Hong Hai
Singapore
“Sir, Government has in recent years taken a bold step of restructuring nearly all the public hospitals. As I understand it, the restructuring provides each hospital with a certain amount of autonomy in determining its quality of service and its emphasis on specific areas of excellence.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. The point on subsidy, if I may clarify, is that the level of subsidy has fallen from previous years. The point I wanted to make was whether it is necessary to reduce the level of subsidies. I do not deny that subsidies still exist. The question was: Is it necessary to reduce them?”
“I would like to thank the Minister and Minister of State for their very comprehensive answers. Since the budget allocated to Health is already so meagre, I do not think we can afford a $100 cut. In the light of that, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“It is a foolish government that leaves the majority of its people feeling not appreciated or respected for their individual talents and contributions. If these people become plagued by a sense of inferiority or failure, the government too would have failed.”
“If that were to happen, it would do little for our standing as an information centre, or for our own self-esteem. As long as we have a Government that is honest and rules with high standards of integrity, which this Government does, the new Bill will not be subject to abuse.”
“In which case, I shall proceed directly to the questions. I presume there is no quota on the number of questions I may ask! Sir, in proposing the quota system, the Select Committee had opted to leave all implementation details to the Ministry.”
The complete record
Every one of 106 lines we hold for Hong Hai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“I would like to thank the Minister and Minister of State for their very comprehensive answers. Since the budget allocated to Health is already so meagre, I do not think we can afford a $100 cut. In the light of that, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. The point on subsidy, if I may clarify, is that the level of subsidy has fallen from previous years. The point I wanted to make was whether it is necessary to reduce the level of subsidies. I do not deny that subsidies still exist. The question was: Is it necessary to reduce them?”
“Sir, Government has in recent years taken a bold step of restructuring nearly all the public hospitals. As I understand it, the restructuring provides each hospital with a certain amount of autonomy in determining its quality of service and its emphasis on specific areas of excellence. As each hospital works towards establishing a reputation for itself, the question arises: does each hospital have a sufficient patient load to justify the number of areas in which it seeks excellence? How do we ensure that expensive equipment is not duplicated in several hospitals and that scarce expertise is not competed for by all these hospitals? I would like to suggest to the Minister that a long-term strategic plan for restructured hospitals be made up so as to avoid inefficient allocation of scarce resources. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on this.”
“Fourthly, the elderly. The population of our elderly will double in the next twenty years. We must prepare to accommodate them with greater health care needs. Sir, I am only advocating that we allocate a fairer priority to health care than we have seen in the past. The reason for this is clear. By international standards, too little of our national resources go to health. As a country becomes more affluent, health care becomes an increasing priority compared to housing, communications and public infrastructure. Sir, I shall be handing out some statistics to the Clerk after the speech, which Members can study at their leisure. But it would be amply clear from these statistics that the nation spends comparatively less on health care than other countries in that the Government subsidises too small a proportion of the total cost of health care compared to, say, housing or communications. Speaking of housing, I would like to support the principle behind the $5 billion programme to upgrade HDB flats with more toilets and better common areas. But let us not forget that while it is nice to have an extra toilet and better plumbing, it is perhaps more important that when we use the toilet, our own body's plumbing system be functioning satisfactorily. Sir, on that sanitary note, I beg to move.”
“Sir, can I combine my next cut with this one? The Chairman: No.”
“Our hospitals are basically repair shops for broken down bodies. My GPC would like to see more effort on educating Singaporeans particularly those in the lower income category and the elderly - to live healthier lifestyles, go for regular medical check-ups. Perhaps the Ministry could consider providing mobile check-up vans to HDB estates, regularly promote and campaign for regular check-ups by making them convenient and affordable. Thirdly, hospital charges. The restructured hospitals have continued to post higher hospital fees. There are three contributing factors, as I understand it. Firstly, the quality of service has become better. Secondly, higher pay to doctors and specialists has been awarded in order to retain their services with the Government. And thirdly, lower subsidies, in percentage terms. There is some evidence that reduced subsidies is a significant contributing factor to recent increases in hospital charges. For example, at SGH, patients paid $94.1 million in 1989 against a total running cost of $190.5 million, that is, they bore about 49.4% of the running cost in 1989. In 1990, they paid $132.1 million against a cost of $213.6 million or 61.8% of the cost, from less than half to about 62%. I would ask the Minister to consider restoring the subsidies to more bearable levels.”
“Although the standard of health care is generally satisfactory in Singapore, I would like to suggest some areas that need more attention and more money. First, hospitals. Some of our public hospitals are not in a good state of repair. These include Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, and Woodbridge Hospital. I am glad to know that these hospitals will be rebuilt over a period of some years. But this should have been done years ago. I hope the current programmes could be accelerated and perhaps be more ambitious. Tan Tock Seng Hospital is the national centre for neurosurgery. The condition of the wards in this hospital does not do us proud. I understand that in one of the buildings some time ago, a ceiling fan fell from lack of maintenance and repair. My GPC visited Woodbridge Hospital recently. We were impressed with the dedication and efficiency of the staff. But we sympathised with the meagre resources available to them. Woodbridge is the largest hospital in Singapore. It has more beds than Singapore General Hospital. It belongs to the 1940s and 50s, not the 90s. Yes, a new hospital is being planned. But why have we left the present hospital to decay? I saw corroded grilles - grilles to hold in psychiatric patients - that could have been pushed down with a child's hand. The wards were crowded. The floors were stark cement most of the way. We are not talking about the beautiful granite and marble that we lavished on our MRT stations. Modest ceramic tiles would have sufficed. Our mentally ill patients deserve better. Secondly, primary health care. I understand that this is receiving more attention now. And it should. To use a car analogy, better that we maintain a car regularly than spend enormous amounts on repair later.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I would like to begin by congratulating the Health Minister and his very competent staff in the Ministry of Health (MOH) for having achieved, over the years, so much in health care with so little money. According to MOH's statistics, the Singapore Government spends only about 1% of the country's GDP on health, compared to an average of about 6% in Europe, USA and Japan. The country as a whole spends less than 3% of GDP on health, compared to 6 to 11% in these other countries. Yet we enjoy an average life expectancy of 74.2 years, comparable to that in other countries. Our infant mortality rate at about 6.6 per one thousand live-births is also among the lowest in the world. How has the Health Ministry worked such magic? Or is there a catch somewhere? First, I would like to dispel a myth, which is that we need to spend so little because we are very efficient. It could be that we are more cost efficient than some other countries. But the correct comparison should be with other Ministries in Singapore. If all other Ministries in Singapore - Communications, National Development, Education, etc - were just as efficient as the Ministry of Health, and I think they are, then the small 1% of GDP that we are spending on health can only mean that health is not being accorded the same relative priority in Singapore as in other countries. Sir, leaving aside the subject of statistics, let us ask a more fundamental question. Are we satisfied with the state of health care for Singaporeans? Is it commensurate with the excellence we have achieved in communications, in education, and in housing?”
