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 6 of 15.
“This will result in three undesirable effects: (1) As stated earlier, COE is a depleting item which means that after 10 years, a car would be worth very much less than is currently the case. (2) The resulting higher COE premium would mean higher average prevailing premium prices with disastrous results for those owners owning cars of 10 years and above, because they have to pay for a very much higher COE. (3) Higher COE premium means that smaller car owners will be affected more adversely. In other words, the COE, as a tax measure, will become more regressive. Sir, here I am trying to make a case to reduce costs for owners of cars above 10 years old and owners of new cars. The SDP's suggestion, if accepted by the Minister, would mean higher costs for these owners, not lower costs. For owners of newer cars, the value of their cars will drop at a faster rate with each passing year since a higher COE is a depleting asset. I hope the Minister will ignore this proposal by SDP as the proposal will create more hardship for the car owners. 4.15 pm”
“These are items which, once expended, are not recoverable, unlike the first group of asset-enhancing items. Sir, the expenditure for COE falls in between. It is what accountants call a "pre-paid expense", a front-end payment which depletes after 10 years; in other words, a depleting asset. Sir, the purchase price of a new car is, in general, the sum of the first category and the COE. In other words, if the items in the first category add up to, say, $60,000 and the COE is $20,000, then it means that the purchaser is willing to pay a total price of $80,000. This is the figure and not the figure of $60,000. So, with minor variations, if the amount in the first category falls, such as lesser profit margins for the dealer or lower factory cost of the car, or even lower import cost because of the stronger Singapore dollar, or lower ARF, then the purchaser will be willing normally to pay a higher COE premium. This was borne out by the increase in COE premiums when the ARF was reduced in two stages, from 175% to 150% of the open market value. Sir, taken to the extreme, this means that if all forms of taxes and fees are removed from the first category, the COE premium would increase to reflect the purchase price an owner is willing to pay for a new car. Sir, I took the trouble to explain this in careful detail because I was surprised to read in yesterday's Forum page of The Straits Times a letter from the SDP advocating the reduction of such fees. If the Government accepts the proposal of the SDP, which means reducing the fees in the first category, as I explained earlier, COE premiums will simply go up.”
“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 IC 1500. Sir, under the current road tax system, cars of more than 10 years old pay a higher road tax which is an additional 10% of the normal tax for each year above the 10-year mark, up to a maximum of 50%. This is in addition to the renewal of the COE at the 12-month average prevailing premium. The 10-year mark is being used as a surrogate for old cars which usually means less roadworthy, poorer condition and perhaps even more pollutive. While the figure of 10 years was perhaps acceptable in the past, I think it is time to be more precise and fairer to car owners who take good care of their cars. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to consider using the actual conditions of such old cars rather than the 10-year mark for the purpose of higher road taxes. Sir, in other words, the system should penalise cars on their condition, not age. After all, a certain make of a car, say, 15 years old, if properly maintained, could be in a better condition than another make of 7 years if the latter is not properly maintained. Sir, I am aware that road taxes are part of the fiscal measures to control our vehicle population. If I may, I would like to divide these measures into two categories: (1) These are the asset-enhancing measures or items such as registration fee, ARF and import duty. These, like the cost of the car, freight cost and the profit margins, are added up to make the Singapore value of the car, ie, the value of the car or the price in Singapore. (2) The second category are the expense expenditures. These items such as area licensing fee, parking charges, road tax, diesel and petrol duties.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Finally, I would like to add that while the taxi issue will always be an issue of commuters versus taxi drivers, an issue of fares versus income and an issue of quality versus cost, no service can be viable in the long run if it has to be expanded on a permanent basis to serve the peak demands only. This means that the service can only be viable in the long run if that service is expanded to serve average demand and not just the peak demands. 2.45 pm Sir, during the peak demands, perhaps when taxis are not readily available, commuters should be a little more understanding. Special surcharges can be the answer to resolve this problem, but not the idea floated by the Minister, ie, using private cars or SZ cars.”
“Sir, on confusion of fares, even if there are changes in any system, there would normally be some form of confusion in the beginning but I believe this can be kept down to a minimum, if key fares, such as the flag-down fare and distance fare, are clearly painted in bold letters on taxi doors under the new system. This is a practice being followed in many cities in the world. Sir, on the quality of service, I am not too sure I can see the nexus between a simple fare deregulation and better quality of service. But I do hope that in the new system, the Minister will reconsider the current policy of phasing out individual taxi owners. In Japan and South Korea, there are company-owned and individually-owned taxis. And I was told that the individual owners generally take better care of their vehicles and provide better service. With better educated and motivated younger drivers today, I believe that individually-owned taxis can provide a good service. So, perhaps, the Minister would like to consider allowing a certain number of individually-owned taxis under the new system. Sir, on the question of cut-throat competition, I believe this only occurs when there is an over-supply. In this respect, I believe the Minister will allow, under the new system, companies to establish their own taxi fleet so long as the minimum requirements are met. While I agree, I hope the Minister will take note that there is no such thing as a completely free market. Otherwise, the Government will not have taken steps to curb the supply of doctors and lawyers. So what I would like to see is for the Ministry to have an idea of how many taxis there should be for Singapore and, within the constraints of this number, allow free competition.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, about two months ago, the Minister for Communications floated a balloon that it was time to deregulate the taxi fares. Sir, by now he must have received numerous views, comments, proposals and suggestions on the idea. Most, I believe, are centred on the following issues. One, fares. Will they increase indiscriminately? Will there be a price-fixing cartel? Two, confusion of fares. Because of different fares being charged by different taxi companies, will commuters be confused? Three, quality. Will the quality of taxi service increase because of the freeing of the market? And, four, cut-throat competition and price wars. Understandably, this will be a concern of taxi-drivers since it affects their livelihood. Sir, the Minister should provide this Chamber with an in-depth study with special emphasis on these four issues; perhaps, even a White Paper. In the meanwhile, permit me to air some of my views on these issues. On fares, the experience of petrol pump prices after they were freed clearly shows that where there is a responsible market leader, indiscriminate price increases can be kept in check. In this example, NTUC Comfort, with the largest taxi fleet, can certainly play this role. Moreover, the 1985 hefty price increase in fares resulted in poor demand and this clearly shows that there is a limit beyond which it is difficult to increase taxi fares without affecting adversely the incomes of the taxi drivers. This is because we have good alternatives in Singapore, in the MRT and the public buses. In fact, I would like to add here that our public transport system in Singapore, for a major city, is second to none in Asia, if not in the world.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, the question of cost. May I ask the Minister whether the postage cost for sending mail with the new code will go up, and, if so, roughly by how much. Second, in the new system, I hope the Ministry or at least Singapore Post would provide adequate publicity and reminders, such as stickers, so that Singaporeans are aware of the new postcode.”
