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 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”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 2 of 3.
“We came to the conclusion that the price mechanism is the best way to achieve policy targets for car population growth. But there are at least two ways to use the price mechanism. One way is to have the Government set prices by adjusting taxes periodically, ie, increasing road taxes or the ARF rate so as to dampen demand whenever the ownership rate is too high. This has been the method used in recent years. For want of a better term, we have called it the "pricing system" in our Report. To avoid increasing taxes too often, Government often over-compensates by hitting harder than necessary, then wait for the demand to creep up to the target level. The result of Government price-setting is that we see sharp changes in consumer buying patterns at around the time of tax increases. There is often panic buying as people rush to beat a possible tax increase. This happened last year and contributed to the high growth of over 9%. Sir, Government price-setting therefore leads to erratic demand, with sharp changes associated with tax increases. The Government seldom achieves exactly the target growth it seeks because it is impossible to predict accurately the tax increase necessary to achieve it. In other words, Government price-setting can get both price and quantity wrong, and it sometimes has. What is the alternative? Here, I come to the second way of using the price mechanism. This is to set the quantity for each year and allow the market to set the price. This, in essence, is the quota system. With the quota system, the advantage is that we achieve every year exactly the target growth rate that policy makers judge is commensurate with our road capacity. We get both quantity and price right.”
“The German Tribune recently reported that in Munich and Hamburg, where the car ownership rate is close to 100%, more than 80% of the population use public transportation to commute to work. We hope that in Singapore usage restraint measures will enable us to attain and exceed such levels of usage of public transportation and thereby allow us to afford a higher level of car ownership. Sir, having said all this, the Committee is convinced that usage measures alone cannot solve the problem. At the end of the day, there cannot be unlimited growth in car ownership, otherwise the roads will be congested even in the evenings and the weekends. Ownership restraint must therefore continue to be the primary instrument for keeping traffic smooth on our roads. Usage restraints play an important but a complementary role. If we can agree that there must be ownership controls, the criterion surely must be that the level of ownership be consistent with the capacity of our roads to cope with the car population. In other words, car ownership levels must grow only at the rate at which the road infrastructure can accommodate the traffic. If we can agree with this, it follows that Government policy must seek to achieve a target rate of growth in the car population. The target rate can change slightly from year to year depending on whether new or better roads are being built and whether or not more people are using public transportation to commute to work. If it is reasonable for us to aim for a target rate of growth in the car population, the question remains: which is the best way to achieve this target? Sir, the Select Committee considered this question at length and in some depth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion, also standing in the name of Dr Augustine H.H. Tan, reads as follows: 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. The Motion asks this House to adopt the Report of the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy. It also urges the Government to give the recommendations of the Report serious consideration. Sir, Members of the Select Committee welcome the views and comments of Members of this House which I am sure will improve upon the recommendations. In moving this motion, therefore, I would like to ask the Government to give equally serious consideration to the views expressed by MPs in this debate. Sir, one of the main recommendations of our Report is that car ownership should continue to rise with the expanding population and with higher aspirations for car ownership. Road infrastructure should be expanded and there could be more intensive use of land for roads, for example, by means of double-deck highways and underpasses. In brief, Sir, we understand and we sympathise with the wish of the man-in-the-street for car ownership and we advocate that such desires be accommodated as far as possible within the limitations of realistic land use allocation. In line with this view, we advocate more extensive application of usage restraint measures, like electronic road pricing and higher parking charges in the city and other congested zones. Such usage restraint measures will persuade some people to leave their cars behind and use public transportation to go to work, and therefore allow the nation to sustain a higher level of car ownership.”
“I thank Members for their support. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference: (i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force; (ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles; (iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares; (iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system; (v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and (vi) to make recommendations. ADJOURNMENT”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this question is better answered by the Minister concerned. But for what it is worth, I was present for a short time at the invitation of the Minister at the marathon dialogue. I did notice that most of the audience were SAFRA members and the press. So it was a more limited audience than what we have in mind for the Select Committee hearings. The Minister was very lucid and very persuasive. But if I may make a comparison, he was a little bit like a pastor on Sunday morning, preaching to the converted.”
“Should we move to a quota system by which the government fixes the number of cars and lets the market fix the price? In other words, you can buy a car only if you scrap your existing car or buy a car to scrap or buy a licence to purchase a car. These licences would be auctioned by the Government from time to time. The quota can be increased periodically depending on the capacaity of the road system to absorb increases in the car population. This idea of a quota system was mooted at the recent Minister-SAFRA marathon dialogue last Saturday. I think it is worthy of further consideration. Second, evening ALS. This is a controversial matter. The question is: have we gone from the frying pan to the fire? The Ministry says no. Many commuters say yes. Because the jam apparently has moved from the CBD to the ring roads and the highways. The result is that some think they take more time than before to get home. Perhaps it is only a vocal minority who have experienced this. But it should be looked into. Third, Sir, feeder services to private estates. The MRT was built with two main objectives; to get motorists off the road and to slow down the growth in buses which also cause road congestion. The bus-MRT integration scheme will help achieve the second objective. But the first objective will not be met unless convenient feeder services are available to private estates where the bulk of motorists live. Sir, I hope hon. Members of this House will support the motion.”