“It is a foolish government that leaves the majority of its people feeling not appreciated or respected for their individual talents and contributions. If these people become plagued by a sense of inferiority or failure, the government too would have failed. Sir, I urge that this notion of equal opportunity and esteem for all talents that contribute to the social good be enshrined in our system of shared values. Sir, the statement of Shared Values in the White Paper, with some amendments and refinement, could serve as the basis of our nation building for generations. I commend it to the House.”
“The free market would have turned much of this talent into contractors or stockbrokers, because that was where the easy money was. Our Government intervened, and rightly so, to ensure that those who could best contribute to the economy gained the pecuniary and social rewards for their contribution. This emphasis was particularly necessary in the past when we were struggling to enter into the ranks of the NICs. We must of course continue to promote and recognise such economic talent. But alongside this, we must also produce writers, artists, entertainers and athletes who are well paid and well praised. In practical terms, let us have more scholarships and subsidies for talented young people to go into the creative arts, journalism, entertainment and so forth. Let us promote culture and the arts with ever more vigour - and more money - so that such talent will find a more receptive market. Let us also recognise them publicly with better media coverage, invitations to Istana receptions, National Day functions, and so on. My suggestion for this shared value, that of recognising talent and gifts of all kinds that are beneficial to society, would be, "Equal opportunities for all." With a broader recognition of talents from all quarters of society, our people will gain greater self-esteem and find it less daunting to seek fulfilment in life. Parents whose children do not score enough distinctions in school examinations need not wring their hearts in despair. The child, if he is encouraged, will find success in another field for which he is talented and for which he should be respected. One mark of a cohesive and mature nation is indeed that few of its people feel left out or lack self-esteem for not having gained social recognition in their vocations.”
“But the gap is still very wide, for example, between a popular SBC actress, or SBC journalist, and a business executive of equivalent talent. The gap is both in remuneration and social recognition. To illustrate my point, let me take a somewhat personal example. The American TV personality, Barbara Walters, was once paid US$6 million for a three-year contract with the station ABC - about as much money as Lee Iacocca of Chrysler Corporation some years later, give and take some adjustment for inflation. She was known as the "Six million dollar woman". She also enjoyed about as much prestige in the American public as Iacocca. Does Diana Koh of SBC enjoy the same remuneration and social prestige as, say, a corporate chieftain like Koh Boon Hwee? I think the gap is much wider here than their equivalents in America, or Europe, or even Japan. Mind you, I am not comparing pay levels between Singapore and America; rewards are much higher in America because it is a much larger country. I am concerned about the yawning gap between reward and recognition for one kind of talent compared to another within Singapore. As long as such large gaps exist, we shall be unlikely to produce or retain great talent in what we might call the "non-establishment" fields. You could throw the free market argument at me and say that if they were worth that much recognition in the market, surely they would have achieved it. The market apparently does not accord them sufficient recognition, so why blame the system? Sir, but let us not forget that we never allowed the free market to operate when we sent our best scholars to study chosen academic fields that would contribute directly to economic growth.”
“I would like us to enshrine in our national shared value system the idea that all men who excel in their chosen fields of endeavour should be given due recognition and reward. Singapore's system of meritocracy today carries an inherent bias. It rewards well and places high social recognition for those whose attainments add directly to economic growth: administrators, managers, professionals in medicine, engineering, law and so on. These are basically people of higher academic ability. Recognition and praise for such individuals come early: the academically precocious go into the so-called "gifted education programme" at the age of nine. Sir, in a speech in this House some two years ago, I lamented the use of the label "gifted" for these children. I objected to it because it implies that the others are not gifted or without gifts. Not every child is gifted academically, but most children have other gifts: music, art, oratory, creative writing, sports, a sharp sense of humour, and so on. All these gifts must be valued in our society because people who develop these gifts will enrich our lives. They too must be recognised, rewarded and accorded the prestige and respect alongside those who drive the engines of our economic growth. As Thomas More put it: 'What good is it to a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?' As it is for man, so it is for nation. What good is it if we gain the world's wealth, but lost our soul? Sir, our system of meritocracy must be widened to accord recognition to those gifts and talents that contribute to a more cultured, gracious and resilient society. Our Prime Minister has said on several occasions that he wants to see a more rounded and cultured Singaporean. It is indeed a laudable vision.”
“" Therein, Sir, I believe, lies the simple statement of our shared value. Sir, may I suggest that our first shared value be restated simply as follows: "Service to nation and society." Sir, the fourth value, "Consensus instead of contention" has been the subject of much contention in public discussion, and the consensus of opinion seems to be that it should be scrapped. I do not agree with this opinion, but I would suggest that the statement be amended. In the first place, the statement carries a flaw in logic. Consensus is a state of affairs, and end-result. Contention is a process. One cannot be a substitute for the other. In the 1950s, when Chairman Mao made the call, "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a thousand ideas contend", he might have been looking for some kind of consensus. He did not get it. So he decapitated the flowers. In the Singapore Parliament, we often have a contention of ideas. Occasionally, we reach a true consensus. But I think we may be giving too much credence to consensus. In my view, the hallmark of Prime Minister Goh's administration up to now has been, not consensus in public policy decisions, but a more consultative style of government. Government is elected to lead, not to make decisions by popular consensus of views. Government should consult the people, and in today's environment should do so more than in the past. More importantly, the views gathered from consultation should be treated with sincerity and with humility. If we must state a political value in a White Paper, then I would restate the fourth shared value simply as: "A consultative style of leadership." Finally, Sir, I want to propose, if I may, an additional value.”
