John Chen Seow Phun
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore has signed FTAs with a number of countries, including the developed nations, such as the US and Japan. These FTAs give us better access to these developed markets compared to other countries for goods that need the rules of origin.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for asking the HDB to relook at the case I brought up, but I hope that he would not rule out providing the same loan amount to the family. I understand the need for credit assessment policy, and so on. But I think the policy should not be applied blindly.”
“It can also be stipulated that the grants can only be used to pay part of their mortgage loan monthly. I think this will go a long way in helping these families pay for their flats. I hope the Minister can look into this and see whether these families can be given such help.”
“My point is that the Minister should reconsider this case and exercise flexibility, so that the family will be helped. Otherwise, if the family was asked to sell their flat, it could be negative equity and the problem would come back to HDB. And HDB would be owed money and I do not think that is good for HDB as well.”
“We need to come up with a regular mechanism where older and lower income workers can benefit without the pitfalls of a crutch mentality. I think, in this regard, the Government has not spent enough time or thought to look into what other mechanisms that we can have.”
“On the other hand, at best, we get one Singapore pavilion with a dozen or so companies, and that is about it. If we are really serious with our globalisation effort, our Government agencies must put in more resources to encourage more companies to participate in such events.”
The complete record
Every one of 741 lines we hold for John Chen Seow Phun, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“We need also to build a more comprehensive road network. But it would take some time before an extensive rail and road network is established. In the meantime, we need to quickly improve our bus services. But this cannot be done effectively if road traffic is congested, which we have already experienced on the expressways, major ring roads and around the bigger HDB estates. It is therefore necessary to introduce road pricing in the immediate future to restrain the usage of cars, improve traffic flow and hence bus services. Of course, motorists will be unhappy. But without usage restraint, traffic will get worse unless we reduce COE quota. In which case, COE prices will sky-rocket, which I do not think is desirable. Sir, the White Paper, though comprehensive, has missed out an important point in its proposal to improve public transport, and that is the benchmarking of travel and waiting times against world standards. I do not know whether the LTA is not bold enough to set such standards for itself to achieve or it has overlooked the importance of such benchmarkings. Benchmarking will allow us to constantly measure our performance against the set targets. It will force the authority and the operators to strive towards the benchmarks. Adherence to these standards will be the best quality of service a public transport operator can deliver to its customers. May I therefore ask the Minister whether LTA will benchmark travel and waiting times for both rail and bus services. Sir, it is not uncommon to find that at certain traffic light junctions and at certain times of the day, the traffic in one direction, say, east-west direction, is much heavier than traffic in the north-south direction. It is very frustrating for motorists to experience such congestion.”
“Sir, I did not say that he is not an SDP member. I said that he is not a CEC member. It seems to me that he did not represent the SDP when he spoke. Sir, the SDP should therefore stop this hypocritical and deceiving act. If it let this debate pass, it should not come back and call for another debate. But knowing the SDP, I am sure it will do just that. Sir, a world-class land transport system must have two key components. First, a world-class public transport system and, second, a free-flowing traffic condition. The two, however, are interlinked. Without free flowing traffic, taxi and bus services will not be efficient and public transport will not be attractive. Without an excellent public transport system, it will be difficult to persuade motorists to switch to public transport. Traffic will then become congested unless demand for cars and road usage are controlled. The present public transport system in Singapore is far from ideal. The MRT network is not extensive. The location and layout of some MRT stations do not provide good accessibility for both pedestrians and motorists. Take Newton Station, for example. A commuter walking from Newton Station, which is on the Scotts Road side, to the other side to Newton Road, which is on the other side of the Newton Circus, will find it very difficult and hazardous. Sir, MRT stations were also designed without taking into consideration the tropical weather in Singapore where showers can come at any time of the day. Commuters are therefore stranded when it rains. Bus services are also not satisfactory in that travel times are long, waiting times are uncertain, and that during peak hours, buses are just too crowded. To address these problems, we need to build more and better MRT lines as well as LRT lines.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper sets forth the PAP Government's vision and blueprint for achieving a world-class land transport system in Singapore. It is a very important document and if endorsed by this House, the Government will be committed to spend billions of dollars to realise this vision. I am therefore surprised to note that the SDP is conspicuously absent from this debate, although notice of the debate has been given much earlier. The SDP has been calling for a debate with the PAP on the various Government policies. It has even published its own land transport report last year, pontificating what it thought our land transport policy should be and said it would make its report part of its election manifesto. But when such an important debate is taking place in Parliament with extensive media coverage of its proceedings, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling, absented himself and went to meet some liberal organisations at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Mr Cheo Chai Chen, who is an SDP CEC member, is also not scheduled to speak. Although Mr Chiam has spoken, he, however, is not a CEC member and does not seem to represent the SDP, especially after the last parliamentary debate. This House must therefore question the sincerity and the seriousness of purpose of the SDP when it said it wanted to debate the PAP on Government policies. The SDP should stop ---”