“One would think that everyone in Singapore was an expert on land transportation. And indeed there is an element of truth in it. This is because everyone in Singapore is a user of roads or the MRT and his personal experience makes him an expert on his particular aspect of the transportation problem. Sir, it is because we believe that members of the public have useful contributions to make to solving our transportation problems that my GPC would like to hold the proposed public hearings. We are proposing to use the format of a Select Committee of Parliament for this particular hearing because a Select Committee would give us latitude for widening the composition of the Committee which we hope would include not only my GPC members but also a member of the opposition bench. The Select Committee would the rules of formality and conduct that could be useful in achieving a fruitful exchange of ideas on an issue that has attracted so much public interest. Finally, Sir, I would like to say a few words about the terms of reference of the Select Committee. As a practical matter, it would not be realistic for the Committee to cover all or even most aspects of land transportation in Singapore. What we have done has been to highlight under items (i) to (iv) some of the more prominent issues - car usage, car population, taxis and the adequacy of the public transportation system. Item (v) gives the Select Committee the flexibility to include other important issues that could crop up in the course of its deliberations. Sir, it would also be useful for the Committee to focus on some specific questions. The following three questions among others could be considered in depth: First, is taxation the best way to limit the car population?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion, standing in the names of Dr Hong Hai and Encik Yatiman Yusof, reads as follows: That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference: (i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force; (ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles; (iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares; (iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system; (v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and (vi) to make recommendations. Sir, the House will recall that in the previous sitting, I called for the GPC for Communications and Information to hold public hearings on land transportation policy in Singapore. My GPC felt then that land transportation had become not only an issue of national importance, but also one over which strong opinions and indeed strong emotions were being expressed by the public. We felt then that public hearings could serve to educate not only the public but also the Government as to the complexity and sensitivity of the problems associated with land transportation. We also hope that the hearings would be able to bring forth fresh ideas for a solution to these problems. Sir, in the months that have passed since we proposed the hearings, there has been more evidence than ever of the need for these hearings. Letters to the press continue to pour in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak further on the subject. I would like to thank the Member for Siglap for moving this latest amendment. I feel it captures accurately the intent and the spirit of the motion as originally proposed by me and my GPC. We had left it as a subtlety in the motion. It is understood that we ask for a review of some of the measures. And our speeches, as you may well have noted, have in fact called for reviews of specific measures. In retrospect, it would have been better if we had incorporated that particular desire on our part for the review. I therefore think that this latest amendment captures very well our feelings and our intentions and I urge the Members of my GPC and Members of this House to support this amendment. May I also add that, in calling for an open hearing by the GPC on land transportation, this would reinforce the call on the Ministry to review these specific measures as these hearings would surely bring forward new and positive ideas and our GPC could make specific recommendations to the Ministry for its consideration and review.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand by what I said earlier. The motion's direction is that the principles have to be supported and that the measures must match the principles. My objection to the amendment is that it emphasizes only those measures that are not supportable. It focuses attention on harshness and hastiness. It says nothing about positive measures, and there are many positive measures in the package. Therefore, the amended motion is unbalanced. My motion, as it stands, says we support the principles and leave it open to the House to comment on and criticize specific measures, some of which are supportable and some of which may not be.”
“In the meantime, Sir, I urge Members of the House to press on with their suggestions and criticisms relating to the new measures introduced to curb car usage. We trust that the Minister will view these suggestions positively, make changes where he feels appropriate and review the measures again after the public hearings are held. Sir, for reasons stated earlier, and as much as I respect Dr Tan Cheng Bock's wisdom and sincerity and Dr Beng's political acumen, I am regretfully unable to support the amendment.”
“Often bitter. The key word is "often", Sir. Sir, some of the measures are quite sound. I personally would endorse, for example, higher parking charges in the city, the extension of the ALS requirement to goods and commercial vehicles and the elimination of exemption for car pooling. These are not popular measures but, in my view, they are necessary. The Minister has had the courage to take an unpopular stand. In answer to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary who thought that the motion was directionless, this is the direction of the motion - follow the principles, the measures must match the principles. This was the substance of the motion. I confess that it is a subtlety and it may have escaped some, including the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. If a man of his intellectual calibre can miss it, then I readily concede the necessity to be more explicit. Sir, the debate so far has made it clear to our GPC that there is a need for the issues involved to be discussed further publicly, so that opinions and expert views from a broad spectrum of people can be collated to help the Ministry review its policies and plan better ones. The First Deputy Prime Minister has previously mooted the idea of GPCs holding public hearings on important issues. Sir, I believe that land transportation today is an issue deserving such attention. I am, therefore, proposing to the Minister that such hearings be held in the near future. Should these hearings be held in the future, I would be pleased to invite the Members for Fengshan and Ayer Rajah to be co-opted into a GPC Sub-Committee which will conduct the hearings. Both Members have vast amounts of experience and expertise to offer, particularly Dr Beng who was formerly Chairman of the GPC on Communications and Information.”