“But was it morally correct for him to have sacrificed his own? Sir, I think we should spare future Singaporean generations with such moral dilemmas. Leave it to each man to decide how much to give to society and nation, and how much to his home. It will suffice that he values service to nation and to society. Furthermore, it may not be useful or meaningful to draw a sharp distinction between self-interest and the interest of society. As the philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm tells us, in order to love others, you must first love yourself. To love others, to love your society and your community, you must first respect yourself and have self-esteem. Doing good for others rewards a man best in that it enhances his own self-esteem and gives him immense self-satisfaction. In that sense, an act of goodness for society is an act of self-gratification or inner fulfilment. Albert Einstein put a similar idea simply and beautifully when he expressed his passion for service to society. I quote: 'Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realise how much of my outer and inner life is built upon the labours of my fellow-men, both living and dead, how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received.' "How earnestly," Einstein said, "I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my recent conversations with students, grassroots leaders and business colleagues give me the distinct impression that many people scoff at the idea of a paper on Shared Values. Most of these things are obvious, they say. Is it necessary for Government to try to push yet another load of sanctimony down our throats? I must say that I reject these negative attitudes for being cynical or naive. Those older ones who are cynical or sceptical, we cannot do much about: their values are already set by their upbringing and their life experiences. However, there is hope that the younger generation and the children after them can be inculcated with values that make for a more cohesive society and a more gracious society. This White Paper is for them. If the ideas are presented correctly, these values will be a lighthouse by which we navigate the ship of our culture and nationhood. I therefore support the adoption of the White Paper. However, I would like to suggest some changes. The first value, "Nation before community and society above self", is an injunction for us to prioritise our loyalties. Always let the community sacrifice for the nation, let the person sacrifice for society. It is highly idealistic, even simplistic. Taken at face value, this injunction can lead to serious moral dilemmas. Charity, after all, begins at home. If you do not look after yourself and your family first, how are you in a position to help others? Suppose a public-spirited person spends so much time in charity and community work that his family is neglected, his wife is estranged and his children do badly in school. Has he done the right thing? The community has gained from his services. He may have saved the futures of other families in the process.”
“If that were to happen, it would do little for our standing as an information centre, or for our own self-esteem. As long as we have a Government that is honest and rules with high standards of integrity, which this Government does, the new Bill will not be subject to abuse. However, if we ever get a Government that wanted to retain power at all costs, the Bill provides an enhanced means for such a Government to exploit the press unfairly to its advantage. Sir, I would, therefore, urge the Government to make it a practice to give full accounting and justification to the public whenever a newspaper's maximum permitted circulation is lowered, or when its circulation growth is being hampered. This, I hope, would help prevent the possibility of abuse and provide the public with a check on unfair play. We must not only be fair but appear to be so. Sir, with these caveats, I support the Bill.”
“Perhaps, the answer lies in the notion that the Minister, like a surgeon, should have various instruments at his disposal to deal with a variety of situations in a more flexible way. Let me, if I may, suggest an analogy that perhaps will illustrate the purpose of these instruments. To ban a newspaper is equivalent to chopping a man's head off: you use a chopper for that purpose. To gazette a publication is to damage its profit through reduced circulation. It is like using a stick to punish the errant: you apply the stick where it hurts most, you go for the bottom line. The Bill that is now before the House places yet another instrument in the hands of the Minister. I am of two minds as to whether the instrument should be described as a carrot or as a screw. It is rather like a screw in that the Minister tightens the screw on those who are liable to get out of line. The greater the deviation, the tighter the screw. The more responsible and objective the newspaper becomes, the more the screw will be relaxed. I prefer to call the new instrument a carrot. Newspapers that behave with decorum and with respect for our sovereignty, and who do not dabble in our internal politics would enjoy generous ceilings. It is an incentive for engaging in fair and responsible reporting. When the Bill is passed, the Minister will have a chopper, a stick and a carrot. I hope he will use these instruments sparingly. I am sure he will not subject it to abuse, as for example he would, if he lowered the ceiling for newspapers that were merely being constructively critical. It should not lead to a situation in which a publication's profitability is directly dependent on how supportive it is of Singapore Government policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC accepts the basic objectives of the Bill that the circulation of a foreign newspaper is not a right but a privilege, that foreign newspapers should not engage in Singapore's domestic politics, and that there should be instruments to discourage foreign newspapers from so engaging in domestic politics. As such, I am in agreement with the following measures introduced by the Bill for foreign newspapers: (1) To have a yearly permit to circulate in Singapore; (2) The newspapers should accept the jurisdiction of Singapore's courts; and (3) Agents should be appointed by these newspapers to receive service of any notice or legal process. Sir, I would, however, like to ask the Minister to give a clearer justification for the idea of a maximum permitted circulation. Under current laws, errant newspapers can be banned. If the offence is not as serious, they can be gazetted, that is, have their circulation restricted. Why is it necessary then to introduce a maximum for each newspaper regardless of whether or not it has been errant? The large majority of foreign newspapers are responsible and behave themselves. Why then apply a quota to each one of them? Sir, when we set a maximum or ceiling to a newspaper's circulation, either it has an effect or it does not. If the ceiling is above the regular circulation of the newspaper, it has no effect on the newspaper provided, of course, that the ceiling is raised regularly to accommodate increases in circulation. If, on the other hand, the ceiling is below the newspaper's normal circulation, you have effectively gazetted it. We already have legislation that empowers the Minister to gazette foreign newspapers. So, why bother with ceilings?”
“I am greatly heartened that the Urban Redevelopment Authority has in recent years paid increasing attention to the preservation of buildings of historical significance and tried to retain the character of places like Chinatown, Little India and Geylang Serai. We did it partly for commercial reasons, to make this place more interesting for tourists. But to me, the more important consideration is that they are part of the character and spirit of the nation. Sir, buildings and monuments are not enough. We must nurture great literature, art and drama. We must create room for charismatic people, for colourful personalities, for men with passion and purpose. The nation needs more heroes, people we admire and idolise - great writers, movie stars, television personalities, sportsmen, statesmen and philosophers. People of whom we can tell our grandchildren, people who will move on to become the subjects of literature and legend in succeeding generations. Heroes form the rallying points of a nation's psyche. They create pride and identity in a nation. They forge this indescribable bond amongst people, a bond that makes them a people. There is a Japanese saying that the nail that sticks out must be hammered down. We cannot afford to do this in Singapore. We already have too few heroes. We must redress this shortcoming. This is the challenge for the rest of this decade and beyond for our Government, for our captains of the media, and for the leaders of our cultural and community organisations. I hope, Sir, that they will not fail us.”
