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 12 of 15.
“All of us are aware that there is a shortage of refuse removal and cleansing workers in Singapore. This is evident in the reduced frequency of cleansing, the increasing reliance on older workers and some mechanisation that we see. I therefore want to know whether the Government is taking a national approach towards this problem. For instance, in the case of mechanisation, there is a need to take a total look at the whole country and ensure that all the compounds, the streets, the buildings and so on are either modified or improved to become more machine friendly. I provide an example here. In the early days of tree planting, we went around planting many trees to achieve a certain objective. But I am not sure whether we were aware then that some of these trees could pose problems to mechanisation today. Sir, the Government should also look at other available systems such as the sewers to carry disintegrated solids to certain points for disposal. May I have the response of the Minister, please?”
“Sir, the quantity of waste generated is increasing quite rapidly as Singaporeans become more and more affluent. Waste output for the first 11 months of 1992 averaged 6,160 tons per day, an increase of 4.5% over the 1991 average. Industrial and commercial waste makes up 51% of the waste disposed of, whereas domestic and trade waste makes up the remaining 49%. For resource conservation and to reduce the costs of waste collection and disposal, we should therefore have an effective waste minimisation and management programme. One way is to step up our recycling programme. The Ministry started a number of recycling centres sometime ago. I was told that some of these centres suffer the problem of people throwing into bins all kinds of rubbish indiscriminately. Will the Minister give us an update on the effectiveness of the scheme and whether there is any other approach the Ministry is considering to encourage recycling? Sir, incineration of rubbish also helps recycling. We generate electricity and recover iron from the waste. I would like to ask the Minister: how much more of the rubbish we generate can be incinerated? And if we are not burning all the rubbish that can be incinerated, can the Minister tell us why? Sir, another way to encourage waste reduction is to charge economic costs for waste removal. At present, households are charged a flat rate for refuse removal. There have been suggestions that refuse removal fees should be tied to the actual quantities of refuse to be disposed of. Can the Minister tell us whether he is considering such a move and how it can be implemented? Sir, the cost of refuse removal also depends on the cost of hiring workers and the methods adopted.”
“Secondly, the way the first batch of offenders was humiliated was out of proportion to their crime. Many Singaporeans thought so. As Chairman of the GPC for the Environment, I have received feedback and letters of complaint on this. Sir, if we continue to go overboard and do not put a stop to such humiliation, I am afraid the strong support that Singaporeans originally gave to the CWO legislation may disappear. I hope the Minister would seriously consider the two points that I have made and take steps to restore the respect that people had on the CWO legislation.”
“Sir, when the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill was passed in September last year, many Singaporeans supported the Corrective Work Order (CWO) because they believe in stricter and more effective anti-littering laws. The punishment to clean up public places itself is reformative and causes the offenders to feel shameful about their indiscriminate act. It is therefore thought to be an effective deterrent against littering. At the same time, as the punishment is also considered as serious, many Singaporeans feel that it should only be applied to those recalcitrant and serious offenders. However, when the CWO was carried out the first time on Sunday, 27th February, at the East Coast Beach, many Singaporeans were outraged at the way it was implemented. Firstly, some of the offences such as leaving behind a paper cup on a bench should not be considered as serious. Everyone of us can be forgetful sometimes. We leave behind umbrellas, pens, handbags, briefcases, paper bags, bunch of keys and even money. Check with MRTC, bus and taxi operators, and you will find out how many things are left behind every day. 4.30 pm A group of people I know was barbecuing one evening at the West Coast Park. Before they left, they cleared everything, except one black plastic bag which they overlooked. When they were about to leave, a warden suddenly appeared and booked them. They were fined for littering. But that was before the CWO legislation. Sir, my point is that people do leave behind things unintentionally, including litter. How do we ensure that such people, who indeed can be quite civic-minded, will not have the CWO slapped on them? At most, they should only be made to pay a fine for their carelessness.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500. Sir, the Environment Ministry and the HDB currently manage more than 50 hawker centres and wet markets. There have been concerns that the Government might want to privatise these hawker centres and markets. Sir, while I agree that the Environment Ministry should concentrate on the enforcement of public health and not the management of hawker centres and markets, I am concerned about the impact privatisation has on the existing stallholders and consumers. What prices will the stallholders pay when they buy over the stalls from the Government? Can they sublet or sell their stalls? Can they opt to continue paying the present rentals? Are there any other conditions that they must fulfil when the food centres and markets are privatised? Sir, what is important at the end of the privatisation exercise is that costs for the stallholders must not go up. Otherwise, it may end up with the higher costs being passed on to the consumers. Sir, may I have the Minister's response to those questions.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The Minister has not replied to my question on the role of NCE, ie, whether he will agree to beefing up the NCE to take on the role like that of the National Arts Council.”
