently had not reacted positively to the proposals in his presentation. Sir, I would like to bring up this issue again. I must say that I am much perplexed by the reaction of the Ministry. I would have thought that the Ministry would grab the idea with both hands and convince the Ministries of Finance and Trade and Industry to immediately exploit this new economic niche. The latest estimates by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank project an annual expenditure of some US$20 billion to US$30 billion in South-East Asia alone in this business. Much of this expenditure will not be official aid but Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) as well as domestic public and private sector investments. Sir, in other words, many of the projects are not tied up to non-commercial considerations but are up for grabs to the best companies in the world. Sir, we can have these companies in Singapore. We already have the reputation as Asia's greenest country that is environmentally green. We have much of the infrastructure to attract them to be based in Singapore. Unfortunately, what we have now is not enough. We do not have enough depth. Our spread is not wide enough to have all the components necessary for many projects available in the region. In short, we are still not well coordinated enough to take advantage of the many projects offered in the region.”
“I am coming to it, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether the valuation is done by the HDB or the Government valuers or private valuers.”
“Sir, if the Minister ever considers the question of compensation, I would also like to add one more. If I had purchased a Singapore Big Sweep ticket and I did not win any prizes through the lucky draw, I would also like to be compensated, as compared to those who had won the first prize, I would be worse off.”
“Member for Bukit Gombak, Mr Ling, is not present in this House. I am also surprised to find out that he is not listed down to speak on this subject. As he is the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that Members of this House, and indeed members of the public, will be most interested to hear his views and comments. Does he think that there was impropriety or does he agree with the Prime Minister that the transactions were all above board and not improper? I sincerely hope to hear Mr Ling in the House tomorrow on this topic.”
“Surely, as the Senior Minister has said, this is not what we want; that Ministers and Government leaders cannot own properties in Singapore. Surely they should be like anyone of us in Singapore, free to purchase property with their own money, especially so when it is through their leadership that property values in Singapore have appreciated. True, being in charge brings a responsibility of having to be circumspect with one's personal dealings and having the integrity of not abusing one's high office. And, Sir, that is what this debate is all about. In this particular case, it is because of the integrity of the Senior Minister, the integrity of the DPM, and the integrity of the Prime Minister and of all those involved in the Government that we are having this debate. This debate need not have happened. That it is brought up into the open by our leaders themselves speaks a lot for them, for our system and for our country. Sir, in the midst of the details surrounding this debate, let us not lose our way and forget this important fact. I share the Prime Minister's view that nothing improper took place with regard to the purchases by SM and DPM. I also hope that the PM in coming up with new rules and guidelines for Ministers, MPs, and senior civil servants - something which he said that he would do - he would not opt for drastic changes. Our present system has served us well and, if changes are needed, they should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. In the final analysis, Sir, it is still the election and appointment of people of character, integrity and capability that is the key to good and honest government; not more rigid rules and regulations. Sir, before I sit down, may I say that I notice that the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, the hon.”
“Sir, I had gone into the reasons for discounts to show that selling new properties through the mechanism of discounts is very much part and parcel of the marketing practices of developers. In such an environment, giving a higher discount to keep a desirable potential customer or to prevent possible complaints, especially to the Controller of Housing, for mistakes made by developers is not uncommon. The extra 5% that was given to the DPM by the developer must therefore be seen in this light, especially since DPM gave up a unit on which he already had an option. Most buyers would insist on having the original unit they selected. From this morning's press report, it was obvious that the particular unit was double booked. In such cases, normally, the developer, having made a mistake, would try to get out of the situation by asking both buyers to select another unit. If both do not agree, then the developer would have a problem. Hence, it is in the developer's interest to induce at least one to give up the selected unit, and in this case, normally a higher discount would be given for the alternative unit. From the press report, it is not clear whether or not HPL asked both parties of the particular unit. What is clear is that DPM was prepared to give up his unit. Hence, I believe the higher discount was given to him. Sir, I really do not see anything wrong with it. As a developer myself, I would have done the same for any customer, let alone the DPM, ie, giving an additional discount to one or the other customer since double booking would certainly have to be the developer's mistake. If what they had done is not improper and above board, what then is this debate about? That they shoud not have purchased properties at all?”
