Kanwaljit Soin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give a response to an exclusion in clause 2 (b) which amends section 10 to deem any maintenance payment received by a parent or a child under a maintenance order not to be income subject to tax.”
“Clarification, Sir. I realise that. But I would like to know what is the policy, what is the thinking, that you can allow a parent who gets maintenance not to have to pay income tax. A parent is an adult. But you do not give the same privilege or right, I would say, to a wife who gets a maintenance ordered by the court.”
“My point is no income tax is charged for maintenance payments received by parents. That is what the Minister said about clause 2. But yet when wives receive maintenance from their husbands, those maintenance payments are subject to income tax. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“So I would like to ask what is the Minister's thinking. Why is it that the maintenance of a parent is not considered income, because it is for the subsistence of the parent, while the maintenance for a wife which is for her subsistence is considered as income?”
“If the letter of authority is not stampable, then this may become a recourse of getting around the stamp duty and income tax rules affecting sub-sales. Another issue to be considered is the timing of the payment of stamp duty. With the amendment, this has to be paid at the time of the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.”
“Would the Minister have, in hand, figures to show how many Singaporeans who go abroad to study medicine come back to do their housemanship in Singapore for the last three years? Dr Aline Wong: I do not have the figures on Singaporeans who come back to do housemanship for the last three years.”
The complete record
Every one of 549 lines we hold for Kanwaljit Soin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“Thus, if the Minister can make rules for the Family Court to obtain the relevant information from the CPF Board or persuade the Minister for Labour to allow the Board to release the information, then we can make sure that children of separated or divorced parents continue to be maintained by the parents and the responsibility is not pushed to the community. After all, the information from the CPF Board is released for National Servicemen for make-up pay. Sir, the second cut is on the non-disclosure of identity of the accused in sexual offences. In recent months, there have been a number of instances where male victims of accusations in sex related offences found to be false by the court have been subjected to an ordeal of shame, stress and social approbation while their cases were being tried, because of the disclosure of their identity in the media. Their families also suffered. In most cases, the accused is male while the accuser could be a male or female. In cases of sex related offences, even though a person is acquitted eventually, the stigma of the original charge remains and the alleged offender is not fully vindicated by the acquittal if his reputation has been affected by disclosure in the media. The issue of being falsely accused in non-sex related offences does not have the same stigmatisation as in sex related offences. Would the Minister therefore consider amending section 9(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act so that this section is expanded to include the accused, thereby giving the court the discretion not to disclose the identity of the accused in sex related offences until the accused has been found guilty.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, this is on maintenance orders. One recent noteworthy development of the Family Court is the concept of a parenting plan to be submitted by both parties on applying for divorce. This is very beneficial for the children involved. However, sometimes the parent who is the respondent will default on the financial upkeep of the child. The device of an attachment order often helps but is not applicable to the self-employed. Therefore, even the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter will not be able to address this problem. To make sure that children continue to be the financial responsibility of the parent who is the respondent, would the Minister consider making rules to allow the Family Court to get information from the CPF Board on the whereabouts of the respondent's employment and/or the amount payable to the CPF account in the following cases: (1) where the complainant does not know the whereabouts of the respondent; (2) where the complainant does not know the respondent's present employment; (3) where the respondent holds more than one job; and (4) where the respondent is self-employed in situations known to the CPF Board. From 1st January 1994, self-employed persons who are receiving or applying for Government trade or vocation licences must be up to date in their Medisave accounts. This information would help to track self-employed respondents who fall into this category.”
“Sir, one more clarification, with the indulgence of the House.”
“Sir, I am speaking on medical benefits for female civil servants. Sir, I feel very bai sai to speak on this issue yet once again. But I have no choice because many people feel strongly about it and therefore the matter has to be raised once again. Many MPs have also spoken on this issue on numerous times and therefore I urge the Prime Minister to rethink the Government's stand on this issue. The principles for advocating medical benefits for the children of female civil servants have been enumerated many times and, basically, they are based on (1) meritocracy; and (2) welfare of the family. It seems unfair to penalise a child just because it is his mother who is in the civil service and not his father. In fact, the whole family is penalised because the disposable income of the family is affected. In November 1993, Dr Richard Hu, when giving the rationale for not extending the benefit to women, said that, and I quote: `The reason for this is not the cost of extending equal benefits to women but the principle that in our Asian society, the husband is the head of the household.' On the other hand, the Prime Minister in an interview in Bern, and reported on 24th October 1994, told some Singapore journalists that whether the head of household should be the father or the mother is for the families themselves to decide. Many Singaporeans agree with the Prime Minister. I am bringing up this matter again because there is a famous Chinese proverb which asserts that constant grinding can turn even iron into a needle. I hope this proves to be right. I feel the Prime Minister must be prepared to change his stand on this issue for the sake of the welfare of the family and many of us look forward to the reply.”
