Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 17.
“Therefore, if the Minister should think fit, some appropriate word or phrase relating to boy or girl friend could be added to the proposed amendment. Under clause 6, a new section 26A is proposed to be added to the principal Act. Both subsections 26A(a) and (b) refer to any person giving, and I quote: ''false or misleading information relating to the commission of any offence under this Act ...''. Now, what is "misleading information"? Would information honestly believed to be true misleading? I believe that information honestly given could be false. But it is up to the investigator to investigate, to find out the actual position and the facts of the case. That is what the investigator is paid to do. We must remember, Sir, that corruption offences, especially the big ones, are usually well camouflaged. It is not easy for an outsider to know the facts and all the full facts. If the facts are well-known, then there is no longer any corruption offence. Therefore, if there should be a strong suspicion that corruption offences are being committed in spite of the scanty information available and if someone is public-spirited enough to forward such information as is available to the CPIB, then it is the duty of the CPIB to investigate. If the information should turn out to be untrue or if the information should lead to a blind alley, then that is not the fault of the person who gave the information. It is just sheer bad luck. In fact, we should be thankful to such public-spirited people who venture forth to give information to the CPIB, sometimes with some danger to themselves. Instead I now that see in the Bill, we want to penalize him for giving misleading information.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that this is a technical Bill. I do not think it is completely a technical Bill. And as I have told him a little while ago outside this Chamber, I am tempted to give my support to the Bill but I just cannot and I will explain why. Sir, the increase in fines in the various sections of the principal Act should certainly help to deter many would-be corruption offenders. But, of course, much depends on the value of the gratification that is offered, promised or expected in comparison with the risks involved and the possible penalties, if caught. If the gratification amounts to very huge sums, the person committing the offence may well feel that that is sufficient compensation for the risks involved. Then even the proposed increase of fines up to $100,000 will not deter any big corruption offences. In the past, Sir, there were cases of persons willing to go to prison for a few years because of the few million dollars stashed away for a cushy life after the prison term. Nevertheless, the proposed increase in fines will certainly be seen by many people that the Government is very serious about prevention of corruption in Singapore. Clause 5 which introduces the amendment to section 20(1)(b) of the principal Act, I agree, Sir, is very timely. It will definitely block up a loophole by which money is sent out of Singapore by persons who have corruptly received large sums of money or other property. But merely inserting the words "his spouse, sons and daughters" may not be sufficient. I would have thought that such a person could also send money or other property out of Singapore through a girlfriend or a boyfriend. In recent years, we have seen cases of girlfriends and boyfriends having been involved in taking money out of Singapore.”
“Does he not think that it is only fair that those people who cannot afford to buy flats be allowed to rent flats, cheap rental flats? That is what I have been trying to drive at, Sir.”
“He said that everything was done legally. May I quote him, Sir, the Report on the Audit of Accounts by the Auditor-General in 1981, and here under (4), it says: ''As the activities of some of the subsidiaries of these companies [he was referring to the MND Holdings] are not connected with the functions of the Board, Audit expressed the view in August 1980 that the investments in MND Holdings Pte Ltd is not in accordance with the provision of the Act. The matter is under review by the relevant Government authorities.'' That is what it says, Sir. And now he asks me to take legal action. The Auditor-General was already complaining. Why has not the Government done anything about that? Does he not realize that he has got to give us an explanation instead? Again, Sir, he says everything is legal. I have here a name of one of the subsidiaries of MND Holdings, Primary Industries Enterprises, which is meant for animal husbandry and trading in foodstuffs. What has that got to do with the HDB? I just like to know. I cannot see anything that is there. And he has asked: what are the companies that have gone bust? I think all he has got to do is to go back to the early 1970's and I am sure the Minister for Finance will be able to produce all the answers. I cannot remember any offhand, but straightaway I can remember Firestone, not Firestone, but one tyre company anyway and a few others. I am sure the Minister should know. He should provide us the answer, not me. As for cheap rental flats, does he not realize that there are quite a number of poor people today who have not been able to provide even the first downpayment for the buying of so-called cheap flats from the Government?”
“Some clarifications, Sir, from the Minister. Mr Speaker: All right.”
“In principle, Sir, no one should be punished for what he has not done. The position of vicarious liability on the owner is morally wrong. Or is it intended just to render it administratively easier for the HDB? I hope the Minister will answer some of the queries I have just raised.”
