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 5 of 15.
“I believe that we have in Singapore a very civilised society and that the Government will want to keep it this way. I would therefore like to propose that in addition to what is in the Bill, a maintenance order could also be made against the State if the children do not have the financial resources to help. The State could also be ordered to make up the shortfall should the money from one or more respondents be inadequate. Sir, one may say that this proposal is a hand-out and runs counter to the principle of placing more and more responsibility on the individual. I do not deny it. I can only say that the principle cannot be taken to extremes. Helping out this minority with hand-outs of minimum sums for subsistence will not in any way violate the principle of getting the people to be more responsible for themselves. The money needed for this proposal will not be much. I think we can afford it. I think we cannot afford not to afford it. Because I am talking about a small minority. I am talking about a very, very small minority, the poorest of the poor, the most unfortunate of the unfortunates who do not even have their children to support them or their children cannot even afford to support them. Sir, I am talking about the State as the provider of last resort for these people; after their own resources are depleted, after calling upon the financial resources of their children for assistance, and after the strictest of means tests. The Government can perhaps justifiably say that this proposal is not different from what it is already doing under its public assistance programme. If so, why can't that part of the programme relating to the aged be legislated as part of this Bill?”
“Over the past several years, the Government has taken steps to allocate more and more responsibility to the individual to take care of himself. In fact, I would say that this legislation is part of that general trend, regardless of whether or not this Bill is moved by a Backbencher. It simply means that the Backbencher, NMP Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, agrees with such Government policies. I too support these policies. They may appear harsh only because we expect the Government to be all things to all people. The Government, however, cannot and should not be so. In the ultimate analysis, it is better for us individuals to be responsible for ourselves, to enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of our past actions. In the nature of today's world, it is the only way that we together can survive as Singaporeans. However, having said so, there will always be a small minority who cannot take care of themselves, especially when they grow old. The CPF savings and the Minimum Sum scheme may help to reduce this small minority to a yet even smaller minority. That is all it can do. It cannot eliminate this minority altogether. What happens then to this small minority who cannot take care of themselves? What happens when the authorities are convinced that an applicant needs support, needs maintenance from his children, but none of his children can afford to support him? Should nothing then be done? Should we leave such an aged person to fend for himself as best as he could; like in the animal kingdom or in primitive societies? Sir, I am glad that the Acting Minister for Community Development brought up this issue in his speech earlier. The hallmark of a civilised society is how it takes care of its weak and aged.”
“Sir, I am sorry that I have to stop here because, unfortunately, the rest of the historical records were destroyed. It is not known how the great public debate in this beautiful mythical country ended. Even so, we have the same self-appointed keepers of public morals here. In opposing this Bill, they are hell bent on making a case that the fabric of our family institution and ties will be ripped apart by this legislation, that the bonds between the majority of Singaporeans and their children are so fragile as to be shredded into a thousand pieces by the mere enactment of a law requiring children to look after their parents. Surely they must know that such legislation is not meant to replace traditional ties of love and filial piety. Surely they must know that people who are bonded by such ties will simply ignore such legislation. Yes, we should continue and we must continue to promote good family values including filial piety. The majority of Singaporeans, I am sure, will live by these values. But what about the minority? What about those poor unfortunate parents who indeed have uncaring, unfilial children. For these people, this legislation will be like manna from heaven. They are now with little means of supporting themselves with unfilial children, perhaps even rich unfilial children, who refuse to support them. There is no question of family ties, no question of love and no question of filial piety. They have no tears left to cry. There is no love left. Let us not even deny them food and shelter. That is what this legislation is all about, not love, not filial piety, but food and shelter. Sir, a bigger issue in this legislation, as far as I can see, is that of who should take care of the nation's aged - the State or the individual.