“Sir, I do not think it is fair to call the measures too hasty. I know for a fact that the Minister for Communications and Information spent a great deal of time with his officials researching the subject, discussing it with my GPC and other MPs, and presenting it to Cabinet. We may have honest differences in judgment with the Minister and we may like him to research some issues further. But he is the decision-maker and he must judge for himself when to take a decision and when to act. Sir, I disagree with the amendment also because it is negative in stance. It emphasizes only those measures that are not supported. What about those measures that are supportable? You cannot have the cake and eat it. If we want smooth traffic, we must make some sacrifices. As any medical doctor can tell you, good medicine is often bitter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened eagerly to the speeches by the Members for Fengshan and Ayer Rajah who proposed and seconded the amendment to my motion, and I thought that they would be taking a different line from the rest of us who supported the original motion standing in my name. I was pleasantly surprised that they said more or less the same things, that the principles behind the Ministry's measures were correct but that the specific measures were controversial and should be reviewed. Sir, that being the case, I see the amendment as unnecessary. As I have explained in the House yesterday, it is perfectly consistent to support the original motion while disagreeing with some of the specific measures. Indeed, this is what Members of my GPC as well as the Feedback Chairman have done. So why the need for an amendment? Sir, the Member for Fengshan has made the interesting claim that only the amended motion can lead to action while the original motion is just "talk". If there is a possibility that this is the case, I would be the first to support the amendment. But the fact of the matter is that both the original motion and the amended motion allow Members to ask the Minister to reconsider specific measures; neither motion can bind the Minister to any action. I would imagine that the Minister is more likely to be persuaded by sound argument than by fire and brimstone. Sir, I would have readily supported the amendment but for the fact that it describes the measures as too harsh and too hasty. To disagree with a measure like the evening ALS is one matter. To call it too harsh is quite another. More important, I think, is whether or not the measure will work to reduce congestion and whether the cost is worth the benefit. That is really the issue.”
“Tomorrow, Sir. RULES OF DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT”
“The harder option is to improve the public transportation system swiftly and effectively. I would like to suggest in all seriousness to the Ministry that henceforth it sets itself a house rule that it would not introduce further strong measures against car ownership or road usage unless each measure is accompanied by a matching improvement in the public transportation amenities. Only in this way can we really and truly be, as the Government would have put it, "on the right track". In conclusion, while we support the principles behind curbing road usage, we also urge the Ministry to take a wider view of the matter and review some of these measures. Question proposed.”
“I recall a Ministry official telling me that it could be as much as 10 times. This could mean that the capacity of utilization is only about 10% by that measure. Sir, if as a matter of economic ideology the Ministry is averse to operating subsidies, then perhaps we could promote feeder services through capital grants for vehicles, for vans, for minibuses, that could ply the routes from the estates to the stations with high frequency, so that one can walk out of one's home, pick up an air-conditioned shuttle, and get to the station in comfort. Sir, I do not know what the capital cost would be for these feeder services, but I would be surprised if it amounted to more than a few months' financing cost for the MRT system. We have already lost years in making the MRT system work to reduce road congestion, and the opportunity cost runs into many hundreds of millions of dollars. It can only make sense now to invest a little more to finally make it work. Sir, a similar situation exists with regard to the feeder system for the HDB estates. The Ministry has for some time talked about "through-ticketing", integrating bus and MRT services. We started building MRT lines in the early 1980's. I understand that through-ticketing will not be working until early 1991. I am not sure why it has taken so many years and I hope that the Minister could expedite it. In the meantime, motorists bear increasing pain each year, having to dig deeper into their pocket. But the harsher are the measures needed against motorists, the clearer is the indication that viable alternatives in transportation are lacking. It would appear that for too long the Government has chosen the easier option of punishing the motorists to keep the traffic smooth.”
“We invested $5 billion into the system, but the results today are somewhat less than satisfactory. Technically, the system works beautifully; the trains are clean, fast and comfortable. But there are not enough passengers using the system to commute to work. Most of those who do switched over from buses. The MRT has failed to attract large numbers of car drivers, and therefore has failed to make sizeable contributions to reducing road congestion. The basic problem is one of access to the MRT stations. There is yet no viable feeder system from private housing estates where large concentrations of car owners reside. Why has such a feeder system not been introduced? I am told by Ministry officials that it may not be profitable. The SMRT is unwilling to run these feeder services even though these services will bring more passengers to the MRT and therefore contribute additional revenue to the SMRT. I believe we must not lose our sense of proportion here. We spent $5 billion in capital subsidies for the MRT system. To appreciate what this amount means, consider the fact that this capital amount, if invested at a modest 8% return, would yield $400 million a year. This exceeds the entire market capitalization of SBS and TIBS put together. Put in another way, just one year's interest cost of financing the MRT could buy up the two major bus companies in Singapore, with money left over to set up several feeder services for major private housing estates. Sir, with such an enormous capital outlay, it is a serious matter that the system is not fully utilized. By this I do not mean that the trains are not full at peak hours. I mean that the tracks and tunnels can take many times the frequency of trains that we are seeing now.”
“I suggest that the Minister reconsiders this, and possibly defers it until a more thorough study has established beyond doubt the effectiveness of evening ALS. In this regard, I note that the Ministry has commissioned a research project to study traffic flows. Would it not make more sense to complete these and other studies first, before making the evening ALS decision? Sir, my GPC members and other Members of the House will comment on these and other measures in detail. I would now like to turn to a more basic question. This concerns the circumstance under which these measures are being introduced. Regrettably, these measures are being introduced at a time when the public transportation system does not yet provide acceptable alternatives to car owners to commute to work. This point was brought out forcibly by a writer to the Forum page of the Straits Times last week. Mr Melvin Cheah wrote on the 25th May issue of the Straits Times, one of the more sensible letters I have seen on the subject, and I quote: 'Car users would switch to public transport ... only if these systems are able to provide a relatively efficient and comfortable service as a substitute. As it now stands, the MRT provides excellent but restricted service ... The majority (of people) still rely on buses and these have (many) drawbacks. I suggest that officials take a ride on our buses officials take a ride on our buses to fully appreciate the trauma of a bus ride. Maybe then they will understand why people cling on people cling on to their cars despite the increasing costs. You must give people a good substitute if you want them to give up their cars, not squeeze their purses till they are empty.' Sir, the good substitute was to have been the MRT.”