“In the new amendment as set out in clause 3, the private company to be formed will have "such object as may be approved by the Minister," that is, the amendment allows the Minister to have a carte blanche to do as he likes in forming a company or/and whether or not the company has functions and objects set out in section 13 of the Act. This is most unwise, Sir, as funds may be recklessly squandered. If we pass such amendments and if investments turn into losses, then we shall all be responsible for the losses. I suggest that the HDB confine itself to what it can do best, that is, to build flats. Go back to building cheap rental flats for those who cannot afford to buy flats and the HDB should not dabble in jobs which should be done by other departments or by the private sector. Clause 7, Sir, seeks to impose liability on owners of vehicles in respect of which a parking offence under rules made under the Act is committed. The owner of the vehicle is now supposed to be guilty of the parking offence in all respects as if he were the actual offender guilty of the offence. I believe this is most unfair. It imposes the liability on the people and penalize people unnecessarily. Recently, Sir, in the Enlistment Act, the reservist is made to bear the burden of proof of not knowing about the mobilization call-up early enough, and now we have this Bill trying to impose unfair liability on the vehicle owner. I understand that there are provisions in the Road Traffic Act under which notice can be served on the owner as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the material time. And the owner can be punished if he fails to provide the information required. Why cannot the same provision be applied to the parking offences in the HDB estates and in parking lots?”
“In 1981, the Auditor-General stated that the activities of some of the subsidiaries of this company (it was referring to the MND Holdings Pte Ltd) were not connected with the functions of the Board and that the investment of the MND Holdings Pte Ltd was not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. I believe, Sir, the same position still holds, that is, until today the HDB has made investments and gone into business which the law has not authorized. And in the case of the MND Holdings, which is a holding company, HDB has been doing that unlawfully since 1976. The Bill's amendment to section 15 by inserting the new section 78 is intended to legalize what has been done unlawfully for many years. I do not know whether the Minister will agree with what I have said. But, of course, the Government is adept at first doing things unlawfully and then legalizing them after some time. his has happened with the amendment to the Constitution early this year, and again when Government amended the Code of Conduct for Ministers through the Command Paper presented to the Parliament but not debated, in order to legalize the position of the Second Deputy Prime Minister as the Secretary-General of the NTUC, a position which he had been holding unlawfully for some years. In 1982, Sir, the Auditor-General reported, under the Housing and Development Act, "the Board may, with the Minister's approval, invest in funds in companies having as their object any or all of the functions of the Board set out in the Act." And the object and functions of the Board are set out in section 13 of the principal Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to allow the Board to grant loans and to invest in shares. The Minister has just told us that it would help discharge its functions more effectively and efficiently. I have some queries, Sir. Why is it necessary to do that, that is, to grant loans and to invest in shares? Are there going to be huge profits to be made from the investments and loans? What are these private or public companies the HDB would like to invest in? The Government's own Report of the Economic Committee has recommended that Government should participate less and less in business, especially business that can be carried out by the private sector. Why then does the HDB go against its own Government's recommendations and again invest in private business? Government has its fingers already, Sir, in hundreds of business enterprises and many of them have gone bust in the past, incurring substantial losses. What if the HDB's new investments should also go bust? And what if the loans later on should not be recoverable? Who is then going to be responsible? And if the losses are incurred, will that also mean that the HDB will in future increase the price of the HDB flats? Sir, I have been given to understand that the HDB is a statutory body incorporated to build cheap rental housing for all the people. But the HDB has not kept its original objective. From the building of cheap flats for rental, it has moved into sale of flats, more and more expensive flats and also into the leasing of land. The proceeds of such sales and leasings have amounted to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and this has been clearly stated in the reports of the audits of accounts of the HDB since 1980, and repeated yearly for several years after that.”
“Those who have benefitted are not the ordinary man-in-the-street, Sir.”
“Sir, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider Opposition leaders appropriate to address the school children? Mr Tang Guan Seng: Sir, if Dr Lee would like to volunteer himself, I will pass his name to the organizers for consideration in future. EMISSIONS FROM KALLANG GASWORKS 6. Mr Loh Meng See asked the Minister for the Environment whether the emissions from the Kallang Gasworks are harmful to residents living in the vicinity; and whether he will ask the Public Utilities Board to take steps to neutralise the odour emitted from the Gasworks.”
“Will Mr Lee Kuan Yew then be a Minister?”