“A suggested scheme is as follows (and this is for the consideration of Dr Richard Hu) but the proportions could vary according to differing needs in different years: 20% for education, including Edusave; 20% for health, including Medisave, Pre-Medisave and Medifund; 20% for CPF Top-Up scheme; 10% for culture and the arts; 10% for community and social service; 10% for sports, and the remaining 10% for donating to other countries or agencies, like UNIFEM and UNICEF. If we look at the budget allocation for the arts, community service and sports, the figure adds up to just over 2% of GDP which is very low. This is the reason why part of the budget surplus should go to these areas and help to build up our non-tangible assets. The formula that I have suggested for distribution of half of the surplus will enable us to look after ourselves, our fellow citizens and our fellow human beings. This will make us feel good about ourselves and will also increase our goodwill beyond our shores. We will not only be an economic beacon but show the world that vision, commitment and hard work can be translated into the good life and into a spirit of sharing and caring while, at the same time, making adequate provisions for future contingencies. This route for the management of the budget surplus will, indeed, spell many good years for us.”
“If too much is locked away in reserves, people begin to feel some resentment at the fact that they are not experiencing enough benefit from their hard work. If all the surplus is returned to the people, this will generate the feeling of insecurity that the future is not being provided for, especially if global economic conditions become unfavourable for us. Thus, a 50/50 division will satisfy both aspirations in most people and spur them to hard work. The other question, Sir, that needs to be addressed is - in what form should half of the surplus be returned to the people? Many people agree that the principle of asset enhancement is desirable and strengthens our stake in Singapore. But there is some question as to whether asset enhancement should refer only to material wealth, eg, SOTUS, CPF scheme, etc. These are very welcome. But what would also increase our stake in Singapore is the improvement of the quality of our lives in the fields of culture, arts, community service and sports. By thus extending our assets to include the non-material aspects of our lives, we will become more gracious and fulfilled. Hence, if we take into consideration both the material and non-material aspects of asset enhancement, then some portion of the surplus for distribution should be given out so that the beneficiaries are not only individual Singaporeans but include the community at large.”
“In my opinion, an equitable and prudent distribution appears to be 50% to be returned to the people and 50% to go into our reserves. It appears that locking up 50% of the surplus into the reserves is adequate as we have a healthy balance in our reserves. Singapore's savings in gold and foreign currencies could hit the $100 billion mark soon. This would finance about seven months of imports. Dr Richard Hu in April 1993 in this House said that, and I quote: `Our level of reserves should clearly be around the upper bound of three to six months' range and more, if possible.' In 1993, the reserves stood at around $60 billion and, today, they are around $100 billion. The latest figure is 14.4% higher than the reserves in August last year. The growth of the reserves is therefore faster than GDP growth and therefore it should not be considered fiscally imprudent if we only allotted 50% of our surplus to reserves as long as the rate of increase of the reserves kept pace with GDP growth. Sir, thus, if the people know that there is a commitment that for good years, half of the budget surplus will be locked away for a rainy day, (in fact we are talking of seven months of rain), and the other half given back to the people to further enhance the quality of their lives, there will be an added incentive for our citizens to work hard and build up this huge budget surplus. Such an agreement on social contract will further satisfy the two aspirations that often simultaneously exist in many of us: (a) to improve the quality of our life; and (b) to save for future needs including that of the future generation. A balance between these two aspirations is needed.”
“There is some merit in the choice of these instruments, but we need to address the issue further. It appears that budget surpluses are likely to continue in the medium term and hopefully in the long term. On this subject, we have the assurance of our esteemed Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu himself, who in this year's Budget speech said, and I quote: "I am confident that we will be among the more prosperous cities of an affluent Asia in the 21st century." Thus, if we are going to continue to be blessed with budget surpluses for the medium term at least, there are two questions that need to be addressed: (1) How much of the surplus for each year should the Government return to the people?; and (2) In what form should this budget surplus be returned? At this juncture, I would like to point out that the budget for the HDB upgrading programme is included in the development expenditure and the $7 billion surplus for this year is after making the necessary allowance for this. Also, part of the S&C rebates and rental rebates have been given to offset GST so that this remains a revenue neutral tax measure for a few years, as promised by Dr Richard Hu. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to forward a suggested framework for the management of the budget surplus for the consideration of Dr Richard Hu. Some modifications could be made but I feel there ought to be a framework for consideration so that there is rationalisation and consensus in the disbursement of the surplus. First, we have to decide on how much of the surplus should be returned to the people. The Government has not come out with a formula for this yet. This year, it is returning a larger portion than last year. But the major portion of the budget surplus is channelled into our reserves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion in the name of the Finance Minister. The Budget has been very well received this year as nearly everyone stands to benefit from it and so therefore I will confine my remarks to the budget surplus. Sir, economic foresight, fiscal prudence and the hard work of Singaporeans have enabled us to amass huge budget surpluses each year for the last five to six years. The Government is to be congratulated for its astute handling of Singapore's economic well-being which has resulted in these huge surpluses. We are now in that happy and enviable situation of having to decide on how to manage our surplus. However, we should not forget that to distribute wealth, we have to create wealth. We have to strengthen the virtuous cycle of effort, growth and wealth creation. This year, the budget surplus is estimated at about $7 billion, and over $2 billion is being returned to the people. Last year, the surplus was over $6 billion, of which more than $1.5 billion was returned. Sir, the Government wishes to return some portion of the surplus to the people. Dr Richard Hu in his Budget speech said, and I quote: "... when the Government runs surpluses, it will share the fruits of growth with Singaporeans. But it must do so in ways which help Singaporeans build up their assets and strengthen their stakes in Singapore ..." I am in support of budget surpluses, especially when part of the surplus is used to redistribute wealth which is exactly what the Government has been trying to do, and has been doing for the last few years. The various instruments used by the Government to return part of the surplus are Edusave, Medisave, Medifund, CPF Top-Up schemes, etc.”