“Sir, I have a vague notion that what will help us to coalesce as a nation has something to do with the seemingly little things in life: having a good laugh with your school friends, a glass of beer late at night in Bugis Street (the old Bugis Street), sitting on a hard stool smothered in smoke at the Satay Club, drowning in the Kallang roar when Fandi scored a goal, listening to a tale on Rediffusion by Lay Tai Soh, jostling with the crowds in Chinatown on Chinese New Year's eve, and not to forget, watching the Prime Minister mesmerise his audience with unending anecdotes at National Day rallies. Such are the little things that make Singapore great for Singaporeans. Sir, I hope that we never forget that a great nation is made up not just of high ideals or lofty ideology, but also of small traditions and shared experiences: the sights, the smells and the sounds that make up our memories, our loves, our friendships, our disappointments, and our triumphs. I am reminded of lines from the English poet, William Wordsworth, as he recollects his early childhood: 'Thanks to the human heart by which we live, Thanks to its tenderness, its joys and fears, To me the meanest flower that blows can give Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.' Sir, Singaporeans too have their thoughts and their tears. We have some history, traditions and the many small things that bind in some mysterious fashion the hearts of the people to this place. In our haste to reach the ranks of the developed nations, we have sometimes cast aside buildings, places, fragile traditions and old practices that collectively form our roots and heritage.”
“I have had occasion to talk to Singaporeans who recently emigrated, or who returned from long assignments abroad. I asked them: What did you miss from Singapore? They did not miss the Shenton Way skyline. Hong Kong and New York have better skylines. They did not miss the shops in Orchard Road. Tokyo and London have better shopping. Nor did they miss our super-efficient MRT or beautiful airport. Surprisingly, they missed the seemingly little things in life. Forgive me if I sound a little frivolous, but I think the person who summed it up best said to me, "I miss the Singapore char kway teow." Sir, at last year's National Day rally, our Prime Minister was moved by the bespectacled young man who said that he would not leave Singapore because this was the place he called home. What makes a man love his country and call it home? I cannot be certain what it is, in the case of Singapore. But I think I know what it is not. It is not the legendary cleanliness of our streets, or the 8% growth rate of the 1990s, or the quality of our public housing. All these are strong pull factors, to be sure. But gleaming towers, productive factories, efficient communications and streets that are safe to walk are important mainly to our viability as an economy. They do not make a nation. For that, we have to look beyond.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion. Sir, I am gratified that the largest part of the President's Address was devoted to social issues. To my mind, these issues in the long run take precedence over all others. They will determine our viability as a nation. There is an old Russian saying that has a special meaning for me as a Singaporean. It says that the supreme punishment you can inflict on a Russian is to exile him from his country, his "Mother Russia" as they call it. To exile him is to cut him off from his spiritual roots. It is a fate more painful than death. Sir, would Singaporeans feel the same way about being exiled? Today, many Singaporeans exile themselves: they emigrate. Yet life in Singapore has never been so good. Last week, the First Deputy Prime Minister opened an exhibition designed to excite Singaporeans with the prospect of a gleaming high-technology city where everything works, and works efficiently. The image of the year 2000 is indeed impressive and worth striving for. But will this Singapore be the motherland to Singaporeans that Mother Russia was to the Russians? Will it be enough to stop Singaporeans from leaving? I wish I could say that it will be, but I am not sure. The President has spoken of "new challenges to inspire our people." In my humble view, there is an old challenge that we have tried to meet but not yet won. It remains our most important challenge. It is the challenge of our people coming together as a nation, sinking our roots here so deep that they would not be tempted away by cheaper housing and better cars in Australia, or bigger salaries in America, or less stress in Canada, or more liberal personal freedom in the United Kingdom. Sir, what will hold Singaporeans here?”
“Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For example, if Parliament felt that a national objective could be achieved through the screening of its proceedings, it must be willing to pay for the resources and the high cost of producing programmes like "Today in Parliament" in a manner that would attract large audiences and project an image of credibility and dynamism in Parliament. Likewise, if evening news is to attract larger and interested audiences, it needs to put resources into purchasing material from satellite news transmissions, recruiting more qualified and talented journalists and producers and setting up comprehensive research facilities within the broadcasting station. If the Government deems it desirable for news and current affairs programmes to serve a national purpose above and beyond what the market is willing to pay for them, then it is incumbent on Government to pay for such programmes to private station operators. Sir, both the privatised SBC and the competing broadcast station must make their programmes sufficiently informative and interesting to be able to capture wide viewership. Competition between them can only drive them to better levels of service. Who knows, with two privatised stations, Singapore audiences could enjoy some of the programmes that some of us have yearned for. For example, we might get morning news magazine programmes, we might get late evening news, we might get post-midnight movies and more relaxing programmes late in the night. And like many stations in Hong Kong and overseas, we might also get foreign news and current affairs broadcast via satellite from the BBC, CNN and so forth. These programmes are fairly standard now in Hong Kong, Australia, Europe and America. Sir, should we remain so far behind?”
“The tension between these two objectives, the serving of two masters, so to speak, could result in schizophrenia. So far, SBC's staff and management have done a good job under very difficult circumstances, and I hope they can continue to preserve their sanity and sense of balance. Sir, a privatised SBC would have certain advantages. First, it would have a single objective, that of being a commercially successful broadcasting station. Second, the privatised station would be run by private sector executives that are not subject to the behavioral constraints of the civil service or to the remuneration scales of the public service. This in turn means a wider talent pool from which to choose and greater flexibility in the planning and production of programmes. With better pay and more room for development of individual talent, SBC can provide a more challenging and rewarding career to talented Singaporeans. Thirdly, a privatised SBC, in my view, will produce better news and current affairs programmes. This might seem unlikely because these programmes currently enjoy substantial Government subsidies, and they do not generally enjoy very high viewership. Would a privatised SBC or a competing private station not choose to cut back on such programmes? This will not be the case if Government Ministries viewed themselves as customers of SBC. Ministries and public bodies which seek to bring about better public understanding of Government policies or national issues must be willing to pay private TV stations market rates for the production and screening of these programmes.”