“Yes. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Sir, may I clarify? Perhaps I may say that the Minister forgets my preamble to this request. He conveniently forgets that there are a lot of spin-offs from tourism in this business. And this is the reason why I did mention earlier that such events are shown to millions of people world-wide. I believe that whatever we can do to attract these sportsmen to come to Singapore, it will help us in promoting Singapore as a tourist centre, besides showing the better face of Singapore to the rest of the world. Sir, I still refuse to withdraw my amendment.”
“Sir, all I asked of the Minister for Community Development was to request the Minister for Finance to give certain incentives to promote world class sporting events in Singapore. I did say that it would effectively increase the prize money because in today's international sports, money is the name of the game. For example, let us say, our Singapore Golf Open, the total prize money is US$400,000. This compares to an average prize money per event in the US of a million US dollars. At 15% tax rate, in fact, less $750 for tax-free allowance for the winners, we are only talking about a tax of US$60,000. Sir, instead of the Minister trying to promote sports, I think he is answering like the Minister for Finance, which is quite odd. In view of his uncooperative reply, I refuse to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, since he is not withdrawing, it gives me a chance to reply. Whilst we can be very sympathetic, we have to also face the facts. The fact is that, firstly, they are already being given the concessionary tax rate of 15%. Secondly, we cannot equate the Singapore market with the US market. In the US, a tennis game alone will fetch a prize money of anything up to about half a million US dollars. In Singapore, it will never be possible because the sponsors at the end of the day must get the return. So there is no way that we can equate the prize money here with the prize money that they can get elsewhere. Nonetheless, we have already given them a concession and I think they should be very happy with that. 4.30 pm”
“I think it is a worthwhile objective for us to achieve to become the sporting centre of South-east Asia, if not, the whole of Asia.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JI 3100. Sir, the Minister has earlier mentioned the example of the Johnnie Walker Classic as a successful sporting event in Singapore. I will not belabour this point. However, in my opinion, a greater success is the fact that this event was shown on television in many countries in the world, reaching an audience of perhaps several hundred millions of people, some of whom are potential investors in and tourists to Singapore. Such events normally would become part and parcel of our menu of interesting events and attractions for the tourists who come to Singapore. In fact, if we have sufficient such world class sporting events in Singapore, these events in themselves will serve as magnets to attract more tourists in the region to Singapore. In this year's budget, the Minister for Finance has given a tax incentive to promote Singapore as an international centre for the trading of arts and antiques. Sir, I am very certain that the Minister for Information and the Arts has a hand in this matter. I would therefore like to request the Minister for Community Development to persuade his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Finance, to provide tax incentives to encourage the staging of world class sporting events in Singapore, besides granting a 10% concessionary tax rate to approved promoters of such events. The incentives could also include tax exemption of the prize money to be won by non-resident sportsmen. Sir, this would effectively increase the prize money. We know that in these events, at international standards, and normally at professional standards, in today's world, money is the name of the game.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister what was the percentage of manpower cost of these restructured hospitals before they were restructured?”
“Sir, we have a good system of expressways, permitting quick transit from one part of Singapore to another by motorists. They are, generally, safe to travel on. However, some accidents which occur on our expressways are what I call "not true accidents" but are deliberately caused by syndicates to bring business to motor repair workshops, thereby cheating motorists and insurance companies. Sir, the almost immediate appearance of towing equipment and so-called assistance soon after the occurrence of some accidents, in not a few cases, is too much of a coincidence. I am aware that the Police have been taking action against such syndicates wherever and whenever they are detected. I also know that it is difficult to catch syndicate members and the workshops red-handed. But my concern is that it is not just a question of cheating. My concern is that such accidents which are deliberately caused could have resulted in serious injuries or even death. Because these acts are deliberate, and if death occurs, it would be manslaughter or even murder. Sir, we must not let this happen. We must send a very clear signal that such dangerous acts of playing with lives will not be tolerated in Singapore. I would like the Minister to consider enhancing the penalties against such syndicate members, even if their actions do not result in death or serious injuries. Sir, after all, if there are no deaths, it is still what I call "attempted manslaughter". In this respect, perhaps I would like to make an appeal to the public, especially to the motoring public, that, wherever possible, they should also help by giving leads to the Police so that we can eradicate this evil once and for all.”