“Sir, if I may now return to the principles underlying the measures. The principles are clear. We have limited space in Singapore for roads, and to avoid traffic congestion it is necessary to provide disincentives against road usage in congestion-prone areas. Hence the need for the ALS and higher parking charges in the city area. Many of the new measures are defensible on these principles. However, my GPC has some reservations about some of these measures. I would like to highlight two of them here. First, it is not clear why Scheme B buses are not exempted from ALS charges like other regular buses. Scheme B buses are efficient in road usage, like regular buses. The only difference is that they carry school children, tourists, and the like. Sir, I am sure the Minister for Communications has nothing against school children and tourists. I urge him therefore to consider exempting these buses from the new ALS ruling. The other measure over which I have some doubt is the evening ALS scheme. If evening traffic congestion was indeed much more serious in the restricted zones than on the ring roads, there is perhaps some justification for introducing the evening ALS. However, I have yet to see clear evidence that this is indeed the case. Many commuters have reported to me that they do not experience any worse congestion getting out of the restricted zones than they do on the ring roads or on other main highways when they travel home from work in the evenings. Sir, if this is the case, then evening ALS may provide only very marginal gains in traffic flow. For only that little gain, it imposes inconvenience and irksome costs for those who live in the restricted zones, or for those who pick up their family from these zones after work.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, *That this House supports the principles underlying the latest measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications and Information to curb road usage. *The motion also stood in the name of Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Member for Bukit Timah). Sir, the purposes of introducing this motion are, first, to provide a forum for discussing, supporting or opposing the measures without disagreeing with the principles underlying their introduction. Second, to provide an oppportunity for Members of this House to propose suitable amendments to these measures for the consideration of the Minister for Communications and Information. Sir, the motion has been proposed by my GPC after careful consideration of the recent measures to curb car usage. The House would have noted that we have merely supported the principles underlying these measures. It does not necessarily follow that we endorse all or any of the specific measures. It is also possible and consistent for any Member of this House to support our motion and yet oppose most of the measures that have been introduced. The package of measures have been introduced ostensibly to curb road usage as distinct from car ownership. But this package carries with it a strange appendage that does not belong. I refer to the 100% increase in car parking charges in HDB estates. As far as I can see, this does not contribute to curbing road usage. By coupling it with road usage measures, we have opened the floodgates to confusion on the ground. As this involves thepolicy of the Ministry of National Development, I will not pre-empt what the GPC on National Development must want to comment upon. Suffice it to say that whatever the rationale for increasing car park charges, a sudden 100% increase appears somewhat excessive.”
“Sir, I hope the Ministers for Finance and Communications and Information will reassure the public that their officials will not be over-zealous in the administration of the new laws; that the benefit of the doubt be given to those whose meters are not totally accurate through no fault of their own, and that every effort will be made not to inconvenience motorists who want to enjoy their weekends in Johor. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed.”
“It would appear that the Government position on closing the tax loophole is logically defensible. Why then the furore over the half-tank Bill? Much of the reaction of the public has been, in my view, of an emotional nature, a release of pent-up resentment over too much state tinkering with their lives. It is a symptom of a wider problem that this Government faces. Sir, I want to suggest that on a matter like this which affects people's pockets and could raise emotional reactions, the Government takes more pains to explain the reasons for the proposed new measures to the public before formally presenting it to Parliament. True, once a bill is presented, our parliamentary system does not permit the bill to be explained until the second reading. But this does not mean that it cannot be explained to the public informally before the first reading. Sir, I believe the Government could gain prestige and public support if it could conduct a more active public relations programme on such matters. The logic behind the two bills is difficult to fault. The Government can and will win the logical argument against the protesters. But we are not in the business of winning arguments. We are in the business of persuading people and winning support for good policies. I believe that in this instance we might have better prepared the ground by presenting the arguments for the bills up front before sentiment against is allowed to build up.”
“There is a fine line between a meter that is faulty and one that is inaccurate. In practice, no meter can be totally accurate. I hope that the Minister for Communications and Information will prevail on his officers to be flexible and not to be overly stringent in handling such cases. Sir, I now turn to the first objection, and to me the potentially more serious one. Is the tax leakage serious enough for such strong measures? The Minister for Finance has explained the economic rationale for discouraging motorists from buying petrol in Johor. His is an unpleasant task and he has my sympathy. The Minister has a job to do. It is also his duty to close obvious tax loopholes and to see that fiscal measures to discourage road usage are not undermined by cheap petrol from across the Causeway. How serious is the problem? If the figure of $2 million a month is correct, then it is a substantial leakage and effective measures are indeed called for. The figure is indeed high. According to the Ministry of Finance's statistics, petrol duty amounts to some $300 million a year in Singapore. A leakage of $2 million a month amounts to $24 million a year or 8% of petrol revenue. This is equivalent to 1 in 12.5 Singaporeans filling all their petrol requirements in Johor. If you consider that the average person may fill only half his requirement in Johor, this is equivalent to 1 in 6 Singaporeans going across the Causeway to fill petrol. This I must say is a surprising figure. I would be much obliged if the Minister could reassure us of its accuracy. Sir, even if the figure was exaggerated, there may still be a case for taking these measures. Petrol duty is going up, and the gap will widen and this will exacerbate the problem.”
