Ho See Beng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB.”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list.”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement.”
The complete record
Every one of 839 lines we hold for Ho See Beng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 17.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how high is the passing rate of vehicles tested by VICOM.”
“Let me put it in a simple way. If the interested person has assigned his interest to another person, will he still be subject to the penalty?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State this question. If the interested person submits that he has assigned his interest to a person who is not a lessee of the HDB flat, will he still be subject to the penalty as imposed by the Housing and Development Board?”
“Would the Minister of State inform this House how much money has been spent on the piling?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Hawkers Department has guidelines for those applicants who deserve priority or are given hawker licences if they are hardship cases.”
“Yes, I was not here. That is why I have to ask for clarification.”
“On the issue that was debated under Head N, Ministry of Finance.”
“Not a supplementary question. It is a point of clarification. Mr Speaker: On what issue?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House was debating -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware or whether he has any idea how much transfer fee is involved for a transfer of tenancy of a private property.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB. Could I ask whether or not the HDB would allow these people to buy the HDB shop premises so that they would not only able to carry on their business but also own the shop which was the case before resettlement?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he has received any complaint from Singapore writers of international fame that they need this protection very urgently?”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the cyclostyled copy of Hansard, Volume 42, No. 1, of 27th July, 1982, pages 92 to 94 (Cols. 69-72), in which the Member for Anson rose on a point of order relating to what I said in Parliament on 24th March, 1982. It was in respect of a list of names of the Blair Plain residents. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a misunderstanding between the Member for Anson and myself. I was under the impression that he would send me the list but now, in view of the objection raised by him, I withdraw the remarks against him which I had made on 24th March, 1982. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.32 p.m. TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Trade Unions Act (Chapter 129 of the Revised Edition", presented by the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. TRADE DEVELOPMENT BOARD BILL "to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the Trade Development Board, for the transfer to the Board of the functions, staff, assets and liabilities of the Timber Industry Board and of certain staff and functions of the Department of Trade and for matters connected therewith, and to amend the Timber Industry Board (Incorporation) Act, 1973 (Act 64 of 1973), the Control of Imports and Exports Act (Chapter 240 ofthe Revised Edition) and the Registration of Imports and Exports Act (Chapter 298 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (MR J.B. JEYARETNAM)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“Sir, if the officer's services cannot be extended to the 31st December, will the Minister agree to the payment being pro-rated?”
“Sir, in view of the Minister of State's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-02 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates. In moving this amendment, I simply wish to find out from the Minister how long it takes for the Building Control Division to approve a building plan submitted by a developer?”
“In spite of the unsatisfactory reply, nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. If a tenant rents a house from the owner of a property and this property is to be redeveloped by, say, a statutory board, then as a result of this redevelopment the tenant has to be resettled by this statutory board. So under these circumstances, will the HDB consider giving priority allocation to the tenant concerned?”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon. I would also like to ask him whether he is aware of any precedent in the past where HDB had given priority allocation of flats to people who were resettled by statutory boards other than the Government or Housing and Development Board. If there was such a precedent or such a case, why can the HDB not give priority allocation of accommodation to employees going to be resettled by PSA which is also a statutory board?”
“Since he has eaten back his words, I do not intend to argue with him further on this issue, but I wish to invite the hon. Members in this House, including the Member for Anson and the Press in the Gallery to read the Hansard of last Friday's sitting on 19th March, 1982, as well as the Sitting yesterday, in order to testify who is lying and who is telling the truth. Sir, I now come to the business of my amendment. I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon. 2.45 p.m. I notice there is an item of loan to the Housing and Development Board for a sum amounting to $2.25 billion. Part of this sum is to be used, among other things, for compensation and resettlement. So this is relevant to the Blair Plain residents' resettlement problem and it is also connected with the Member for Anson who said that the residents approached him for assistance. Let me tell the Member for Anson that there is no need for him to assist. Just give me the list and I will assist them.”
“I am just describing this man - whenever he is caught, he tries to wriggle out.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list. Sir, the Member for Anson has realized that he was trapped by his own stupidity and arrogance by offering to supply me with the list and has now turned and twisted his own words by saying that what he meant was to invite me to examine the list in his office. Sir, he has eaten back his words, and this is not the first time. When he encountered our Prime Minister the first time, this was what the Prime Minister described of the man: "the unseemly, disgusting. . ."”
“I am coming to that. I will prove to you that it is relevant.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement. The Deputy Speaker and Member for Jalan Kayu, who was in the Chair, questioned me whether there was any relevance in my asking for such a list. But -”
“No. You said you were going to offer it to me.”