“Sir, as the cost of collection reflects more and more the market condition, there should be a shift towards charging according to the actual quantities of refuse collected. This means that those who throw away more refuse should pay more. It is a fair principle. As the Ministry is corporatising its refuse collection department, may I know whether it plans to implement this principle of charging. Sir, in view of the problem of employing workers to do refuse collection, there is a need to increase mechanization. The Government should therefore take a national approach and see if the design of our housing flats, buildings, compounds and even our streets can be improved to facilitate more and newer forms of mechanization to cut down our reliance on manpower. Sir, I also support the amendment to section 110A to empower the Commissioner to authorise any operator of a public service vehicle to enforce the Act. I would even ask the Minister to go further and empower the Commissioner to authorise any responsible residents to enforce the littering law within the estate they live in. Since the remark by the Prime Minister in February this year exhorting Singaporeans not to litter and negate the HDB upgrading effort, and the subsequent debates in this House on littering, a lot of campaigns and publicity have been generated by the Environment Ministry and the media on the problems of littering. I sense that more and more Singaporeans are now prepared to speak up against littering when they see someone doing it. I have some residents coming to my meet-the-people session and requesting that they be empowered by the Environment Ministry to take enforcement action against littering. This is heartening and I think the Minister should give this proposition his serious thought.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, privatisation of refuse collection service has its pros and cons. With privatisation, it is hoped that service can be provided more efficiently because of competition. But at the same time, there is also a danger that the private contractor may default and fail to perform the required level of service. This is possible because even a large contractor may find it difficult to hire workers to do this kind of job. It happens in the construction industry and some contractors in that industry resort to hiring of illegal workers. And when Government clamped down on them, they simply defaulted and could not proceed with the job. We should not let this happen when we privatise refuse collection service because it is an essential service. The Commissioner of Public Health should ensure that the licensed waste collector must have enough workers and that these workers are all legitimate workers. He should also have a contingency plan to take over the job should any contractor default. When the service is privatised, collection charges would have to reflect market conditions. Whether or not they will be higher than the current fees would depend on whether there is presently a subsidy in the fees that Government charges. Perhaps the Minister should let us know what the current situation is. Does he foresee an increase in the fees and how is he going to control the increases? I assume that he is not going to leave it entirely to market forces because in clause 13 of the Bill, it has provided that the Commissioner can regulate the charge to be levied by the licensee. I propose that when a public tender is called, a cap should be specified so that no tender should exceed this maximum charge.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“But now, with more and more chain-shops and bigger retailers coming into the housing estates, and on top of this if they have to service the heavy loans for the purchase of the shop premises, I think very soon their survival would be threatened. Sir, these shopkeepers are hoping that the Government will sell the shops to them at more realistic and suitable prices. In the formulation of the sale prices, the HDB must take into consideration the locality, as the advantages vary from one locality to another, even within the same small town. Some are in a very secluded corner and are in a very disadvantaged position. Only if all these factors are taken into consideration that these shopkeepers will have a chance to upgrade their shops and operate with higher efficiency. I hope the Minister will look into their plight and do his best to help them.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5100. (In Mandarin): Sir, in February this year, a number of shopkeepers wrote to the Lianhe Zaobao complaining of the difficulties they faced from the sale of shops. Originally, this shop ownership scheme was welcomed by the shopkeepers, but the sale prices of the shops at the later stages are about 30% to 60% higher than the first phase, and these prices are worrying the neighbourhood shopkeepers. Some neighbourhood shopkeepers are operating from shops situated at a remote, little corner in my constituency. Their locality is very bad. Although they are within one kilometre from the MRT station, they are just out of the way, devoid of pedestrian traffic and their only source of business is from just a few blocks of flats in that end of the neighbourhood. According to my understanding, some shops have changed management and ownership a few times within a short space of a few years. Yet, they are paying the same rentals as the other shopkeepers whose shops are better situated, and hence are enjoying better business. These shopkeepers hope that the shops would be sold to them as early as possible so that it would solve the problem of rising rentals. But also, at the same time, they are afraid that when these shops are offered for sale to them, the prices may well be beyond their means. So these neighbourhood shopkeepers operating in the little remote corner of the neighbourhood are in a very difficult situation. Their efficiency is already very low. In the past, the rentals were comparatively low and they were able to survive on a tight budget.”
“Sir, to control the problem of heavy vehicle parking, the Government now requires heavy vehicle owners to obtain a vehicle parking certificate from a licensed heavy vehicle park before they are allowed to renew their road tax. A few of the heavy vehicle owners from my constituency told me that some industrial property landlords do not want to apply for a parking licence for their property. As such, the tenants who own the heavy vehicles could not get a vehicle parking certificate at their own factory site. They have to obtain one either from a licensed private parking place or the URA roadside parking lots although they are not parking their vehicles there. I do not know exactly why these landlords refuse to apply for a parking licence. Maybe they thought it is costly or maybe they are afraid of any liability. Can the Ministry help to convince these landlords?”
“It will also greatly reduce the amount of domestic waste which will otherwise have to be collected and disposed of. Will the Ministry consider implementing such a food waste disposal system? Sir, I now go on to the issue of hawker control. The primary objective of privatising hawker stalls is to make hawkers owner of their stalls so that hawker stalls can be run more efficiently. Hawkers welcome this ownership scheme. However, those who were not included in the first phase sale programme are concerned that stall prices in the subsequent phases will go up substantially. If the stall price translated into monthly payment is much higher than their current monthly rental, hawkers will have difficulty to adjust overnight and run the stall in such a way that it will make up for the increase in cost. The stall price may also be so high that it may not be worthwhile for them to purchase their stall and resell it to another person. There will therefore be no incentive for them to purchase their stall, thus defeating the purpose of privatisation. There is also concern from the general public that higher stall prices will result in higher hawker food prices. Will the Minister therefore speed up the sale of hawker stalls and ensure that stall prices will not be too high for hawkers to want to own their stall?”