“To start with, most of the time the average car in Singapore already has more than half a tank of petrol. The reason is quite simple. Most of us fill up our petrol tanks long before it goes empty. It is prudent and gives us peace of mind. We do not want to run out of petrol while on the road. If we tend to fill up at, say, a quarter tank rather than wait for it to be empty, then most cars would have between a quarter tank and a full tank or, on average, about 63% full tank. Mathematically, this means 63% of the time, we already have half a tank or more. Queues at petrol stations near the Causeway are therefore unlikely, especially after people get used to the new rules. Sir, furthermore, I believe that Customs will simply not have the manpower to check too many cars entering the Causeway. The checks would have to be done on a low sampling basis. I doubt that there would be congestion as a result of random checks. The bottleneck will continue to be the immigration points in Johor, not petrol meter checks by Singapore customs officers. Sir, it is true that motorists who go to Johor for entertainment and shopping will be slightly inconvenienced by this new measure. They have to take care that the tanks are at least half full. But this only means occasionally a need to top up, and this need not be done at the Causeway. The time it takes is insignificant compared to the queueing time for going through customs and immigration. As for meters that are inaccurate or occasionally faulty, it is necessary for the ROV to exercise prudence and consideration in dealing with these cases. Only those who clearly tamper with their gauges or who are grossly negligent in not repairing the obviously faulty meter, should be subject to severe penalties.”
“Government has been accused of being picky, petty, and petulant. The so-called "half-tank" Bill has sometimes been called a "half-brain" Bill, as well as a number of more graphic names that cannot be repeated in this Chamber. Sir, over the last three weeks I have personally conducted an informal survey of motorists, grassroots leaders and professionals. Their grouses are genuine and their apprehensions are sincere. I would like to highlight three of them. First, they concede that Government has the right and the duty to collect petrol taxes and close tax loopholes when these are serious enough. Tax loopholes are a fact of life, here in Singapore as in other countries. Clever lawyers in Australia and America make a good living out of helping people exploit tax loopholes. The question is: Is the problem of petrol from Johor serious enough to justify such severe measures? Are we trying to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer? Second, the new measures can potentially cause great inconvenience to motorists. It could lead to traffic jams near the Causeway. And it raises the spectre of nasty Customs officials peering into cars to check fuel meters. Third, the Bill is unfair to people who go to Johor mainly for entertainment rather than to buy cheap petrol. These people may be victimized because they happen to have faulty fuel meters in their cars or they inadvertently fail to have more than half a tank. Sir, these complaints appear to be well-founded. But let us examine them a little bit more carefully. Consider the last two objections: congestion at the Causeway and inconvenience to motorists. Are we going to have long queues near the Causeway as a result of this new law? In my view, this scenario is improbable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last week's Straits Times carried an article about the collection of short stories by Singapore author, Catherine Lim. One of the stories is about a civil servant called Mr Sai Koh Phan. Sounds like "sycophant". Mr Sai contracts a strange crippling disease because of following too zealously all the rules and campaigns of the Government. I have not read the story, but apparently the cure for him and other civil servants was to find private opportunities to spit, to litter, to stop eating frozen fish without feeling guilty, and so on. The story has a happy ending. The right therapy was found when the Government bought a piece of land in Johor for civil servants to let their hair down, break some rules. I guess if Catherine Lim were to write her story today, she would also give them the personal satisfaction of buying cheap petrol over there, after Parliament passes the Customs (Amendment) Bill. Sir, my point is not a frivolous one. I think it is a sign of a more grown-up society that a noted local author is able to write a gentle satire on our disciplined society. It cannot be denied that we live under fairly regimented conditions. But it is also a fact of life that some discipline is essential to our economic progress and our quality of life. Such dicipline has its costs. Occasionally, government intrusiveness in our lives gets to some of our people, particularly the young and the educated who have not experienced the alternative of an undisciplined society and therefore may not appreciate as much what we now have. Sir, it is in this context that we should view the irate reactions of the public to the two Bills. The reaction has been vehemently negative even among those who never go to Johor.”
“Sir, I hope the Ministry would further consider the point I made, which is that when you have two organizations competing for the same pie, and when SMRT is, in fact, taking business away from buses, it is difficult to expect bus companies to cooperate effectively with SMRT to make the other organization more profitable. I know it is a complex problem that requires more thought. I hope the Ministry will give it further consideration. And on that note, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I wonder whether the Minister would comment on the feasibility and the rationale for the merger of SBS and SMRT.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I do not mean to press the issue, but my question is, why is it not a priority item? My question is not why you do not do it today or right away? My question is, why do you regard it as not a priority item? In view of the substantial impact it could have in furthering the cause of making information interesting, why is it not a priority item? What are the other priorities that are so pressing that this has to be put aside for the moment?”