“I did not ask for that list. You yourself said that you were going to give it to me. That is why I am now reminding you.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01 of the Development Estimates.* Sir, I would like to crave your indulgence for me to raise a different point altogether. You will recollect that on 19th March, 1982, the Member for Anson offered me the list of Blair Plain residents to enable me to look into whether the residents are Singaporeans or Malaysians, but I have yet to receive -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to ask Questions 1 and 2 at the same time because apart from the fact that Question 1 concerns the daily-rated employees and the other concerns monthly-rated employees, the contents of the Questions are identical.”
“To ask the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether he is aware (i) that there are 400 to 450 Container Wharf monthly-rated employees of the Port of Singapore Authority who, on their promotion from daily-rated employees in 1973, were informed that the PSA Daily-rated Gratuity Scheme would be replaced by the Central Provident Fund scheme, and (ii) that the Gratuity Scheme fund has been kept by the management and no statements of account of the amounts standing to their credit have been received by those employees; and if he will ask the PSA to consider transferring the moneys in the funds to the individual accounts of the employees in the CPF and issuing to them statements of account relating to the amounts standing to their credit.”
“To ask the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour if he will request the Port of Singapore Authority (i) to consider transferring the moneys standing to the credit of employees under the PSA Daily-rated Employees Gratuity Scheme, which has been frozen since 1st July, 1980, to their accounts in the Central Provident Fund; and (ii) to issue to each of these employees a statement of the amount standing to his credit at the freezing of the Gratuity Scheme. 2.”
“Sir, in view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe and Mr Lim Boon Heng:- (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RC-02 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“But how does the sterilization arise in the first place?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I have a very minor point to raise, and that is on sterilization. I know that at one time if a couple wish to get married, a Malaysian to a Singaporean or a Singaporean to a Malaysian, in order to be in line with our family planning policy, it is the Commissioner for Employment who insists that the couple must go for sterilization. But I heard just now, I stand to be corrected, the Minister saying that it is at the request of the couple. Secondly, I would like to know whether this policy still. stands. In other words, if the couple wish to get married and they offer sterilization, will the Commissioner for Employment accede to the request of this couple? 7.30 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, under this amendment, I would like to raise two questions. The first is in regard to the question of improving labour-management relations. I would like to know how does the Labour Ministry propose to improve labour-management relations while there is no corresponding increase in staff to do the work. The second relates to the allocation of funds to the National Productivity Board. The total allocation for the Ministry of Labour is $21.22 million while the National Productivity Board takes away something like $6.06 million. So I would like to ask the Minister concerned what are the expanded services or activities of the National Productivity Board which require such a substantial increase, in fact, something like over 114.3% over FY 81 grant.”
“If the Taiwan graduates wish to apply for the graduate teachers' scale and if they approach the Ministry of Education, will the Ministry help them to refer this matter to the PSC for recognition? If there are teachers who are not getting the graduate pay and if they meet with the Ministry's requirements, will the Ministry help them to bring this matter to the attention of the PSC?”
“Sir, if those teachers who are now in the teaching service -”
“Sir, I would be most obliged if the Minister of State could enlighten the House as to how the Taiwan graduate teachers could refer their degrees to the PSC for recognition.”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's reply which is not a total rejection of my appeal, let us cross the bridge when we come to it, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I will be glad if the Member for Anson could supply me the names.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said just now that he did not incite the workers of PSA to create trouble. I am not surprised at all at his denial. Even in circumstances when he had no opportunity, he would still try his best to smear the Singapore Government such as telling foreign correspondents that the people in Singapore are starving. With the PSA workers being evicted, would he not seize this as an opportunity to deliver a blow on the Government? I do not believe him. Of course, I know he would deny it. Two weeks ago (it was on a Sunday) he went to Blair Plain and convened a meeting. We sent our workers there to listen. He told the workers that all of them who were forced to leave the place and wanted his help could come with their identity cards to see him. He would help them. But the Port workers were wise. They did not see him. Only three or four non-citizens went to see him. Nevertheless I do not believe what he said. For this reason, we will still have to be very careful at all times about his activities. As regards what the Minister said just now, we hope that we can have an amicable settlement by the middle of next year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my supplementary question is this. In my experience as a trade unionist, I have come across many cases of dismissal, and when these cases are referred to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation, the Ministry has been able to conciliate these cases very amicably. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been any case handled by the conciliation officers which has proved to be unjust to the workers?”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's very satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates, Sir, the purpose of moving this amendment is to ask the Minister what is the policy on the issue of a licence for firearms. Quite a few cases of firearms licences have been withdrawn since last year, and the revocation of these licences was not due to any infringements of the rules or regulations. The licensees were simply asked to surrender their firearms without reason. I would be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House the reason for withdrawing their firearms licences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I must clarify this confusion. I thought the $90 allowance for the first three months of national service is only for pocket money because national servicemen are provided three meals a day. Therefore, they do not need any allowance for food. I thought the $90 is only for pocket money.”