“There is therefore an urgency for us to make every effort to encourage Singaporeans to consume less and recycle more. I notice that there is presently over 900 recycling schemes in schools, condominiums, housing estates, offices and hotels throughout Singapore. I wonder how successful they are. What is encouraging and has attracted the attention of the media recently is the success of a waste-paper recycling project by the Bishan-Serangoon Town Council. My colleague, Mr Ibrahim Othman has mentioned this. The project was successful because it combined recycling and charity. It shows that with innovative ideas, recycling projects can be successful. If the success can be duplicated throughout other parts of Singapore, then we will have made significant progress in shaping public attitudes positively towards waste minimisation and recycling. Does the Ministry plan to do that? Sir, food waste forms a large part of our domestic waste. At the moment, this type of organic waste is disposed of together with other non-organic waste through refuse chutes in housing estates. Because food waste decays and decays very quickly in our climate, it causes smell problem in the chute, at the collection point and the bin centre. Food waste also dirties our estates when it is disposed of and collected. As our society progresses, Singaporeans aspire to a better standard of living, we should consider disposing our food waste through an electric grinder attached to the kitchen sink. I believe my colleague, Mr Charles Chong, has spoken on this. Food waste can then be discharged as pulp and liquid through pipes into our underground sewage system. This will get rid of the rotten smell from our estates and enhance its cleanliness.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, rapid economic development and an increasingly affluent population have brought about a corresponding rise in the amount of waste generated. In 1994, about 2.4 million tonnes of waste were disposed of, representing about 9% growth compared to the previous year. Waste disposal is costly, especially in land scarce Singapore. The present Lorong Halus landfill site is expected to be used up by 1998. The new landfill site at Pulau Semakau will cost us about $1.2 billion. At the rate refuse is growing, we will probably need a fourth incineration plant in three to four years' time. It will cost us another $800-$900 million. It is therefore important for us to have an effective waste minimisation programme so as to reduce the burden of waste disposal on ourselves. Industrial and commercial waste forms about 50% of the waste generated. We should encourage companies to minimise waste by systematic waste audits. Waste audits can help companies to minimise the use of raw materials and energy, and to reduce, recycle and reuse waste. In the context of waste recycling, "waste exchange" is an option that deserves serious consideration. What is waste to one industry may be raw materials to another. Through cooperative and mutually beneficial "waste exchange" schemes, substantial cost savings can be accrued to the companies concerned. I would therefore like to know what measures the Ministry has taken to actively promote both waste audits and waste exchange to reduce industrial and commercial waste. Sir, domestic and trade waste forms the other 50% of the waste generated. Minimising this type of waste is perhaps a more difficult task because we have become a consumer society. Some even say that we are a throw-away society.”
“I missed the earlier cut on waste minimisation. I was held up slightly just now.”
“Sir, since we have sufficient time, may I seek your permission to take the two cuts, ie, waste minimisation and hawker control?”
“Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“I would like to ask for a clarification, Sir. After the corporatisation of refuse collection, will the Ministry allow private companies to compete for refuse collection business?”
“Sir, one of the objectives of the Singapore Green Plan is to establish Singapore as a regional hub for environmental technology. This is a good objective for both environmental and economic reasons. By establishing ourselves as a technology centre, we will gain from better environment management. At the same time, by combining our many years of experience with the technology offered by the developed countries, we can provide environmental solutions to the regional countries and thereby benefitting from these businesses. According to the Green Plan, the Ministry hopes to promote the technology and businesses by offering incentives through some of the EDB schemes. But these schemes are general incentive schemes and they may or may not have specific advantages, as far as environmental technology is concerned. Besides the EDB, there are also many agencies that should be involved in this effort. They are, for instance, the TDB, the NSTB, the National University of Singapore and also the Singapore Association for Environmental Companies (SAFECO) which was formed last year. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a concerted approach or a coordinated strategy to promote Singapore as a regional hub for environmental technology. What is the Ministry doing to bring about this objective?”
“If the Corrective Work Order is featured as a permanent form of penalty, people will soon get used to the idea of losing face. Such a measure will then lose its deterrent effect of shaming the offenders in the public. Sir, in the long run, I am doubtful that the Corrective Work Order to shame litterbugs in the public is a good thing to do. It is the duty of the Government to build up the respect of the State. To maintain such respect, we should build up the self-respect of our individual citizens. If the Corrective Work Order has resulted in the people regarding "losing face" as something common, it will then be difficult for us to continue to maintain the dignity of the State in future. I hope the Minister will take note that the Corrective Work Order might bring about more harm than good in the future.”
“On the other hand, even though the use of an open and backward method to shame them publicly is to make them lose their face and not to commit the same mistake again, the Government would have inflicted a scar on their mind. To me, littering is a minor offence and an anti-social habit, so the Corrective Work Order may seriously hurt their self-respect. For the black sheep who purposely indulge in this anti-social habit, punishment through the Corrective Work Order will not make any difference to them. Neither will it help them to turn over a new leaf. On the contrary, losing face is less important than losing money and freedom. I have asked many youngsters what they will opt for if they were given a choice of punishment either through a Corrective Work Order or a fine of $5,000. Most of them gave the same answer, ie, they would opt for CWOs because it could save them the money. Therefore, a fine of $5,000 or a 2-month jail term, or both, will definitely be more effective than the Corrective Work Order for these people. The announcement from the Ministry of the Environment that 332 persons who were punished with a Corrective Work Order did not commit the same offence again seems to indicate that the Corrective Work Order is effective. However, from the fact that as many as 180 people were issued with Corrective Work Orders in the first two months of this year, I feel that a heavy penalty is more effective, and the Corrective Work Order has not thoroughly solved the problem of littering in public places. When a person commits a mistake and is made to go through the experience of being shamed publicly, he might feel shameful and remorseful - a sense of losing face.”