“Could I ask the Minister, if he agrees that it could be a case of neglect, why did the Ministry not proceed to charge the parents with neglect under the Children and Young Persons Act? Why did the Ministry choose not to carry the case to its logical proceeding? I understand the Minister's concern about wanting to return the child to the family but would the Minister not agree that the child's welfare is paramount in situations like this?”
“I would request the Minister to reply to my question. If he thinks that abandonment is a form of neglect then that would have been liable under the Children and Young Persons Act so the Ministry could have proceeded on that ground of neglect by the parents.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that abandonment is a form of neglect? If it is, would it not be an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act?”
“And, here, I repeat again that I am not referring to repeat offenders who, I think, deserve what they are getting. Sir, I think it is time for us to look at this whole issue of crime and punishment in road traffic offences in a holistic manner. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed.”
“This will not only contribute to road safety but also reduce the number of drivers on the road and translate into reduced road usage. Sir, we are increasing prison sentences for first-time offenders by doubling the prison sentences. I am not referring to fines but prison sentences. If you look at clause 7, we are increasing the prison term for a first-time offender for inconsiderate driving from three months to six months. For a first-time offender convicted of reckless or dangerous driving, the prison term is being increased from six months to 12 months. Sir, what evidence has been presented to this House to justify the doubling of prison sentences for first-time offenders? We have heard that serious accidents are occurring. But how many of these are by first-time offenders? What statistics do we have to show how judges are meting out these sentences? How much of the maximum prison sentence is being meted out to first-time offenders by judges? Are we convinced that doubling prison sentences for first-time offenders is a good deterrent? Personally, Sir, I feel that if the threat of six months' imprisonment is not enough of a deterrent for a first-time offender, then how can we imagine that the threat of 12 months' imprisonment will be a better deterrent? Furthermore, the longer a first-time traffic offender spends in prison, the longer is his family being penalized, especially if he is the financial breadwinner. The taxpayers not only have to support the offender in prison, but at the same time the social consequences of a family without a major breadwinner for a prolonged period of time will also be borne by society. Therefore, Sir, we have to give serious consideration to all these matters before we double prison sentences for first-time offenders.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would first like to make some general comments on the principal Act before turning to some specific amendments. The Road Traffic Act has been amended umpteen times - to be specific 13 times since 1980 and this will be the 14th time in nearly so many years. The Act is unwieldy to read and is difficult to comprehend and co-relate. For example, the areas relating to disqualification are all over the place. Statutes should be written not just for lawyers and judges but for ordinary people as well, especially when it relates to road safety. If statutes cannot be read easily and understood by the general public, then the deterrent effect of many of the punishments is lost and we will continue to make more and more amendments to increase penalties without seeing positive results. It can give us legislators little joy to make such amendments when the message is not clear to the road users. I would therefore urge the Minister to have the principal Act tidied up and have parts of it tabulated, if necessary, so that the whole Act becomes clear, coherent and readable. Now, I would like to turn to some specific amendments. Raising the minimum age for driving a car A Traffic Police study, as reported in the media, found that the accident rate dipped as the age of motorists increased. The maturity of a motorist seems an important factor in road safety as young motorists are more accident prone than older ones. If we believe this, then just increasing the age for motorists by one year from 17 to 18 years appears to be a feeble amendment. We should not be diffident on this matter but instead consider an amendment that would more certainly make a difference. We should raise the minimum age for motorists to 20 or 21 years.”
“Sir, could you please give me permission to seek a clarification from the Minister? If a person is convicted for speeding more than 40 km above the prescribed limit and is a third offence, would this person still be liable for caning if he has not been involved in an accident causing injury or fatality?”
“You put it out 200 miles into the ocean, and catch everything, and then decide which fish you want, which fish you throw back. That as a drafting technique, I would say, should not be adopted. Hence, my suggestion is that we amend section 14B so that only those who knowingly permit the commission of the said offence will be guilty of an offence. If this is unacceptable to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, may I suggest that he propose some amendment so that there is a built-in warning mechanism so that people are not guilty of an offence without prior warning, and therefore have to depend upon whether the Police are going to be reasonable or not reasonable in prosecution.”