“Hong Kong, in particular, has found this to be very effective and very profitable and a great commercial success. In view of this, I was a little troubled that SBC does not consider this to be a priority area. I would like to ask the Minister of State to explain or give a compelling reason why in view of what can be achieved with such a programme, that is, marrying the two objectives of educating, informing and entertainment, why this is not given priority and whether SBC would like to re-think this subject.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IE 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the problem of our information programmes in Singapore is not that there are not enough news programmes or programmes of information and educational value. The problem is how to make them interesting enough so that people actually watch them and do not switch off. Sir, I was going to talk in general about this subject except that yesterday when the hon. Minister of State for Communications and Information responded to my suggestion on morning television, I was a little disappointed with the answer. The response to my suggestion was that the Ministry did not consider this to be a priority area at this time and had other more important things to look at. I feel that this answer is not entirely satisfactory and therefore I would like to now focus on this question a little more. One of the problems with our information and educational programmes, as I said, is that it is sometimes presented in a way that does not excite the interest of the audience. It is a difficult process to make the educational and information process interesting. This is why when my GPC thought about morning television, we felt that this might be a good way in which to marry the two objectives of SBC, the objective of informing and educating on the one hand and of entertaining on the other. The experience of television in the United States and in Hong Kong, as I have pointed out, is that morning programmes that are able to combine news, current affairs, discussions, talk shows, in a punchy and effective way are commercially very successful and draw large audiences.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment (5), Encik Yatiman.”
“A person who keeps his car at home during peak traffic hours or who avoids the restricted zones in the city can sell off most of his vouchers, thereby reducing the cost of owning his car. This could amount to savings of quite a few thousand dollars each year for the car owner. Theoretically, this is a good concept. With this system, owning a car is cheaper if you do not use it much. Heavy road users in peak hours will pay much more, and they should. In practice, there will doubtless be administrative difficulties. But this is the age of information technology. With its characteristic ingenuity and resourcefulness, I am sure MCI will be able to come up with a workable system. The advantage of this scheme is that the Government can actually limit the total amount of road usage in the restricted areas through the number of vouchers issued. There is also a cash incentive for staying away from congested areas. This is certainly more palatable than a tax disincentive against going into these areas. Would the Minister please comment on these ideas? Dr Koh Lam Son: I am not speaking, Sir.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, many interesting proposals have been put forward by motorists and economists both here and abroad for limiting car usage. I would like to mention two ideas for the Minister's comments. First, on electronic road pricing. This appears to be a feasible option for controlling road usage. However, concern has been expressed that computer monitoring of movement of individual cars in order to charge them for road usage would lead to invasion of privacy. Most people may not mind it but there could be some indivi- duals who would not want others, particularly the government, to have a detailed record of which streets they drive to each day and how long they stayed in each spot. Would the Minister explain if technology is now available for monitoring and levying road usage charges without identifying the vehicle? A stored value electronic ticket of some kind, not unlike the stored value MRT ticket, might do the job. Secondly, Sir, a recent letter in the Economist had an interesting proposal with regard to road pricing. This was obviously written by a trained economist. I think it is worth considering although it looks a bit theoretical. It is a conceptual proposal so you cannot take it too literally but there may be a way of making it practical. Under the proposed scheme, every car owner would be issued every year with vouchers that entitle him to so many kilometres of road usage per year in those restricted areas of the city that are covered by road pricing. Those who do not drive much in the restricted areas can sell their vouchers to those who do.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“' Sir, partial privatization could provide a solution. For example, SBC's Mandarin drama unit has been quite a success. If this were put under a separate private subsidiary, it would enjoy commercial stimulus to go into film making on a larger scale perhaps. It would be able to attract more and better actors, actresses, script writers and directors by offering salaries closer to those enjoyed by their counterparts in Hong Kong and Taiwan. And it could go into English drama. I would like to ask the Minister if he considers this feasible, and what other parts of SBC can potentially be privatized.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, SBC has two main roles. On the one hand, it informs, educates and it partakes in nation building; on the other, it provides entertainment. It is difficult for any organization to balance two competing and sometimes divergent objectives. Given these constraints, SBC has done quite well. I would like to make two suggestions for the Minister's consideration that could help to marry these objectives. First, I suggest that we introduce a morning programme that is a combination of news and a talk show, similar to NBC's "Today" show in the United States or "Hong Kong Morning" or Xiang Gang chow zen in Hong Kong. The show could last about 1 1/2 hours, perhaps 7.00 am to 8.30 am and, if successful, it could become the staple diet of hundreds of thousands of working men and women as well as housewives every morning. There would be short and punchy news segments at maybe 20 minute intervals, interviews with academics, businesssmen, financial commentators, politicians, etc. on topical subjects. Excerpts of foreign news like those available from CNN could be included. Such morning programmes are both entertaining and informative, and could go a long way in bridging the twin objectives of SBC's mission. Secondly, Sir, one of SBC's main problems has been in attracting talent. This arises partly from its being a Government institution. As the Prime Minister put it at SBC's 25th anniversary celebration last year, and I quote: 'SBC will have to acquire the attributes required for a successful show business. Government departments or statutory boards which are restricted by establishment manuals on hiring and firing cannot respond swiftly to the market.”