“Selling properties is not like selling oranges and television sets where a mark-up over costs is the normal practice. Developers have to sell their products at market prices, regardless of cost of structures. When the market is good as during the past five or so years, profit margins are high. However, when the market is bad, as during the 1985-1986 recession, losses are rampant and many property companies then went under. Market demand, and not cost, determines selling prices of properties. Hence, trying to get the price right is an art; even if one has much experience. The normal practice is to have higher list prices, and through discounts bring the final prices as close as possible to the market. Sometimes, one gauges the demand wrongly and the discounts are then adjusted accordingly to vary the final prices. The Finance Minister earlier mentioned that the normal discount for early birds is 5%. I would like to say here that in the market there is actually no such thing as a normal standard discount for early birds, in the sense that they vary quite a lot. But if there were, it will be closer to 10% , rather than 5%. Sir, property units are also not homogenous products. They have differing value factors, such as height, facing, shape, etc. Sometimes, one gets the pricing for particular units wrong. When priced too low, they would be sold or snapped up before adjustments could be made. On the other hand, if priced too high, they normally remain unsold. Higher discounts would then have to be given. Hence, the situation of varying discounts for different units in the same development.”
“In other words, the report which was completed in late August 1995, gave a bearish outlook of the market. Sir, the dates of the purchases by Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were as follows: For Nassim Jade, April 1995. For Scotts 28, October 1995. Sir, these purchases were made when the market sentiment was bearish. There were no long queues. There was no speculation. Least of all, there was no frenzy connected with excessive speculation. As a former banker and currently a property developer, I ask myself this question: Why would anybody want to buy properties when the market sentiment is bearish, unless it is for long term investment? In fact, had the purchases been made public at that time, for example, immediately in April, after the purchase of the two apartments in Nassim Jade, I believe that both SM and DPM would have been applauded. They would have been seen as confidence boosters for property values in Singapore. They would have been seen as putting their money where their mouths and hearts are. Instead, what do we get today? Disclosure came about one year later; not their fault, as they had nothing to do with the mechanics of such disclosure. Unfortunately, a year later was too late as, by then, the market had turned bullish. Prices were higher, speculation was beginning to be excessive and all of a sudden there was something not so right, something sinister about their purchases. Would they be so judged had these purchases been disclosed amidst the bearish sentiment of 1995? The Prime Minister and the Senior Minister had already mentioned why developers have higher list prices and lowered them by giving discounts. They are not wrong in their analysis.”
“" In the South China Morning Post, again in Hong Kong on 9th August 1995: "Prices flatten out in private residential sector." In the Lianhe Zaobao on 10th August 1995: "Developers sell residential units at reduced prices." On 16th August, Business Times states: "URA data show private residential property softening." There are a few more like this. I show all this to show that these two periods in general, both the period leading up to April 1995 and also the period leading to October 1995, the market was bearish. Here, I would like to ask your permission, Sir, to distribute two graphs showing changes in the property indices issued by URA, and here Members will get a very much better overall picture of the market then. [Copies of Graphs distributed to hon. Members.] As can be seen from the graphs, Sir, the rate of increase in the property prices began to drop from the middle of 1994 very rapidly till the fourth quarter of 1995, where it stabilised at about 5%. Sir, I would like to remind Members that these rates are not on a quarter to quarter basis, but on a year to year basis. I have spent some time on the market conditions and sentiments in late 1994 and 1995. The market then was bearish and developers were worried about price trend edging downwards. Developers were worried that they could not sell their products. They were worried to the extent that an independent study on the supply and demand of private residential property in Singapore was commissioned by REDAS sometime in June 1995. The study was done by the Applied Research Corporation, a research company owned by the Government. The general conclusion of the study was that there was a possible over-supply situation with attendant falling occupancy rates and negative impact on prices.”