“Members what steps do they normally take to prevent people using their phones to commit offences? Do you lock up your phone as a matter of course? Do you monitor the usage of your phone by your house guests? If you have parents staying with you, do you watch what they do and listen in on the extension? What about your maid? Is your maid incapacitated while you go out? What is meant by "due diligence"? May I say, Sir, that most people leave the phone alone when they go out, and they have no idea what people in the house do with the phone while they are out. You are putting a burden on subscribers to prove that they have taken steps to prevent a commission of the offence. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Police will not take a blunderbuss approach. We are all glad of that, no doubt. But that is not built into the law. If the section had said that the subscriber is guilty of an offence after an offence is committed when he has been given two written warnings, then I would have no trouble with this at all, because he has got two written warnings. Then he can take due diligence. Right now, nothing is said about prior warning, nothing is said about prior conviction. Nothing. You are the subscriber, you have to show due diligence. Most people take no steps. No steps cannot be "due diligence". Therefore, if you are a subscriber, and you have taken no steps to prevent a commission of an offence, and God forbid, somebody does commit an offence with your phone, technically you are guilty. Now, may I say, Sir, that as a matter of drafting technique, it is unwise, and I think undesirable, to draft the section so wide that everybody commits an offence, and the Police decide who to prosecute. This is a driftnet. It is a legal equivalent of a driftnet.”
“But since the Member has raised it, here again I will ask my officials to study it and see whether there is indeed a need for such an amendment. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 - Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 7, to leave out from "14A" to "be" in line 10, and to insert "and who knowingly permitted the commission of the said offence, shall". I have heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain the rationale for new sections 14A to 14C and I have no quarrel with those sections. What bothers me is the width of new section 14B. If Members will look at section 14B, they will see that this is a provision that basically makes the subscriber responsible for what people do with their phone. Look at section 14B, which states: `Any person being the subscriber to a telephone service which has been used to commit an offence under section 14A shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.' So all that has to be proven by the prosecution is that you are the subscriber of the service and that your phone has been used to commit an offence under section 14A. Then the burden shifts to you, the subscriber, to prove to the satisfaction of the court that you had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. May I ask hon.”
“I am sure Dr Soin is aware of section 509 of the Penal Code which is wide enough to cover a situation where a woman who feels that her modesty has been insulted can have recourse under that section. In so far as situations of harassment in the workplace are concerned, as she has mentioned, the provisions are very wide. And in so far as any situation may fall within section 13, then section 13 may provide an alternative route. The other point that Dr Soin mentioned is telephone harassment. Here again, Sir, section 509 is a section which is invoked under the law to prosecute persons who call the emergency lines and if the person receiving the call is a female, the obscene caller can be prosecuted under section 509. Here again, it is not as though there is no provision under which a person who is subject to telephone harassment cannot find recourse. The problem, as the Police tells me, of telephone harassment, not to an emergency line, is that it is a matter of proving. In an emergency line, everything is recorded. It is easy to trace. But if it is a private line, it is difficult to prove and track a person down and to discharge the burden of proof. She has suggested specific provisions to cover telephone harassment. This is a suggestion on her part and I would ask my officials to study it and consider her suggestion. The other amendment that she suggests is in fact not covered under the Bill. It is on another section, ie, section 27(d). Here again, she says why not widen the ambit so that not only females will be protected but also males as well. I would be careful to amend any provision which is designed to specifically protect females, particularly from sexual offences, lest in amending the section, the protection is diluted.”
“However, there is one area which has not been addressed in the amendments, and this refers to telephone harassment, not to an emergency telephone line, but where a person rings up a stranger, usually of the opposite sex, and makes lewd and obscene remarks. Some of these phone calls are made from public booths. What recourse do these victims have to this form of harassment or nuisance which causes distress and anguish? I would like a response from the Minister, please. Finally, Sir, I would like to suggest one further amendment to the main Act - Section 27(d), which reads as follows, and I quote: `... every person wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female ...'. Here, the word "female" should be changed to "person" because I am sure that with this offence of flashing, males would also feel insulted. I am sure every male Member of this House will feel insulted. Would the Minister please consider this amendment? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank Dr Kanwaljit Soin for supporting the Bill. Indeed she is right that all Singaporeans, not just females, I am sure, welcome these amendments. Sir, she makes three points. The first point that she has made is that she welcomes the provisions in section 13 and that it provides, in her mind, an outlet for those female workers who are subject to sexual harassment in the workplace. One point that I would like to raise first is that currently women who are subject to such harassment in the workplace is not entirely devoid of an avenue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The new sections 13A and 13B are especially welcome as, amongst other things, they address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. And with your permission, Sir, may I distribute a survey form on sexual harassment to the Members, please. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members]. Sexual harassment in the workplace is any form of unsolicited, uninvited, unreciprocated and unwelcome behaviour of an offensive and insulting nature which causes harassment, alarm or distress to another person. An Aware Survey of 1,600 women working in 56 selected companies in Singapore (done in 1993) showed that sexual harassment exists in the Singapore workplace and Members can see the table which shows the more serious forms of harassment encountered by the survey respondents. In all, 184 women, or 11% of the 1,600 women surveyed, reported some form of sexual harassment which caused them distress and anguish in the workplace. Cases of sexual harassment have also been reported to hotlines. To the extent that women's productivity can be improved and distress and anguish reduced if sexual harassment is controlled, greater efforts must be made to ascertain the extent of sexual harassment in the workplace. A more comprehensive survey should thus be made. Efforts to educate workers as to the nature of sexual harassment and the possible responses to it should also be intensified. Sir, I am therefore very glad that there is now a legal remedy for cases of sexual harassment in the workplace as provided by the new sections 13A and 13B.”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. Firstly, do we owe any more money to the World Bank where Singapore Power is concerned? And secondly, if Singapore Power were not privatised, what would the Minister consider to be a reasonable return on equity?”