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a long time ago, far, far away, there was a mythical country whose name is of no importance now. What is important was that this country was like paradise on earth. It was peaceful and prosperous. Its people were hardworking and lived happy, contented lives. There was, however, one strange thing about this country. It had no laws. This was because the people did not need laws to live together in peace and harmony as one community. All problems were resolved through consensus and its communitarian values. Its people accepted this as a way of life and acted accordingly with such values. The country was the envy of many people from other countries. There was a long list of outsiders who wanted to get in. The country, however, was very selective and strict on its immigrants and kept its borders closely guarded. Then one day, horror of horrors, a hideous thing happened. Somebody was brutally murdered. It was a terrible shock as such an event had never happened before. A great public debate took place on how to resolve the matter. After much debate, somebody suggested legislation to combat this evil, making murder a crime with the most severe punishment: banishment forever from their beautiful country. Sir, back came a chorus of protests. "No, no, no, we must not have laws. They are against our way of life. They will tear asunder the fabric of our community. We are the beautiful people. We know what is right and we know what is wrong. It is only one case. It is only one murder. We do not need laws to tell us how to behave, how not to behave. These laws will, through time, make us into a society of murderers." The great public debate continued. And even as the people debated, two more murders were discovered.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. The Minister mentioned that during the Budget debate, I came up with some suggestions. Sir, on the Minister's argument for a free flowing road system in Singapore, I do not think anybody argues with that. It has already been amply answered by the acceptance of the vehicle quota system, and nobody really argues with that. The Backbench accepts that. The public accepts that. But what is not acceptable is this. Is the current COE bidding system the best sub-system under the vehicle quota system? That is the point that I raised earlier and by most of the Backbenchers earlier this afternoon. Sir, it basically means whether the current COE system is producing the most efficient price system for the road transportation system in Singapore. Even if it is so, why not try other sub-systems within the present vehicle quota system? If the Minister says my suggestion is complicated, I think it is less complicated than the CPF system and the HDB system that we have. Just one more point. I beg your indulgence, Sir. I just want to ask why does the Ministry not say so if the policy is that, in addition to the vehicle quota system to keep the roads free flowing, the secondary object of the Ministry is to collect as much revenue as possible. I think the Minister should let the House know that this is the case.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister the same point that Mr Chng brought up, but in another way? Income is taxed when it is revenue received for providing a service or for a sale of goods. But alimony is a transfer payment. Does this mean that the equation is the same? The Minister is now saying that tax is liable on a transfer payment too. There is no service involved. Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the tax is based on the fact that alimony is a form of income, and not whether it is a transfer payment or not, and it is a form of income in the same way as other unearned income, such as interest, annuities, rentals and so forth.”
“So will the Minister consider increasing the $7,000 limit? My reasons are as follows. With the implementation of GST, the tax net has been extended significantly. The dependence on income tax will correspondingly be reduced. Secondly, the average life expectancy of Singaporeans has increased and there will be more and more families with grandparents. Thirdly, we encourage respect for the old. The colonial government of Hong Kong has given such tax incentives on 2nd March this year so as to encourage people to support their grandparents. The Minister has also given some incentives for people working overseas, for example, CPF for these workers will be tax deductible from 1995. I would like to ask the Minister whether the scheme can be implemented earlier so that those people who are already working outside Singapore will have both moral support and appropriate recognition. Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past few years, our economy has been developing steadily. Even Arafat of the PLO intends to use Singapore as a model. The management of finance in a country is highly complex. Fortunately, we have an experienced Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, who has natural talents for such work.”
“Apart from having to pay for the retraining of East Germans, Germany had to spend one-third of its GDP on welfare such as pension, medical, education, family and unemployment benefits. Sweden is reviewing the continuation of daily allowance to prisoners because a large number of Russians have entered the country, committed offences to get arrested to earn such allowances which are eight times what they earn in daily wages in their own country. More than 15% of the workers in Holland are paid an allowance meant for the permanently disabled. Western Europe is reviewing the quantum and standard of such benefits. Even if they had the political courage to carry out basic reforms, it would not be easy to implement. The productivity and competitiveness will decline. In the end, it is their people who will suffer. Recently, the changes in our civil service medical benefits have given rise to criticism and dissatisfaction. Fundamentally, everyone must be responsible for his own health. That we all agree. With increased allowance, the civil servants must bear a higher proportion of their medical expenses. There is nothing wrong about this. In recent years, medical costs have risen steadily. The trend is likely to continue. Ageing brings about declining health. But many people have yet to understand fully the new schemes. A decision made in haste is not right. I would urge the Government to give more time to the civil servants to appreciate the various schemes and avoid making a wrong decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the present taxation system, taxpayers can apply for relief for their aged parents and grandparents subject to a maximum of two such dependants, that is, a maximum relief of $7,000. But there are people who have to support more than two aged parents or grandparents.”
“Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, recently, the US Federal Reserve Board cautioned against inflation and adjusted the Federal Reserve's interest rate by 0.25%. As a result, the stock markets, although not taken by surprise entirely, declined all over the world. But according to the economists, even if the US interest rates were to rise to a limited extent, the overall economic performance of the world would not be damaged. Japan will resume its growth. The Asia-Pacific region will maintain its leading position. China's target of tripling the economy by the year 2000 will be achieved, perhaps in 1995. Our economic performance has been good. Based on future needs, the Budget is aimed at economic upgrading and tax reform. The Government hopes that the people of Singapore will be more adaptable and seek opportunities in the rest of the world. The role of the Government is to provide the infrastructure, a healthy environment, improve education, and upgrade our quality of life. In order to avoid the ills of Western welfarism, we always remind our people of the responsibilities towards the family and society. They should not be enamoured of the entitlements considered as a matter of course by some countries. The European society represents the ideal of the welfare state. They have all kinds of schemes and programmes which reflect the tolerance of matured societies and the principle of community support. The idea of helping the weak and the poor is compatible with the tenets of many religions. In fact, welfare schemes are easy to introduce but hard to withdraw. The European countries have large deficits and economic difficulties.”
“Yes, Sir, I will do that. Sir, the result of this is a higher demand for car ownership, thereby adding to the likelihood of higher COE prices and more revenue for the Minister for Finance. Hence, if the Government were to use part of the COE fees collected to encourage bus owners to operate some third segment routes, as well as to increase feeder bus service routes, the pressure on car ownership and COEs would be lessened by the extent of those not needing cars because of a better transport system. Sir, I am not asking for subsidies because I know that the word "subsidy" is a dirty word in the Government's lexicon. Instead, I am asking for a grant [Laughter] to the Public Transport Council to help support the operations of buses operating such unprofitable routes and improving the general service level. Sir, I do not understand why the House laughed at this, because it is not a new concept. The Government has been giving grants to Town Councils. So, therefore, I ask, why not the Public Transport Council? Both are serving the majority of the Singaporean public. Sir, if that is too much to ask, why not allow the Public Transport Council to collect the COE premium? Let it use some of the funds to help defray the costs of unprofitable routes as well as improve the general service level of public transport in Singapore. The surpluses then could be transferred later to the Consolidated Fund. Again, I must add that the concept is not new. The Government already allows the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation to keep the TV and radio licence fees to help defray the costs of loss-making public service broadcasts. Why, then, Sir, not help to defray the costs of loss-making public transport services? Sir, with that, I support the Budget, and thank you for your indulgence.”
“Sir, but with land transportation providing one-third of Government's total operating revenue, may I say that it is a large sum and we cannot ignore that.”
“Unfortunately, the demand is not high enough for these routes to be in the second segment.”
“Sir, the difference in COE prices between the most efficient public transport system and the current situation therefore represents the extra cost paid by the public for Government inefficiency in not improving the public transport system to the level demanded by the public. Hence, my term, the cost of inefficiency. Using this argument, surely there is merit in suggesting that some of the COE fees collected should go towards improving the public transport system, particularly buses. While the MRT system forms the backbone of the public transport system, it is the buses which form the rest of the bone structure. Many parts of Singapore not served by the MRT must thus be served by buses. Unfortunately, given that the two bus companies in Singapore are monopolistic and profit-oriented, there are areas not served or inadequately served by buses on grounds of non-profitability. Sir, I can understand why profit-oriented bus companies do not want to serve those loss-making routes in the third segment. Here I am referring to the general guideline of segmenting bus routes from the most profitable to the least profitable or most loss-making. The first segment consists of profitable routes. The second segment consists of the least loss-making routes. The third segment consists of routes with the highest losses. In general, the bus companies operate the first and second segments since the profits from the first segment are more than adequate to offset the minor losses from the second segment. They do not operate the third segment on the grounds that they cannot afford to absorb the losses from the third segment. However, the wide dispersion of the population all over Singapore has created a higher demand for bus services in more and more remote areas.”