“It also requires companies with poor energy management to carry out energy audit and improve on their efficiency. These are very good examples for us to follow. Will the Minister consider adopting them? Finally, Sir, an area which will also benefit us environmentally and economically is the promotion of Environmental Technology (ET). A strong domestic ET industry will not only help us to solve our environmental problems more effectively, it will also help Singapore to be a hub and emporium for environmental engineering and services. Does the Minister have any plans to nurture our local companies and help them to venture out on environmental engineering projects? What are the supports the Government and, in particular, the Environment Ministry can provide? 4.00 pm”
“If the Green Plan is to succeed, there must be a shift towards a balanced phenomenon whereby the Government and an environmentally pro-active people become partners in furthering the environmental cause. When this happens, we should see an increasing number of organisations, groups or individuals translating their awareness into lively activities or substantive actions that will contribute positively to our environmental goals. In this regard, I believe the National Council on Environment (NCE) should now take on a bigger role and a higher profile in environmental education and promoting environmentalism. Its role should be similar to that of the National Arts Council in promoting the development of culture and the arts. Would the Minister consider beefing up the NCE so that it will have enough financial and manpower resources to perform this important task? Another important area in the Green Plan is resource conservation. While this is a worldwide concern, it is especially important to Singapore as almost all the resources we consume are imported. A big question in resource conservation is: how do we promote national energy efficiency? Energy consumption leads to emission of carbon dioxide which is threatening the world with the greenhouse effect. It, therefore, makes a lot of environmental and economic sense to make sure that we consume energy as efficiently as possible. Japan has the greatest energy efficiency among the developed countries. According to the data published by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Japan's energy consumption per dollar GDP is about half that of Singapore's. The Japanese Government gives tax incentives and depreciation allowances for companies to install energy-efficient equipment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Singapore Green Plan aims to develop Singapore into a model Green City with a high environmental standard and an environmentally conscious people. Following its publication in May last year, six work groups targeting at six distinct areas were formed to formulate action plans. They have recently unveiled their recommendations for public comments. I must say that the work groups have done a good job and these proposed action plans are, indeed, comprehensive. However, to ensure best results, we must obtain the views of a wide range of people - industrialists, businessmen, professionals, media organisations, social organisations and the general public, etc. - before finalising the plans. May the Minister tell us how this is being carried out? Indeed, once the plans are finalised, participation and support of all Singaporeans from all quarters are vital to ensure success of the Singapore Green Plan. I am, therefore, pleased to see that one of the areas of the Plan is to step up environmental education. And for this purpose, six target groups, namely, the general public, schools, tertiary institutions, SAF personnel, workers and social and community groups, have been identified. Sir, the Government has been taking the lead and playing a dominant role of promoting environmentalism in Singapore. This is because, unlike the people in the developed countries, Singaporeans are less environmentally conscious and are not pro-active in promoting environmental programmes.”
“When the Government enjoys great surpluses, we should return these surpluses to the people and to the businessmen. A reduction in tax is a good measure. In the Budget Statement of the Finance Minister, there are tax reductions for the individuals and the companies. Various categories of people stand to benefit by way of rebates, tax reduction and other measures. We welcome these measures. However, I feel that the various measures on rebates and tax reductions are not surprises because the Government wants to cut down the pressure on our people, because of the implementation of GST. It is a red herring that will try to divert the attention of the people from the disadvantages of GST, and that is why they are giving all these perks. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this financial year, GST is not to be implemented. I would endorse and support the fiscal and financial policy of the Minister for this year. But I would not support the implementation of GST next year. I would urge the Minister for Finance to shelve the plans to implement GST from 1st April, next year. Otherwise, all the perks given now will be completely nullified or people may even stand to lose. Nobody can assure us that in future there will be no price increases and GST will not cause inflation. 2.30 pm”
“On the contrary, when there was only direct tax, they had no problem at all. So if you say taxation must be fair, then GST can achieve the objective. If you say that GST will give Government a more stable revenue, then it is also true. But in order to have stability in a country, you must have a proper harmonisation between the rich and the poor. That means those who are well-to-do must pay more to help the poor and those less well-to-do. In that way, there will be warmth and care in society, and there will be long-standing stability. The implementation of GST will increase the burden on the lower income group and the poor people who are already hard pressed. As a matter of fact, GST is a pseudonym for price increases. At the same time, it may also cause inflation and increase in prices. Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Government says that it will only collect 3% on GST, no one can assure that, because of profiteering or administrative cost, there will be no undue price increases. GST will add to the cost of doing business, will cause prices to rise and this will also affect foreign investments as well as tourism. When you consider all these factors, Sir, and the present economic growth which isgood and when we have a lot of budget surpluses, I feel that this is not the right time for us to implement GST in full. As a matter of fact, we already have some form of GST, for example, petrol duty and all kinds of duties on luxury goods. These can be considered as a form of goods and services tax. The present tax system is already sound and healthy. What we should do now is to think of getting other sources of revenue, to improve our productivity and to cut down expenditure, and to earn more foreign exchange.”
“Transportation is very convenient and developed, and there is political stability in Singapore. Our people are well educated and well trained to a very high level. These are favourable conditions. But we also have unfavourable conditions such as the high labour cost, the high land and rental cost. Our taxes are high and there are too many procedures and regulations, etc. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to attract more foreign investments, we should review all these unfavourable conditions and continue to strengthen our advantages. Let me now deal with the question of GST. Before that, we must understand that there is a relationship between budget and taxation. This is a very complex matter but the objective is very clear, and that is, to ensure that for all the expenditures of the various departments we have sufficient financing from tax revenue. A government, in taking any tax measure, whether it is direct or indirect taxation, the ultimate move is to get money. So in this regard, the Government, on the one hand, gives some incentives or subsidies or rebates and, on the other hand, it will try to create some sources of revenue. The objective is the same. But taxation, direct or indirect, will mean that different people will be affected differently. Those who pay direct taxes are those in the higher income group. Whereas those who pay indirect taxes, whether they are rich or poor, must all pay the same. So as far as the rich and those in the higher income group are concerned, whether it is a direct tax or an indirect tax, there is no problem in paying. But to the poor, or to the lower income group, or to those without any income at all, like pensioners or retirees, then the indirect taxation is a great burden to them.”