“Sir, I note that the Minister has not replied to my question insofar as the targets in his master plan for the total number of cars and ridership of MRT and buses are concerned. But in view of the late hour and tea-time, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“My GPC has had the privilege of several briefings and discussions with the Ministry on dealing with these problems. One measure that we agree fully on is the need to go to road pricing as a means to cut down congestion at peak hours. I suggest that the Minister in his reply defers the discussion of this till a later part of this debate when my GPC will have more detailed proposals on the subject. In the meantime, Sir, we would appreciate the Minister telling us what his masterplan is for road transportation in Singapore, specifically: How many cars does he deem to be the ultimate limit for Singapore roads, and by what date he expects us to reach this limit. Secondly, what is the target proportion of people travelling to work by MRT, by bus, or by both, and what proportion by private car and by taxi. I know this is a tough question to answer. But I think we should begin to look at it very seriously because without such targets in mind, how could we have a realistic long-term land transportation plan? Lastly, Sir, could the Minister tell us how he hopes to achieve these targets and when?”
“Our public transportation system is yet inadequate to persuade most motorists to leave their cars behind and use the bus or MRT instead. Clearly, there is a pressing need to upgrade the public transportation system. Driving for social reasons - this is usually not a problem, unless it is Saturday night on Orchard Road. If people own cars in order that they take their girl friends out in the evening or their families in the weekend, this will not usually cause serious congestion problem. We need not discourage the use of cars for this purpose. Of course, if people could use the MRT for social purposes, this would be even better. Thirdly, Sir, owning a car for reasons of prestige - to show that you have achieved middle-class status. We should not underestimate the importance of this as a motivating factor. Let me give an illustration of a related phenomenon. A few years ago there was a shortage of car telephones around Chinese New Year when the towkays were getting delivery of their Mercedes and the yuppies their BMWs. Telecoms was inundated with requests for installation of car phones. Many even told Telecoms: If there is no phone available, at least give me an antennae, so that people would think I have a phone in the car. Unfortunately, Sir, we live in a society that encourages conspicuous consumption. Perhaps MCI, through its Information Division, could subtly and gently alter the values of our young away from the car as a status symbol. Car ownership per se is no longer a status symbol in New York or in London. I hope the day will come when it will cease to be so in Singapore. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain what steps he is taking to tackle the problems of road congestion at its root, as I have outlined above.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, despite the gripes of motorists over high prices for their vehicles, we have on balance a happy situation today in Singapore. We have the best flowing traffic among the major cities in Asia, perhaps one of the best in the world. The Ministry of Communications and Information must be given high marks for having achieved this. For those who do not appreciate the luxury of congestion-free roads, I recommend a trip to Hong Kong, Manila or Bangkok. Even in Taipei, which has some impressive highways, there is now a massive congestion problem. Try flying into Chiang Kai Shek Airport at 5.00 pm and it could take you two hours to get to your hotel in Taipei. Three years ago, it would have taken maybe 45 minutes. Sir, smooth traffic on our roads has come, however, at extremely high cost. Already the average price of a car is comparable to that of an average apartment in Singapore. Could we have achieved the same result of smooth traffic on our roads with less of a financial burden to motorists? Building more roads is not the soluton as we have limited land. In analyzing this issue, I would suggest that we look at the reasons why people own cars. In my view, there are three main reasons. First, to get to work and back; second, for leisure (social visits, weekend trips, shopping, and so on); third, for reasons of prestige. Sir, I think in tackling the problem of land transportation, we should deal with the cause rather than suppress the symptoms through tax measures. Take the first reason for owning a car - people going to work and back. This is the main problem as it causes congestion at peak hours.”
“By world standards, we have only medium-sized companies in food and beverage manufacture and distribution. But as a transportation hub and situated at the centre of one of the world's major food baskets, Singapore has ready access to food supply sources. This could give us an edge in food packaging and distribution, particularly in ethnic foods. Can we bring forth a Singapore-based Watties or Nestle's through rationalisation, foreign acquisitions and government participation? I hope we can. Sir, I would like to leave these thoughts for the consideration of the Minister for Finance. Temasek Holdings and some government agencies sit on rather large cash surpluses which are invested mostly in passive assets. A fraction of these could be invested to forge a new alliance with local industry to develop companies of world standing. Sir, it may well pay handsome dividends in the long run.”
“Just as there was a need for Government stimulus in the old days to develop companies like National Iron, Acma, Singapore National Printers, there could equally be a role today for Government in the development of the next generation of major companies in niche areas. Sir, there is nothing revolutionary in this concept. Japan's MITI has for a long time played an interventionist role in the development of major industries in Japan. Government and private sector have cooperated in identifying target industries like computers, superchips, and in planning and executing industrial policy. The Japanologist, Chalmers Johnson, calls this the "Japanese Developmental State". Thus, even in Japan, which is unparallelled in the world in the dynamism of its local industry, the government plays a lead role in target industries. What are the niche areas in Singapore and what is Government's specific role? Sir, I do not have ready answers, but perhaps I could be permitted to put forward some tentative ideas. Singapore is well-developed in telecommunications, finance and information technology. A logical direction is to develop international financial information and trading services similar to those offered by companies such as Reuters and Telerate. This is a multi-billion dollar business for the large players. The combined financial and management resources of Telecoms, Temasek Holdings and private sector partners may be needed to enter and develop this in a major way. I understand that Singapore Technology Corporation has gone into specialized areas in the semi-conductor industry on a fairly large scale. I hope this will also provide the cutting edge for a world class company in semi-conductor design and manufacture. Another possibility may be in the food industry.”