“As such, Sir, although the formation of a single Court of Appeal appears to be the next priority, I would like to request that the same priority and urgency be accorded to the establishment of a commercial court. Given that business and financial transactions are progressively becoming more complex, a specialised court in this area is urgently needed, Sir.”
“Sir, I would like to use this opportunity to put on record a Backbencher's appreciation of the progress towards a more effective and efficient court system since the current Chief Justice took office in September 1990. Sir, in instituting a host of improvements and other measures to increase the productivity of judges and magistrates and ensuring that members of the Bar participate in the changes, the most telling progress is in case management, ie, the waiting period for trial dates has been drastically reduced. Using the Hong Kong Supreme Court as the benchmark, the Chief Justice, in fact, in his opening speech for the Legal Year in January 1991, said that he would, and I quote, "work towards an eventual objective of a waiting time for all cases of no more than 12 months." He adds also, and this is a quote from him too, "That is what I found to be the position in the Hong Kong Supreme Court. There is no reason why we should not be able to match Hong Kong's standard of performance." Sir, I understand that this target has been reached. The waiting period for new cases has been reduced from five years in the past to no more than six months in the High Court, and from two years in the past to no more than four months in the Court of Appeal. Sir, the improvements in the Subordinate Courts are also astonishing. But, more importantly, all these improvements have been accomplished without any drop in the quality and reliability of justice. Sir, I especially bring up this point because an efficient court system is a necessary complement to our growing development of Singapore as an international business and financial centre. This point has, in fact, been publicly acknowledged by the Chief Justice in several of his speeches.”
“Sir, does the Minister know that the Member for Potong Pasir had, in fact, put up warning notices to all his residents on the notice boards of the blocks of flats in Potong Pasir. I shall just read the first two paragraphs of the notice, Sir: 'Warning: Enforcement action of littering by Ministry of the Environment. Please note that enforcement officers of the Ministry of the Environment shall be coming to Potong Pasir to catch shopkeepers and residents who litter the compound property. This letter is to warn you not to throw pieces of paper or cigarette butts or in the case of shopkeepers to leave your rubbish indiscriminately outside your shops.' This was signed by Mr Chiam See Tong, MP; Chairman, Potong Pasir Town Council and dated 1st March, 1993. Sir, in view of such warning, would the Minister say that it is fair to expect less littering than what was actually encountered? Conversely, does this not seem that Potong Pasir, in fact, has a littering problem worse than the normal standard in Singapore?”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's reply and the fact that this is a trend that is already happening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $29,157,880 for Head H ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head W -”
“Somehow, I think, PSC has to come up with a scheme to encourage top scholars to have their undergraduate studies and education in Singapore. I would like to help with two suggestions: (1) The locally tenured undergraduate scholarships could be awarded together with a post-graduate scholarship to be taken by the scholar within a certain period, say, five years after graduation at a foreign university of his choice. This means that the post-graduate scholarship is an automatic follow through. To make it more attractive, the period of bondage for the post-graduate scholarship could be reduced or even waived. One desirable impact or effect is that networking in the foreign universities will be at a more mature age. This is more meaningful than at the undergraduate level. (2) The monetary value of the local scholarship could be kept at the same level as the foreign scholarship. Since local cost would be much lower, the difference could be credited to the scholar's CPF account. Of course, in such an event the bondage would be that for the foreign scholarship and not a local scholarship. I am very sure that if the PSC puts its mind to the task, it can think of more ways.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head H of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, every year the majority of our top students are sent by the Government and related bodies to foreign universities on scholarships, especially the creme de la creme - the President's Scholars. I hope that the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the other bodies will review this policy of sending "A" level school leavers overseas, instead of to our own local universities, especially the NUS. Sir, this current practice gives rise to a number of undesirable results. They are: (1) Our local universities, except for medicine at NUS, are deprived of the best students every year. If we want our universities to be centres of excellence, can we afford to deprive them year after year? Or do we not want them to be centres of excellence? (2) This practice perpetuates the myth that the selected foreign universities are better than our own local universities, giving rise to the perception that our local graduates are not as good as those from these foreign universities concerned. Is this true? Even if it is so now, can we ever catch up? How can we hope to catch up if our top students do not stay home at our own local universities? (3) More likely than not, these scholars will probably become our future leaders, our top administrators and our decision-makers. It is important for them to have a network with their future colleagues. Such a network would be easier formed if they were to be undergraduates in our own local universities. Sir, I am aware that, despite all this, one of the main difficulties may be getting the top scholars to accept our local universities, even NUS. True, but, Sir, we have to start somewhere.”