“At the present juncture, Sir, I feel that it is time for the Government or the statutory board to freeze all the rental increases in Singapore. In this way, they will be able to cut down the cost of doing business in Singapore. When our SMEs are strengthened and have consolidated themselves, then they can pool their resources together to go overseas or to have joint ventures with our statutory boards or GLCs to go overseas and to cut down the risk involved. In encouraging local companies to develop overseas, the Minister for Finance has provided incentives to take care of the local companies, and I appreciate this move. However, I would like to remind the Minister for Finance that the Government should ensure that the profits made outside Singapore will be given preferential tax treatment when they are remitted back to Singapore. Because the most important objective in encouraging local companies to go overseas is to earn more foreign exchange. It is not just to enable the companies themselves to make profits for themselves. After that, if our entrepreneurs find that they can make more money and the world outside is better, then they will not come back. And then we will be suffering great losses. Let me deal with the question of attracting foreign investments. All along, we have been giving them tax holiday and tax incentives. Like the local companies, these foreign investors are concerned with the cost of doing business. Therefore, we must create more favourable conditions and environment for them to come in. We have already set certain conditions which are favourable, like our infrastructure in telecommunications, harbour, airport etc. Secondly, we have a very good geographical position.”
“" Most of the SMEs do not have large profits in Singapore and they are only struggling to survive. I feel, therefore, Mr Speaker, that the tax policy in Singapore, apart from encouraging foreign investment into Singapore, should also support and assist the SMEs in Singapore. These are our genuine Singapore companies that need our assistance. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the nature of the policy of taxation, there are two categories involved. One is the tax on profit and the other is tax on costs. Tax on costs refers to the taxes that the Government levies on enterprises before profit, for example, the foreign workers' levy, stamp duty, etc. The other category refers to the tax on profit after the enterprises have become profitable, like the corporate tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Government should allow the SMEs in Singapore to build up their strength. The Government should abolish all taxation on costs or reduce them according to circumstances. In this way, the Government will be able to lighten the cost of doing business by the SMEs and for them to accumulate more capital. With regard to the tax on profit, of course if you can cut it, so much the better. But it may not be absolutely necessary. If a company makes money, then they will not mind paying the tax that is due, even though it might be still on the high side. This is their responsibility to the State and it is also their contribution in return to the society. If a company does not make money, even if corporate tax is cut down to 0.5%, it is of no help at all. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government must pay attention to the question of cost increases of doing business here.”
“The two sides must acknowledge the problem of rising medical cost and work together, not only in collective agreement negotiations, but also in other health promotion measures to contain health care costs. There must be such an understanding between employers and the unions so that our harmonious labour-management relations will not be strained. Sir, the ageing of our workers, the availability of better medical equipment, drugs and services, and the expensive manpower costs of providing health care are pushing health care costs up very rapidly. The increase in health care cost is therefore certainly going to be faster than the wage rise of workers. In the longer term, the legitimate medical expenses by workers are likely to exceed the 2% cap. May I ask the Minister whether the cap will be revised when such a situation arises? Sir, I support the motion. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on the Budget Statement. The major premises in the statement consist of two main points. Firstly, to develop our external economy. Secondly, to pave the way for the implementation of the GST. Let me deal with the first point. I support the Government's policy in encouraging local entrepreneurs to develop their business overseas. However, for local entrepreneurs to go overseas it is not an easy task. The most important thing is that they must have sufficient capital. In Singapore, those people who really have the ability to invest overseas and to compete with international consortia are very few. Apart from very large statutory boards and GLCs or MNCs, other small and medium-sized enterprises only feel that the "spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
“The United States has wanted to tax health benefits some years ago but did not because of political pressure. The proposal is now being reconsidered by the presidential Task Force on National Health Care Reform chaired by the First Lady Hillary Clinton. But the problem has grown to such an extent that the tax exemption on health benefits provided by employers is now estimated to be 10% of all health care spending in the US, which currently stands at 14% of the US GDP. Imagine what it will cost the employers if these health benefits are suddenly taxed. Imagine how workers and unions will react if employers then try to pass this tremendous tax burden to the workers. The political sensitivity of the problem has become so great that it is no surprise to read from International Herald Tribune recently that Hillary Clinton is already dropping the proposal. Sir, we must therefore act early when the problem is still manageable. Most companies will not be affected by the proposed capping schedule when it is introduced. There is concern, however, that friction between labour and management may arise because of such a cap. This can be seen by how quickly the employers federation jumped at the proposal and immediately advocate cost sharing of medical benefits between the employers and their employees, and how equally quickly the labour movement reacts to it. In this regard, it is therefore important to remind employers that there is nothing to prevent them from giving medical benefits beyond the 2% cap, and that the proposed capping should not deprive any workers of existing medical benefits. Of course, employers are free to propose their conditions as far as new and improved benefits are concerned.”