“Yes, unhapiness must be widespread too, and what we have said, really represents the views of very wide sections of the people. He has said that all these measures are "equitable" and has also added the words "rational and logical". He has not explained how the scrapping of car-pools is rational or logica. Because, as many people can see, instead of one car carrying four, more cars may now go into the CBD carrying the same number of people. Therefore, that may cause some congestion. Is that what the Government wants? He speaks as if it is all very fair and equal for everybody. If there are 500,000 vehicles, there must be people who own vehicles which are very expensive and which they can afford. But there are also lots of other people who own vehicles which are not that expensive. That is, some people can afford, some cannot. Such logic reminds me of what Anotoly France once said: the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridge, to beg in the street and to steal bread. That is, there is no genuine equality. Therefore, it is all not equitable. When we talk of equity we must remember that there are great differences of income in Singapore, and if we want to be fair and just and really equitable, then the burden should be spread in such a way that those who can best bear that burden pay more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in explaining the actions that the Government has taken, the Minister has said that the Government cannot wait. It gives the impression that there is very severe traffic congestion in Singapore today, which is not the case. The Government statement itself has admitted that the present traffic situation in Singapore is satisfactory. In fact, many people would praise the traffic system in Singapore because we have the flyovers, expressways, one-way streets, computerized traffic lights controlled and the whole lot. It makes travelling quite easy. What we used to take one hour before, now we take only half an hour. In fact, we take only half the time to travel from one point to the other. Therefore, there is no real traffic congestion today. Of course, we agree that we should now take some action to prevent future congestion. But that, even the Government statement says will not be fir at least five or six years. Therefore, under the present circumstances we have no need to hurry. They have not conducted a survey and a census of what is the real situation. So let them first conduct a survey so that we know exactly what the present situation is. He has also said that the people have a choice in the use of vehicles as to whether they want to go into the CBD or anywhere as they wish. I do not think the people really have a choice. If they work in the CBD, they just have to go there. How is he going to say that people do not have to go there, that they can have their choice? It is not realistic at all. It all depends on whether the bus system is good enough or whether they find that it is cheaper to go by the motorcycle. He says there are 500,000 vehicles in Singapore and therefore whatever measure that is taken has got to be spread over them.”
“My clarification is: Dr Tan says that the roads like Orchard Road will be impassable or something like that. I am just saying that there is hardly any traffic congestion today in Singapore. It can be argued and debated.”
“(2) How many people merely use the car to go to office and leave the car parked until the time they go home? (3) Are there adequate commuter services like the downtown buses that ply between Clementi and Shenton Way? (4) Do we need to restrict car usage to certain groups of people to certain hours of the day? May I remind you, Sir, that this was practised during the Japanese time. I hope Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock and the other MPs too will be able to support this amendment. This is not a partisan amendment from the Workers' Party. It is an amendment that all the people in Singapore would like to have and see being adopted.”
“This is the usual PAP way of imposing taxes in between budgets. The so-called new style of the PAP Government is again shown to be so much hot air. PAP style has always been "execution first and reports afterwards". Xian zhan hou zho. And the people are always made to pay. PAP stands for the people being made to Pay-and-Pay. During the 1988 elections, the PAP had boasted that it would bring "more good years". Yes, more good years for the Ministers who have salary increases and the rich, but very bad years, I am afraid, for the low and middle income workers of Singapore. The measures introduced are all discriminatory against the poor. How will these new measures affect the livelihood of the people of Singapore? This has already been touched on but I would like to stress that prices will certainly go up and have already gone up. Only this morning somebody came along to tell me. Prices of certain things have gone up and the cost of living will certainly increase. That is, the new measures are inflationary. The low and middle income workers will certainly be confronted with increasing hardship in the days ahead. The measures introduced may be medicine for Dr Hong. But they are near-poison to those adversely affected. They should therefore be totally withdrawn. A proper survey or census must be done to indicate the whereabouts of traffic congestion, and the time such congestion occurs, so that appropriate action may be taken to initiate measures that are fair and equitable for all people. That is the way to implement suggestions made by Mr Ng. A mere review is inadequate. Subjects for study in such a survey should include: (1) How many people need the car for their businesses?”
“But the hefty increase of 100% from $25 to $50 for night open car parking is too much for HDB residents to bear. They belong to the low and middle income groups. They cannot see the rationale for such increases in parking fees. After all, the cars parked in the HDB estates are not moving on the roads and they do not cause traffic congestion at all. Neither do they cause any pollution. So why are these HDB residents asked to pay so much more? Has the HDB not made enough money from the parking lots? Is there any principle of equity in taxing low and middle income HDB residents more and more, when other car owners who have parking lots in their own homes are not taxed in the same manner? Sir, all in all, it can be seen that the measures recently introduced have one common objective. That is, not so much to control traffic congestion as to tax the low and middle income groups, and so to increase revenue for Government. The car is today being treated as a milking cow by Government. On the excuse of curbing car population growth and controlling traffic congestion, car import duties (currently 40% of the open market value), registration fees, additional registration fees (currently 175% of open market value) have been imposed. And they have brought in hundreds and thousands of millions of dollars of revenue for the Government. As a result, our cars today have become the most expensive cars in the world. The rich may be able to afford the ARF taxes but not the low and middle income workers. Further, like the road tax and diesel tax that were imposed a few months ago even before they were debated in Parliament in the annual Budget, so the taxes by way of the new measures have again been imposed even before the debate in Parliament. This has been well stressed by Dr Arthur Beng.”