“I hope that the Minister in charge would look into this matter again, particularly when the LRT system, the MRT North-East line and the underground road network are being constructed and road digging will certainly be more extensive and protracted.”
“But the White Paper does not mention an appropriate ratio for cost sharing between usage and vehicle ownership. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on this matter. With the implementation of the ERP, every motorist in Singapore will have to install a smart card in his vehicle, so that an appropriate amount could be deducted each time he passes a check-point. As in every new technology, there are bound to be some technical problems in its initial stages of implementation. I would like to know whether the Land Transport Authority has any foolproof system to record that on a certain day, at a certain time, when a car passes through a certain location, a specified amount has been deducted from the smart card. In the event of a dispute, is there any way to ensure that the complaint could be dealt with in a satisfactory manner? Yesterday, we heard some Members saying that because of roadworks, the free flow of traffic was affected. It was suggested that some form of charges be levied on the relevant parties responsible for these roadworks. I think this is something that we need to look into very carefully. If we levy a charge for roadworks and if the levy is too low, it would not have the desired effect. The parties responsible for the carrying out of roadworks are the statutory boards, and a levy of a few thousand dollars would hardly have any deterrent effect. On the other hand, if the levy is high, we can expect that the cost would be transferred to the users or the general public. The levy scheme may not be effective. Some 20 years ago, Members in the House had raised similar issues concerning the lack of co-ordination of roadworks among the various parties concerned. The Government then set up a committee to review and oversee the planning of roadworks.”
“The government officials and the general public there are immobilised by a sense of helplessness as they realise that the traffic conditions are so bad that an effective solution may never be found. With regard to the MRT North-East line, we know that before the MRT system was given the go-ahead, the American consultants had asserted that it was not necessary to have such a system in Singapore, as an "all-bus" system would meet our needs adequately. Most Singaporeans today will agree that this view was clearly lop-sided, because it did not take into account, besides road congestion, the need for pollution-free air and high productivity and the optimum use of land. Similarly, the one-time capital investment required should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether or not to build the North-East line. The Singapore Bus Services Pte Ltd is a successful company and this fact has been mentioned with evident pride several times in the White Paper. But it appears that the company is somewhat complacent. MPs and residents of various constituencies often express their unhappiness over the revision of bus routes by the bus operators for greater revenue. The residents reflect their views to the bus operators but to no avail, as profit maximisation is their overriding concern. Many residents feel that their views have been brushed aside. Of course, we cannot expect to have buses plying the streets and serving every block in an estate or to have a bus stop in front of every block. But the bus operators should not be guided by revenue considerations alone in route planning and revision. Another recommendation in the White Paper is that road use should be charged according to usage.”
“These constitute the nuts and bolts of the system and the Minister will have to provide many answers before informed decisions on the land transport system in Singapore can be made. However, I am in support of the general vision as outlined in the White Paper. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper on A World Class Land Transport System. Two weeks ago, BBC News reported on the introduction of the White Paper. In the programme, a staff member of BBC asked its correspondent in Singapore for the reason for the White Paper as Singapore already had a relatively good traffic system. The correspondent explained that the Singapore Government had been well-known for its thorough approach and long term view and alluded to the fact that it could implement long-term plans of 20 years, or even longer, because of its political stability. We know that some measures may not be popular in the short term, eg, the ERP during the initial stages of which some people would not be happy. Some 20 years ago, when we first started the CBD system, there were a lot of people who opposed the system. But we can see clearly now that without the CBD, road congestion in Singapore today would be much more serious. One thing is for sure, ie, the White Paper is introduced not for short-term political benefits, but to ensure that the land transport system in Singapore will cater to the needs of the people in their work, study and leisure activities. Most importantly, we have to plan ahead, and not wait for the situation to deteriorate. We can see what has happened to cities like Taipei and Bangkok.”
“At this point, Sir, I would like to raise one specific matter in the area of land transport and this concerns the multi-million dollars paid up by PWD to private contractors in a dispute involving the construction of a section of the Central Expressway. Even after this major pay-off, I understand from reports in the media that the Central Expressway tunnel continues to leak and PWD has hired consultants to carry out a $1.3 million study into the cause of the leak. Presumably, after the cause has been established, further expenditure will have to be incurred to remedy the defect. Would the Minister be good enough to give an explanation into this matter and would it be possible to minimise the occurrence of similar incidents in the realisation of our multi-billion dollar world class land transport system? Would it be feasible to have some sort of an insurance policy for such occurrences? If so, did we take out such a policy for the Central Expressway? Before ending, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us more detailed figures for the cost and maintenance of different parts of the land transport system. How much is this going to cost to the commuters in more precise monetary terms? How and when are different stages of the system going to be phased? How will the ERP system affect cars from Malaysia? Will motorcycles be subject to ERP? Are there any immediate plans to alleviate congestions at the causeway for vehicles going to and from Malaysia? These trips are made not only for leisure but for the purpose of work and affect the productivity of the workforce in Singapore. Will we have to wait for the second causeway or are there any interim plans? Sir, the LTA has spelt out a general vision but there are many unanswered questions.”