“Sir, the Government is also generous in sharing the fruits of our economic success with the people. The Edusave grants to our children and the CPF share ownership top-up scheme are excellent examples of this kind of sharing. It is also done in a way which will encourage all Singaporeans, whether young or old, to work hard to ensure the continued prosperity of our nation. It is clear that the CPF Top-up Scheme as announced encourages every Singaporean above the age of 21 to open a CPF account so that as many as possible can be share owners. The only requirement is a $500 co-payment. Many retirees and housewives are very pleased to hear about the scheme. However, the $500 requirement also means that those who cannot afford it will be deprived of the $200 the Government intends to give to every adult Singaporean. Therefore, whatever reasons the Minister may have for the co-payment, I feel that it should not end up preventing poor Singaporeans from receiving the $200. May I therefore suggest that the $200 be given to every adult Singaporean who either has an existing CPF account or registers to open a new account. Co-payment by an account holder should only be required if his account does not have sufficient money but he wants to purchase his full entitlement of the Singapore Telecom shares. Alternatively, the Government may want to consider allowing the $500 co-payment to be paid by a transfer of money from a spouse's or child's CPF account. There is no reason why this should not be allowed. It is a good way to use their CPF money. Sir, the Minister has proposed to cap the tax deductibility of medical expenses by employers. The rationale is good. It will cause employers and hence employees to be careful of how they spend on health care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has prospered because of our sound economic and social policies plus the hard work of our people. The various fiscal measures announced and the proposed GST will strengthen our economic fundamentals and take us one big step forward in our economic development in this competitive world. These measures will also promote enterprise, thrift and hard work among Singaporeans. At the same time, the Government has shown that in introducing these new measures, it has not forgotten the social implications and has offered generous rebates and offsets to help the lower income households. According to the Finance Minister, it is the intention of the Government that, as far as possible, no family would lose out because of GST. Sir, while I am extremely pleased to see the various kinds of rebates, offsets and grants offered, I am concerned that a not insignificant number of HDB 4-roomers may not be sufficiently compensated. According to the Finance Minister, there are 195,000 households earning less than $1,500 per month. They pay little or no income tax and the proposed income tax reductions will not be sufficient to offset the GST they will pay. 90% of them live in HDB flats. 125,000 or 64% of them are in 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats. These households will be looked after mainly through S&C rebates and rebates on rentals or property tax. However, there are still 41,000 households or 23% in this income category who live in 4-room HDB flats. They will not enjoy the S&C rebates. Their property tax rebates and the little income tax reductions that they will have are not likely to be enough to cover the GST. They may, therefore, lose out because of the GST. Will the Minister consider other ways whereby these households can be helped?”
“Sir, according to the Bill, the Advisory Council will recommend to the Minister the guidelines on the approval of applications from eligible patients. These guidelines can never be perfect, especially at the initial stage of implementation of Medifund. They must, therefore, be improved as actual implementation takes place. We, therefore, need the views and feedback from people who are involved and who are on the ground. I therefore support the idea that community leaders be involved in a committee to assess applications to Medifund. Community leaders are involved in charity work either at the constituency or national level. They know the problems faced by the poor. The latter are also more willing to approach them for help. Community leaders' involvement in Medifund committees will strengthen social ties and help build a more caring and closely knit community. Sir, Medifund is a good welfare system. Unlike welfare systems in the West, it does not put the burden on the taxpayers, both present and future. The welfare system fails in the West also because they provide benefits to everyone in broadly defined groups such as the old, the sick and the unemployed who may not actually be poor or need to be poor. Sir, we should avoid such pitfalls and ensure that benefits get to those who really need them. I believe we will succeed through schemes such as Medifund. I support the Bill, Sir.”
“Sir, the setting up of Medifund is the realisation of one of the many election promises made by the Government. Compared to the existing practice, Medifund would put in place a far-sighted, more structured and more transparent scheme to help the poor. It will become an important pillar of our health-care system in Singapore. It is far-sighted because we are setting aside a big sum of money now in good times to look after the present and future health-care needs of the poor. These needs will certainly increase as the population ages. Medifund, therefore, enlarges our social safety net and makes it much stronger. It is more structured and transparent because of the different roles which will be played by the proposed Advisory Council, the Hospital Medifund committee and the way the scheme is administered and held accountable to Parliament. Sir, clause 13(1)(a) of the Bill requires that an applicant for Medifund must be a citizen of Singapore. That is logical. But I also share the same concern expressed by Dr Soin and Mr Walter Woon. I would also like to bring up another possibility that we may have cases where the patient's son or daughter is a Singaporean and is financially unable to pay for the unsubsidized hospital bill. In such circumstances, should we not consider the plight of the Singaporean son or daughter and give some subsidy for the treatment of his or her non-Singaporean parent? Sir, many speakers also expressed reservation on clause 15(5). I feel that we have a need for that clause because you may have a situation where a Singaporean patient is unable to pay, but we cannot be sure what other possible circumstances that might appear. Therefore, I believe that it is prudent to have that clause in to ensure that we only give benefits to those who are in need.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, made essentially one point. His point is that the Bill does not ensure that all those who are unable to pay are covered by Medifund, and he cited clause 15(1) and (5) to support his point. Sir, first of all, when Mr Low heard from some Singaporeans that the situation is such that ke yi si bu ke yi bing [ ], I think he owes it to them to explain that the Government, through all the Government and restructured hospitals, has always waived in whole or in part the hospital charges and fees of those who are unable to pay. Secondly, as the Minister for Health has mentioned earlier, in 1991 the Government spent $1.7 million in waiver of fees. Now that we are going to set up Medifund with an initial grant of $200 million, if we assume a 3% income annually, we are going to have $6 million. I think that is more than adequate for the time being to provide for the waiver of fees. Thirdly, he cited clause 15(1) that because there is a provision that subject an application to the availability of monies in the Hospital Medifund Account, the applicant may not necessarily get the money even though he may be genuinely in hardship. Sir, this clause is needed to ensure financial prudence on the part of the hospital. He cannot use this clause to say that because it is there, therefore, the Government may not honour its commitment to look after those who are in need. The commitment is there and the Government would honour that commitment. I believe that in genuine circumstances, when the fund is not sufficient, the hospital can always turn to the Minister, and if the Minister is satisfied that more funds should be provided, I am sure the Government would provide the fund.”