“Business Times on 12th January 1995: "Prices down 17% at URA's first land auction this year." South China Morning Post in Hong Kong on 25th January 1995: "Bull run begins to lose steam in Singapore. Residential value tipped to fall 10%." 28th January 1995, Business Times: "URA's figures point to peaking of private property market." The Straits Times on 9th February 1995: "Private housing rental fall 2.6% in third-quarter. High-rise apartments took most of the decline by IRAS." Lianhe Wanbao on 13th February 1995 reports: "Private residential property prices will reduce by about 20% this year." On 30th March Business Times: "Analysts cool to URA's sale of sites for landed development." Lianhe Zaobao on 25th April 1995: "Prices of private residential properties are now at more reasonable level after consolidation. A 10% further reduction is possible before the end of this year." In the Straits Times issue of 25th April 1995: "Lecturer predicts 10% fall in private property prices." Sir, there are many more such news reports. However, as I do not want to waste the time of the Members of this Chamber, I will now go straight to the period leading to October 1995. On 10th July 1995, this is from the Shin Ming Daily news: "As a thousand condominium units are to be launched, the trend of selling price has become market concerns." In the South China Morning Post on 12th July 1995, in an article on Singapore property, it states:"Residential property prices have eased by an average of 5% to 10% from first quarter levels." In the Business Times on 18th July, it states: "Residential property market slows further. Trend may continue." In August 1995, in the Straits Times: "Private residential prices cool even further.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for permitting me to join in this debate. First, I would like to declare my interest as a property developer. I am also the current President of REDAS (Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore). Allow me, Sir, now to bring this Chamber back to the days of 1994 and 1995. It is only when we know the then circumstances of the property market that we may better understand the context within which the transactions of Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee, took place. Sir, the property market slowly strengthened after the Gulf War, but it was really in 1993, when it took off in tandem with high economic growth and low interest rates, amidst the rediscovery of Asia and the revaluation of Asian assets by the rest of the world, especially from Western investors. This escalation continued into 1994. However, by the end of 1994, the market already showed signs of cooling off. By early 1995, developers were more cautious and less confident. Increased Government land sales attracted thin bidding and prices were below market s expectations. Developers were faced with decreased sales and lower prices. They also had to contend with the impending completion of a large number of units coming onstream, yet more Government land sales and rising costs. Sir, at this point, I would like to seek your indulgence and also the indulgence of Members of the House for me to read some of the newspaper headlines during this period. It is necessary to get the full flavour of the times then, although, Sir, it might be a bit tedious. I must say that what I have here is just a very small sampling of another larger sampling of really my whole office records on newspaper headlines on the property market in 1995.”
“MAS would only consider allowing foreign supervisory authorities to inspect their banks' operations inside Singapore if they are prepared to allow reciprocal treatment when we ask to do so. Finally, both Mr Lew and Mr Heng Chiang Meng were concerned how we would deal with situations in which foreign persons living overseas divulge confidential information to which they had access. In the first place, we must ensure that the information which can be divulged should be limited. In other words, such persons would not have access to depositor information anyway. So there is nothing to divulge in that area. As far as our ability to catch and prosecute them is concerned, if they are not in Singapore, we have limited means. If the person is a Singapore citizen, depending on the nature of the offence and availability of extradition laws, we would try to extradite him. If he is a foreign person, non-citizen, living overseas, we can only prosecute him in absentia and hope that he comes here and visits us some time in the future. 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. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau.]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. NATIONAL PARKS BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“The following are the safeguards which are available: Firstly, a foreign supervisory authority which intends to conduct an inspection of its bank's operations in Singapore must obtain MAS' prior permission. Secondly, the inspection must be solely for supervisory purposes and must be conducted under conditions of secrecy. Thirdly, the foreign supervisory authority must be prohibited from its domestic laws from divulging information obtained from the inspection to other parties. If not, the foreign supervisory authority would have to give an undertaking to MAS not to divulge the information to third parties. Fourthly, the foreign supervisor would have to give MAS a written undertaking to comply with the provisions of the Banking Act and any conditions which the MAS may impose. Finally, the foreign supervisory authority would only be allowed to examine the credit facilities and internal control systems of the bank with the prior approval of MAS. Other matters would not be allowed unless MAS' prior approval is obtained. It is quite clear that they would have no access to individual depositor information. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked whether we are the first country to introduce the legal provision to allow foreign supervisory authorities to inspect banks here. The answer is no, we are not the first country to allow foreign supervisors to inspect the banks' operations. As I have mentioned in my speech, other countries such as US, UK, Australia and Hong Kong have already allowed home supervisory authorities to inspect foreign banks operating within their jurisdictions. As such, Singapore would not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis these countries.”
“Since the amendment in 1993, one of the big four local banks, UOB, has made use of the provisions to merge with one of its subsidiary banks, the Lee Wah Bank. The MAS will continue to encourage the subsidiary banks of other banks to merge with their parents in order to make better use of their resources. In this regard, I think the MAS will be pleased to consider removing any other impediments which banks foresee may prevent such mergers. Dr Ow also wants to know what are the capital adequacy ratios of the banks with this change in capital funds. Under the Banking Act, the local banks are required to have minimum capital adequacy ratios of at least 12%. However, at the end of April 1996, the capital adequacy ratios of the six major local banks already ranged from 13.4% to 17.7%, based on Tier 1 capital, which is paid-up capital and published reserves. These capital adequacy ratios of our local banks are among the highest in the world, making them among the strongest banks in the world financially. The increase in the minimum capital funds requirement should not have any impact on the capital adequacy ratio of the big four banks as they are already able to meet the new capital funds requirement. As for the other two smaller banks, their capital adequacy ratios would likely improve as a result. Dr Ow also wants to know who would prevail if there is a perceived conflict between the views of MAS and the foreign supervisory authority. Undoubtedly, in Singapore, the MAS would prevail on local banking matters. He also wants to know what safeguards would be introduced to maintain the confidentiality of bank depositors information.”