“Similarly, the lorry-driver and the school bus driver will have to pay the ALS fee if they should get into the CBD during the peak hours, morning or evening. What about the residents in the CBD? They will also have to pay the ALS fees of $3 if they return home from work before 7.00 pm. Is that fair and reasonable? The answer is again no. Car pooling, mentioned a little while ago by one Member, is a genuinely good measure that helps to reduce the number of cars entering the CBD. It is still popular. But unfortunately, car pooling does not bring in revenue for the Government, and probably because of that, car pooling is now scrapped. The ALS and car pooling are complementary. In 1975 Government said that the ALS was intended to facilitate car pooling and discourage the entry of under-utilized cars into the CBD. Now the whole argument is forgotten. I do not know how he is going to answer that. Instead of one car carrying four persons into the CBD, now it may well be that two, three, or even four cars will have to carry four persons into the CBD. Therefore, in scrapping car pools, Government in fact would encourage under-utilized cars to go into the CBD. Government says it wants to control traffic congestion. But its action may well cause traffic congestion when there was none before. Thus the Government measure is self-contradictory and self-defeating. Or is Government admitting that its main aim is not so-called traffic control but the collection of more and more revenue? After all, the reduction of ALS fees from $5 to $3 per day may well encourage more motorists to buy the ALS discs to get into the CBD. Increase in parking fees, mentioned by so many speakers. Some people may be prepared to accept a small increase in parking fees.”
“The new measures of evening ALS fees that are introduced have created also new problems. Take, for example, motor cyclists. They have been mentioned but there is no harm in just stressing this again. Motorcyclists have low incomes. They need the motorcycles to earn their living - as salesmen, technicians, messengers, news-vendors, shop assistants, small businessmen, etc. The machine is small and does not occupy much space. Motorcycles certainly do not contribute much to the congestion on the road. But from 1st July, entry into the CBD will cost them $1 per day or $20 per month. With dearer petrol and increase in parking fees, the motorcyclists will have to spend $50 to $60 extra per month. This works out to 10-15% of their monthly income. All these details are listed in the Shin Min Daily News on the 27th May. For the low-income group, this is no small sum. It is a heavy burden. This is misery which only the low-income workers have to suffer. There is no equal misery for all. The rich do not go about on motorcycles and are not affected. Therefore, Again the tax on motorcycles is inequitable. The taxi driver, already mentioned, works long hours to earn a comparatively small income. He already has to pay heavy taxes on diesel. Now the passenger has to pay $3 (hitherto $2) in order to get into the CBD. Commuters, as we all know, generally are unwilling to pay the extra charges for the area licensing fee. So this must mean that many taxi drivers will miss carrying commuters into the CBD and therefore earn less income. This has been emphasized by Mr Lew. Is it then fair to impose charges that will reduce the already small income of taxi drivers? The answer is no again. The ALS fees are inequitable to the taxi driver.”
“And the recent half-tank rule, designed to discourage motorists from going across the Causeway to Johor to buy cheaper petrol, is also supposed to do the same. But the imposition of 10 cents extra tax on petrol will not be able to discourage the use of cars. The motorists have paid high petrol taxes all these years, and they have not stopped using their cars because of these taxes. The reason is not because they are affluent, as some of the Ministers have been trying to stress all the time, or because the cars is a prestige symbol, but simply because they need the car to earn a livelihood and for family use. Because of the Government policy of so called urban renewal and resettlement, many people now live in satellite towns in outlying districts. They need the car to go to their work-places to earn their living, send their children to school, and do other businesses. The car is generally accepted as the cheapest means of transport for the whole family. To them the car is a necessity, not a luxury, since public transport like buses and the MRT may not serve their needs or are otherwise unsuitable. Therefore, they will have to use the car, and of course, bear the burden of the higher taxes in petrol. The well-to-do can well afford the higher petrol tax but the question is: is it fair and just for the people in the low and middle income groups? The answer is no. The petrol tax is unfair and inequitable. The Area Licensing Scheme introduced in June 1975 together with car pooling, park-and-ride scheme and the shuttle service has succeeded to a large extent in reducing traffic congestion in the Central Business District during peak hours. But congestion, though not too bad today, often is diverted to ring roads. It also builds up when the restriction hours are lifted.”