“May I suggest that the Ministry monitors what actions the schools are taking. It should perhaps work with the schools in providing guidelines on the appropriate corrective actions. We must make every effort to correct the bad habit of our young. Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister what he proposes to do with those offenders who are above 16 years but are still schooling. Will he send them to the school or to the court? Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Whether an offender is rich or poor, in a high position or low, he will similarly be constrained to perform the corrective work. The proposed law will also be more effective as a deterrent because to many, the performance of corrective work would bring about a great sense of shame, a loss of face, especially in an Asian society. For the same reason, there may also be considerable apprehensions about the possibility of one being convicted for a minor littering offence. In this regard, may I ask the Minister whether he would only consider prosecuting people who have committed serious littering offence? May I also ask the Minister how many people have been caught littering, say, over the last six months? How many of these cases can be considered as serious enough to justify prosecution and what are they? Sir, I support the Bill also because it reinforces the idea that it is a shame to throw litter about indiscriminately. It is therefore instructional. If people feel no shame in that, then something is certainly wrong. Society as a whole will suffer. The sense of shame rightfully then should lie with the offence, not with the punishment. It is also extremely important that we inculcate in our young that it is a shame to litter so that they will grow up feeling that dirtying our nation is a shameful, anti-social act. This brings me to my last point. The Bill, as it stands, caters for those over 16 years of age. As mentioned by the Minister, for those offenders who are under 16 years and schooling, the Ministry usually refers them to the school authorities after counselling them. Thereafter, there is no follow-up action on the part of the Ministry to find out what corrective actions the school authorities have taken.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment Bill before us is historic, in the sense that, for the first time, we are instituting a law which may require an offender to perform corrective work as a form of punishment. Specifically, the proposed Act deals with offences relating to littering or dumping in a public place, and the corrective work involves the cleaning of any premises instructed by the supervision officer. Sir, many Singaporeans today do not litter because they feel that it is not right to do so. Thanks to our many anti-littering campaigns. However, the littering problem persists because there are still many who do so. This can easily be confirmed by having a look around the grounds following a fun fair, the state of our beaches after a week-end or public holiday, and the amount of cleaning work town councils have to perform. There is, in fact, no reason for anyone to litter because, as the Minister says, there are litter bins everywhere. Clearly, the current legislation of a stiff fine is not effective in deterring people from littering. Some may ask: "Why don't we simply step up our enforcement action?" But may I ask: how many more officers should we employ to go about catching people littering? Is there not a better way to tackle the littering problem? The amendment Bill which we are now considering is such a way. It will not only be more effective as a deterrent to others and for the reformation of the offenders, it will also be more equitable on the basis of just desserts. The imposition of a fine in the current legislation hurts different people differently, depending on their affordability to pay, whereas compulsory corrective work is no respecter of persons.”
“Apart from that, we have two MPs, namely, the former Education Minister and our Minister for National Development who have sound financial management experience. They are good leaders. Why should we go for outsiders instead of appointing people who are with us? So I hope that my parliamentary colleagues could take these points into consideration, and calmly and objectively discuss and decide whether this Parliament should have Nominated MPs.”
“They also realise that despite their hard work, there is no assurance that they will win the next election. This is a political risk that they have to take. At this juncture, if we appoint NMPs who are not willing to face the voters, how would it affect the morale of the elected MPs? Some say that we can appoint female professionals as NMPs. I do not know how Dr Seet Ai Mee and her supporters will feel about this and how are we going to convince more female professionals to take part in the General Elections? How could this contribute to good government? The last point I want to raise is that I agree with the Government that we should attract more talented people to participate in politics and in our nation building ( ). We can encourage our professionals, management staff, trade union leaders and community leaders to contribute their views through the Resource Panels of the GPCs or the Feedback Unit. And on important Bills, they could also contribute by writing to or testifying before the Select Committees on the respective Bills. Some outstanding people can be appointed as Members of the Council of Presidential Advisors, National Wages Council, the Institute of Policy Studies or the National Arts Council. Another argument is that some Ministerial posts, like the Minister for Finance, Minister for Law or the Minister for the Arts, will have to be undertaken by specialists. These people may not wish to take part in elections but they could be competent to take up these Cabinet posts. This argument is irrelevant and meaningless as far as this Parliament is concerned. Our Minister for Law is in his prime, our Finance Minister enjoys good health and our Minister for Information and the Arts has made every effort to promote cultural activities.”
“The other explanation is that our people do not like to elect Independent candidates to be MPs. Since our people do not want to have Independent candidates to be their Members of Parliament, then why should Parliament insist in appointing independent people to be Nominated MPs? The NMPs do not have the mandate of the people. They are not the voices of the people. So when they speak in Parliament, are they reflecting the views of the people? Or are they expressing their own views? Another point I would like to bring up is the political responsibility of the elected Members ( ). The imminent task of the ruling party is to collect the feedback from our people and to care for the well-being of the people so as to strengthen the relationship between the Government and the people, in order to win back the lost ground. That is a very important task. But the appointment of NMPs has no bearing to this. If a PAP MP and an NMP both disagreed with a Bill and criticize it sharply, but when it comes to voting, the NMP can vote against the motion but the PAP MP cannot vote against it because he is restrained by the Government Whip. So it would look as though he is not voting according to what he has said and this would affect his credibility and the ruling Party's image. So the question lies in the constraint of the Government Whip. It is not that the ruling Party does not have Members who dare to speak up in Parliament. Another point is that the NMPs and the elected MPs, although in the same Parliament, face different degrees of pressure ( ). Our elected MPs have to sacrifice their family life and career. They have to spend a lot of time and effort to work for the people in their constituencies and in the Town Councils.”