“It is committed to certain goals and it has kept its promises of 1959, It has provided housing, education and equal opportunities and employment, higher incomes, a better quality of life, etc. Very few developing countries can boast of such progress, but let us not lose sight of our ideals and objectives, and what we stand for. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my criticism, I would like to assure the Minister for Trade and Industry that the Budget will get my wholehearted support.”
“The relief has been increased from $750 per annum to $1,000; in other words by about $20 per month, and at the present time of high living costs the concession makes a mockery of the concept of filial piety. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know if any one of our decision-makers, be he a top-echelon civil servant, politician or manager, has tried to live on $1,500 per year and whether he will agree that $20 per month will take care of the impact of inflation! Sir, on the one hand the Government pontificates Confucian ethics and urges the younger generation to take greater care of their aged parents and senior citizens. On the other hand, the Government gives very little tangible encouragement to those who wish to do so. Responsibility for parents is part of Asian culture and such virtues ought to be fostered by visible support from the Government. The impression, unfortunately, is being created that the Government is only paying lip service to this worthy tradition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge that the Government should be more concerned about bread and buffer issues which affect the ordinary people, ordinary people who comprise the majority in Singapore. It is a source of great amusement to the workers of Singapore to be told that they are not so badly off financially, because last year inflation was not so bad and the high cost of living is progressively going down. I do not know where the Minister gets his facts, but if he really believes that the high cost of living is going down, he ought to have a talk with the working class, people who can hardly make ends meet. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government has a good track record since it came to power in 1959.”
“The majority of the workers in Singapore will not benefit from this tax concession. It is clear that this concession will benefit those with high income; the higher income the greater the benefit. The second concession relates to raising the estate duty exemption limit for one residential property from $600,000 to the full value of the property. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask: for whose benefit is this exemption? Already 75% of our citizens live in HDB flats and soon the figure will be 85%. It is clear that none of these flats are worth anything near half a million dollars, let alone one million dollars. So for whom is the tax concession made? Certainly not the workers. It would seem to be for the elite - the small percentage who can afford to live in large bungalows or luxury flats. The third concession relates to the total exemption of CPF balances from estate duty. It is difficult to believe that this concession gives any major benefit to the working class, because workers use a large part of their CPF to buy HDB flats. When they retire, their balances with the CPF will be so small that they will attract only minimal estate duty. The obvious inference then, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this tax concession is for the benefit of those who do not live in HDB flats, in other words the better-off members of our community who own luxury flats, bungalows and semi-detached houses, etc. The concession by way of the removal of the 10% tax on fixed charges in PUB bills for domestic refuse, etc, if computed in dollars and cents, is clearly minimal. And it may well be asked: why were these taxes introduced in the first place? The tax relief for those who support their aged parents whose incomes do not exceed $1,500 per year is also illusionary.”
“The Port of Singapore Authority, for example, made a profit of more than $200 million last year; and there is no reason why its employees should not share in the profit which was, in part, a result of their own higher productivity. This 14th month payment will be a special benefit to the lower income employees who find it difficult to make ends meet because of the present high cost of living. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget proposals of the Minister for Finance have been generally welcomed by the articulate and have been described in the press as a "breather" budget. The Minister himself noted that, and I quote:- 'I hope that Singaporeans will not look on this Budget as an occasion for rejoicing but rather as a respite to enable them to consolidate and improve their position'. Sir, I would like to ask: to whom was the Minister addressing when he said this? Was he speaking to the majority of the people in Singapore? Or was he addressing a small minority - the elite, those with high incomes? Mr Speaker, Sir, there are generally five tax concessions, but in the ultimate analysis the three major concessions are obviously meant for the wealthier people, while the other two, which concern the public at large, are minimal. The first concession relates to the removal of the $5,000 tax exemption ceiling on CPF contributions. Mr Speaker, Sir, how many people in Singapore have incomes which result in CPF contributions exceeding $5,000 per year? The number is comparatively small.”