“Now I propose an amendment as follows: That the words after "regrets" be deleted and therein to insert - 'That the measures are inequitable, discriminatory, self-contradictory and inflationary, and that they should be totally withdrawn, and a thorough study of the traffic problem be undertaken.' First, the Government has tried to separate car ownership from car usage. This may serve as a theoretical exercise, Sir, but it is divorced from reality. A car is not a museum piece. It is made and sold for use and it must run on the roads. It cannot fly in the air, nor swim in the water. Car ownership and road usage are therefore intimately linked and inseparable. To speak of measures that curb road usage alone is unrealistic. Measures that curb road usage are essentially the same measures that also curb car ownership. Government also speaks of equitable measures previously, but what are "equitable measures"? Several speakers have spoken and given their ideas of what they mean by "equitable", although they have not really spelt out what they mean by those very words. Equitable measures, so far as I understand, Sir, are those that are fair, just and reasonable for all concerned. If these measures are, in fact, taxes or levies (in whatever form), then they must be taxes or levies that are borne by those best able to pay them. This is especially so when there is gross income inequality in the country. So-called across-the-board taxation benefits the rich. The poor are made to pay a proportionately higher percentage of their income in taxes. Therefore such measures are not equitable. What about dearer petrol? The tax on petrol is supposed to discourage the use of cars on the road.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us agree that there should be no traffic congestion in Singapore. The question is: how do we achieve such an objective? The Government has suggested a three-prong approach to tackle the problem of traffic congestion: to keep vehicle population down, to reduce usage of vehicles and to distribute traffic more evenly in terms of time and space through the ALS. The motion speaks of measures to curb road usage. But the principles involved, however, have not been spelt out. In November 1988, the Minister for Communications and Information said that people who wanted to own a vehicle and hence contribute to the overall congestion would have to be subjected to some measure of restraint. And he also said that they were supposed to be equitable measures, equitable related to the principle of equal misery for all. Are all the measures presently introduced equitable? Clearly, they are not. In addition, they are also discriminatory, self-contradictory and inflationary. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the measures are too harsh. But I suspect that they are not really too hastily introduced. After all, these measures are supposed to have been fully discussed by top civil servants concerned and by the whole Cabinet. The decision is a collective decision, not the decision of the Minister alone, and must have been discussed for quite some time. This has also been mentioned by quite a few speakers. The amendment by Dr Beng, although good, is inadequate in the circumstances.”
“They are saying that I do not want to protect my country and that I do not want to defend my country. Sir, can I speak in Mandarin?”
“Yes. I want to clarify because they have been barking at the wrong tree.”
“I will just cut it short then. Sir, there is something which I would like to say but since you have said that I can't say it, then I will -”
“I am just mentioning the difficulty of ---”
“No, Sir. I am talking about the training.”
“Our best defence lies in friendly diplomacy with all countries and especially with our neighbours and ASEAN, together with an economic policy that promotes co-operation and mutual benefits, and avoids friction with our friends and neighbours. Our defence posture should be one of low profile, as heavy expenditure and frequent emphasis on training for prepardness -”
“I understand that. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to mention one important point. The times for NS and for annual reservist service must be reduced by half. This will not affect national defence. Today the whole world is moving towards detente, not confrontation. The Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam which in the past had been pictured as potential threats to Singapore by the PAP government, all have enough internal difficulties of their own. We have friends in ASEAN. Our relations with our immediate neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, have never been better. We even carry out joint military exercises with them. In other words, at present there are no indications that we would go to war in the near and foreseeable future. Why then do we need to emphasize so much on military discipline, training and preparedness? Must the PAP government continue to be befogged with the siege or garrison mentality? Must government continue to wear blinkers? And tilt at windmills like Don Quixote? The freguent jingoistic boasts about preparing for war in order to have peace, the repeated emphasis on total defence, are totally unrealistic in the context of peace and stability in Singapore and S E Asia today. Similarly mobilization exercises on food and water rationing on such a large scale involving a million people, can only inconvenience the people. Is all that really necessary? Perhaps it is now time for Singapore to review its defence thinking. The Western powers are now being guided by a new concept of "reasonable sufficiency" and general disarmament. We should do the same. Singapore is a small country of only 2.7 million people. Our best defence lies not in the heavy expenditure on armaments, most of which will soon be obsolete anyhow.”
“It is related to the Bill because they have been asked to go for 40 days of reservist service. And I am trying to tell the Minister that this period is just a bit too long. It says here, new section 14 (b): '(ii) for periods not exceeding in the aggregate 40 days annually.' I have not gone out of the Bill. Let me just resume, Sir. (In Mandarin) This question is related to national service and is one of the causes for our women graduates not marrying early, thus resulting in the lopsided procreation pattern that our Prime Minister has always complained about. NS is a big contributory factor and this has been left ignored and uninvestigated by the Government.”
“What I have said refers to what is exactly in this Bill. So I cannot be said to have gone out of the Bill. The Minister has emphasized certain aspects of it. I exphasize other aspects of it. That is all.”
“How does the Minister distinghish Teo Soh Lung's case from the case of the other three who were released?”
“Is it not true, Sir, that when the other three were released they had forgone the application for the habeas corpus and that Teo Soh Lung had not?”
“Was it not said that she was rearrested because of her public statement? Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Member to carefully read the statements which have been issued by the Government. When she was rearrested together with the others, it was pointed out that the contents of her press statement gave rise to the conclusion that she and the others were likely to resume their subversive activities.”
“Does the Minister agree that in the first statement the ISD issued when Teo Soh Lung was released, it was said that she would no longer pose a threat to the security of Singapore?”
“The Minister mentioned about the Prime Minister agreeing. How is it that the Government has not also taken action at the same time?”
“Sir, the legal officers were taking part in a civil suit by the Prime Minister. Why were they there?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise merely to add my small voice from the Opposition in support of this Bill, and I also congratulate the Minister for having proposed this Bill because it will help people who may become very dependent when the time comes. But my only concern is that although he says that the scheme will operating at cost, nevertheless the premium could be a bit high for certain people. I think the Minister should find ways to reduce some of the premiums if CPF members complain that the premium is a too high.”
“On both sids of the Causeway normal business arrangements are also upset because of changing sizes of visiting crowd. The traffic congestion has also caused inconvenience to the residents of Woodlands New Town. I feel that after this amendment Bill is passed, people who go over to Johor Bahru just to fill up their petrol tanks will no longer be interested to go over there because it may not be worth the effort. We need not worry too much for our Johor friends, because other than petrol kiosk operations, the business community there generally do not benefit from and so do not welcome these petrol purchasers because these people go over to Johor Bahru only to buy petrol. Besides, they add to the traffic in Johor Bahru. After the passage of the bill, they will not go there any more. This will reduce the traffic pressure at the Checkpoints' vicinity so the traffic situation will be improved and people who want to go over to Johor Bahru or the other way round will find it more convenient to travel. Everybody will benefit from this Bill. Sir, I would like to remind the Minister that in carrying out the inspection and checking of petrol tanks, the methods used should not add to the traffic congestion at the Woodlands Customs Checkpoint. If it does, it will cause even more unhappiness to many people.”
“If we want to enjoy more material benefits, we must depend on our own ability and our own efforts to acquire and maintain such material things. We should never try to depend on luck or manipulate any loopholes or expect the Government to give some subsidy to acquire such things. If we accept this principle, after the amendment is passed, the Bill will be seen, not a punishment, but as a lesson in principled living. I hope the Minister for Finance will remind the officers under him to implement the law fairly and not to take every driver to be a criminal, quibbling over minor differences with him and taking him to court to be fined heavily, thus making the Bill a new means of revenue for the finance Ministry, Sir, when the bill is passed, it may help relieve traffic congestion at the woodlands Customs Checkpoint. As more and more Singaporeans like to go to Johor Bahru or other places in Johor for sight-seeing or to spend their holidays, this measure will help to increase more tourist establishments at these places to attract them. Of course, there are also many people from Johor who like to come over here for a vacation. This movement of people across the Causeway will be mutually beneficial. The availabiliy of cheaper petrol in Johor Bahru has worsened the traffic congestion at Woodlands Checkpoints so much that people who want to cross the Causeway to spend their holidays there are put off by the congestion. So they simply do not want to go over there and the people in Johor Bahru are also reluctant to come over here. Tourist business facilities over in Johor Bahru are also reluctant to come over here. Tourist business facilities over in Johor Bahru are also affected adversely, not being fully utilized.”
“I used to visit Woodlands Checkpoints as it is within my constituency. I cannot help noticing the traffic congestion at that place. If there comes a day, in Singapore, where there is a widespread traffic congestion, I think we will be be very disappointed and will be confronted with a lot of problems. The future of Singapore will also be adversely affected if there are traffic jams everywhere. Singapore will no longer be as good, as beautiful and as attractive as it is now. Controlling the increase in the number of cars is something that nobody is actually willing to do, but to a responsible Singaporean it is something that he has to do. At the moment, the measures taken by the Government do not restrict Singaporeans from owning cars. The taxes and regulations are to make the prople pau when they use their cars. I personally feel that these measures are not all the measures that could be adopted. In future, depending on the actual development of the situation, ney measures may be intorduced. I really do not know what they might be. Sir, singaporeans want to become a middle class society. to do so, they must learn to always balance their family income and expenditure. The monthly budget should be well planned. Middle income people like to acquire material things. They must know that to acquire an extra item, they have to prepare for its monthly maintenance and expenses. If the budgetting is wring they may be tempted to ge more income through some other means. But such methods are not reliable. Some may even bing about financial problems upon their family. Some people have to go to Johor Bahru to buy cheaper petrol in order to be able to maintain a car. Sir, if we want to become a middle class society, we must have our principles and we must stoutly uphold them.”
“To conclude, Sir, the Bill is both illogical and irrational. It is a reflection of the illogical and irrational thinking of a Government afflicted with schizophrenia. It must be remembered that the Causeway is not a barrier but a bridge - a bridge that facilitates a free flow of trade, goods and movement of friendly peoples between the two territories. Imposing any form of restriction on the Causeway will certainly harm the interests of the people of both countries. The proposed Bill should be scrapped. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Lee Yiok Seng)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill because it helps the Government to effectively control the increase in the number of vehicles. It is not designed to restrict singaporeans from going to Johor Bahru. Mr Speaker, Sir, as our people get more affluent, their desire to enjoy material things is also greater. Everybody wants to possess more material things, enjoy a better living and to be comfortable. Therefore, when the people want to join the car owners class, it is a good sign. It is not wrong. Therefore the Government should not prevent them from doing that. But Singapore is a small island state with limited land space. We cannot allow the vehicles to occupy too much of land. At the moment, 10% of our total land area is used for transportation purposes. In addition to this, land is also used for the building of car parks and other related facilities. So this is a problem every Singaporean should be concerned with. If from now we do not have a good plan and measures to control the increase in the number of vehicles but allow the people to freely possess cars, then there will come a time when people with cars will not be able to move.”
“So how does filling half a tank with cheap petrol "circumvent the traffic congestion control policy", as the Minister claims? If it is congestion on the Causeway, that is another matter. But if the Bill is passed, checks on the petrol gauges on the Causeway is certain to worsen congestion. It is the Bill that will cause congestion, not the cheap petrol. Lastly, Sir, I must point out, as has already been pointed out by Mr Chandra Das, that the restriction imposed on motorists going across the Causeway is a grave violation of the basic right of freedom of movement enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He does not believe in it! I say that the people have a right to travel freely inside and outside the country, whether they have half a tank or full tank in their vehicles. But now the Bill takes away that right. What other rights may be taken away the next time? Today, the restriction is on the buying of cheap petrol. Will it mean that tomorrow a person will not be able to cross the Causeway to do shopping, to do marketing or to enjoy a cheap seafood meal? Is this Bill intended to be a forerunner of more restrictions on human rights and freedoms in the days ahead? One can never be certain with the PAP Government, Sir, with its shocking record of violations of human rights in Singapore. Sir, the Straits Times Forum Page published a letter from a reader not so long ago. He asked: A motorist may go across the Causeway with less than half-tankful and return to Singapore without buying any petrol. Is that an offence under the law? The reader concludes that the Bill is illogical. We must ask: what is the Minister's answer? If the answer is yes, it shows that such a law is an ass. If the answer is no, it shows that the proposed Bill is also an ass.”
“When it realized that it was losing revenue because motorists were buying cheaper petrol in Johor, the Government was forced to reduce petrol taxes in 1986 by about 40 cents or so. After that, of course, fewer motorists went to buy cheaper petrol in Johor. But since one year or more ago, the exchange rate in favour of the Singapore dollar has been rising steadily. Today, the exchange rate is around 70 cents to one Malaysian Ringgit. In the circumstances, it is only natural that motorists would like to take advantage of the favourable exchange rate to buy much cheaper petrol in Johor. Yet, during all these years, from 1985 to 1989 today no one has suggested that cheap petrol from Johor has caused traffic congestion in Singapore. And this is simply because cheap petrol has nothing to do with traffic congestion in Singapore. But now when the half-tank rule is being introduced, such an illogical argument is suddenly being advanced. Common sense tells us that we cannot easily follow such PAP logic. It is very difficult. Common sense tells us that if the average motorist goes to buy cheaper petrol, it is because he hopes to save money. He would certainly want to conserve and economize on the use of petrol, and not foolishly waste it by unnecessary use of the vehicle on the road. But now the Minister wants us to believe that the motorist would waste his money by using the vehicle on the road, and so cause congestion in Singapore. I wonder if the Minister is really serious. And does he really believe in such illogical logic? If there is congestion, it is already present before the motorists go to Johor to buy cheaper petrol. And topping up half a tank with cheap petrol cannot add to such congestion.”
“The Bill before us proposes a form of import control, by way of legal or administrative restriction to the free flow of goods, namely, the free flow of cheaper petrol bought by motorists returning from Johor. It wants to protect the sale of petrol in Singapore. In defence of its action, Singapore may well say that it is merely adopting measures in connection with Singapore customs and duties. But what's in a name? They say that a rose by any name smells as sweet. And so protectionism via the Customs (Amendment) Bill is still protectionism. We must not forget that in the past Malaysia had adopted analogous measures that had prevented or discouraged the development of the free flow of goods across the Causeway. Would the Government be able to assure the House that this half tank rule will not trigger off another round of retaliatory measures taken by the Malaysian government in the future? If not, should we then legislate something that can and probably will provoke retaliation from our neighbours and friends in ASEAN? Our policies are certainly irrational. Also irrational is the statement by the Minister for Trade and Industry. While in Johor, he said: 'When they [ie, the motorists] buy cheap petrol in Johor to bring back to Singapore, they are circumventing the traffic congestion control policy and [almost as an afterthought I think] a loss of revenue [that is unimportant].' So the Government's excuse for the Bill would be that cheap petrol from Johor causes traffic congestion in Singapore. We must remind the Minister, as the Minister himself has also said, that people have been going to buy cheap petrol from Johor ever since 1985, after the big increase in petrol duties in Singapore.”
“It sounds so unbelievable as some of the speakers have already said. It is as if our Government has been afflicted with schizophrenia, saying something nice and good in its saner moments, but doing something bad and irrational when it becomes moonstruck and wacky. What other explanation is there forsuch a Bill that is both irrational and absurd, contrary to what Dr Hong Hai has said? Is it intended merely to save $2 million a month revenue that Government says it has been losing? However, since the Bill makes it an offence to cross the Causeway without at least half a tankful of petrol, the motorists from Singapore can buy at most another half tankful of cheaper petrol. Therefore, the revenue loss is halved, to only $1 million. And if we deduct also the extra expenditure incurred for the manpower and machinery needed to check the petrol gauges of vehicles, it can be seen that the sum saved by this Bill will be much less than $1 million a month. Surely that paltry sum saved is nothing compared to the goodwill that would be lost if such a half-tank rule Bill is passed and becomes law. Is the Bill really worth it? Another aspect of this Bill is that although our Ministers often speak of the benefits of free enterprise and free market forces against the harmful effects of protectionism, Government is nevertheless actively pushing a policy of protectionism. That is what many people in Singapore are saying, and I agree with them. Protectionism, Sir, comes in many forms, in the form of tariffs, quotas, import controls, non-tariff barriers, export self-restraint and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I follow up some of the remarks made by Mr Chandra Das who has expressed his concern. It would appear that sometimes the Government's right hand does not really know what its left hand is doing. Recent events have confirmed that. The Government often says that we should strengthen ASEAN solidarity. And in this respect, our First Deputy Prime Minister has gone to Indonesia to cement friendly relations. That is good. Yet, on the other hand, the Government amends the Immigration law, and abruptly and unceremoniously sends packing thousands of so-called illegal Thai workers, all going home bitter and resentful. And in the process, the Government has soured relations between Singapore and the Thai people. That is no good. And now even before tempers have really cooled down, we have this Customs (Amendment) Bill, which will certainly cause a great deal of unhappiness in Johore and throughout Malaysia. The Minister has said that it is not meant to discourage people going into Malaysia, and even cited examples of Singapore promoting tourism in Johor. But questions have already been asked, and the Singapore High Commissioner to Malaysia had to make conciliatory statements in an attempt to allay apprehensions of the people in Malaysia. And similarly, our Minister for Trade and Industry had to speak of incentives for Singapore businesses that expand into Johor in order to appease injured feelings. But the damage has already been done, and it may well be some time before the damage is repaired. Is that how Singapore hopes to improve and strengthen friendly relations with ASEAN countries, and especially with Malaysia? By doing something that would harm the interests of friends and neighbours as well as the interests of Singapore motorists?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be a possibility but we should ensure that everybody knows what each judge really thinks. Mr Davinder Singh: I would have thought, Sir, that as soon as the decision comes out as a unanimous decision, it does not make any sense for two more judges to say that it is a unanimous decision.”
“It is not irrelevant, Sir, because we want to know what each judge really thinks and he should not merely just to concur.”