“Two of the contributors recommended that Parliament should appoint women and community leaders as Nominated MPs. The second point I wish to raise is whether the NMPs should stand aloof in the midst of the elected MPs ( ). My personal view is that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament because we have three more Opposition MPs. As the Prime Minister said on 29th November 1989 in this House [Hansard, Vol. 54, Col. 700]: 'The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves. Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good government.' This was what the Prime Minister said then. The third point that I want to raise is the representation of Nominated MPs ( ). Nominated MPs do not belong to any party. They are not partisan and they are in a position to raise their own independent views. Let me make an observation: Since 1959, our voters had never voted in any Independent candidates to be Assemblymen or Members of Parliament. The last Independent candidate who was returned was in 1959, Mr A.P. Rajah. That was 33 years ago. In the 1991 General Election, there were seven Independent candidates who received a total of 14,598 votes, taking up 1.9% of the total of 783,612 votes polled. And from the constituencies they contested, the Independent candidates' votes ranged from 1.2% to 24%. Of course, the quality of the Independent candidates is an important factor.”
“Ultimately, we must also ask ourselves one basic question: what best serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans? All of us, whether PAP or Opposition MPs, must be able to rise above the level of partisan politics, if we are to conscientiously carry out our number one role and, that is, to act in the best interests of our people at all times. And I contend that the presence of qualified and committed NMPs is an important step in that direction. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me raise some views for the reference of my parliamentary colleagues. First, the views from the Feedback Unit ( ). On the question of Nominated MPs, the Feedback Unit conducted three dialogue sessions in 1989. From the notes of these dialogue sessions, we could see that the majority of the participants did not support the appointment of Nominated MPs, or were sceptical or had reservations about the Bill that was going to be passed at that time. A few days ago, the Feedback Unit contacted 41 active contributors to the Feedback Unit. Among them, 34, or 59%, felt that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were, firstly, there are enough Opposition Members in this Parliament. Secondly, the two NMPs in the past did not make specific contributions. Thirdly, the Government has enough channels for feedback. Another 17, or 41%, felt that there should be NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were that the NMPs could contribute better by giving views from various perspectives in a non-partisan manner, so that matters could be discussed more thoroughly and, secondly, Parliament should give the NMPs more time so that their performance could be better assessed.”
“But the most outstanding argument against NMPs is that they have no electoral mandate; they are not chosen by the people and, thus, have no political clout to wield any influence in Parliament. They have come in through the 'back door' and are seen to have been unwilling to make sacrifices because they avoid the rough-and-tumble of political life. They, therefore, have 'power without accountability'. In fact, NMPs do, in any event, enjoy the indirect mandate as they are selected by the very Members of this House who have already won the trust of the electorate which voted them into office to begin with. Thus, they are accountable to Parliament. Furthermore, let us remember that the NMP provision is subject to a built-in 'self-destruct' clause, according to which the retention of NMPs must be approved by each successive Parliament. This represents a positive step in the evolution of the democratic process as we have known it; it is a good modification, calculated to reap benefits that far exceed the scope of change involved, without contradicting the principle of democracy. Sir, I also think that many of the misgivings levelled against NMPs stem from bigotry. When NMPs were nothing more than an abstract concept back in 1989, fears were already being voiced about how they might well turn out to be ineffective, opportunistic, afraid to speak their minds, afraid not to speak their minds, etc. This was before any NMPs were even nominated or given a chance to perform. And have these initial fears materialised thus far? I think not. Indeed, the record will show that the performance of our NMPs in the last Parliament proved that such apprehensions were nothing more than the groundless prejudices that they were.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. Sir, the basic aim of having NMPs is to enrich and enhance the political system by giving Singaporeans more scope for political participation through the airing of more alternative views and encouragement of constructive dissent. The NMP provision enables Singaporeans who, for good rea-sons, have no desire or are actually unable to enter politics to make a contribution. Many benefits derive from having NMPs in this House. When NMPs question the Government and argue for alternative courses of action where necessary, their experience, expertise and insights into economic and social problems are tapped. NMPs serve to increase the input of diverse ideas in Parliament, and thus guarantee greater representation. As they are non-partisan, they need not pander to popular whims to win votes. Therefore, by hearing the views of NMPs, people are better able to judge the worth of arguments espoused by MPs of any political party. NMPs promote consensus democracy and dampen adversarial democracy, thus putting pressure on the Opposition to be more constructive in its criticisms of the Government. At the same time, they exert a degree of pressure on the Government itself through their objective criticisms, thereby making it more responsive to dissenting views. Sir, a review of the 1989 House debate on NMPs reveals that there were fewer arguments against the Bill, though some were quite heated ones. Some felt that NMPs would end up being 'stooges' of the Government and that the PAP was simply appointing its own people. On the other hand, some felt that there would be too much pressure on them to criticise the Government simply to avoid being viewed as "yes-men".”