“There are six other local banks which are all subsidiaries of the major local banks. For those banks which are at least 75% owned by the parent banks which are able to meet the new capital requirement, the authority may extend the grace period beyond five years for these smaller banks. However, as I have mentioned in my speech earlier, the authority would encourage these banks to merge with their parent banks in order to make better use of their resources and to enjoy the benefits of economies of scale. For those banks which are less than 75% owned, they may have to be merged with their parent banks at the end of the grace period if they are still unable to meet the new requirement. Dr Ow also wants to know whether the MAS would provide incentives to encourage the smaller Singapore banks to merge among themselves or with the larger ones. Members may recall that in the last amendment to the Banking Act in 1993, new provisions were introduced to facilitate the merger of a bank with one or more of its fully-owned subsidiary banks. This was as a result of feedback from local banks that the provisions for mergers and takeovers in the Companies Act posed considerable impediments to bank mergers, particularly in the transfer of assets and liabilities and contractual rights and obligations of the existing banks to the merged entity. The Banking Act was therefore amended to allow banks to apply to the Minister for Finance for approval to merge with one or more of its locally wholly-owned subsidiary banks. Once approval is granted, all undertakings of the existing banks will be transferred to and vested in the merged bank, allowing the merged bank to carry on business with minimum disruption and inconvenience to depositors and customers.”
“Sir, I certainly support the Government's move to increase the capital adequacy of banks in Singapore. I also support the move to get foreign supervisory authorities more involved with the affairs of branches of their own banks. Certainly, today in this world where international finance is getting more and more international and, in fact, it is basically one single global financial community, this is important. But, Sir, I remember that in the past MAS has not been very receptive to such ideas because of its banking secrecy provisions. In line with the new mood, especially that started by the Swiss authorities, I believe the mood now is towards a more open and more transparent supervisory climate. However, given the provisions that have been enacted regarding the banking secrecy in Singapore, I also believe that MAS sets great store in the development of our financial centre. Sir, in this respect, I would like to ask the same question that the Member for Tanglin has asked, ie, if perchance, information is released by foreigners in other countries, what are the practical steps and avenues that are open to us to seek redress? The presence of such provisions prohibiting such release in our own statutes would not really go too far away if this information is being released in the foreign domain. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Sir, Dr Ow has asked whether the local banks will have any difficulty in meeting the minimum capital requirement proposed. Of the six major local banks, four have capital funds, as I have mentioned, which are more than $1,500 million, and they range from $2.6 billion to $5.6 billion. The other two have capital funds of $1.13 billion and $1.03 billion, and should be able to meet the new capital requirement within five years.”
“Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a property developer. Sir, would the Minister agree with me that today, banks in Singapore are not allowed to lend Singapore dollars to foreigners wishing to buy property in Singapore? Would the Minister also agree with me that no country had really been successful in putting an imposition on foreign purchase of property in their own home markets, except by causing a blip in the market due to some initial loss of confidence whereas subsequently the fundamentals take over, and the market continues on, because of the fundamental reasons of that particular country?”