“Sir, I would also like to suggest a new role for the COE premium. Despite what I have said earlier about motorists willingly paying $1 billion for COE fees in 1993, I always wonder whether the entire sum is necessary or not. So what do the COE fees represent? Does the full $1 billion represent the price of scarcity? Or does it also partially include the cost of inefficiency? Sir, let me explain what I mean by the cost of inefficiency. Basically, if we look at car ownership, there are two aspects: status and transport convenience. Both these aspects are currently reflected in the high COE prices. In other words, car owners in Singapore are willing to pay for status as well as transport convenience. I think most of us will not disagree with this statement. But what we may not agree is how much for status and how much for convenience. Sir, in order to simplify this point that I wish to make, let us assume a scenario in which the Government can improve the public transport system to its ultimate efficiency, that is, the inconvenience of public transport is reduced to its absolute minimum. In such a scenario, the desire to own a car vis-a-vis the costs of car ownership would be at a lower price level than when public transport is not as good. Sir, in other words, there should be less potential car owners if prices go up too high. This means that as the Government improves the public transport system, at any given point, COE prices should be lower. Conversely, a poor public transport system will lead to more potential car owners and higher COE prices, all other things being equal.”
“For example, if in the competitive side, the successful bidding ranges from $18,500 to about $22,000, the average successful price will be perhaps about $20,000. Therefore, $20,000 will be the price that is given to those in the non-competitive division. And if the demand is more than the available COEs in that division, they can always have a simple ballot to determine who should get it. But they pay close to the market price. It is not free for them. Sir, by having one category, I would like to further suggest that we should retain the progressive nature of the COE, which means that the price they pay is the basic price for, let us say, the lowest category, the small car category. And for those who want to buy a medium-sized car or a large car, they can always pay a multiplier factor, say, 1.25 factor for the medium-sized cars, or 1.5 factor for the large cars. In this way, we will still retain the progressive nature of the COE system. And finally, with this system, we can scrap the open category. In fact, this favours those who want to buy small cars, because, as we know, under the present system, the open category is normally used for those who purchase large or luxury cars. In order to prevent abuse by those in the non-competitive division, those wishing to purchase COEs should therefore submit their applications with large enough cashier's orders before the competitive bidding begins. Sir, I am very sure that with such a system, the Government can respond to the public demand for pay-as-you-bid system whilst at the same time protecting the man-in-the-street because it provides for both the professional who can use the competitive bidding system and the man-in-the-street who can use the non-competitive system.”
“This means that any fair allocation method should be acceptable to the Government, since the quota system will ensure that the physical number of vehicles will never get out of control. It is, therefore, puzzling to me why the Government should repeatedly reject the "pay-as-you-bid" system, suggested by many members of the public. After all, the Government did respond to the public demand of non-transferability in earlier times and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so. That means to respond to the public demand as long as the quota system remains intact. However, Sir, I must agree with the Government on one point. The argument that the "pay-as-you-bid" system favours the professional and places the man-in-the-street at a disadvantage is not incorrect. As somebody who used to participate in the bidding of Government treasury bills, which is based on the "pay-as-you-bid" system, I can testify to that. Therefore, on this system, Sir, I would like to suggest that we first put all the COEs into one category. This system is basically to make sure that the numbers available for common bidding remain large. Large numbers will tend to even out the fluctuations whilst at the same time responding better to market demands. Sir, in order to protect the man-in-the-street, let us divide the COEs into two divisions: one division for competitive bidding, and another for non-competitive bidding. In a competitive bidding, one can go for the normal pay-as-you-bid. And those who are interested, like the man-in-the-street, could buy on a non-competitive basis. Because they do not know how to bid, they can always apply for a COE in the non-competitive division, and the price they should pay is the average weighted successful price achieved in the competitive side.”