“Many prefer to take short-term profits because of the volatility of the stock market. Sir, corporatisation and the listing of companies in the Stock Exchange of Singapore has a relatively short history. It is only in recent years that we see more and more Singaporeans being made directors of public-listed companies. This is part of the process of learning, growing and maturing. I believe we are reaching a stage where corporate boards are becoming more established and formidable in facing the fierce competition in the market place both locally and internationally. Sir, the CPF Top-up Scheme is really part of the public education programme to get Singaporeans to buy and hold shares in reputable public-listed companies like the Singapore Telecom. Through their investments, Singaporeans can understand better the world of competition, productivity and profitability. There are about 100,000 Singaporeans who work regularly but do not contribute to CPF. We must do everything possible to get these Singaporeans to contribute to CPF and to look after themselves and their families in housing, medical care and old age provisions. To me, the CPF Top-up Scheme serves this worthy objective of bringing as many working Singaporeans as possible to contribute to CPF. Sir, I support the motion. 1.40 pm”
“I wish to support the 2% cap on medical expenditure for tax deduction by companies. The tax policy on medical expenditure is not really to deny and restrict the provision of medical benefits for staff. What this novel item does is to alert both the employers and the employees of the impending danger of medical costs rising out of control and causing wage bills to increase and leading business operations to become uncompetitive and unprofitable. Both the company and the staff will suffer as a result. The unions have asked that the existing medical benefits enjoyed by the workers be left untouched, whilst the employers have requested that a cost- sharing approach be adopted for the excess medical expenditure beyond the 2% cap. Sir, many companies have not yet reached the 2% level. The majority are, in fact, incurring about 1% of the payroll on medical bills. The big item of medical expenditure is really the hospitalisation cost. It would be productive if the employers and the unions can objectively review and reach a consensus as to what constitutes the appropriate ward eligibility for each category of staff. This, in itself, will contain medical expenditure on hospitalisation. Many companies have implemented the flexible wage system for staff. The objective of the flexible wage system is to keep wage cost at a competitive level and when the company makes good profits, the profits are shared with the staff with commensurate increases in bonuses. I believe the flexible wage system provides a good avenue for the 2% capping on medical expenditure to be incorporated into the scheme. Next, Sir, the CPF Top-up Scheme. Many Singaporeans somehow do not view favourably the holding of stocks and shares as good returns on their investments.”
“Thousands of our young Singaporeans are graduating from the universities, polytechnics, technical institutes and schools each year. More are qualifying into polytechnics and universities. We need to provide new and better jobs for them. Our population is aging. We need to help retain the older workers in the workforce to earn a good living. With jobs come income, and income comes the purchasing power. Creating and providing more and better paid jobs should be our focus and priority. The fiscal measures proposed do just that. It is right to reduce the corporate tax rate and the personal income tax rate to maintain the competitive edge and to be able to expand our economy further. I fail to understand the suggestion by Mr Low Thia Khiang yesterday that the reduced corporate tax rate benefits the big companies and discriminates against the medium and small-sized enterprises. There are also large companies which do less well and will benefit less from the reduced corporate tax rate. Making little or no profit does not depend on the size of the company. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this is a good time to introduce the GST, a time when we have strong economic growth, the people are gainfully employed and inflation low. Basically, our people can afford to pay the taxes on goods and services consumed. The GST will encourage thrift and prudent financial management of household expenditure. We end up paying less taxes by being frugal in our expenditure. I do not think we should wait, as Mr Chiam has suggested, until Singaporeans are out of work and the country in a recession to introduce GST to prop up the economy. It will be too late for Singapore. I would like now to speak on the 2% cap on tax deductions for medical benefits.”
“Sir, I beg your indulgence to say that one figure in the tables I gave out is slightly wrong. I would like to change that figure in Table 4 - Stock Market Statistics. In 1983, market capitalisation for Hongkong was not US$ 28.6 billion, it should be US$18.2 billion. Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam GRC): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. This year's budget announced by the Finance Minister is a bonanza budget. It is comprehensive, well thought out and no one should feel neglected. I agree wholeheartedly with the approach taken by the Government. Despite having done well in the past, we have not become complacent. We are forging ourselves ahead against the competing regional economies. What we are trying to do, and to do we must, is to continue with the momentum of growth. The strategy for staying ahead is to distance ourselves further away from our competitors. Our competitors are ever so ready to want to catch up on us. They want to overtake us. We should not allow our success to delude us into complacency. There are those who always want us to cast our eyes on the huge surpluses and reserves and to rest on our laurels. That would be the surest way to go downhill which we must avoid at all cost. We enjoy full employment today, in fact, over-employment. I fear that Singaporean stake this happy state of affairs for granted. We seem to have a very short memory. Yes, we recovered all too quickly from the recession of 1985 and 1986 where there were retrenchment, unemployment and uncertainty. Let us be reminded that this can happen yet again, but the question is for how long. We need both foreign and local investments to expand our economy. We want to continue to have more and better paid jobs for our people.”
“Separate Assesments for Married Women Sir, on separate assessment for married women on all income, I am afraid that in the light of GST and going abroad, this is a much overlooked item. But I must say that I welcome this proposal as it finally treats a woman as an economic person in her own right. I am glad that the Finance Minister has taken this first step. I would like to ask when he would take the second step, ie, recognising women employees in the Civil Service as economic persons in their own rights - that they be not discriminated in medical benefits for their spouses and their children. Sir, with that, I support the motion.”
“However, I think as a fiscal measure, the proposed cap is inadequate. It puts the initiative on employers when very often medical expenditure is beyond their control. Very often, besides health care givers, the employees are the ones in charge. They are the ones to fall ill and the ones to decide when they would visit the doctor. I would therefore urge the Government to consider the following: (a) Allow companies to set up a trust fund called "Medical Benefits Fund". Contributions from companies up to 2% of total employees' remuneration should be tax deductible as proposed. (b) Employees are not required to contribute to the Fund, but if the Fund runs short, employees and employers should contribute to the Fund. Tax deductibility will still be capped at 2% for employers' contributions, while employees' contributions should be made tax deductible. (c) The Fund could be jointly managed by employers and employees. All income accruing to the Fund should be made tax free. (d) The Fund would be used for medical expenses of employees, including the purchase of health insurance schemes for employees. In order to encourage all to take care of their health, a system of cash rebates could be given to those employees incurring little or no medical expenditure. Such cash rebates should be tax free. Sir, I apologise for the complexity of my proposal. But we now live in a more affluent society with more varied needs. In order to cater to such a variety of needs, often a simplistic approach may not be adequate. My proposal has the advantage of putting the issue squarely on the shoulders of those in control of their health. It also does not reduce the level of medical benefits currently enjoyed by the workers.”