“As a matter of fairness, HDB apartments which house hardcore litterbugs, that is, repeated littering offenders, should not be given these rebates. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, littering is an anti-social habit and litterbugs should be punished. I believe no one will object to the punishment of litterbugs. The question is whether the Corrective Work Order (CWO) is a more stringent and effective method of punishment. I doubt very much. Soon after the implementation of the Corrective Work Order, a total of 332 persons have been punished for littering. The number of offenders sent for corrective work for the first two months of this year has increased to 180. According to the spokesman from the Ministry of the Environment, those who were punished under the Act did not commit the same offence again. I wish to find out whether those who were convicted and fined $5,000, or given a two-month jail term, or both, had committed the same offence again. If the offenders of the above categories did not repeat the mistake, then it is doubtful if we need to have the Corrective Work Order. I fully agree with the Editorial of Lianhe Zaobao published on 17th March 1995 that punishment for minor offences through the Corrective Work Order might not be the best solution. I am worried that it could do more harm than good in the long run. Let us look at four areas. First, I believe that offenders who are civic-minded or imbued with traditional values or have no intention of littering on purpose will be able to control themselves, and will not repeat the same offence after a fine of $5,000. To this group of people, to be fined in a court is already a shameful matter. It has the same effect of shaming the offenders.”
“Maybe there are not enough enforcement officials to catch the offenders red-handed. Or maybe Singaporeans are not civic conscious enough. I hope the Minister can enlighten us. Sir, I am inclined, at first, to give most Singaporeans the benefit of doubt that, if they do litter, it is not because of sheer cussedness or anti-social habit but because they cannot find any litter bin nearby. I have observed in crowded places, the few available litter bins become quickly overfilled and their immediate vicinity is consequently littered with rubbish. Sir, however, on further reflection, I have to accept there are some, granted that there are only a few, Singaporeans who deliberately litter, even when there are litter bins handily around. They choose to litter because they are in deserted or dark places or because they think they are safe from detection. It is this relatively handful of irresponsible Singaporeans who literally dirty Singapore's reputation for cleanliness. Employing more enforcement officials or better coordination of the enforcement efforts of the various authorities may not be sufficient to stamp out the litterbugs. A stick-and-carrot approach is called for. Only our Government is in a position to offer the kind of carrot litterbugs cannot refuse. I hope the Minister will consider the linking up of rebates on service and conservancy charges (S&C) payable by HDB residents with the littering issue. The justification for this linkage is that a big part of the S&C charges goes towards keeping housing estates clean and tidy. The worse is the littering problem in the HDB estates, the higher the S&C charges for all residents.”
“Second, those who litter probably think that they will never be caught in the act. Third, people generally do not see the negative effect of littering because the dirtied environment is always cleaned up very quickly by someone else. This actually has hindered our efforts to solve the problem. The irony is that today if there is a littering problem somewhere, people would be quick to hit out at the cleaner rather than the litterer. Sir, the way to have a breakthrough against littering is to get every civic-minded Singaporean and organisation to speak out and act against the litterbugs. The Ministry should work together with Town Councils, grassroots organisations, schools and other Government or non-Government organisations to spread the message and to carry out some concrete actions. A series of joint anti-littering programmes with these organisations should be worked out. These programmes should not only aim at raising the public consciousness on the littering problem, they should also aim at applying collective pressure on those who litter. 4.30 pm Town councils and grassroots organisations, for example, could make it a point to remind residents not to litter during a community function. They could, at the end of a function, request residents not to leave behind any litter. I am sure there are many other things that the Ministry can come up with and I would like to hear from the Minister what he has in mind to tackle this persistent littering problem. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, from time to time, the local media highlight littering in, for example, public housing estates, the National Stadium and the East Coast Park. Other Members in this House also feel littering has worsened, despite the stiff fines and the Corrective Work Order scheme.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, our anti-littering laws are probably among the toughest in the world. They include a heavy fine that was started many years ago and the Corrective Work Order which we introduced in 1992 as a further deterrent. "Keep Singapore Clean" campaigns have been held so many times before. They are now conducted annually during our Clean and Green Week. Our children have also been taught in their civic lessons in school that littering is a bad social habit, that it damages the environment, and that it is an offence to litter. But judging from the recent press reports about the littering problem that still besets us, I am afraid that all our efforts against littering so far do not seem to have stopped most of the litterbugs from littering. In fact, more residents have of late complained of littering in HDB towns. This persistent problem, I believe, has prompted the Prime Minister to call on Singaporeans to keep their living environment clean and beautiful. Otherwise, it will negate the objective of our HDB upgrading programme, which is to increase the value of their flat. Sir, there are different types of litterbugs. There are those who will throw litter outright anywhere, having no regard for the environment. Some of them do it intentionally and others habitually. There are also those who do not normally litter but will do so in a public gathering such as a cinema show or a soccer game. They leave behind a large amount of litter after the event. There are a number of reasons why people continue to litter. First, many who litter do not think that the environment belongs to them. They therefore do not see the need to keep it clean.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SC 1500. Sir, economic competition from the developing countries in the region is taking away jobs from us, especially the manufacturing sector. The retrenchment figures provided by the MOL show that retrenchment has been on the rise since 1989. It rose from about 3,200 in 1989 to about 9,300 in 1994. In 1994 alone, we see a jump of almost 3,000. This is a worrying trend. It confirms our fear that relocation and restructuring of companies will cause retrenchment to accelerate. Sir, our unions and workers are feeling the impact of retrenchment. While the labour market is still tight and retrenched workers can still find alternative employment, the feedback I got from unions is that many of the workers, particularly the older ones, have some problems finding jobs at the same pay and have settled for lower paid jobs in the service sector. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for an assessment of the retrenchment situation. Can he provide us with a demographic profile of those who were retrenched in 1994, what jobs were they retrenched from, what jobs have they subsequently found, how long have they taken to find a job, and what kind of pay do they get compared with their previous jobs?”