“It is coming. Do not worry. The system may even withstand a limited number of abuses, but not if the numbers are large. The question is whether such an idea will actually work in practice. Alas, I must say that I doubt it very much, because Singaporeans, with their kiasuism, afraid of losing out and striving to be one up on their neighbours, will kill any idea which demands voluntary restraint and cooperation. I may be cynical, Sir, but this is certainly one area where I hope to be proven wrong. Sir, why then do I test your patience and this House's patience by bringing up such an impractical idea? Certainly not because it is practical, but more to show that the high COE prices are not the result of the current COE bidding system, but rather the dog-eat-dog attitude of Singaporean bidders. The final choice of paying the consumption tax for the COEs and the amount to be paid lies in their hands, not with the Government nor with the motor car dealers. If the prices are too high, consumers must be prepared to use their ultimate weapon, which is, do not buy. Not owning a car in Singapore will not kill anybody. Sir, I would like to also propose that even as I said that the high COE prices are the result of the dog-eat-dog attitude of the car-owning public, I feel that the Government has a duty to ensure that the prices of COEs are as low as possible. This means that the Government should welcome any system which can minimise COE prices whilst providing an equitable pattern of allocation. The COE price, or to give its proper name, vehicle quota premium, is only the means to allocate a scarce resource. The objective, as officially stated, is to control the number of vehicles on our roads given our limited land area.”
“Then, to prevent speculation, let us all agree that we should not purchase any second-hand car less than one year old. As I said earlier, the concept is simple. But the cooperation? That, Sir, is the rub. The idea will work only if everybody cooperates and agrees to play by these guidelines.”
“The irony of it all is while the general public complains about the GST of 3%, the biggest single consumption tax paid willingly by the public is the COE fees. In 1993, it was $1 billion. In 1994, the Government has estimated this consumption tax to be about $1.03 billion. On the other hand, the total estimated sum to be collected from GST is only $959 million. Why do I say that this is a consumption tax willingly paid by the public, or rather by the owners of motor vehicles? It is simple. The Government determines a quota of available vehicles. If the demand is more than the quota amount, the total number of available vehicles is sold, regardless of the level of COE fees. Sir, I would like to repeat this point. Under the system, the cars, lorries, vans, etc. are sold regardless of whether the COE prices are $60,000 or $1,000. Put it in another way, it means that if members of the vehicle-owning public cooperate with each other, the COE prices could be much lower. The concept is simple. Sir, let me give you an example of such a method of cooperation. I stress it is only one example. There could be more. First, let us reduce the cut-throat competition by reducing the number of bidders at each monthly tender. Let everybody agree voluntarily to bid only in the month corresponding to the last digit of their identity card numbers. This means that those with IC number ending in "1" should bid only in January; those ending in "2" in February and so on, until those ending in "0" bidding in October. November and December would be reserved for companies; November for those with business registration numbers ending in "1-5" and December "6-0". Next, let us also agree that we bid at a maximum price of, say, only $20,000, but always trying to go as low as possible.”
“We have shown the world how good we are at honouring and rewarding our best and brightest. It has resulted in a Singaporean society striving for excellence. Let us now show that we can be equally good at caring for our poor and our less fortunate. It will give us the communitarian values needed to glue together our society of excellence. Athens and Sparta alone are not sufficient to withstand the test of time. A heart is very much needed. The time for implementing a general payment of negative income tax to the poorer and less fortunate in our society is here. The system will also give them greater responsibility as they would decide how much they wish to spend on each item. Or even none at all. I hope the Minister will seriously give some thought to this idea. Let me now turn to the issue of land transport and COEs. Sir, I would like to bring to your attention the size of the operating revenue the Government received from land transportation in 1993. The total was $2.955 billion, of which the vehicle quota premium, or commonly known as COE fees, was about $1 billion. If 50% of the excise and import duties from petroleum products, which is approximately $595 million, were incurred by motorists, and therefore giving us a figure of $297 million, if we add this figure, we would have a grand total of $3.252 billion of taxes and fees collected from motorists in 1993. This works out to be 34.2% of the total operating expenditure of the Government of $9.5 billion. In other words, Sir, motorists in Singapore are financing more than one-third of the Government's total operating expenditure, excluding expenditure on development. I ask this question: Is this a fair burden on the Singaporean motorists?”