“Therefore, I would like to know whether the Government would consider approving the employment of people from China, Indonesia to become drivers and to increase the quota for foreign workers in the bus service. Another point I would like the Minister to look at is whether it is possible to review the profit of the bus operators and MRTC, because the bus operators feel that their main purpose is to bring people to the MRT stations. Therefore, should the profit be equitably allocated between the bus operators and MRTC? The Government also promises to assist MRT in its asset replacement. In order to do away with such discrimination, we should look into the feasibility of merging the bus and the MRT operations, so that there will be one operator for all the modes of public transport. Under such a situation, resources could be fully utilised. More important is how they are going to coordinate their routes in order to bring about a better public transport service for the people. Some may fear that the proposal will create a monopoly in our public transport service. The Land Transport Authority could address this fear by putting in place regulatory measures to curb monopolistic abuses arising from the merger. Another alternative will be for the Government to make sure that bus operators and the MRTC consult each other, look into their bus routes and the allocation of profits. With fair competition, they will be able to provide better public transport service for the people. The LTA should play a more important role. They should allow bus operators to have more flexibility. The LTA should ensure that when bus routes are adjusted, the interest of the commuters should be considered. I support the motion. 2.07 pm”
“Or do we have to ask them to pay double the amount of bus fares, in order to ensure "reasonable returns" for the bus operators? They are also worried that after such routes have been scrapped, the company may even raise the bus fares for the feeder service. According to the Land Transport Authority, there are an average of 3 million passenger-trips made on buses each day, and only 700,000 passenger-trips on MRT. This shows that many people are still relying on bus as their mode of public transport. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that, with the extension of MRT lines, many profitable bus routes have been replaced or taken over by MRT. How are we going to continue to provide for our people efficient bus services which are fast, comfortable and accessible? The White Paper also mentions the possibility of more bus lanes for the buses to improve the regularity of the schedule of buses, particularly during the peak hours. I think this is a very important measure in order to discourage people from driving into the town. Therefore, we should have a special bus lane throughout the island during peak hours, so that buses can move speedily from one point to another without congestion. If we want to improve their services, we should also look into the problems of the bus workers. As far as I know, certain bus companies have as many as 400 vacancies for bus drivers and the average age of the existing bus drivers is above 45 years old. These people have to work under tremendous pressure. They do not even have enough time for lunch. Many are having gastric problem. They have to collect fares and make sure that no commuters litter on the bus. They have to work under very trying condition. They have to work over time.”
“However, we have also to look at the important link between our land transport system and the bus transport system. We have to be concerned about the challenges faced by the bus transport system. Many of the profitable bus routes have been replaced by MRT lines and shortened. In some cases, the bus service seems to have been relegated to that of a feeder service for the MRT. Many workers have reflected their views on the matter, and there seems to be a lack of choice for the commuters. Previously, they had to take only one bus, but now they have to change buses two or three times in order to get to their destination. Many people living in the rural areas have to take a bus from Jurong East to Boon Lay MRT station and then take a bus from there to the industrial estate. To those who stay near to the MRT station, of course, MRT is comfortable, fast, but for those who are living on the fringe, they have not experienced such excellent or fast service because bus operators have abolished routes which are not lucrative, in order to increase their profits. Therefore, they have cut down on these unlucrative routes or merged some of these routes to form a longer route. So now many workers have to spend longer time on travelling. They used to take 15 minutes, now they have to take half an hour to reach their destination. For those who live in the West Coast to go to Buona Vista MRT station, they have to spend half an hour. This is certainly not conducive to the improvement of productivity of these workers, a factor which is of great concern to the companies who employ these workers. Workers are also worried that some unpopular routes will be scrapped by the bus operators. If all bus routes are devised according to market economy, then these routes will be abolished.”
“On the whole, Singapore has been able to achieve excellent economic growth, for which public transport plays a very important role. Land transport has made considerable contribution to our economic growth. In reviewing our White Paper we have to consider the respective responsibilities of the Government, the transport operators and the people. What will be the role of the Government? What kind of revenue will be collected to pay for such transport? How do we ensure that the service standard is constantly improved? How do we ensure that the fares will remain affordable and, at the same time, ensure the operators of a reasonable rate of return? Under these general principles, let us examine the White Paper. Our economy is a market economy. However, we should not be mesmerised by the principles of market economy because I do not agree with certain anxieties and fears expressed by some Members of Parliament that it would be wrong for the Government to subsidise the construction and operation of the MRT. We have to look at the surplus of the State, whether we can afford to pay for the subsidy. It would depend on our budget surpluses and our economic growth. If such subsidy and assistance can be linked to our surpluses, we believe that we will be able to achieve a balanced policy. So we need not be unduly worried by such subsidies. Of course, we would not be going on the social welfare path because we have seen the plight of France and other western countries. Now, let me talk about the recommendations in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to place too much emphasis on the MRT and the Government's subsidy for MRT. There is no doubt that this is very important.”