“Sir, the Government's cost recovery target for B2 and C wards has been fixed at 40% and 25% respectively. The actual cost recovery reached by Government hospitals in 1991 was about 25% for Class B2 and 15% for Class C. Sir, medical costs would continue to rise due to increases in manpower cost, the use of high medical technology and life expectancy. Therefore, even if the recovery rates are fixed at the current level, subsidised patients would already have to pay for such increase. The raising of recovery rates will further add to their burden. Take Class B2, for example. Assuming that the recovery rate is to be increased from 25% to the targeted 40% by the year 2000 and that unit hospitalisation cost increases at the rate of, say, 6-7% per year, which is a conservative figure, the annual rate of increase in charges for Class B2 is estimated to be about 14%. That is a fairly large annual increase and will appear contrary to the Government's concern for the lower income groups. I therefore urge the Minister to consider reducing the targeted cost recovery rates for both Class B2 and C wards to at most 35% for Class B2 and 20% for Class C.”
“Sir, if this is merely a problem of interpretation, I hope the Ministry would put it right. But if the Ministry thinks that its interpretation is correct, then the law should be amended to make it in line with the Employment Act provisions. May I have the Minister's view on this?”
“Sir, recently, a union member suffered an injury whilst at work and was given a total of 15 days of outpatient medical leave and 43 days of hospitalisation leave. His employer, under the Ministry's advice, paid him his full salary for his hospitalisation leave but only 2/3 of his salary for the outpatient leave. The Ministry's position appears to be based on clause 4 of the Third Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act which provides that a workman suffering from temporary incapacity due to injuries at work is entitled "to full wages for a period of 60 days if he is hospitalised and 14 days if he is not hospitalised and thereafter to a payment every month of an amount equal to two-thirds of his monthly earnings during the incapacity or during a period of one year, whichever period is shorter". It appears to me that the Ministry is treating the full-salary entitlement under hospitalisation leave and that under outpatient leave as an "either or" situation, that is, if a worker has been hospitalised, then he would only be paid full-wages for his hospital leave and not his outpatient leave. Sir, I think this interpretation of the law is illogical and erroneous. The irony is that if the worker had just claimed for medical leave under the Employment Act, he would have been paid full salary. It is therefore unfair that a worker who is injured because of an accident at work should be placed at a disadvantage compared to a worker who takes ordinary sick leave. I am of the view that the word "and" appearing in the said clause 4 gives an injured employee the right to claim full wages for both hospitalisation and outpatient leave in respect of the same injury, subject to the maximum number of days stipulated.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $228,536,050 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $211,098,500 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head K -”
“Sir, as the knowledge about chemicals improves over the years, may I ask the Minister whether the Ministry would obtain information on chemicals already in use in Singapore and to see whether they are actually harmful to the environment? In other words, not just new chemicals that are coming into Singapore, but existing ones and maybe because of new discoveries, we get to know more about the chemicals. I am asking the Minister whether his Ministry has looked into all this.”
“While the Government has always been strict in its controls and legislation pertaining to the handling of such substances and has taken steps to mitigate the consequences of accidents should the unfortunate occur, very few Singaporeans know what the Government has done to minimise the risks that we are facing. If we want the public to be more environment-conscious and know what to do in times of emergency, we need to provide them with more information on what we are doing to enhance public safety. Would the Minister tell us whether this is being done and what important measures the Ministry has adopted, or is planning to do to further enhance public safety?”
“Thank you, Sir. The success of Singapore's industries and trade has greatly increased the variety and volume of chemicals and chemical products handled in and through Singapore. These substances and their handling will increase even more rapidly in the near future with a forecasted four-fold increase in the size of the chemical industry and simultaneous growth in the type of chemical industries, oil processing industries, warehousing and distribution trade. Some of these chemicals have the potential to seriously endanger lives and damage the environment if they are not safely managed at all stages of their life cycle, beginning from their production or import to their final disposal. This is particularly critical in a small and highly built-up country such as Singapore, in which land is used intensively for housing, industries, water catchments and other uses. Any accidental release caused by mismanagement of toxic, or hazardous chemicals, at any stage of their life cycle can result in disastrous consequences to lives, the environment and our water resources. Sir, in Singapore, there are now about 3,000 factories and other installations handling, storing or using chemicals in their manufacturing processes. These companies vary in size, from small electroplating firms, storing a few kilograms of chemicals, to large industrial plants with bulk tanks, capable of storing a few thousand tonnes of chemicals. Despite the differences in size, all factories and installations handling toxic chemicals have similar needs to manage toxic chemicals safely, in order to safeguard the well-being of their workers, the public and the environment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 1500 of the the Main Estimates. Sir, breathing is natural but the concern people have for the quality of air may not be as natural as breathing. There is no doubt that air quality affects our health and should be the concern of everyone. The requirement for the use of catalytic convertor will cut down the use of leaded petrol and also lead to cleaner vehicular emission. I would like to ask the Minister what other steps are being taken by the Ministry to further improve outdoor air quality, bearing in mind, that with higher level of industrial production in Singapore, air quality will suffer as a result of greater emission of hazardous gases, such as sulphur dioxide. The recent forest fire in Indonesia has caused heavy haze in Singapore. What measures is the Ministry taking in collaboration with our ASEAN neighbours to minimise the likelihood of a repeat of such haze? Sir, it is also important for us to reduce indoor pollution. Prohibiting smokers to smoke in airconditioned public places is a good and major effort in improving indoor air quality. What about the presence of other indoor pollutants in office buildings and factories? Is the Ministry identifying and monitoring their levels of pollution and determine their risks to the health of workers and Singaporeans?