“The Government has gone some way in instituting a mandatory code of Barrier Free Accessibility in Buildings, but let us go all the way so that the less physically able in our society are not immobilized by our uncaring attitude which will eventually translate into economic shortsightness as the aged and disabled will find it difficult to go to work and contribute to the economy and will become dependent on the young and able. Another consideration in the integration of land transport and urban planning is the locality of good and popular schools. Independent schools, autonomous schools and other popular schools should be evenly distributed geographically so that travelling time for students is shortened and traffic congestion is lessened. Our town councils can initiate a partnership between schools in their area and some bus operators so that a "bus pool" can be formed to ferry students living in the same area but studying in different nearby schools. This will rationalize bus trips and bus routes. Sir, it is quite obvious that the LTA alone cannot achieve the vision of a world class transport system in a holistic sense unless it has the expertise and input of other agencies, such as the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Community Development, Ministry of Education and Ministry of the Environment, just to name a few. I would, therefore, like to suggest that the LTA work with an inter-ministerial committee to realise our vision of an integrated and meaningful transportation system that is not only world class but is geared to the needs and aspirations of the people of Singapore.”
“By the time the last phase of our world class transport system has been put into place, nearly 15% of our population will be over the age of 60 years. Many of the elderly will continue to be fit and will have a sprightly step but many of them, and this will include some of us here, will not be so physically fit. We will have osteoarthritis of our knees and we will have strokes on one side of our bodies. We might even have Parkinsonism and some of us may be in the state of what is described in Hokkien as "boh lat". For the non-dialect speakers, that means "no strength". What is being done to address the transport needs of this large group of people, remembering that the retirement age by then will be at least 67 years, if not more? Besides this group of not so physically able aged, we have to consider the group of young people who are physically disabled. We cannot pride ourselves on having attained a world class transport system unless we integrate the needs of our disadvantaged community, ie, the aged and the disabled. To do this, we must first change our mindset - learn to understand the difficulties that our disadvantaged friends face, and accept them as part of our commuting community who need an even more seamless and user-friendly journey than any one of us. A Community Development Ministry survey indicated that one of the main reasons why more than half of the 4,000 disabled persons interviewed were unemployed was commuting difficulty. This survey has not even taken cognizance of elderly people who are disabled by age. If the LTA's promise of a world class transport system is to be meaningful, then public transport should be converted to enable the disabled and elderly to travel freely.”
“Thus, by advocating that our Government becomes a bigger partner in the land transport system, there is no need to sound alarm bells and get into a flap on the dire consequences of a welfare state. At 15% to 16% of GDP as Government expenditure, we are far, far away from the proverbial precipice or the slippery slope of welfare spending. Sir, if spending $20 billion on the HDB upgrading programme without expecting much return in productivity is considered prudent financial management by the Government, then there can be no question that spending about the same amount on achieving a world class transport system is an even more worthwhile and prudent enterprise. Furthermore, the total amount of revenue collected from vehicular and road taxes, fees and fines was just short of $14 billion for the four years 1992 to 1995. Thus, the amount that will accrue from this vehicular related revenue for the 10 to 15 years that it will take us to complete the land transport system will be more than enough to pay for the total cost of our world class transport system. How can then there be any reluctance on the part of the Government or talk of subsidy in paying for the infrastructure and also for the capital and replacement costs of trains and buses? Sir, the Minister will have to concede to this economic logic. Let me now come to one important omission in the White Paper. Amongst its many proposals, it seeks also to provide a seamless journey for commuters so that the hassle and transfer time involved in changing from one mode of transport to another is minimised. In this sense, the proposal appears to be user-friendly. Unfortunately, the extent of its user-friendliness is limited to the physically able Singaporeans.”
“In the case of the land transport system, there are added benefits of boosting economic growth for the whole country and increasing national productivity. I would therefore like to ask the Government to reconsider its position on financing and pay also for the capital cost or the initial cost of trains besides the replacement cost. This new commitment should apply not only to MRT and LRT but also to the buses. The Government may consider this as asking for too much and liken it to a welfare subsidy or a handout, but I would like the Government to think of this arrangement as an investment in the economy and people of Singapore. An economist has stated, and it was reported in the Straits Times, that "there is the recognition that transport is not a pure consumption item, but is an investment in human capital, like education and health." Unlike other subsidy schemes, major Government financing for transport, in the way that I am suggesting, will not take away the incentive for hard work or create a culture of dependency, as there is little likelihood of the transport system being abused for personal gain. People travel for necessity and not for the fun of it except in the initial novelty stage. For the year 1994/95, the Singapore Government spent 9% of GDP for financing operating expenditure and 4% of GDP for development expenditure. The remaining 10% or so of GDP that was collected by the Government as revenue was saved. Financing the capital and replacement costs of trains, buses and other transport equipment by the Government will bring the figure for development expenditure up a little and will lower the savings a bit. But the total amount spent by the Government will not exceed 16% or so of GDP. In comparison, governments in welfare states spend 40% to 60% of GDP.”
“The financing arrangement suggested so far is that the Government builds all the infrastructure, the commuters pay for the capital cost of trains and the day-to-day operating costs and then a few years down the line, the Government will pay for the replacement cost of trains. So this is not factored into what the commuters have to pay now. This sounds equitable, but undoubtedly with such an arrangement, the cost of future public transport is bound to be higher than what the average worker pays now, which is already 14% of his or her disposable income. Any further increase in the fares will be a regressive step as it will affect the economically bottom 20% of the population more than the rest. Also, if we really wish to upgrade to a world class transport system, then the real bottom end choice of cheap transportation will not be available for the poor of our country. For a world class system, the general standard has to be high and no part can really be sub-standard. But our fares cannot be world class because a certain proportion of the workforce even finds the present fares a financial burden. Future fares have to be affordable to all sectors of the population. This is not such a bad thing as it will allow some redistribution of wealth. The principle of re-distribution is the reason why we have embarked on the HDB upgrading programme, the Edusave programme for the top 25% of students from poorer families, and the Medisave Top-up scheme for the elderly. Implementation of fares that are affordable for even the bottom 20% should not therefore be considered as an act of charity but yet another means of re-distributing wealth. Good governance, Sir, does not just consist of creating wealth but also involves equitable and prudent re-distribution.”
“Efficiency has to be the name of the game. We, therefore, have no choice but to invest heavily in land transport but this is not a one-way traffic. There are both direct and indirect returns for this investment. During the 15 to 20 years that it will take us to put our land transport system into place, there will be a big boost to industry, especially in construction. This will, in turn, boost the general economic growth of the country. And this is timely as some of the economic growth due to the manufacturing sector is slowing. When the plans for the land transport system are in full swing, it is estimated by some economists that the boost to the economic growth of the country will be by as much as 1 1/2 percent per annum. After the system is fully in place, the contribution to the economy should continue to be at least by half percent per annum. This increased economic growth during the building of the land transportation system and after its implementation will enlarge the financial pie for everyone and will also increase Government revenue. Thus, a good land transport system will not only satisfy the transport needs and aspirations of our population but it will also increase economic growth and boost productivity. This is how we must look at this whole venture of a world class transport system - as an investment in our economic growth and productivity. It is therefore appropriate and economically logical for the Government to become a much bigger partner in the venture, as the end result will be a win-win situation. The economy will grow, Government revenues will increase, productivity will go up and people will have a better quality of life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has unveiled its state-of-the-art plans for a land transport system for the next century. The vision is exciting and enticing. We will have the world's first ERP system, bus time tables on the Internet and satellite traffic management. Some of us can see all these in our mind's eye while the rest of us find the scenario of seamless journeys more difficult to imagine since we are confronted daily with crowded buses, long waits and bad traffic jams. However, Sir, there is one concern that is in all our minds, and this is the financing framework for this massive venture. The partnership between Government, operators and commuters sounds great but not in the terms laid out in the White Paper. However, before coming to this part, I would like to talk about the relationship of a good land transport system and the economy. Land transport is the life blood of the economy - it must function well for the economic well-being of Singapore. A good public transport system will help to boost the productivity of everyone, especially the labour force. The convenient, comfortable, hassle-free and quicker trips to and from the workplace will decrease the stress of workers and save us more time to devote to work and family. This also applies to students and other segments of the population. In the White Paper it is stated that traffic jams on the PIE and Central Expressway cost $45 million a year in lost productivity. I wonder what the figure would be if we could calculate the total cost in lost productivity due to traffic jams on all other roads. A developed country with a shortage of labour cannot afford to have its workforce spend an inordinately long unproductive time on the road to get to work and be worn out on reaching the workplace.”
“Sir, I would like to declare my interest. I am a board member of NCSS. Would the Minister agree that the reason why the paper has remained as a working paper is that there has been some difficulty in obtaining statistics from other ministries and that is the reason why it has not become a full-fledged master plan but has remained as a working paper?”
“Sir, could I be presumptuous enough to tell the Minister that I am very proud of Singapore but I would like it to become better? Could I please remind the Minister too that the figures that he has given are only for the university? But if he looks at all tertiary figures, then the ratio is not in favour of women but in favour of men. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, lest this become a repetition of the previous debate which she is free to replicate here, I would suggest that since I have answered the three limbs of her question, if she wishes to pursue this matter or any other policies affecting any other aspect of the Convention, perhaps an appropriate moment would be at a subsequent sitting. TELEVISION CORPORATION OF SINGAPORE (Charges for phone-in programmes) 11. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan asked the Minister for Information and the Arts why Television Corporation of Singapore charges 75 cents and 30 cents per minute for phone-in programmes despite the fact that Singapore Telecom charges callers a standard rate of 0.7 cents per 30 second block or an economy rate of 0.7 cents per 60 second block.”