“If we could in Singapore create another four or five equivalents of SIA in other industries it would go a long way in giving our economy a more diversified and resilient business base and less dependence on foreign investment. These corporations would in turn stimulate supporting industries and give a boost to our service industries like advertising, consultancy and computer software. This is a nice scenario and the conservatives among us might call it a pipe dream. Singapore Airlines is an isolated case, they would argue. But is it? If we had believed the conservatives, SIA would never have happened. A small island with no domestic market for air travel, with limited bargaining power for air routes, would have little chance of developing a world-class airline. But we did succeed. We capitalized on our strategic position, our disciplined work force, and the managerial ingenuity of our pioneers. Significantly, the Government played an important role: the Civil Aviation Department negotiated air rights and built excellent airports, Temasek Holdings gave financial backing, and the civil service made some of its best talent available to run the airline. Sir, the government may again need to play an interventionist and entrepreneurial role if we are to give ourselves the mission of creating a number of world class indigenous companies. This may sound like heresy at a time when privatization is the fashion. But, in fact, there is no contradiction. Privatisation of certain mature government-owned companies is a logical step to take when the Government is no longer needed to ensure their continued viability. As the Minister for Finance pointed out recently in an SBC interview, these companies were set up initially as a stimulus during the early stages of our development.”
“The economies of Japan, Germany, the United States and even Taiwan are much more resilient than ours in this respect. I want to suggest that in the strategic planning of our economy we place some emphasis on building greater resilience. Some things are already being done. We have already learnt one lesson, which is never to allow any sector of the economy to become dominant or overheated in contributing to growth, as was the case with the construction sector in the early 1980s. The EDB has also been prudent in promoting investments from a wider choice of countries. Sir, I would like to focus on one other area that will add resilience to our economy. This concerns local business and the related matter of privatization of Government corporations. When we talk about local incustry, we tend to think of small to medium enterprises to which the Government has tried to give assistance. I suggest that we also turn our attention to developing large local companies that are world-competitive in their own fields and that can contribute substantially to national GDP and economic growth. We need not be enslaved by the notion that we are a small city state with no domestic market base and therefore cannot be a large player in world markets. Singapore Airlines has shown that there are niche areas in which a small country can attain world standards. Other small countries have had similar and more numerous successes. New Zealand with companies like Watties, Fletcher Challenge; Switzerland with Nestle, Ciba Geigy and Brown Boveri; Sweden with Volvo, Axel Johnson, Alfa Lavel and so on.”
“In 1985, when the Economic Committee looked for strategic changes in the direction of our ailing economy, we broke a cardinal principle of good business practice: we engaged in strategic planning in a moment of distress. But we were lucky. The Yen appreciated sharply. Japanese investments flowed into Singapore. The electronics industry surged in the United States as the Japanese competition was beaten back under the load of the high yen. American electronics firms in Singapore expanded output. There were other factors, but the crucial one was that our Government and our labour force rallied to cut costs effectively and restore our competitiveness. We threw off excess baggage from our boat, so to speak, but we also caught a good wind, and we sailed forward. But, Sir, we cannot always count on a good wind. We must improve our boat, enhance its stability in rough waters, and learn to sail against the wind. We must do so because we may not be so lucky the next time. Our economic growth has been vigorous in most of the last 30 years. I would like to suggest, however, that we make a distinction between an economy that is vigorous and one that is resilient. A vigorous economy is one that is growing rapidly. A resilient economy is one that is not easily upset by external changes. To use an analogy, a person may live a vigorous lifestyle, but his health may not be so resilient. One attack of the flu and he may be knocked out for a long time. Sir, I would characterize the Singapore economy as one that is capable of vigorous growth, but not as resilient. This was evident in the sharpness of our decline in 1985 and 1986 when investment and tourist inflows slowed down and external demands declined.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Minister's financial policy. The Minister has shown commendable restraint in not sharply raising or lowering taxes, be it corporate income, property or car taxes. This style of gradualism or "steady as you go" has much to recommend it. In the same vein, I wonder if the Minister could not have dropped personal income taxes across the board by 1%. This would allow individuals from most income groups to share in the tax reduction. Incidentally, it would also equate corporate and personal rates at the ceiling of 32%. If the Minister felt that this was giving away too much, he could have considered a compensating tax of 1% on retail sales. Ideally, if we must introduce general consumption taxes in the future, this should be the pattern: match consumption taxes with equivalent or more generous reductions in personal and corporate tax rates. Sir, I would like to move to my main subject today which is that of strategic planning and the quality of our economic growth. Our republic has often been described as "Singapore Incorporated" and for good reasons. Our economy is tightly knit, closely monitored and finely tuned. The corporate analogy is useful and can be taken further in the context of strategic planning. In a business corporation, the correct strategic plan determines the long term viability of the corporation. Companies that have no strategic plan or have the wrong plan often fall by the wayside when markets, technology or cost factors change. The best time for strategic planning is when the business is doing well. Time and resource are not a problem then. The worst time to embark on strategic planning is when the business is in trouble, and you are up against the wall. The tendency then is to look for quick fixes.”
“Of course, the cynics would say, "Well, the Government allows only the weaker opposition candidates to come forward, putting away the really tough ones who can give us some competition." I do not think the two Opposition MPs in this House would agree that this is so. These two Members are fierce critics of the Government and each has a substantial following of supporters. Sir, the opposition is alive and well in Singapore, thanks to the free society that the ISA has helped to make possible. Sir, I support the Minister's position on the Bill. 2.08 pm”