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, waste minimisation will become more and more important as the society develops and generates more wastes. More wastes will also add to the problem of waste management and disposal. Our people must be actively encouraged to conserve resources of the earth by adopting less wasteful lifestyles to minimise waste generation and to also reuse and recycle wastes. I am glad that the Ministry has recently set up a Waste Minimisation Department to formulate policies to promote and spearhead waste minimisation in Singapore. The Green Plan has targeted to reduce our daily waste of 1.1 kg per capita to 0.9 kg per capita by the year 2000. This is an ambitious target of a 20% reduction. But the Green Plan has merely stated that the Ministry would work through getting the industries to generate less waste and would implement programmes and financial incentives to promote re-use and recycling. May I ask the Minister what specific programmes and incentives he has in mind? Is the Ministry considering measures such as charging a quantity-based fee for refuse collection?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, Government's decision to stop building wet markets 10 years ago was reversed recently with its announcement to build two modern new wet markets in Serangoon New Town and Simei. This review in its policy was welcomed by many shoppers who prefer to shop at wet markets rather than dry ones, because wet markets offer a wider range of market produce at cheaper prices and also enable them to better assess the freshness of the items. I remember these points were well argued by Members of this House in the last Parliament, a brilliant example being Dr Hong Hai, the former MP for Chai Chee. I am glad the Government has now reviewed its decision. However, if the original rationale for not building new wet markets is partly an environmental one, then how will these environmental problems be solved to ensure that the new wet markets comply with the required standards of public health. For example, will the design of the new wet markets ensure that they will be clean, dry and well ventilated? Will standards be set for the display of produce to ensure that the aisles are not cluttered? Will enforcement be taken to ensure that these conditions are maintained? Sir, would the Minister also tell us whether the Ministry will improve the old wet markets, either renovating them or rebuilding them? If the improvement requires relocation of stallholders, will the Ministry give preferential treatment to the displaced hawkers? Or will they have to bid for stalls in the replacement markets?”
“Thank you. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“You are putting the cart before the horse. Until such time when the population is environmentally conscious, you need to provide some incentives for them to buy your green products. So I hope the Minister would consider introducing incentives.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister a question? If the manufacturers have to pay a slightly higher fee compared to a normal product, and if Singaporeans are not as environmentally conscious as the people in the West, how does he ensure that the scheme will be successful? Would the Minister consider incentives to be given?”
“Sir, there are some other topics in the Plan which I will raise later in the other cuts that I have.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take this opportunity to remind the Housing and Development Board that it should respect the Members of Parliament, because they are the representatives directly elected by the people. They are certainly in a better position to represent the people in the constituency than the indirectly appointed members of the Residents Committees. A Residents Committee can have an office in the constituency, yet the Member of Parliament has no office. What is the reason? I really cannot bear to see MPs having no offices and some even having to squat in the education centres. Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally support this year's Budget, but I hope the Minister for Finance would not forget and neglect my above appeal, unless the HDB can restore the provision of offices on the HDB void decks for MPs. Finally, Sir, I hope the Minister for Finance will not be too hasty in implementing the consumption tax. Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain a part of my speech earlier on which I think may have been misunderstood. When I mentioned heiqiqi (pitch-dark), I did not mean to offend anybody. If I have offended anybody inside the House or outside, please accept my apologies.”
“Because at a time when the world economy is taking a downturn, the Government has not announced any apparent increase in taxes. On the contrary, it has given special attention to help the lower and middle income people. This is something that is hard to come by! For example, the Government will pay, on behalf of residents and owners of 1-room, 2-room and 3-room HDB flats, the conservancy charges for the last month of the year is a good example of this good gesture. But personally, I feel that the unexpected generosity showed in this Budget presented by the Minister for Finance may have something to do with the by-election that is going to take place in the near future. After the by-election, will the Government impose some new taxes which are not in this Budget? I hope this will not happen. Sir, I do not wish to say too much in this House today because the merits and demerits of this year's Budget have already been touched on by many Members of this House and there is no need for me to repeat them. But there is one thing which I am very concerned about: the offices for Members of Parliament. The Government should make a special allocation in the budget for the construction of MPs' offices. Since the Housing and Development Board has given a "non-reason" for its refusal to provide MPs with offices on the void deck in order to meet their constituents, I think it is necessary for the Government to build permanent offices for the MPs on the vacant land in the constituencies so that Members of Parliament can provide better services to the residents. Whoever is returned as the MP for the constituency, irrespective of the parties they belong to, shall be entitled to make use of this office.”
“And not like what Mr Chiam has described as "mercenary". He demeans it by what he says. I wonder whether he is a reservist. But if he is opposed to the tax relief, then perhaps the Minister for Defence would like to consider not extending it to the reservists in Potong Pasir. Sir, we should not take for granted the loyalty and service of our citizens and reservists, just as we expect our people not to take good government and success for granted. We must therefore continue to look for ways to recognise and motivate our reservists, taking into account changes in our social, economic and security environment, and the expectations of our people. On that note, Sir, I support the motion. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I enter into this debate on the budget, I would like to clarify the Singapore Democratic Party's stand on the use of reserves. Mr Choo Wee Khiang referred to this just now. His argument may lead people to misunderstand the stand of the SDP on the use of our reserves. Our stand is this. We do not advocate welfarism. We also do not advocate the indiscriminate use of the reserves. We are only holding the view that when the Government has some surplus fund, then we can make use of the surplus on certain necessary items such as education, housing, and health care. We feel that there is nothing wrong in using the surplus for these purposes to alleviate the burden of the lower income group. Otherwise, how is Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong going to explain his proposal to make use of the reserves to set up an Edusave fund? Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me join in the debate on the Budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, this year's Budget is not bad.”