“Sir, I am not a legal expert. Could I ask the Minister to take a lay person's reading of the treaty, which I have done, and it does obligate the Government to take progressive steps and to make a report in one year's time and then report every four years after that on what are the progressive steps taken to comply with the treaty, leaving aside the reservations?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that the treaty obligates the Government to do a few things: (1) to change the national Constitution so that there is no sex discrimination; (2) to abolish existing laws and practices that practise sex discrimination; and (3) to set up institutions that will protect against discrimination?”
“Sir, would the Minister then indicate that no further policy measures are necessary to honour the spirit and terms of the treaty?”
“Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary then guide me on how I can ask a question about the media report and how do I go about asking for details on a person who has been reported in the media? I am not able to know how to ask the question in that report.”
“Sir, would we have any idea on what is the number of listeners?”
“Sir, would the Parliamentary Secretary let us know which countries get these broadcasts and what is our range and how many people are estimated to be listening to these broadcasts?”
“Sir, would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a lot of time, money and effort are spent in producing the programmes for Radio Singapore International? So, would he consider having them broadcast on FM so that we in Singapore can have the benefit of listening to them as well?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that these self-referrals by patients could lead to unnecessary consumption of medical services and sometimes wrong referrals? So would the Minister consider doing away with self-referrals to consultants and only allowing referrals by other doctors so that there is no unnecessary wastage of medical services?”
“Would the Minister please confirm that self-referrals, where the patients refer themselves to various specialists instead of being referred by another doctor, are available and how widely are they used?”
“Sir, would the Minister please tell us why there have been so many changes in the manner of paying fees to doctors and how have these differing schemes impacted on the quality of medical care?”
“If there are points that I have not made clear, I would like the indulgence of the House because I do not want to take up any more time. I have been urged by some Members of this House to withdraw the Family Violence Bill. I have given this serious consideration. I have no wish at all to enter into any legislative battle with the Acting Minister for Community Development. I respect him far too much for that. However, I feel that I cannot withdraw the Family Violence Bill. As I indicated earlier, it is not my Bill but embodies the effort of many people. It takes into consideration the hopes of many victims. It respects the viewpoint of many professionals working on the ground who want effective family-friendly legislation. I think I would be failing in my duty to all these people if I withdraw the Bill. What is not important to me is the final name and the form that the substance of the Family Violence Bill eventually takes. However, the principle and the spirit of the Bill are very important and cannot be set aside. This is the message that will come through if I withdraw the Bill. However, I wish again to express my appreciation to the Minister for Home Affairs and to the Acting Minister for Community Development in keeping an open mind to listen to a Private Member's Bill and in agreeing to look at the provisions that could be incorporated into legislation so that the final objective of all of us is achieved in this House, that is, we try to reduce the incidence of family violence and at the same time keep the family intact. I would again like to thank the Speaker and the House very much for listening so patiently to me for two days. Question put, and negatived. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 2.37 pm”
“But I still think that the Society Against Family Violence seems to be getting a lot of attention and even the Minister for Home Affairs quoted the letter from Ms Claire Chiang. I respect her expertise in this area, but I think there are other experts, social workers and many other people who do not agree with that line of thinking. As Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has said, we are not experts. We are not able to judge who is right and who is not. I am sure I have not addressed some concerns. The hon. Mr Kenneth Chen said that it was introducing litigation to the family at an early stage. I have already addressed that. That even in Protection Orders, if they are breached, we have to take the abuser and the victim to court. He talked about the introduction of police intervention at an early stage and the family loses control. No, I think at any stage if the victim does not want to pursue the matter with the police, the police cannot continue with the matter because they cannot then carry out the investigations. The other matter that he mentioned was that we must only call the police as a last resort. I agree. Usually when the victims go to the police, it is not for the first time that they have been beaten up. It is usually after a number of times that they go to the police. So it is usually a plea for help. At that stage, they do need help. Dr Vasoo said that family violence is the tail-end of family problems and we should concentrate on tackling family problems. I completely agree with him. But family violence is a problem and thus also needs to be addressed. Dr Aline Wong raised some very important philosophical and thoughtful questions and I think many of us do not have the answers to that. In her usual very thought-provoking way, she has added another dimension to the debate.”
“No, I was talking of the past President of the Society Against Family Violence, Dr Esther Wong. She and Dr Clyde Moorthy went through the provisions of the Bill with me because Ms Claire Chiang, who is the President of the Society Against Family Violence, told me that she is sending Dr Esther Wong as her representative to discuss the Bill with me as she had some urgent personal matter to attend and would I then accept that as her voice. But Dr Alfred Choy, who is the Vice-President of the Society Against Family Violence helped the Bill in his personal capacity, and not as a Vice-President.”