“Obviously, when more investors are attracted to a market, the likelihood of higher prices for the shares listed in that market also increases. This usually attracts more companies to be listed which, in turn, attracts more investors. This is a common phenomenon of a growing market place. Supply and demand feed on themselves. It is good for investors. My question is: Is the Stock Exchange of Singapore good for investors? Sir, once we were the second largest market in Asia outside Japan; behind Hong Kong, and depending on which measures you use, we were even ahead of Hong Kong. Now, we are fourth after Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Thailand. Sir, I refer to Table 4. Our place in the sun in this field appears to be getting shadier and shadier. What has led to this decline? I am afraid it is not a single dimensional problem and there are many answers. But when institutional investors shun our market for others in Asia, when local investors buy foreign instead of local shares of our own companies, when companies go to overseas exchanges for its public listing after being told informally that they were not good enough for the Singapore main board, when good local companies do not wish to be listed because in the words of a successful local entrepreneur, "I do not mind being a fish in a gold fish bowl, but what I do mind is being told how to swim", then I say, Sir, that something is not quite right in the state of Denmark. Cap on Deduction for medical expenses. I agree that we should tackle the problem while it is still not pressing. Besides this fiscal measure, the Government has and will continue to put in place many programmes to encourage healthy living, emphasise primary health care and reduce health costs.”
“At this juncture, I would just want to say that the fear of profiteering by the general public is real. Experience of what happened in the past when prices went up on the slightest pretext, with much Government inaction, has much to do with the present state of affairs. So I think the Government must do more than just giving assurances. Encouraging Singaporeans to own shares. It is said that once you teach a person how to be smart, you cannot, later on, teach him how to be stupid. In other words, Sir, while I subscribe to the idea of encouraging Singaporeans to invest in our soon to be privatised blue chip Government companies, the Government must be prepared to accept that sooner or later these same Singaporeans are also going to invest in other companies listed on the Stock Exchange. And when one invests in shares, he can also lose. There is no guarantee of profits. The Government must, therefore, start educating the people on these basic truths. Otherwise, when people lose their hard earned money in the stock exchange, we may have a repeat of what happened several years ago in Kuwait and, more recently, in Taiwan. Then, when the stock markets collapsed, there was great clamour from the man-in-the-street investors to have their governments compensate them for their losses. In the stock market crashes of 1973, 1985 and 1989 in Singapore, investors were then fewer and more sophisticated. They knew that such were the risks of stock investments. Should this happen again in future, with many more man-in-the-street investors, would investors then be so knowledgeable and understanding? Profits from share investments, of course, include capital gains as well as dividends.”
“I am aware that a consumption tax such as the GST will increase our tax base and permit the lowering of taxes on income, thereby making us more competitive. Unfortunately, while economic success, especially in the brave new world order, demands the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest, how we will be judged by history as a civilised society will be on how we take care of our poor, our downtrodden, our less fortunate and our underprivileged. In this respect, Sir, I must say that my fears of the unfair and regressive nature of the GST have been more than amply answered by the Minister for Finance in his current budget package. The Minister has gone overboard to ensure that nobody suffers during the next five years in the transition to a GST based system of taxation. If anybody is missed out, Sir, it is certainly not by intent. Even the Opposition's cry that the budget discriminates against the middle-class is put to rest by the set of tax savings figures by Arthur Andersen. Sir, I refer to Table 3 in my set of tables sent out. Looking at the figures, a middle income earner with an annual income of $30,000 has a tax saving of $826 per annum. This translates at a GST of 3% into an annual expenditure of $27,533 or 92% of his annual income. It is unlikely that he would spend such a high percentage of his gross income. If he spends less, he is better-off under the new system. For the $70,000 per annum earner, his tax savings of $1,066 translates into an annual expenditure of $35,533 or about $3,000 per month. Would he spend so much? If not, again, he is better-off under the new system. Sir, I will not go into details as there will be ample time to air them when the GST Bill comes up for its Second Reading.”
“Assume that a company has two sources of business, say, A and B. If A is profitable and B is still new and not profitable, the losses accruing from B cannot be offsett against the profits from A. There are, of course, many variations in each and every case, but what I have just stated is the basic principle adopted by IRAS. If the Government wants to encourage entrepreneurs to venture into new areas, including overseas, obviously allowing this offset is one of them. Sir, the third area is one of non-financial assistance. The Government should use its resources to establish an information and research centre on overseas economies, markets, opportunities, etc. The Japanese, through MITI, is reputed to have the best dossier on world markets. The Australians are now also in the game, having announced a package to penetrate into Asia, the centre piece of which is an Asia Economic Centre to provide analysis of Asian economies to Australian firms. Sir, the assistance by the Government in this area should also involve all our foreign missions where each and every mission becomes a Singaporean business centre overseas, helping to arrange meetings with Government officials and businessmen of the host countries, providing information and the like. Appropriate business-minded officers prepared to help even the smallest businessman from Singapore should also be made permanent members of every foreign mission. GST. In the past in this Chamber, I have argued against the imposition of a consumption tax. It is not that I am against a tax levied on consumption, but I am against the regressive nature of a simple consumption tax. Hence, I have urged for an expenditure tax which basically retains the progressive concept in the taxing of consumption.”