“I would like to propose that the Government considers privatising SBC totally. In addition, I suggest that a competing station be encouraged to be set up by the private sector. Sir, I believe that the privatisation of radio and television will make it more market-driven, and produce even better news, better current affairs programmes and entertainment programmes than we now have. I am aware that the Minister for Communications and Information is concerned that, by becoming more market-driven, the quality of SBC's programmes could decline, even degenerate. But does the market have bad taste? Is it more profitable to pander to public appetite for the lurid, the violent or the quirky? Sir, I agree with the Minister that, left entirely to market forces and with no regulation to maintain standards, there is a tendency for the media to cater to the lowest common denominator of the public. But that need not be the case with privatisation. Regulatory authorities can continue to set standards for the tone and quality of programmes. Hong Kong television is completely privately operated. It has not descended into the abyss of the lowly or the distasteful. On the other hand, it is a vigorous and thriving industry, bringing much joy and excitement to viewers and, at the same time, playing an effective information and educational role. At present, SBC works under a certain amount of strain because of its dual objectives. On the one hand, it must pursue the commercial objective of providing programmes that enjoy high viewer ratings and command good advertising revenues. On the other hand, it is also the information arm of the MCI, producing news and current affairs programmes in accordance with national objectives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has a monopoly of the printed press in Singapore. It runs as a private concern and is among the most profitable companies in Singapore. Should SPH be nationalised and converted into a statutory board under the Ministry of Communications and Information? Editors and journalists would then be civil servants. Would we have as a result a more informative and a vigorous printed press? I do not think so. Members of the House will agree, I think, that it is better that SPH stays as a private enterprise. Sir, if we find it odd and unpalatable that SPH should be a statutory board, why are we content that the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) should remain a statutory board? After all, SBC seeks to inform, to educate and entertain the public as much as SPH does. Of course, it is true that there are some differences. For one thing, television is potentially a much more powerful medium, and cannot be left entirely to the fancies of the marketplace to decide the content of its news programmes or the moral slant of its entertainment programmes. But the same can be said about the newspapers. The solution lies in having fair and flexible regulatory guidelines. Sir, last year, my GPC called for the partial privatisation of SBC. We had in mind the privatisation of the popular entertainment divisions which were likely to be commercially viable by themselves. After having observed the performance of SBC over the last one year, we are convinced that SBC's management now has the ability to face the rigours of the commercial world and become an even more dynamic and viable enterprise.”
“Sir, I would like to suggest to the Minister for Education that greater emphasis be placed on making the process of learning the second language a pleasure and a delight. I recall that as a child, I enjoyed reading simplified versions of Chinese classics such as the Water Margin, Three Kingdoms and so on. I was told by a former MP, Maj. Fong Sip Chee, who has some knowledge of the subject, that Mandarin has been taught in our schools like a foreign language rather than as a mother tongue. The emphasis has been on correct pronunciation, vocabulary and memorisation of idioms. Less emphasis has apparently been placed on enjoying the literature and the rich traditions contained therein. Sir, I would submit that we can afford to have a slight reduction in the standard of technical competence in the language by our students and instead increase their knowledge of the literature. In my view, more is to be gained by students of Chinese who appreciate the history behind the idioms than in their rote memorisation to pass examinations. Sir, I would also like to suggest that other Ministries like MCI and MCD support the Ministry of Education to create better receptivity to learning the language. Singaporeans like to emulate people whom they respect. They do not like to be pushed from behind. I urge our Government to organise programmes that would persuade executives and professionals to take an interest in their mother tongue and culture. If notable business leaders and professionals were known to be well versed in traditional literature and culture and if such knowledge and the ability to hold a conversation in respectable Mandarin was the hallmark of a cultivated man, it would go a long way to motivating parents and children alike to acquire a taste for the language.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the plight of English-educated Chinese Singaporeans with regard to their mother tongues is often brought up in the presence of foreigners. I recall that when my friends and I were students overseas and we spoke to one another in English in restaurants or in social functions, we were often a curiosity to Western bystanders. On one occasion, an Englishman asked, "Can you not speak your own language?" One of us replied that English was our first language. The Englishman said, "But that's our mother tongue." Sir, the Englishman's remark may seem frivolous or even bigoted. But a Chinese Singaporean who cannot hold a serious conversation in his mother tongue suffers a certain loss of ethnic pride or self-esteem and an alienation from his cultural roots. Over the long term, this rootlessness has far-reaching implications for our ability to come together as a nation. I therefore have little sympathy for complaints against the educational system for requiring a basic competence among our students in their mother tongue. My reservation however is, first, how this is being done; secondly, whether too much of the task has been left to the Ministry of Education. Sir, it is well known that Chinese as a second language is the bane of many parents whose children find it a burden and an imposition, a necessary evil, something to do in order to enter junior college or university. Some even carry psychological scars of coping with the language. A Straits Times journalist, Sumiko Tan, wrote not so long ago how as an adult he still wakes up at night perspiring and frightened from recurring nightmares of not getting through her Mandarin examination in school.”
“By so doing, would that not result in motorcylces being squeezed out? Because I do not think the motorcyclists are able to bid the same price as the car owners. Is it the intention of Government to squeeze out the motorcycles?”
“Yes. With existing owners thrown in, would it not be the case that competition would be keener, in the sense that existing owners, as a group, are older and they are richer? But because of the superior purchasing power of existing owners, the large majority of whom are determined to remain car owners, would it not be possible that the resultant bid price be pushed up? Sir, if this were to happen, would new owners not be disadvantaged? And if they were disadvantaged, could it still be said that the system was fairer to them? Sir, I realise that this is a complex exercise in micro economic analysis and the Minister might need more time to study the data. If the Minister thinks that this could be a problem, could I ask him if he would consider exempting existing owners from bidding but requiring them instead to simply pay the quota premium on registering their cars? This would remove them from competing against new owners. At the same time, it would ensure that they pay their full share of the quota premium. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to ask a few questions. First, concerning the taxis. Now that the taxi operators are required to bid for a licence or entitlement to register a new taxi, would the Government remove the control over the number of new taxis to be registered? In other words, let the market determine the supply and demand. My second question is: if that is the case, if the Government decontrols, can an individual come in and bid for a licence to own a taxi? Or can a group of individuals come together, register a company and bid for licences to own taxis? My third question is about motorcycles. In the open category, the motorcycles are lumped together with all other categories of vehicles.”
“The question is: whilst it is fairer, does it make it cheaper for the first-time owners, compared to a situation in which existing owners are not required to tender? If existing owners were exempted, new aspiring owners need only compete among themselves. With existing owners thrown into the fray, so to speak, competition would be keener.”
“Yes, I am coming to it. Would the Minister not agree that if the Select Committee were to meet today, we would probably agree that the broad framework of implementation which the Minister has unveiled would probably be quite acceptable and agreeable to the Committee. The framework appears to be well thought out and comprehensive. However, the GPC would like some time to evaluate the details before giving further comments. My questions specifically are: First, in starting the first year quota at 4.3% and reducing it to 2.5 - 3% in the second year, would this not create a rush to buy cars in the first year in order to beat the lower quota in the following year? If this were to happen, first year prices would be pushed up and the result would be paradoxical, ie, the year with the higher quota would also see higher vehicle prices. Would the Minister kindly comment on this possibility? Second question, Sir. If at the end of the first year, we find that - thanks to the excellent traffic management of MCI and PWD - traffic flow is still at a fairly comfortable level, would the Minister be prepared to maintain the quota at around 4%? If, however, traffic congestion were to go up significantly, but was still not serious, would the Minister consider introducing more rigorous usage measures, such as higher city parking charges and higher CBD charges in order that the 4% quota may be maintained? Sir, my third and final question is: the Minister has decided that all vehicle owners, new and old, will have to tender to purchase new vehicles. This, as he explained, would be fairer to future generations of vehicle owners, in the sense that everybody pays the same price, whether to enter or re-enter the market for vehicles.”
“In which case, I shall proceed directly to the questions. I presume there is no quota on the number of questions I may ask! Sir, in proposing the quota system, the Select Committee had opted to leave all implementation details to the Ministry. In order to give our proposals some concreteness, we did give a simple example which was to leave existing owners alone since they had previously bid an entry price and to let new owners tender for licences to purchase their cars. We did not say how long this would be for, and we did emphasise in our Report that this was only one way of approaching the problem. We also recognise that there would be windfall gains which the Government should minimise by adjusting PARF rates. Sir, I dare say that if the Select Committee were to meet again ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three questions for the Minister concerning today's statement on the quota system. Before that, I would like your leave to spend one or two minutes covering the background to these questions.”
“We would be very grateful, Sir, if the House could adopt the Report and we would also urge the Government to give serious considerations to the recommendations, not only of the Select Committee but of all the Members of this House who have very sincerely and thoughtfully looked at the recommendations and have come up with proposals. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.] Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House adopts the report of the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy and urges the government to give the committee's recommendations serious consideration. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Wong Kan Seng.] Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. chart - PURCHASE OF NEW CARS UNDER A PROPOSED QUOTA SYSTEM (Cols. 1023 - 1024)”
“The result is that there is some distortion in consumer behaviour and it is also somewhat traumatic for people who are trying to buy cars to face this kind of very sharp uncertainties. That is one problem with the system, even though it has been successful like keeping the average acceptable. It has these problems in particular years. The other observation we made was that in the last two years demand has been very high, the growth rate has been very high. It will probably take fairly draconian measures to bring it back in line. As I have mentioned, it is only understandable that the Government would usually slap on a higher price increase or tax increase than is necessary at that time to bring it really down so that it has time to come up again to the target level. So we felt that, on balance, considering these two factors and also considering the fact that the quota system will in fact give a more predictable and a gradual price system in the future, we decided to recommend the quota system to the Government for serious consideration, recognising many complications, problems and problems that are attendant upon such a system by having complete faith in the Minister for Communications and Information that if he adopts the quota system he will find satisfactory solutions to these particular problems. Sir, finally, I would like to address the point raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh as to what it means to adopt the Report. As I understand it, to adopt the Report is simply to tell the Select Committee that its work is completed and it does not have to go back and do more work and produce another Report.”
“Sir, I paint this scenario mainly to point out that rising or falling of prices with the quota system has nothing so much to do with the quota as to do with demand and supply. It is true that today when demand is very high, it will be rational to expect that under any system, whether quota or pricing, that at some stage prices may go up, if indeed we want to moderate demand from 9-10% to, say, 4-5%. Prices have to go up under any system. The quota system is able to achieve this in a more accurate way and we think in a smoother way, in that we bite the bullet once, bring the system to a rational mode, so to speak, and in the future prices will only adjust gradually according to demand and supply. I would like to assure Members that it is not the quota system that would cause the price to rise. It would be demand and supply. If we never adopted a quota system and if we stuck to the present tax-based pricing system, and if demand continues to be high, I believe the Minister will have no choice but to raise either import duty or ARF and prices will go up anyway. Sir, if I may briefly address the Minister's remark on the quota system and on the success of the pricing system, it is true that the pricing system has been quite successful in the last 15 years or so. The Select Committee did consider that and recognised that. However, we noticed two things. The first is that under the pricing system, as much as the average rate of growth over the last 15 years has been acceptable, about 4-5%, there have been very sharp changes in different years. Whenever a tax increase was introduced, there would be speculation, demand would rise, there might be some panic buying and when the price finally goes up, the demand drops very sharply.”
“And the value they place on it is best reflected in the price they are willing to pay for it. As much as I like the element of fairness in a balloting system, I am afraid that at this time I personally do not think it will be a very practical measure. Perhaps on further consideration and study, there is a way to make it fair and reflect better the needs of the people. I personally would not want to rule it out altogether. And I would urge the Minister to consider it, and see if there is a way to incorporate it without some of the undesirable features that are attendant upon balloting as a system. Sir, the third category of objections to the quota system is that it will cause prices to increase very sharply, ie, the quota system instead of the pricing system will cause sharp price increases. I think perhaps the best way of addressing this concern is to consider the following scenario. Supposing that because of the very sharp increase in demand for cars in the last year or two, supposing as a consequence of that, the Minister had decided at the end of last year to increase the import duty on cars. Supposing instead of 45%, he had raised it to 100%. And supposing as a result of that, demand drops very sharply so that today we see only a 1% growth rate in the car population. Supposing that was the case. And supposing six months later when the growth rate is still about 1% or 2%, the Minister introduces a quota system and says that the quota will be 5% from here on. Would Members of the House agree that with the introduction of a quota system at a time when the growth rate is only 1% or 2%, and if the quota was 5%, that the prices of cars would fall? It has to, because supply exceeds demand.”