“The implementation of GST next month will also add to the pressure for price increases. Such a policy of pricing Government services at market levels is certainly not wrong for the economy, because for the economy as a whole, it will certainly help to ensure that misallocation of scarce resources will be minimised. The majority of Singaporeans, I believe, can afford it because of higher affluence and lower tax burden. However, Sir, there is a minority, and a significant minority, who cannot keep up with such increases. They do not have the ability to earn enough to afford the higher prices. The lower tax burden is of little use to them because they do not pay taxes, or pay very little taxes, in the first place. True, the rebates in HDB rentals and service and conservancy charges will benefit them. So will schemes such as Medifund and Edusave. But are they adequate? Also, what about those not living in HDB flats? What about the handicapped whose costs of living in Singapore are higher because of their handicaps? So, instead of tackling this problem on a piecemeal basis, why not consider a general solution? Why not consider the concept of a general negative income tax to be given to these people? The concept is not new. Western nations such as the United States of America use food stamps as one particular way of providing such people with negative income tax. Instead of food stamps, I see no reason why we could not use their CPF accounts to be credited with negative income taxes. By way of an exhaustive means test, the CPF accounts of these people could be credited with funds for specific expenditure such as school fees, medical fees, HDB rentals, service and conservancy charges, and other approved items.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance. Sir, this year, I wish to focus my views on the high costs of land transportation in Singapore, in particular, the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs). Before that, Sir, I must say that the Budget, far from a disappointing one, is one very appropriate for the economy. After a 9.9% growth in 1993 and with prospects of a growth rate of 7% or more in 1994, it is difficult to see how any responsible Minister for Finance could come up with a highly stimulative budget. Sir, have we forgotten the lessons of the 1970s and the curse and ravages of inflation? Sir, the wealth of Singaporeans, by and large, lies in the values of their homes and shares quoted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. With the high appreciation in values of these two assets last year, the pressure on inflation which could be caused by the wealth impact is very real. The wealth impact is the tendency of people to spend more, especially in conspicuous consumption, as their overall wealth increases. True, the Minister has given much in the way of rebates and concessions to the people. These mostly benefit the poorer segment of our population living in HDB estates. This is rightly so, especially since it is an economic fact that higher asset values will sooner or later be reflected in higher prices of goods and services. Further, the policy to give more personal responsibility to the people through more choices but at market prices will also increase the cost of living. Already, fixing various Government services and fees such as medical services, independent school fees, wet market, hawker stall and shophouse rentals, COEs, etc., at or closer to market price levels, has affected the cost of living in more than one way.”
“Why not now, Sir? Why wait until it is formed? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Because, today, SBC is the regulatory authority. It regulates itself. In a sense, it is an invidious position given the fact that we do have other channels operating now and this is why there is a need to clean up and separate the regulatory authority from the broadcasting stations.”
“In view of the Minister's answer, it therefore shows that the concept of paying a certain amount of funds for public service broadcasts is not wrong. Since already NTUC Radio Heart, I believe, is already providing some PSBs, I see no reason why they should not be provided with a certain amount of funds right now. I am not asking for a 50:50 basis, Sir. But would the Minister consider providing at least an amount in proportion to their public service broadcasts as compared to SBC's? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: If NTUC Radio Heart were to put up a case as to how it can improve its public broadcasts if it receives grants, then I think this proposal can be put to the broadcasting authority when it is formed.”
“In that case, may I ask whether NTUC Radio Heart is also required to provide a certain amount of public service broadcast? If so, should they not also be given a portion of those fees? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: NTUC Radio Heart has to observe certain minimal regulatory conditions. They are much less than those observed by SBC television and radio stations. When SBC is corporatised, a separate regulatory board called Singapore Broadcasting Authority will be set up. All licence fees and all additional Government grants will then go to this statutory board. It will then be for this statutory board to decide how to allocate the fund it has for public broadcasting purposes and they can be allocated to SBC channels, the successor channels, they can be allocated to Radio Heart, or whatever other television channels we may then have.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister to confirm whether it is true that 100% of the fees collected by the Ministry goes to SBC? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: All licence fees go to SBC.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister some questions regarding the Co-Pay Assist Scheme. Firstly, since this is run by a private organisation, whether there are exclusion clauses. Medical insurance is normally on a year-to-year basis. If something happens to a person who is on the scheme, can the policy be made invalid? Secondly, since this is a new scheme, are the present or existing ailments or diseases excluded from the scheme if the civil servants want to join the scheme?”
“Hence, a breakdown into these two components for every salary level may be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined above. Sir, again, I must add that I support the proposals.”
“Let us instead be grateful that they have done a jolly good job and hope that they will continue to do so in the future. Sir, if you look at the increases, although they have been amply explained by the Deputy Prime Minister, they seem to be pretty hefty. But I suppose, like the Deputy Prime Minister has said, it is partly to compensate for the reduction in medical benefits. However, I am not too sure that this new system of increased salaries and lower medical benefits is accepted by all the civil servants. I would like to suggest to the Government to break the proposed increases into two components: one, to meet closer to market levels; and, two, to compensate the reduction in medical benefits. In this way, the Government can offer to all civil servants the option of choosing one or the other: (1) the full increase and reduced medical benefits, or (2) a smaller increase and retaining the existing medical benefits. If the Government is correct in saying that the increases more than compensate the cut-back in medical benefits, then logically the majority will opt for the full increases and reduced medical benefits, thereby achieving the Government's aims. Sir, we must also not forget that whatever the Deputy Prime Minister may say, these increases will also set new benchmarks for salary increases in the private sector. After all, the Government, the public sector, is the largest employer in Singapore and the private sector does look at the trends set by the public sector. However, because the medical benefits in the private sector may be different from that of the public sector, the percentages that have been shown may be too high a benchmark for the private sector.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like others before me, I also support the proposed salary revision. To be competitive with the market and to bring salary levels for civil servants closer to market levels is only right. I do not think anybody would argue with that. However, somehow or rather, the same feeling does not extend to Ministers and office holders. Somehow or rather, the feeling is that for them to get a high salary increment or rather the appropriate salary increment is not appropriate. I suppose it is partly because they are the persons making the decisions and partly because the feeling is that politics is a calling, as one Minister has said earlier, it is like entering a monastery and therefore money and salary are the least important factors of all. Sir, while I agree that money should not be the main factor for political office holders, I would like to say that in this age and day, I doubt very much that there would be any person of a sufficiently high integrity who will be willing to be grossly underpaid as a Minister in any country. Even if such a person exists, I wonder if such a person has the qualities to do the job of managing a modern economy. Sir, the eloquence and ability to attract votes are only the first step in a difficult task towards an effective and efficient government. After the euphoria of an election victory comes the hard work of managing a modern industrial state. In this respect, I think whatever may be levelled at the PAP, nobody can say that the People's Action Party Government has not done a good job of governing Singapore. So for all its worth, may I say that whatever increases in salary to our Ministers, political office holders and civil servants, they deserve every cent of it. Let us not begrudge them their due increases.”
“Sir, I have a supplementary question to ask regarding the use of financing to curb high prices of COEs. Such suggestions are tantamount to credit control allocation by the Government. May I ask the Minister whether, in the past, in Singapore we had any credit allocation scheme of this type to affect other industries such as shipping or property, and whether such credit allocation by Government had been successful in achieving the objectives or not? Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite sure what is the relevance of this particular question. I do not have the information at hand. But, as a matter of principle, it is better not to interfere with the financial market in the way that loans are let out. Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, my point is that experience has shown that credit allocation by Government never worked in achieving desired objectives. This is to answer a point by Mr Chiam.”
“Question No. 1, Sir. The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a general traffic management policy, all vehicles which contribute to traffic congestion should be subject to the same level of restraint. Exempting any particular group from such restraint would mean that the rest will have to bear a relatively heavier burden. My Ministry has therefore been very stringent in granting exemption from vehicle restraint measures like Additional Registration Fees (ARF) and Certificate of Entitlement (COE). At present, all voluntary welfare organisations have been exempted from registration fee, ARF and import duty. We are currently reviewing this policy together with the Ministry of Community Development (MCD). In particular, we will study with MCD how best to help those organisations which provide special transport services for the disabled. PULAU SAKENG (Proposed landfill project) 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for the Environment if he will consider leaving Pulau Sakeng out of the proposed landfill project in view of the historical significance of the existing settlement which predates 1819.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State what is wrong with walking on stones to harden the soles?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider an opt-out system or scheme for future IPOs? If the answer is affirmative, may I further ask the Minister how the Government would tackle (1) the legal issues relating to such a scheme and (2) the political odium of such a system should the share price upon listing be lower than the issued price since the scheme works on the basis of a passive acceptance.”