“Second, the Ministry should consider widening the scope of union representation to include higher level executives. When they are represented by the union, their grievances can then be handled by the union. I hope the Minister would consider my suggestions.”
“Sir, many Singaporeans today are not adequately protected by our labour laws. These are the people who are not union members and are not covered by the Employment Act because they earn above the limit stipulated by the Act. This limit is currently $1,500. NTUC has received appeals for help by this group of Singaporeans who have complained of discrimination by their employers of job contract disputes and other work-related grievances. I have received letters from some of these people requesting me to urge the Government to widen the scope of union representation or to allow them to form executive unions so that they can be better protected. One of my constituents came to me for help during my meet-the-people session because his employer wanted him to pay a bad debt of about $20,000 which he felt he was not responsible for. The employer withheld his salary and threatened to sue him. When I referred the matter to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry was helpful but could only resolve the salary issue. The issue of bad debt requires the interpretation of the contract of employment. This the Ministry official could not carry out and my constituent could not ask for the case to be heard in the labour court because he was earning more than $1,500 per month. He was desperate because he could not afford the civil suit. Sir, I can foresee that the difficulty faced by this group of Singaporeans will increase because more and more companies will be relocating or restructuring due to economic competition from the region. There are two things which the Ministry can do to help them. First, the Ministry should allow them to have recourse through the labour court. We ought to allow this because many of these people can hardly afford the costly legal expenses.”
“Sir, one of the measures which the Government has adopted to moderate escalating medical costs is to limit the average revenue per patient/day of restructured hospitals. The Government believes that these caps will cause the hospitals to operate more efficiently and discourage them from over-servicing and passing on the charges. This method of controlling revenue per patient/day, however, may not always result in making hospitals more efficient. An inefficient hospital, pressured by bottom-line consideration, can always take the easy way out. It can, for example, prolong the length of stay of patients in order to boost revenue. The patient, therefore, will end up paying more. The hospital can also turn away or delay treating high cost patients and accept more low cost ones. This is one easy way to cut costs and boost the bottom line. Sir, the Ministry must therefore consider controlling revenue on a micro basis and adopt the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) approach to control medical costs. DRG is a classification system of illnesses based on medical diagnosis, sex, age and procedures performed, and stipulates the average cost of treatment. This approach will avoid the potential problems of capping the average revenue per patient/day and give hospitals the right incentive to control costs and be efficient. Does the Minister agree with me? Sir, the Government has also announced in the White Paper on Affordable Health Care that it intends to limit balance billing by private doctors and hospitals of patients using Medisave. This means that the amount which private doctors and hospitals can charge Medisave patients in addition to the Medisave reimbursement limits will be controlled. May I ask the Minister when he intends to introduce the control of balance billing?”
“How do we ensure that provider groups do not bite off more than they could chew? How do we protect the insurees and ensure that provider groups do not cut corners when they lose money? For example, it is a distinct possibility that a provider group may end up with some catastrophic illness cases which are so costly that the provider group is unable to cover. So in my view, we should find a way to set a limit to how much liability a provider group can assume relative to its size of operation. What is the Minister's view on this? Lastly, Sir, what is the Minister's position on multiple medical insurance? Does he allow, for instance, an individual to take up two insurance policies so that the deductible and co-payment under his first policy, such as, the MediShield, can be fully covered by the second policy?”
“Sir, I wish to declare my interest as the Managing Director of the NTUC Healthcare Cooperative. Sir, the medical insurance market in Singapore is growing rapidly. In 1990, total gross premiums were only about $50 million. In 1994, it is estimated to have reached $120 million, more than double in four years. More and more employers are taking up insurance to cover their employees' medical expenditure. From the unionised sector, the percentage of companies which have bought medical insurance increased 3 1/2 times from 10% in 1989 to 35% in 1994. Sir, basic medical insurance policies offered by insurance companies or provider groups in Singapore, generally, do not contain any deductible or co-insurance element. There is, therefore, the danger of a "buffet syndrome" which could lead to the provision of unnecessary medical services and escalating premiums. In its White Paper on Affordable Health Care published in 1993, the Government stated its intention to regulate and guide the growth of the medical insurance market to avoid these pitfalls. May I therefore ask the Minister what his Ministry will be doing to regulate the provision of medical insurance? Does he intend to make co-payments or deductibles a requirement? Sir, since the debate in this House on the White Paper, quite a few new medical insurance schemes have been offered and sold by a number of insurance companies and provider groups. May I know from the Minister whether approval from the Ministry is required before such schemes are offered? Provider groups are not insurance companies. They are either hospitals or doctor groups. Can they be allowed to underwrite medical insurance policies? Insurance companies are regulated by the MAS. They have their insurance funds to meet their liabilities.”