“I agree that there is an element of inequity in the quota system if PARF continues to exist. It is inequitable in the sense that PARF gives existing car owners an advantage, in that they can buy future cars at a concession rate. As I pointed out earlier, the problem is PARF, the problem is not quotas. Yes, it will be possible to implement a quota system without PARF. If we scrapped PARF altogether and went on a pure bidding system without the concession of trading in your used car for scrap value to buy a car, then we remove this element of inequity. I am persuaded by the arguments that Members have put forward that perhaps we should retain PARF for existing cars and possibly for new cars, I am persuaded that we should examine PARF much more carefully to see whether we can gradually remove this inequity. In saying so, I would like to point out that PARF does serve a function, which is it keeps cars young and in good condition on our roads. So I would urge the Minister for Communications to consider this point very carefully, whether there was a way whereby we could make the quota system more equitable and whether PARF could somehow be modified to be less inequitable. Sir, Dr Koh and others have pointed out that perhaps we should use the balloting system to remove inequity. I can understand that a balloting system will be popular in the sense that psychologically everyone feels that he has an equal chance, regardless of his income. But the balloting system, I am afraid, has other problems in that it will not necessarily allocate the ownership or use of a car to people who value it most. The good thing about the pricing system is that people purchase goods based on the value they place on it.”
“The first reservation is that quotas will squeeze out middle income earners and young people who aspire to own cars. Sir, I would like to point out again that as much as that appears to be the case, and as much as that is the initial reaction of many members of the public, I would like to point out that the rate of population growth in Singapore is something under 2%. The rate of growth in the car population, historically, I think over the last 13 years, has been about 5%. [Interruptions] 4 point something. Well, it depends on whether you do an arithmetic or a compound average. It is about 5%. If the quota system is implemented, and if the quota is set on average at, say, 5%, then we have a much higher rate of growth in the car population than in the rate of population growth. Mathematical logic would force us to conclude that it means that an increasing proportion of Singaporeans will own cars. That has to be. Sir, unless the Minister for Communications and Information is going to be so stringent on quotas as to keep it below 2%, which I hope is not the case, unless that was the case, and if quotas are 5% or thereabouts or more, or only slightly less, then we should see an increasing proportion of Singaporeans owning cars. If that was the case, it cannot possibly be true that middle income and aspiring owners are going to be squeezed out. There have to be an increasing proportion of car owners. So I would like to assure Members that if indeed the quota system is implemented, there will not be an increasing number of people being squeezed out. There will in fact be an increasing proportion of Singaporeans who will own cars. The second category of objections, Sir, to the quota system is that it is inequitable to new owners.”
“I thank him nevertheless for endorsing our views and recommendations. Sir, we agree with many members of the public and Members of the House that there should be more usage restraint measures. But we remind everyone that usage measures cannot replace ownership measures. And as long as they cannot replace ownership measures, there must continue to be ownership measures. The question is: in what way ownership measures should be implemented? We also agree that the infrastructure should be expanded. We agree that we should improve the public transportation system. On the question of quotas, I do not think a single Member of this House disagrees with the idea that it will be effective. There is no question that it will be effective. The reservation has been on the implications of the quota system. Some Members have suggested that although it is effective, we should only use it when we really need it, maybe only as a last resort. Mr Chin Harn Tong has given an example from Chinese gongfu practice which is you do not use your most powerful weapon until you really have to. I happen to be an avid watcher of gongfu serials too. And I cannot help wondering why at times the grandmaster withholds his heavenly sword and sees his underlings killed one by one, until at the very last he pulls out his last weapon, and he saves the day. The poor underlings have to be destroyed in the process. I think that if the quota system is effective and if it can be implemented fairly, it should be used even if there were other methods that were less effective and easier to implement. Sir, there have been many Members of the House who agree with the quota system but have reservations about some of the consequences. I would like, if I may, classify their reservations into three categories.”
“Indeed, as Members can gather from today's discussion, there are many ideas and many ways by which the quota system could be implemented. And we are very grateful that these ideas have been put forward, not so much for our consideration as a Committee, but really for the consideration of the Minister for Communications and Information. Mr Chay has suggested that perhaps the Committee was a little bit confused in some places in that several Members had different ideas on how the quota system would fit with ARF and PARF. I agree that this is a complex issue and I do not intend today to go into these details as it would require more time than we have. Suffice it to say that when Dr Wang suggested that the diagram was a little confusing, I should point out that the diagram is completely consistent with the Report of the Select Committee. It may be worth pointing out that in the footnote at page 6, we did mention that if the ARF is lowered at the point the quota system is introduced, it would be necessary to adjust the PARF rate so that existing owners do not have a large windfall gain. Sir, because the quota system has drawn so much attention, there has been a tendency not to have noticed many of the recommendations that we have made which Members of the House are fully agreed with and which have a great deal of support from the public. In fact, I think the interest in the quota system has been so great that one Member of the House, Mr Chng Hee Kok, focused entirely on it and failed to read the rest of the Report, which completely agreed with all the recommendations that he made and which he said we did not. We did in fact make recommendations on the MRT, infrastructure, integration of bus and MRT services, and so forth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members of the House for the great interest they have shown in the subject of our Report and for the many valuable contributions they have made to the ideas for the solution of our land transportation problem. I would also like to thank the House for having appointed Members to the Select Committee because it has given us an opportunity to learn from the public and to put our minds to some of the more pressing issues that face us. Sir, the Members of the Select Committee are not experts in land transportation. We do not have either the technical expertise nor the resources to go in depth into every issue that was raised. We felt that was more in the province of the Ministry of Communications and Information. We did, however, learn from the views of the public and from other Members of the House in the course of our deliberations. We have tried to come up with recommendations that are broad in nature and we hope that the Ministry will consider these carefully for more detailed implementation. In the course of the debate, it may have appeared that various Members of the Select Committee may not have been in total agreement on some of the issues. That has inevitably been the case on some questions. There were some differences of opinion. What is stated in our Select Committee's Report has been the majority view. This applies only to a few of the recommendations. I would say that there was unanimous agreement for the large majority of the recommendations. There was unanimous agreement on the recommendation of quotas. Because we were not totally agreed on every detail of implementation, and because we did not have the time to go into the details of implementation, we had withheld comment on detailed implementation.”
“On the question of PARF, the Select Committee has recommended the retention of PARF. This would be fair to existing owners who previously made their purchase decisions on the presumption that their cars would have a certain residual value at the end of 10 years. Retention of PARF would also help keep the average vehicle on Singapore roads young and in good condition. Sir, I would like to conclude by reiterating that the Select Committee has kept at the forefront the interests of Singapore motorists, aspiring car owners and the man in the street who needs a good transportation system to get to work and play. If measures to retain car ownership and usage seem at times a little rigorous, it is only because we need to pay a price for enjoying smooth traffic and a pleasant travelling environment. I commend the report to Members of the House for their views and suggestions, and urge the Government to consider our recommendations and those of Members of the this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.05 pm”
“My personal view is that everyone should be charged a uniform price equal to the lowest successful bid. This would benefit car buyers and it would prevent the Government from exacting excessive revenues from the exercise. Finally, Sir, the question has been asked: will speculators and dealers "corner the market" and charge high prices to consumers? The Committee believes that there will be some speculation but it will not be serious. The reason is that we have a competitive market in cars and those who try to reap speculative profits can suffer losses as a result. The Government can discourage speculation by requiring all successful bidders to make their purchases within a short time of one or two months. In summary, Sir, the quota system is really one way of using the price mechanism to achieve reasonable growth targets. These targets can be met more accurately with a quota system, and price movements will be less violent than under the present tax-based pricing system. People will continue to buy cars the way they have done for the last 50 years - from the dealers who will offer them a price and take care of all the other details and formalities. And buying a car will be affordable to an increasing proportion of Singaporeans. Sir, let me now turn to public transportation. The Committee has placed strong emphasis on improvements to the public transportation system to reduce the Singaporeans' dependence on cars. This is necessary as we must cater to the section of the population who do not wish to own cars or who prefer to spend their income on other goods of higher priority. It also provides a viable alternative to car usage and therefore helps to maintain smooth traffic on our roads even as car ownership levels rise.”
“The car population has been growing at over 5% in the last 13 years. This can only mean that an increasing proportion of Singaporeans are able to own cars. Under a quota system, this will not change as long as the annual quota is more than 2% - and I would think that the Government would set it at well above 2% - an increasing proportion of Singaporeans will own cars. This means that middle-class aspirations for car ownership will not be stifled. It is simply not true that only the rich will be able to own cars. Another question that has arisen is: Will auction bidding cause the rich to outbid the poor? We do not have in mind an auction in which someone stands on a rostrum with a hammer and bidding gets higher and higher so that only the rich will have the staying power. In practice, it is likely that car dealers will submit sealed bids and will only submit as many bids each month as the number of cars they expect to sell. If they do not get enough licences, they could buy them from those who secured too many. Or they could get scrap cars instead for their buyers. Most prospective car buyers would get their licences through their dealers who pass on the costs to their customers. No prospective buyer need to be personally taking part in the bidding, although he is free to do so. The rich would not necessarily outbid the poor. Sir, the question arises: for each bidding exercise, does every successful bidder pay the price he bids, or should he pay the price of the lowest successful bid? For example, if the highest bid is $5,000 and the lowest successful bid is $3,000, should one be charged $5,000 and the other $3,000? This is something that the Government will have to decide as to which system of bidding to use.”
“This is best left to the judgment of the Minister for Communications and Information. The point, however, is that if it is necessary for prices to rise to moderate demand, it will do so under either system. Either the Government will raise the ARF under the present pricing system or they will rise under market forces within a quota system. But there is no particular reason for the price to rise under the quota system any more than it would under the present pricing system. As the proposed quota system has attracted some public interest, I would like to request the patience of the House to address some of the questions that have been raised in the press and in public discussions on this proposal. The first question: Does the quota system give an undue advantage to existing car owners? The answer is that as long as we have the PARF system in place, existing car owners have an advantage as they can buy cars at concessionary rates. But I must emphasize that it is PARF, not the quota system, that gives existing owners an advantage. Under the existing Government price-fixing system, PARF already confers an advantage on existing owners. It would continue to do so under a quota system. Indeed, if we scrap PARF, our proposed quota system will require all buyers of new cars to bid for licences on an equal footing. But do we want to scrap PARF? Those who object to existing owners having an advantage should ask for the elimination of PARF, not the elimination of quotas. Sir, the second question that has been asked in public is: Will the quota system squeeze out aspiring middle-income earners from the car market? I think this fear is quite unfounded. The population of Singapore is growing at less than 2% per annum.”
“To buy a new car, a person could either bid for a licence or he could buy a car by scrapping a used car. If he uses a licence for which he has bid, he would pay the ARF. If he buys a scrap car, he would pay the PARF. The total number of new cars on the road for the year will be equal to the number of licences that are released plus the number of cars that are scrapped. In my example, if there were 12,000 new cars purchased with the quota, and we add to that number the number of cars scrapped, which might be, say, 18,000, then we get a total of 30,000 new cars on the road. This works out to be about 12% of the total car population which Members will note is much higher than the quota of 12,000 or 4.8%. These figures are summarised at the bottom of the chart that I have distributed. Sir, the quota system will not necessarily raise prices compared to the present system. To ensure that this will be so, the ARF rate could be lowered at the time of the introduction of the quota system. This means that the sum of the lower ARF plus the bid price for a licence, could be higher or lower than the old ARF. To illustrate this, may I take a hypothetical example. The ARF rate today is 175%. Supposing it is lowered to 150%. If the bid price for a licence amounts to 30%, then the total amount paid to the Government will be 180% which is a bit higher than the present 175%. But if the bid price is only 20%, then the total amount paid would be 170%, or less than the old price. Hence, the quota system can raise or lower prices compared to the old Government price-fixing system. It would depend on the demand for new cars at any particular time. Sir, there is a more practical question. Do car prices have to rise to slow down current demand?”
“The quota system is therefore nothing more and nothing less than a variant of the pricing system. The difference is that it achieves targets accurately without the sharp traumatic movements under the Government pricing system. With a quota system, the car population grows steadily at the target rate, and consumers will find it easier to plan their expenditures as costs will be more predictable. Existing owners will be relieved of facing periodic sharp increases in road tax. Aspiring buyers will not see sudden increases in ARF that may throw them off their budgets for car purchases. In other words, both existing and would-be car buyers will find it easier to manage under a quota system. Sir, there are many ways by which the quota can be allocated. The Select Committee has suggested the bidding method. We acknowledge that there may be alternative and possibly better ways to do it, and we would urge Members of this House to contribute their ideas to the Government for consideration. The Select Committee proposes that the quota system should work in the following way. Each year, the Government announces a target figure for additional cars on the road. It then releases licences periodically, perhaps once every month. For example, if the quota was set at 12,000 additional cars for 1990, there could be 1,000 licences released every month. Sir, at this stage, with your permission, I would like to distribute a chart (Cols. 1023 - 1024) to illustrate my example. [Copies of chart distributed to hon. Members.] chart - PURCHASE OF NEW CARS UNDER A PROPOSED QUOTA SYSTEM (Cols. 1023 - 1024) If I may refer Members to the chart. As I said, supposing the quota was set at 12,000 additional cars in 1990.”