“Sir, I am not asking for a lowering of standards, but rather a fair chance for business to be listened to and respected, not only at the political level but at every level where it has to interact with the public sector. Japan has shown the way that when business and the government cooperate in the form of Japan Inc., it can conquer the world. Singapore has done it another way - by the Government taking over the business. Sir, my second point is businessmen do not need much incentive to venture overseas, not if there are profits to be made. If they do, they would more likely than not lose, not profit. More importantly for them is that they be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their ventures, especially enjoying them, ie, the fruits, in Singapore, their homeland. Making money in Singapore and giving the Singapore Government a 30% cut of their profits is, I suppose, considered acceptable. The Singapore Government has earned its share by its excellent governance of Singapore. But giving it 30% of the profits, or later on, 27% of the profits, remitted from overseas where the risks are much higher and the Singapore Government's contribution lesser, that is another question altogether. The Government is aware of this. But it is only prepared to give exemption to those who applied, on a case-by-case basis. This is not good enough, Sir. Nobody, Sir, if he can help it, wants to see the taxman with lots of information. So, in addition to whatever scheme already in place, why not simply reduce tax on remitted income to 10% across the board? Also, the Minister should consider allowing the combining of all sources of businesses in a company regardless of whether or not a particular source has started producing income. Sir, let me give you an example on this.”
“While GDP had grown at an average annual rate of 12% between 1960 and 1992, income earned overseas had grown by an annual rate of 16% during the same period.' Of course, the reason why our GNP is marginally larger than our GDP is not because income earned abroad is small. At 17% of GNP in 1992, it cannot be considered small. But that factor income paid to non-residents is also large as shown in Table 2. It is due to our policy of promoting foreign investments in Singapore leading to non-residents taking up an increasing proportion of the income generated in Singapore's domestic economy. Sir, even so, as the Minister has said, it is not enough. We must encourage more overseas investments, especially when the pickings in our region are so bountiful. I agree, but it is too soon to elaborate much in this area. We should wait for Commodore Teo Chee Hean's report. Whilst doing so, I would like to offer my thoughts on three areas to the Minister of State: (1) The Government, the public sector, must change its mindset. In today's world where economic progress is the name of the game, it must be fully prepared to play its role as a business partner of the private sector. The vestiges of the civil service as a mandarinate, inherited from the British and reinforced by Chinese traditional values, must be banished. Too often, the prevailing thinking in the service is "entrepreneurs equal businessmen equal crooks." Hence, if a businessman comes up with a suggestion, look for the hidden benefits for him. Reject the suggestion if you can find any. If you don't, reject it anyway, since any suggestion from him must be for his own good and therefore at the expense of the general public.”
“This Government has built up Singapore based on caring for the weak, compassion for the less fortunate and support for the poor with many opportunities for those who want to rise above their original stations in life. To create more entrepreneurs, it is not necessary to give up our safety nets, because they are more than safety nets. They are the bedrock foundations of our society, the Singaporean society. In a short space of time of only slightly over 30 years, we have created a Singaporean nation out of a motley group of immigrants. This came about because of our bedrock foundations, because they give us a base to go forward, a base to plan our future and our children's future. They give us stability, certainty and a sense of permanence upon which we can plan. Remove these edifices, we remove the foundations of our nationhood. We have taken a different route from Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan to where we are today. MNCs have helped to make us economically successful. If the result of this is that Singapore has insufficient entrepreneurs willing to take risks outside Singapore, I disagree. Sir, if I may, I would like to ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute some Tables to hon. Members. [Copies of Tables distributed to hon. Members.] In fact, if we look at Tables 1 and 2, in a recent study by the Department of Statistics, the Tables, show that: `Factor income earned from abroad by Singapore residents and companies in Singapore increased from $125 million in 1960 to $12.9 billion in 1992. Compared to GDP, ie, the income generated in the domestic economy, income generated from overseas had grown at a faster rate.”
“But in many others, we will always be in competition. To truly succeed, we must be, overall, more competitive than Hong Kong. It is not enough for the Minister to brush aside the competition posed by Hong Kong with a statement that it is impossible for Singapore to emulate Hong Kong's example. We must try! Benchmarking is a strategy adopted by many successful companies to push ahead. We should also use benchmarks to progress. Just as there are other countries using us as a benchmark in some areas, we must be prepared to use Hong Kong as a benchmark in others, not least their low tax regime. It is difficult, Sir, but then nobody has ever said that being the Minister for Finance is an easy job. Sir, on promotion of an external economy, do not get me wrong about Hong Kong. There are many areas in which we can learn from Hong Kong. Similarly, there are also many areas from which we should distance ourselves. And the suggestion to dismantle our so-called safety nets to create a Hong Kong-like environment in order to produce entrepreneurs is certainly one suggestion to ignore. It is a very seductive argument but I would like to urge the Government not to be lured into the thinking that the only way to succeed is to create the adverse conditions to separate the wheat from the chaff. The safety nets are our strengths, not our weaknesses. History has had many successful men advocating that, because they have succeeded despite the odds, perhaps even because of the odds, their way is the only way. Let the cream rise, they say. It is also the ugly side of capitalism. We must never fall into the trap. While we advocate the principles of free market enterprise and the pursuit of individual excellence, we must never get carried away by our own rhetoric. This Government is not stupid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. His Budget is truly a sensible one for the transition to a consumption-based tax system, as well as one which will ensure the continuation of our low inflationary economic growth of recent years. The Minister has gone to great pains to compare our public expenditure with many countries, including Hong Kong, where he took greater pains to explain why our taxes are much higher than Hong Kong's. Unfortunately, Sir, it is a cruel cold world outside there. Out there, nobody cares a damn why our taxes are higher. The captains of industry in the capital cities of the world look only at the bottom line. Is it worth while to be in Singapore or is it worth while to be in Hong Kong? We are being compared constantly. It is not strange because we are very much like Hong Kong, city states with a foreign hinterland, no natural resources except for a well educated population, hardworking and productive, first class infrastructural facilities, and so on and so forth. Their decision to invest in Hong Kong or Singapore will be based on the bottom line - how competitive we are to Hong Kong. They will consider factors such as corporate tax, personal income tax, labour cost, land cost, utilities cost, government bureaucracy, labour productivity and so forth, not why our taxes are higher than Hong Kong's. So how competitive are we compared to Hong Kong? That, Sir, is the key factor. The Minister is fully aware of that. He knows that comparison will be made by those who matter, including those who decide whether to use Singapore or Hong Kong as the base to invest in other parts of Asia. Yes, there are many areas in which Hong Kong and Singapore are complementary.”
“Sir, I also rise to support this Bill. But I would like to caution that we go a bit slow on this question of adding new laws on our own because of our financial centre status. We are an international financial centre and it is not just acceptance of the law in Singapore. The key point is the acceptance of the law which is used to govern financial transactions by all parties involved, usually foreign parties. In this respect, the concept of English law in financial transactions or contracts is quite widely accepted by most people who are party to such transactions. It is, therefore, important that, for the sake of credibility, and the fact that the people feel they can have recourse to law, such law should continue to be used as long as the international financial community accepts it. In fact, if I am not mistaken, there are a lot of contracts signed in Singapore where they specifically state that the enactment of those contracts is within the English law, or the law of the State of New York or any other place. It is stated clearly as part of the documentation.”
“Sir, I would like to ask that this House note that a statement has been made by an honourable Member - a definite factual statement - that there is no littering problem in Potong Pasir. May I ask the Minister to confirm the veracity of this statement at the next parliamentary sitting, Sir?”
“Sir, in view of what the Minister of State has said regarding rental to community foundations, can he confirm that such rental could be made to any community foundation or any charitable organisation, whether or not it is formed by the PAP or any other political party?”
“In developed countries or cities of the world, like London or New York, where businesses can lease properties for 20 or even 30 years, a great amount of certainty is added to their business plans. In Singapore, because of the difference in stamp duty, most leases go up to three or six years. In this respect, you always have a certain amount of uncertainty for businesses here in the sense that they cannot see what sort of rental they are going to pay beyond the three or six years' period. So if leases below or above seven years can be unregistered, it will, therefore, attract a lower stamp duty. I think this will encourage the development of long-term leases in Singapore.”
“Sir, I also rise to support this Bill and since the Minister has committed the Bill to a Select Committee, I do not think I want to go through the points except for two which I hope he will direct the Committee to look into. Both points, Sir, may not actually be under the purview of the Bill itself, but I think they are very much related. On the first, I must say that it is very seldom that I agree with the Member for Potong Pasir. But in this case, I would like to support his point regarding the speedier registration of all land titles in Singapore. In fact, the Land Titles Act came into operation in 1959 and it was for the purpose to simplify the registration of land titles under the Torrens system. To-date, I must say that the experience has been quite poor in the sense that we must still go through legally trained personnel to do transfers of registered titles, even for properties where developers buy the properties from the HDB or URA and the titles are in good order. Yet, all these transfers must still go through legally trained personnel who, I believe, charge fees that are not in proportion to the amount of work that they have done. The second point is regarding registration of leases. Sir, the Bill intends to exempt leases of seven years and less from registration. Although I do not know why the term of "seven years" is used, there is actually an unintended impact on leases of real estate in that registered leases attract a very much higher stamp duty than non-registered leases. Such registration and the high stamp duty will affect the development of long-term leases for property in Singapore.”
“Times have changed, Sir, and we must survive competition not only through representation of our constituents' problems in this House but, at times, we need other people to look at problems in a more detached manner and, together with us, help Government to run the country. So why should we be against bringing in a few non-partisan contributors with good minds to contribute? We are all very busy people and I am sure many of you would agree with me. I would be very surprised if some say that they are not busy. The PAP MPs have to run CCCs, they have to run community centres, they have to meet the people, they have to run Town Councils, and the list goes on. If there are people who are not willing to go through the hustings, for one reason or another, and they decide that they would come and help and complement our work, why not? They can help us think through issues and solve problems. Let us welcome them! For after all, we are not just about going to do away with elections, the one-man-one-vote system. We are certainly not introducing third-class MPs, neither are we delegating our powers. We are improving the whole system. We are, in fact, evolving a Singapore system of government. Or if the end result is to bring in people to evolve a more effective governing system to ensure the survival of our constituents, the very people who sent us here, to help us work better, think better and govern better, why not? Bringing in more varied ideas is the product of our thinking. I am proud of it, and I support it.”
“Sir, the question is: have the two NMPs contributed during their short period with us? And if so, were they constructive, or otherwise? I cannot recall that they were negative. But I can recall that they brought up some rather useful points. I have looked through the Hansard and if I may just quote a few examples. True, they were men specialised in their own fields, like many of us here are also. But Prof. Maurice Choo, being specialised in his own field, could speak of "outcomes management" vis-a-vis rising medical costs. He could also speak of the weak and the elderly. And for Mr Leong Chee Whye, he is also specialised in his own field. But in my 13 to 14 years in Parliament, I have not come across a Member suggesting improvement in the debates in this House. He suggested that Ministers change their format in presenting Bills, mainly that more information should be given at the First Reading stage rather than at the Second Reading stage, so that more time could be given to discuss matters. True, not many of us can come out with brilliant ideas all the time. I think this applies to NMPs as well. But the fact that they can bring up one good idea in the short eight to nine months speaks volumes of their worth. Sir, may I now ask what is wrong in a few good minds, with different experiences in life, being brought here to contribute? Nothing wrong, right? What is wrong if the Constitution allows it? Nothing wrong, right? Why must it only be through an election for the Member to be able to come to this House and contribute? In fact, I would go one step further. We should keep evolving Parliament in order to survive competition.”
“Sir, I bring up this point to show that there is nothing wrong, or right, in having NMPs. It all depends on each country's needs. Each country's political system must evolve to suit its own development. We have had two NMPs in the last Parliament. The question now is: should we continue with this modification to our system? When it first surfaced, I considered it an experiment, a modification worth trying. But the question now is: is it still needed for our political system? Should we continue to have it? As Mr Bernard Chen, the Member for Brickworks GRC, has said earlier, the period in the last Parliament was just too short for any conclusion. More time is needed. Sir, I think the reaction of some of my Parliamentary colleagues against the concept of non-elected Members is an emotional gut reaction. But as I said earlier, this concept in the world is certainly not new. So let me appeal to my Parliamentary colleagues, especially my friend, the Member for Ayer Rajah, who are against this motion: let us give this concept a chance. Let us give it more time. Sir, at best, it could provide for good men to come into Parliament. At worst, we can still reject it in the next Parliament. Sir, I support the motion. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker Sir, many of us in this House had the opportunity to listen and to watch how the NMPs performed last year. But they were with us not for long before the General Elections were called in August 1991. So we would not have heard much from them. And it is exactly this fact, ie, that the two NMPs did not have the benefit of a full term to prove themselves, which demonstrates that we ought to nominate some Members of Parliament for this present term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Gombak asked earlier what was there to prevent crooks from becoming the majority in Parliament, and changing the Constitution to suit them. Sir, I agree that there is nothing except the peoples' votes at the General Elections and that is why we, in the PAP, have always emphasised the importance of making sure that the people vote for upright, honest and capable people. The people of Singapore are smart and that is why they continue to vote for the PAP. Sir, the arguments for having Nominated Members of Parliament as part of our Parliamentary system are not new. Similarly, the arguments against are also not new. So I do not wish to go over the old grounds. However, for the purpose of this debate, I feel that I need to reiterate one point. While I agree that there is some merit in some Members of this House insisting that Members of Parliament must be elected representatives, yet, having non-elected Members as part of the Parliamentary system, or elected Houses, is not new. Sir, I can quote several examples. One of the best examples that comes to my mind is in the original Westminster system, the House of Lords. They are all nominated, or they inherited their seats. And the Malaysian Senate is also not elected, and these Members can also become Ministers. In many other Parliaments where there is proportional representation, there are also Members who are not elected but nominees of their respective parties. Some may even be defeated candidates and it can be said that, in fact, they have been rejected by the people and yet they too can become Members. Eventually some of them may also become Ministers. In the US system, Cabinet members are also not elected but nominees. So the concept of non-elected Members and Ministers is not new.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the general rule of thumb in this venture capital business that not every venture capitalist expects to make money on every venture that he has invested in? But normally, although there might be more losses than gains, in terms of ventures, overall over a period of time, as long as the absolute money that one makes over the gains, although smaller in number vis-a-vis the money that is lost over a larger number of cases or ventures, then one can say that it is a relatively successful venture capital business. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: That is indeed true. Do not forget that STV was incorporated in 1991. So I think we should give it a few years to try to prove this. ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL (Improvement of medical and surgical treatment facilities and staffing situation) 10. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Health whether there are further plans to improve the medical and surgical treatment facilities as well as the staffing situation in Alexandra Hospital.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister when does he think the plan to privatise some of the markets will come into being, especially in relation to the Newton Cooked Food Centre.”
“Sir, Question No. 6. Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has reviewed its policy to apply the Marriage Restriction Policy to work permit applicants who had applied but cancelled their applications or did not work after approval was given. I would like to inform the Member that the policy has been changed since December 1991. Since then, my Ministry has not objected to marriage applications between those non-citizens and Singaporeans. COOKED FOOD CENTRES (Privatisation) 7. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for the Environment whether there are any plans to privatise cooked food centres following the successful privatisation of the cooked food centre at the former Telok Ayer Market.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider abolishing the schedule of fees connected to conveyancing and let the free market principle prevail in the charges of conveyancing by lawyers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a layman in matters of law. According to Mr Ling on the procedures of the trial court and the Appeal Court, he said that facts are discussed in the trial court and when the case goes to appeal, only points of law, and not facts, are admitted. While this may be true in a general sense, I find it very difficult to believe that three appeal judges in the Court of Appeal will completely ignore a point of fact not put up at the trial stage, if the fact can prove that the person is innocent and not guilty. This means that, because of technicalities of the law, the three judges will be prepared to sentence a man to death, even though the fact might come up later on to show that this man is not guilty. Perhaps the Minister for Law and Home Affairs would like to enlighten us on this matter.”