“I wish to ask the Minister whether smaller companies will be included in the scheme to help them upgrade and strengthen their core competency. Sir, besides targeting at employers, there is also a need for the Government to target at individuals and provide them the opportunity to be retrained to meet the shortage of particular skills in the country. MTI knows the industry well and it knows, for example, that there is a shortage of skilled workers in precision engineering at the moment. What should the Government do in this case? Should we depend on foreign workers to meet the shortfall? Or should we train more Singaporeans? I think the Government should get training agencies, either private or public, to set up training programmes for such skills. It should then subsidise Singaporeans who can meet a certain prerequisite to attend the programme. In this way, we help to upgrade the skills of Singaporeans who want to upgrade themselves but are not given the chance by their employers. Sir, I would like to ask whether the Minister would agree to my comments. 2.15 pm”
“Sir, the Skills Development Fund was set up to encourage employers to train their workers. 15 years have passed since its inception but the results have not been entirely satisfactory. We have no problem with the MNCs and the bigger companies. They spend about 5% of their payroll in training. What worries me is that smaller companies which collectively employ more than 50% of the workforce are spending an average of only about 1% of their payroll in training. Furthermore, the value-added per worker of these companies is much lower compared to the bigger companies. This means that the smaller companies and their workers are likely to suffer the brunt of intense competition from the region unless they upgrade their operations and their skills. Sir, smaller companies are not paying enough attention to training mainly because they do not know how to upgrade their business to a higher value-added one. If they do, they will naturally start to worry about how to train their existing workers or to recruit new workers to do the higher value-added job. So the key to solving the problem of smaller companies not training is not just to keep on saying that they must spend up to 4% of their payroll in training. The key really is to help them to upgrade their business and create the higher value-added jobs. Then automatically they will send their workers for training. An excellent example is the franchise scheme to help local retailers. Experience has shown that shops which participated in this scheme are sending their employees for training so that they can meet the new job requirements. I am happy to see that the Ministry is now focusing on industry clusters development.”
“Whatever ready cash that the people receive from the Government, they will soon come to rely on it as part of their income. The more cash they receive, the more their reliance on it will be. I therefore agree with the Government's approach of asset enhancement through HDB upgrading and CPF top-up schemes, and of keeping the payment of cash through rental and S&C charges modest. The money that the Government gives through asset enhancement is likely to appreciate in value over time. In times of real need, these assets can be liquidated and the extra cash can be used. What I hope to see the Government do more is to help those who needed more help. Let me give an example. The CPF Minimum Sum has been raised from $34,600 to $80,000. Its purpose is to ensure that retirees will have at least a certain monthly income to see them through their old age. There are, however, a lot of older workers who will not have enough CPF savings to make up the required Minimum Sum. The CPF top-up scheme for all Singaporeans above 21 will help but is insufficient. We should therefore have a CPF Minimum Sum Top-Up Scheme to help deserving older workers to go nearer the Minimum Sum target. We want to encourage workers to work after 55. So if a worker does not have enough Minimum Sum at 55 and if he is prepared to continue to work after that, the Government should consider topping up his CPF if he or his employer can credit at least a certain annual sum into his account. I hope the Minister will consider this kind of suggestion. With that, Sir, I support the Budget.”
“The current Local Industry Upgrading Programme (LIUP) is mainly getting the MNCs to help upgrade their own supporting companies. It should be extended to getting big local companies to help upgrade smaller local companies. Left to themselves without a leader, smaller companies will never be able to agree on how they can cooperate in upgrading themselves. They will hardly want to upgrade the skills of their workers for fear of losing them to their competitors. But if there is a big company to be their leader, they will be able to benefit from the economy of scale, from better management and finance, and from training of workers. One example I can provide is the tying up between QAF and 16 smaller fruit wholesalers in building a large cold-storage warehousing for fruits. Government should also help SMEs to lower their business costs. With the weakening of the US dollar, any cost increase will be compounded by the difference in exchange rates. This will cause our companies to be less competitive. Government should therefore relook at how industrial land costs are determined and see whether they have become too expensive for the SMEs. Sir, the Minister has decided in the Budget to withdraw the property tax exemption for land under development. However, exemption will be given to approved building projects endorsed by the EDB. May I ask the Minister why should the exemption not be extended to all industrial building projects? In view of the urgent need to help the SMEs, may I suggest that a national committee involving private sector businessmen be commissioned to consider ways to help SMEs upgrade on a national scale. Sir, let me now turn to the distribution of surplus to the people. Giving money back to the people is not an easy task.”
“Workers from these companies can feel frustrated because, on the one hand, they were told that the GDP is growing so strongly but, on the other hand, they themselves are not experiencing a corresponding growth in income. The result we see today is a narrowly based Singapore economy whose growth rate is highly dependent on relatively few companies. At the same time, the majority of our companies and workers are not moving up fast enough out of the lower value-added industry. They are facing the danger of losing their businesses and their jobs to the fast developing countries in the region. The message is clear. The Government must tackle urgently this structural problem of the economy. Government must do more to help the SMEs to grow. It can help them in two ways: first, encouraging them to invest, retrain their workers and upgrade their operations; and, second, lowering their costs of doing business. On the first point, I think investment allowance for the additional depreciation of capital investment should be given more generously to local SMEs. On this, may I ask the Minister whether he has statistics to show how much investment allowance has been given out and in what proportion between the big and the smaller companies. SMEs can invest and upgrade their operations through a number of ways. They can upgrade through acquiring technology or know-how. For example, a furniture company can increase its value-added by going for better design. Incentives should therefore be given for companies to move up to the higher value part of the value-added chain. Another way to help the smaller companies is to encourage a big company in the same industry to provide the leadership.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we enjoy healthy surpluses and chalk up substantial national reserves year after year because of the financial prudence and the right social and economic policies of the Government. Singapore needs strong reserves because unlike big countries which have plenty of natural resources, our reserves are the only wealth we have got. They are extremely important to us when we face a major economic downturn. Strong reserves also give us a strong currency and thus better purchasing power and lower inflation for our people. The recent Mexican peso crisis and the weakening of the US dollar show us how persistent budget deficits can cause depreciation of their currencies and threaten them with high inflation. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.20 pm But is there a negative side of high surpluses? The answer is yes, if they become a heavy burden on the economy or if we do not use the surplus enough to encourage private sector investments. Socially, it will also not be good if high surpluses become a heavy burden on the people. Sir, while I agree with the Minister that Government burden on the economy as a whole is not high, I think not enough is done to encourage private sector investments, especially from the small and medium enterprises. Our economic policies have been favouring the MNCs and big companies. They have done well. And our high economic growth can be attributed to the very high value-added per worker of these companies whose output constitutes a large part of our GDP. But the majority of our companies, which are the SMEs and which employ the majority of our workers, are not having such high value-added and growth.”