“I want some clarification so that he can answer at the same time.”
“May I ask the Minister what is the racial composition of these 8,600-odd families, and whether it is true that this Scheme is targeted at a particular minority race?”
“Sir, if the Minister says that the First Secretary's action could be considered illegal, may I ask him what offence did he commit?”
“Sir, I just want to ask for another category. Would the Minister consider a category where the wife is the breadwinner? In this case, I think you want to encourage the man, rather than the wife, to go to work. Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in such a case, the purpose of the foreign maid levy relief has been achieved. Basically, if the wife is the main wage earner, she may well have been encouraged to keep on working because of the foreign maid levy relief. In that case, the scheme has achieved its objective and I do not think it is necessary to extend it. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN RIAU ISLANDS OF BINTAN AND KARIMUN AND INVESTMENT IN GROWTH TRIANGLE 13. Dr Toh Keng Kiat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current status of development projects in the Riau Islands of Bintan and Karimun; (b) whether our partners in the Growth Triangle have expressed any views or concern about the shift of interest by the Government and private sector to new investment areas; and (c) whether new measures and incentives have been proposed by them to rekindle and sustain investment interest in the Growth Triangle.”
“But then my question is very simple: why are these persons, who are Singapore citizens and wish to downgrade, not allowed to rent these flats at market rates? I do not think the element of subsidy is here because they are at market rates. After all, we are renting them to permanent residents who are not Singaporeans.”
“Sir, may I repeat my question? Does HDB have smaller flats for rental at market rates?”
“Sir, does this mean that the HDB does not have smaller flats for people who want to rent at market rates, and not at subsidized rates?”
“Yes. I am asking the question. Sir, why does the HDB system make it difficult for this type of people? In the meanwhile, while they are waiting for a smaller flat allocation and if they want to rent a flat, they could not do so. There is a policy, since 1st June 1993, that debars them for 30 months from renting a HDB flat. So after selling off their flats, these people find it difficult to rent a HDB flat while waiting for a smaller flat.”
“Sir, while the question deals with upgrading, and I believe that the system does a lot for people who wish to upgrade it, the system does nothing for people who wish to downgrade. Sir, may I ask the Minister of State why does HDB make it difficult, for example, for families whose grown-up children have moved out, to sell off their flat because they want to downgrade to a smaller unit? This is also true for people who want to be financially secure because they foresee financial difficulties ahead. They would rather have some cash in their pockets than live in a flat which is too big for them. These people also wish to downgrade. After selling off their properties in the open market, they now find it difficult to buy smaller flats from the HDB. At the same time, Sir ---”
“Sir, in view of what the Minister of State has said earlier in terms of separate costing for these surface car parks, may I ask, in this case, when these surface car parks are later demolished for green spaces, what is the cost related to these car parks? Will they be written off or will they be added on to the cost of building the multi-storey car parks for the purpose of recovering the capital cost of the multi-storey car parks?”
“I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $46,451,630 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $643,463,100 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 4.45 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IG 5200. Sir, just one point. I wonder why the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), that is, including the Changi Airport, is not being privatised since its functions are quite similar to the former Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (TAS) with a number of commercial activities. They can be splitted into two, and the commercial activity like Changi Airport can be privatised. Sir, I would like to know the answer from the Ministry.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“May I ask the Minister of State to clarify on my suggestion of the Punggol extension from Yio Chu Kang station? Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we will certainly study this. But if such an extension is made, and it does take traffic away from the main north-east sector line proposal, then that may also have some effect on the timing of the north-east sector.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IF 3100. Sir, I have a simple question to ask the Minister. When will the Government construct the north-eastern line - the MRT line to Serangoon and Punggol? The arguments for such a line to serve the people in the north-eastern part of Singapore had been aired many times, so I do not want to trouble the House with the same arguments. All I want to know is when will this line be constructed. Sir, if, however, such a line is not feasible because of cost, would the Minister consider a Punggol extension, using the Yio Chu Kang station to branch an extension to Punggol and parts of Serangoon? From what I know, the greater part of such an extension would be above ground which means much lower cost than if underground.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”