“Finally, Sir, I would like to remind the Minister that there are still parts of Singapore not enjoying a Singapore-class system, let alone a world class system. We have heard many of my fellow colleagues saying the same thing. These parts are not covered by the MRT system. Bus services are still inadequate. One such area is in my own constituency, the part of Hougang New Town in Cheng San GRC. The SBS may deny this. The PTC may be hoodwinked by the overflow of data provided by SBS to show the inadequacy, I mean the adequacy, of its services in the area. But, Sir, the residents there, my constituents, know the truth. The truth is that they are the forgotten, long suffering commuters not even able to enjoy the current quality of public transport services enjoyed by many in Singapore. If the PTC does not believe this, I would like them to compare the public transport services in Ang Mo Kio New Town with those of Hougang New Town. The two towns are adjacent to one another but the difference in the levels of services is like night and day. With the publication of the White Paper, they look forward to the early building of the North-East line. They look forward to the type of bus services they can now only dream of. In the meanwhile, I plead with the Minister to provide them with a Singapore-class land transport system now. Show them that they may be forgotten but not forsaken. With this plea, I support the Government's plan as proposed in the White Paper. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has presented a White Paper entitled "A World Class Land Transport System". I am very pleased to note that our people have reacted very positively towards the recommendations made in the White Paper.”
“Other assets, such as office buildings and factories would then also be better utilised. Tax incentives could also be used to encourage more to work from their homes, using computers and telecommunications. There are many more. I am very sure that if the Government were to ask Singaporeans, it would have more suggestions than required. There is no lack of ideas; only the will. The amount of money needed to build more roads and train lines mentioned in the White Paper is enormous. Perhaps the Government need not spend so much if it is able to reduce the need to travel. I am sure such savings would be much more than the tax incentives given. I welcome the clear policy statement that taxis are now part of the spectrum of public transport, albeit at its high end. Taxi commuters and taxi drivers and operators will benefit from a transparency of this policy. I hope that if the day comes when the earnings of taxi drivers are inadequate and the fares cannot be increased because they are not consistent with the public transport equation of cost versus comfort and convenience, the Government will reduce some of the taxes on taxi operators. I must add also that I am most heartened with the stand taken by the LTA with respect to motor cars. With the measures to discourage double transfers still current and the stated willingness to implement the pay-as-you-bid method of tendering, if needed, the LTA has clearly shown that it wants to provide Singaporeans with the cheapest COEs possible, of course, within the constraints of the number of vehicle quotas available. More importantly, I believe that most car owners would be happy to see more of their voluntary tax payments go towards achieving a world class land transport system.”
“There is nothing wrong with this as long as the Government realises that there is a point beyond which people will refuse to be taxed. The fact that it has now agreed to finance asset inflation in the rail system shows that we may be approaching that point. I am glad that the Government will be putting back more into the system to encourage greater use of public transport. My next hope, Sir, is that with the huge revenue from this area, mainly voluntary taxes, mind you, the Government will now see it fit to further reduce the mandatory taxes on income. The White Paper has stated that in trying to build a world class land transport system, nothing is too tiny to ignore. I agree. Individual transport-related measures may appear trivial but added up together, they can contribute much to improve the quality of our transportation. I am glad the White Paper devoted a whole chapter to such supporting measures. I would have thought, however, that the most evident measure would be on how we can better utilise the current system of roads and rail. By this, I mean that these public assets built at great cost are only utilised slightly more than half of a 24-hour day. For the rest of the time, these assets are much under-utilised. Surely, the Government can come up with measures to fully utilise these assets throughout the 24-hour day. Some of this type of measures could include staggering the school hours and office hours of the public sector, encouraging lesser travelling by having more work places and schools nearer the homes, encouraging greater use of tele-commuting or even allowing residential homes to double up as offices. Tax incentives could be used to encourage night shift work, both for the employers as well as employees.”
“Sir, normally, the earnings from this money are part and parcel of a company's future profits and available for distribution to the shareholders. However, as the Government will be paying for the price increase of the operating assets of SMRT, then logically the earnings from the depreciation money should also go towards the payment of asset replacement. SMRT should thus be required to set up an asset replacement sinking fund where the earnings from this sinking fund accrue to the fund to be used for asset replacement, and not to its bottom line profits. It would be better to have the depreciated money transferred to the sinking fund to be set up by the Government as mentioned earlier. Then, the total funds needed for asset replacement could be managed as one, and transparent to all. If this proposal is accepted, the amount of Government financing needed for asset inflation would be much lower. Sir, I do apologise for taking up so much time on the financial aspect of the White Paper. However, I am sure that you will agree with me that this is probably the most important part of the White Paper. After all, the financial framework will determine the ultimate issue of how this White Paper would affect the lives of ordinary citizens. Convenience and comfort come at a price. Can the people afford this price? That is the question. To me, this is the essence of the White Paper, the litmus test of whether or not the vision contained in the White Paper is really for the people. From the White Paper, it is now quite evident that the Government no longer considers the money collected from the COEs as a by-product of its traffic management policies, but as cold hard cash for its coffers.”