“However, the amendment will also, in theory, enable the Government to gazette any premises or building except private homes. But I do not think, and I hope the Minister will clarify, that it is the intention of the Government to do just that. For every place that the Government gazettes, it must also back it up with good reasons. Sir, I am therefore surprised, reading from the Straits Times and Business Times, that the Government intends to ban smoking in all public places, including car parks and HDB void decks. In fact, many of my friends are having the impression that the Government will be doing just that after reading the press report. They thought that the Government is unreasonable in these instances and are asking where the justifications are. Will the Minister clarify? I hope the Minister will also let us know what additional places he will be gazetting after the passing of this Bill and the rationale behind them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Kevin Sullivan, a Business Times (BT) journalist, got it wrong when he opined in the OPINIONS column in the last weekend edition of BT that the Bill before us would not achieve its purpose of getting smokers to stop smoking. The objective of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Bill is very clear. It is not aimed at trying to get smokers to quit smoking. As the Minister has said, that is the job of the Ministry of Health. This law is about protecting non-smokers and championing their legitimate rights. However, the existing law is not wide enough to cover certain places where smoking should be banned if the legitimate interests of the non-smokers are to be protected. It does not cover places such as air-conditioned commercial offices, reading rooms of condominiums, and even sports stadiums, etc. Should these places be included in the prohibition list? I think they should. The reason is obvious. If a non-smoker is affected by someone who smokes in the office, he or she cannot say, "I am not going to work in the office." Likewise, in a sports stadium packed with people, non-smokers who are affected by someone who smokes cannot move away from their seats. A non-smoker who has to leave the reading room of his condominium because someone is smoking in there is obviously being deprived of his privileges. Of course, one can argue that in these instances the non-smoker can always ask or request the smoker to stub it out. But we know that such requests will not always work, especially in places where smoking is not banned. Amending section 3(1) of the principal Act, as shown in the Bill, will allow the Government to gazette the places that I have just mentioned. The amendment, in my view, will then make the objective of this law fully realisable.”
“Sir, I just want to ask one question. I would like to ask how is priority to be given to the 3-room upgraders. Because we are going to have two queues. One is for the first-timers and the other is for the upgraders. For the 3-room upgraders, how is priority to be given to them?”
“No. Because of how human beings behave and, in fact, there is no guarantee that democracy will triumph. Who can guarantee that democracy will triumph? Can you?”
“Sir, there are many forms of democracy and it depends on how the society collectively practises the way of life. And I am not saying that democracy is doomed. I am just saying that if we are not careful, we can also develop into their form.”
“Sir, I was talking about the western form of democracy and the evolution of their practices. I do not understand why Mr Low Thia Khiang did not know that western societies also have good traditional family values. They are mainly Christian societies and they believe in the Bible. They try to practise the Commandments and they uphold the Christian teaching - honour your father and mother. So if you were to look at the family unit in the western societies in the past, I am sure they are as strong as ours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this saying Qing guan nan duan jia wu shi ( ) shows that in those days, matters were brought up to the mandarin, and it is true that it is not easy to solve family disputes. But that is not to say that disputes were not solved and matters were not brought to the court. So I believe that, in fact, because of these external links, clans, the court, and so on, they strengthen the family unit. Because if a family unit is isolated from the rest of the society, then I am not too sure that it would be better off.”
“Sir, when I related the legend about Bao Qing Tian, I was illustrating a point that in ancient China, the upholding of filial piety was not confined to the family. And when an aggrieved parent was abandoned by the children, he could go to the mandarin to seek justice, and justice would be upheld. On the second point about the present generation of Singaporeans, I am not saying that they have degenerated. By no means. I am just cautioning Mr Peh not to be overly optimistic about our present condition because we can see the behaviour and value system of our children changing. 35 years of national history is a very short time. We became a democracy not a very long time ago, and with the kind of changes in the world and the rapid change of values and events, I am not too sure myself that we can have, year after year, 80% of our children who are still attached to their parents, who feel very much for their parents, and will continue to support their parents. That is the point that I am making and to caution him to realise that we are not infallible. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday Mr Goh Choon Kang said that although ancient China had a family law and an imperial law, when the ordinary people went to the court, they could not solve their family dispute. So even a wise magistrate could not settle a family dispute. Secondly, in Singapore, with the education system that we have at present, I believe that our younger generation has values which are unquestionable. And I am very optimistic and confident about the values of the younger generation.”
“What if a parent chooses to stop working after he reaches the retirement age even though he is able to continue to work? There are also questions regarding the impact of the court's decision on the respondent. What is the acceptable burden on the children who also have to support their own spouse and children? To what extent they should be forced to use up their savings, whether private or CPF, and how will that affect their own future? These are complex questions. I therefore agree that we should set up a Select Committee to think through all these and other issues. But because they are complex, it may not be possible in the end to have all the answers definite enough to be included in the law. At any rate, the court will probably have to go through some degree of uncertainty or even unevenness initially in the application of the law until a body of case law is built up over time. Sir, I support the proposal that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee.”
“Even if they can overcome this problem, the difficulty they face to chase after their children for support if they should refuse to comply with court orders may also be great. I therefore support Mrs Yu-Foo's suggestion for Government to appoint a Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents. A similar idea also came from Assoc. Prof. Leong Wai Kum who suggested in the Sunday Times, 29th May 1994, that public authorities should recover money spent on the destitute aged from their children. Such a Commissioner can investigate a complaint, mediate a dispute and, if necessary, bring the respondent to court. I wish to propose here that the Commissioner need not obtain an active consent from the parent before he proceeds to the court, as suggested by Dr Michael Lim. What he needs to do is to inform the parent that he is taking the matter up to court on his behalf, and proceed to do so unless the parent indicates objection. I am proposing this because there may be cases where the parent may not be in a clear state of mind to respond to questions. Sir, some hon. Members have also raised questions on how the proposed law can be implemented by the court. For example, when the word "maintenance" is not defined in the Bill, the court has to decide what it is based on the circumstances listed in clause 5 and other circumstances that may be relevant. But how does the court determine what the needs of the applicant are? Does it mean bare subsistence or something more? Does it even include separate living accommodation? Should the court consider the standard of living of the applicant before he becomes financially needy? What class of ward the parent is entitled to when he is hospitalised?”
“It is unfortunate that Mr Peh Chin Hua chose to see the debate as an East versus West debate. I can understand why he is so proud, and sometimes mere arrogance, about his traditional values which I also subscribe to. But I hope to remind him, as a fellow Singaporean, not to be overly optimistic about the present state of affairs in our society. Western societies started their democracy and the rule of law several hundred years before us. Their traditional family values are not necessarily inferior to ours. But today, in America, more and more of their families are falling apart. Mr Peh believes that we are deeply entrenched in our culture, but where is the environment which had helped shape our traditional values in the first place? Can he not see that each succeeding generation of Singaporeans is culturally changing? Is he sure that our society will not go the same way as the West? Sir, I am therefore in favour of having a legislation to govern, not the relationship between children and parents, but the basic obligation children must have towards their parents. It is true that we cannot legislate relationship. It is not realistic. It is not possible. But the next best thing we can have is to legislate obligation - obligation to require children to maintain their needy parents. It serves two purposes. The first is to relieve the society of the burden to provide for these parents when their own children can afford to do so. The second is to drive home the point that abandoning parents is morally wrong and those children who are taken to task should feel shameful. Sir, in making the Bill more effective, the concern about needy parents not wanting to sue their children because of face must be addressed.”
“Under these circumstances, a rigid set of behaviour was entrenched into the minds of the children. Occasionally, we heard of stories of an unfilial son who deserted his poor wife and mother after he had become an imperial scholar and married the princess. Did the poor wife and mother have any recourse? Yes, they went to see the legendary Bao Gong and justice and virtue were upheld. So even in the Chinese ancient culture, upholding of filial piety was never confined to homes. However, the concept and practice of filial piety in a feudalistic society is one extreme. Tragic stories happened because the father insisted on his ways. We do not want to have such a society although we still want to keep some of the good traditional values. The rule of law in modern societies, on the other hand, disregards filial piety and does not help when it fails in the family. If anything, it can be argued that the law tends to weaken family ties because in the eyes of the law, everyone is equal. So if there is a dispute between the mother and the son on the distribution of family assets, fight it out in the court. The family unit is actually very fragile because everyone who is above the legal age can choose to become independent. There is little or no external force to bind the family together. It relies only on internal forces - whatever traditional values or religious values they have got. Can it withstand the onslaught of modern society living? Can you be sure that not more and more families are breaking apart in Singapore with each passing year? Our constituents came to see us about their family problems. They yearned to have someone who they perceived to be closer to the law to intervene in their family disputes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why there is so much debate on this Bill is that most of us are debating on the subject of filial piety. What is filial piety? Absolute obedience to parents or just making sure that aged parents are provided for materially? Concepts and practices of filial piety vary from civilisation to civilisation. Our own concept and practice are not just products of our present time. We came from an ancient culture and inherited many of its values. But at the same time, these values of ours and our children are being influenced day by day by the modern society structure, modern living and modern laws. Some hon. Members are uncomfortable with the Bill before us because they feel that it is demeaning or undignified for parents to sue their children for maintenance. They fear that it will undermine our Asian values and the practice of filial piety in the family. As the Bill stands, they may have some valid points. But by not having some appropriate laws to govern some basic obligation children have towards their parents, society is not better off and, in all probability, stands to lose. Let me explain. The practice of filial piety in the family must be upheld by some rules - whether they are written or unwritten. It also cannot be isolated from the society, whether the society is governed by imperial rule or the rule of law. In ancient China, families had their family rules. They called it jia fa ( ), clans had their clan rules and the country had the imperial rule. They called it wang fa ( ).Disobedient children would be dealt with strictly according to these rules. The extended family structure and the clan structure exerted tremendous pressure on everyone to conform. Sometimes, a father had to lose his child because of pressure from the clan.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $255,221,900 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $292,829,600 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -”