Leong Horn Kee
Singapore
“My question is that, although at the point of purchase when the blocks were built, this may not be structural deficiency, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but it is now because the demand or desire is for lift access.”
“Lastly, by centralising at MOM, I wish to urge the kind Minister to provide more funds and resources for job search programmes. Most feedback from residents is that they are not getting sufficient help and satisfaction on job search services at the CDC level.”
“At the same time, our SAF soldiers are better educated and trained to handle more sophisticated fighting system. Thus, the combination of both modern weapon systems and better trained soldiers will provide a good platform for our SAF to build a strong and capable integrated fighting force.”
“All right, "may" allow two months of disruption. But in terms of cohort, after the students have left school, they are no more in the same cohort. They actually enter enlistment at different times of the year. So this issue of relating cohort to enlistment period may not be valid. Therefore, why not just have a clarity of rule?”
“Sir, on this issue of early disruption of two months, we should actually look at it not from the two months' point of view of early disruption, but from the 10 months of waiting time. The servicemen will have to mope around waiting for 10 months for his tertiary education.”
“If the safety and personal security in Johor is not improved, no matter how excellent or scenic a bridge we build, Singaporeans will be hesitant to visit Johor and spend time and money there.”
The complete record
Every one of 876 lines we hold for Leong Horn Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 18.
“Sir, the first question I want to ask the Minister is a clarification again. There has been some misconception among the public that the resale levy is also applicable to people who have purchased flats from the resale market. Is that correct or not?”
“Sir, can I get a clarification from the Minister? If an applicant is staying in a 3-room HDB rental flat and by the time he wants to purchase this rental flat he is already quite old, can he be allowed to get a longer loan repayment period for such a purchase?”
“These are avenues for the community to mix; a means to draw residents to come out of their flats and meet their neighbours. For old housing estates, the HDB can also use the Upgrading Programmes, In-fill developments and SERS to provide more of such facilities and promote social cohesion. In conclusion, Sir, Singapore's successful housing programme is our hallmark. Many countries, including Hong Kong, have openly praised our achievements and want to learn from us. Singaporeans should be proud. As the President has said in his Address, "Provided we stay competitive and the economy continues to prosper, Singaporeans will share in the nation's success ...". We Singaporeans have to first put in the effort, then we can enjoy the fruits of our labour.”
“The point we must not forget is that whatever are the effects, the Government has succeeded in giving almost every family an affordable home. So I feel that besides making policy changes or policy adjustments, the Government has also to manage the people's expectations by more explanations, persuasion and education. In view of the visible trend towards materialism, many Members have spoken on the need to promote social cohesion or community bonding of Singaporeans. I feel that social cohesion can be achieved by many measures, but there are two major methods. One is through education which many Members have spoken about, and the other one is by housing. In my view, education is a mental form of promoting social cohesion. Housing, in contrast, is a physical form of community bonding. Sir, allow me to explain how I feel social cohesion can be achieved through housing. I would like to urge the Ministry of National Development - the Minister is here - to do a comprehensive study on how the housing estates can be designed to allow for more social interaction. For new estates, the new blocks can be designed to encourage more neighbourly interaction. Bring back the old common corridors which in the past had helped to foster more neighbourliness or the kampong spirit. Or provide a residents' coffee corner on every floor in a block for them to gather. The HDB can also provide more common areas like community halls, activity centres, residents' committee premises, parks, playgrounds, pavilions or senior citizens' corners, or even provide areas for karaoke clubs, which Mr Chiam seemed to object yesterday about using karaoke activities to promote community bonding.”
“In comparison, a Singaporean flat owner wants to upgrade to a bigger flat. I was told as a joke that sometimes, when a family plays mahjong in Hong Kong in the living room, only one person can actually stay in the living room. The other three players, one will be in the dining room, one in the bedroom and the other in the kitchen. This is only a contrast, but it is a very graphic comparison of living standards in Singapore and Hong Kong. In Singapore, 77% of the people own their HDB flats and another 9% rent their flats. In comparison, in Hong Kong, only 10% own their public housing flats and 41% actually live in public rental flats. Even Hong Kong's Chief Executive designate, Mr Tung Chee Hwa, has praised Singapore for its success in public housing, and he wants Hong Kong to learn from Singapore. The Minister for National Development has recently announced measures to fine-tune the HDB flat allocation policies. It appears that there was no major resentment to these changes, but many who were affected one way or another have written to the press or approached their MPs to ask for review of their cases. They say, "The rules are a little unfair. My case is a bit different." Or they say, "I have my needs. Why can't they just make an exception of my case?" As MPs, we duly convey support of our constituents' requests to the Minister. But let us be rational and realistic, especially in our expectations on public housing. The rules set by HDB are meant to achieve certain effects. Otherwise, why make the changes. We have to understand that it is extremely difficult to govern a country by exception, or by catering to every individual's needs.”
“At a building rate of about 35,000-40,000 units a year, the queue means a 4-year wait. I think the basic reason why Singaporeans are keen to get their HDB flats as soon as possible is because of the prospect of a substantial investment gain. This is the basic cause of the rising expectations in public housing. As a result, to meet this demand, the Government wants to build more and faster, and some very innovative schemes were introduced. These are the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), the In-fill development and Selective En-bloc Redevelopment (SER). These programmes cost the Government over $1 billion dollars a year. Yet, despite these measures, the queue got even longer. Expectations are just too high. People just want more. Two bites of the cherry have become a birth right of a Singaporean. I feel the answer is not just how to give more, but how to meet our people's expectations. Let me make some comparisons. The average size of living space in public housing in Singapore is much better than our neighbours. The comparison of the average flat size per person in the major Asian cities is as follows. In Singapore, the average flat size per person is about 23 square metres. In Tokyo, about 15 square metres. In Seoul, about 13 square metres. Both about half of Singapore. In the case of Beijing, it is about 9 square metres, and Hong Kong, it is only 7 square metres. In these two cases, it is about one-third of Singapore. This comparison means that an equivalent 4-room HDB flat in Singapore which can house four persons in a family, actually can house 6 people in Tokyo, 7 people in Seoul, 10 people in Beijing and 13 people in Hong Kong. I was told that a typical Singapore flat can actually house four Hong Kong families.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate to thank the President for his Address. The President said that "we will build a nation where everyone has a stake in Singapore's success, feels a sense of belonging and ownership. The HDB home ownership scheme has been an important means of doing this .". I find this section of the President's Speech very meaningful. Everyone has a stake in Singapore's success. For most people, this stake is his ownership of a flat or a house. Home ownership has become a cornerstone of Singapore's success. It is also a measure of the wealth of the average Singaporean. Earlier, many Members have spoken about rising expectations, especially material expectations of the people. I would like to speak on rising expectations of the people on housing. If we look back, public housing has undergone fundamental changes over the last 40 years. In the 60s, it was a social objective of putting roofs over the heads of our people. In the 70s, it was promoting home ownership. In the 80s, we saw affluence and the expansion of suburban housing estates. In the 90s, nowadays, it has become asset enhancement, lifestyle changes and upgrading to better flats. There was a dramatic shift, from a flat being seen as a basic housing need for everyone in the 60s to an investment asset in the 90s. Our public housing programme, by any measure, is a resounding success. The flats are affordable. They are large and well-designed. It is an envy of many other countries. Yet, now, it is ironical that it has become, to some extent, a burden to the Government, because of an almost insatiable demand for more. Currently, there are about 150,000 applicants on the HDB housing queue.”
“Sir, for these schools that were not able to accommodate the children under Phase 2C, would the Ministry consider expanding the number of classes and even the class size so as to accommodate these children?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he could give us details on the number of schools where the residents living within a kilometre, or under Phase 2C, are unable to gain admission to the schools.”
“These linkages are more evident in Singapore as 97% of our people own their homes (87% own HDB flats and another 10% own private properties). At the same time, more and more people are encouraged to own shares. Hence, any sharp drop in the property market will have a wide cascading effect on consumer spending, the retail trade, the share market, bank loans, the construction industry and related industries and, ultimately, on the overall business confidence. In conclusion, while I support the principle that we must cool a feverish property market, I wish to urge the Government to watch carefully over the state of the property market. Ideally, this market should be just nice and warm, but not too hot and not too cold.”
“However, for an uncompleted property, ie, a property under development, it may be fairer to set a new rule to impose stamp duty at, say, three months after the signing of the sale and purchase agreement. The previous rule of 2-3 years later at the temporary occupation permit (TOP) stage is understandably too long, and it has the effect of encouraging speculation. Hence, I feel that a good compromise is three months from the sale and purchase agreement. The current new rule of two weeks from the sale and purchase agreement is too tight a timeframe. Moreover, because of the shorter period, there is insufficient time to obtain approval for CPF funds to be used for payment of the stamp duty. And this, of course, has posed an additional cash burden on genuine buyers. Stamp duty to be paid by the seller if the property is sold within three years I feel that this new rule to impose stamp duty on the seller if the property is sold within three years is unnecessary. Not all sellers who sell their properties within three years are speculators. Many may be selling for financial or other personal reasons. There are already other new rules to curb speculation. For example, there is a new rule that income tax is payable if the seller makes a profit from the sale. However, if the seller had to sell at a loss, and he has to pay stamp duty on top of that, his financial loss will be aggravated. Sir, I feel that the Government must guard that the new measures to cool property speculation do not become an overkill. Experiences in both Singapore and other countries have shown that the confidence in the economy is closely linked to confidence in the property and share markets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I commence my speech, I would like to declare my interest as a director of a company involved in property development. But my remarks are made in the interest of the public on this subject. The recently announced measures to cool property speculation were sudden, and they had an immediate impact on the property market. Press reports said that property sales have dropped to 10% or less of the original volume. I wish to state that, in principle, I agree with the need to curb excessive property speculation. To make a quick buck through blatant property speculation is not compatible with our desire to promote good work ethics. It makes a mockery of the ethos of thrift and diligence, when someone can simply turn around to re-sell a property in a few days and make $50,000 or more, a sum which an average worker cannot earn in a whole year! However, on the other hand, I wish to remark that the set of new measures announced did come too suddenly and forcefully. While the measures were needed to cool the high speculative fever, the measures had caught many genuine investors and home buyers off guard. Sir, allow me to comment on some of these measures, particularly with regard to stamp duties. Stamp duty to be paid by a buyer at the signing of the sale and purchase agreement The new ruling requires stamp duty to be paid by a buyer at the signing of the sale and purchase agreement. This usually occurs within two weeks of the date of option. The shortened timeframe to pay the 3% stamp duty will pose an immediate heavy cash burden on the buyer. I feel that for the sale of a completed property, the previous rule of paying stamp duty upon completion of a sale, which is usually in about three months' time, is more reasonable.”
“The Prime Minister has taken on himself the burden of clearing property purchases by Ministers. As long as the present Prime Minister is in office, I am comfortable with this. But we cannot speak for future Prime Ministers. In 10 years, 20 years, who will be the Prime Minister? Will he be beholden to some king-maker in Cabinet? To make a good system better, may I suggest, if this is not already done, that the President be kept informed, as a matter of course, of all these transactions, because we have an Elected President and it is part of his brief to keep check on the integrity of the civil service. Keep him informed. In that way, in future, if we have a less conscientious Prime Minister, we will have some assurance that there are no shenanigans. The Prime Minister has also referred to the code of ethics that Ministers subscribe to. I think it would be helpful if this code were made public, so that we can see the high standards that are expected of those in high office. Some people have commented to me that this debate is redundant. In a sense, it is. I do not think that most Singaporeans have considered that the Senior Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister has done anything wrong, even without this debate. But the debate is invaluable if it establishes two points. Firstly, you do not have to give favours to civil servants or politicians because it is not accepted. And, secondly, if there is any impropriety, no matter how high up, it could be rooted out, and will be stamped on. If it achieves these two aims, I think we will have spent our time very well.”
“Sometimes it is good public relations to give discounts to people whom they think may be influential, so that you create positive impression, so that there will be recommendations to other people, creating a demand. Sometimes it is just pure sucking up, the desire to get into the good books of someone who may be potentially of help. I do not think it is reasonable to expect politicians and civil servants to refuse all discounts. I speak as one who has never been offered even an extra fishball, much less attended a soft property launch. We should never solicit for such favours but it is expecting too much that they should have to give back the extra fishball. I think that is beyond reasonableness. It should be made clear that favours are not expected, that there would be no reciprocal back-scratching and that not giving favours to politicians and civil servants will not prejudice anyone in his dealings with the Government. As long as this is crystal clear to the public, I do not think we have to over-react by ruling that politicians and civil servants should never get discounts, should never attend soft launches, never be given special treatment, to declare all their assets. I think that would be an over-reaction to something that is not a problem. Remember that a director of a property company has a fiduciary duty to his company to get the best price possible. If he makes the habit of giving discounts to his cronies, he will have to account for it to his shareholders. Unless he has got a jolly good reason for doing what he is doing, he would be in breach of his fiduciary duty. He can be prosecuted under section 157 of the Companies Act and we should weep no tears for him. Sir, one final point, if I may.”
“They are patted on the head by their master, they wag their tails. They imagine they hear their master's voice, they try and please him. I think it is very important to establish very clearly that the top leadership does not want sycophants in civil service. I think Mr Koh Beng Seng of MAS should be commended for his uprightness in pursuing this matter, despite the fact that the allegations involved figures like the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Every public servant, from Permanent Secretaries downwards, should be assured that the Government expects every allegation of impropriety to be investigated, no matter how influential the person is. And more than that, I think that those who demonstrate their conscientiousness in this matter should be publicly commended, so that there is no feeling that they are putting their careers at risk by bringing up something like this to the powers there be. The second positive effect is it signals to the public at large that it is not necessary to curry favour with politicians and civil servants by giving them favours and discounts. It is not expected. An influential politician should not, as a matter of course, get special treatment. Focusing on the question of discounts here, there are several reasons why developers give discounts. Senior Minister has explained one reason - because it is good for a businessman that his products should be associated with the successful and the famous. It reflects well on the product; it is good for business. But there are other reasons. Sometimes, it is goodwill, because they are grateful for what you have done for them, for what you have done for the country, and therefore they give you discount, or something tangible, as a good gesture of thanks.”
“I think some other Members may have received that same letter. Where is it written that a graduate couple cannot live in an HDB flat? But it is people like this, I think, who resent the fact that others can afford private condominiums. They feel that the rich people, and amongst these will include top civil servants and Ministers, are spoiling the market for the rest. There is no use pointing out to them that this is the way the market works, because this is not a logical problem, it is an emotional problem. Intellectually, I think people understand that prices will go up when affluence increases, but it is very hard for them to accept that they are not within that band of top earners that can afford private properties. So you have a problem, an emotional problem, that is very hard to get through. And this is why we have this debate today. Those who are resentful over the high property prices and envious of those who can afford them will not be mollified by what the Senior Minister said yesterday. Indeed, I think his explanation of the realities of the market may very well serve to exacerbate their resentment. For this group, the debate in this House will also change nothing. So, what have we achieved in two days of debate? To my mind, there are two positive effects of this episode. Firstly, it affirms that no one in Singapore is above the law - not the Senior Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister. This is very important. Because there is a residual perception amongst some people that the influential will not be booked for their sins. It is crucial that this perception be banished completely. In any country with strong leadership, there is a danger of sycophancy. You have sometimes civil servants who try to please their masters.”
“Sir, I wish to conclude by urging the people to remove the emotional reactions to the above issues. The rational conclusion to the property purchases by Senior Minister and DPM Lee is that they are clearly above-board. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Finance Minister said yesterday, the problem is really one of perception. Perhaps I have been mixing with the wrong crowd, but no one I have talked to thinks that either Senior Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister did anything wrong, morally or legally. For those of us who felt like this from the start, nothing that has been said in this House yesterday or today changes anything. But the Prime Minister has told us that some people were disgruntled at what they perceive to be a lack of equity in the market. This is a feeling borne of envy and nurtured by frustration. In the last couple of years, the property market has gone crazy. The Germans have a very evocative word for such a phenomenon - Torschlusspanik - door-closing panic, the feeling that the door is closing, and if you do not grab something soon, the door will be shut, and you will get nothing. This panic is no doubt encouraged by developers who can then sell their properties at unheard of prices. I do not believe that the crux of the problem is the Senior Minister or Deputy Prime Minister's property transactions per se. I am sure that most people would not begrudge the Senior Minister any discount, whether it is 5%, or 100%, because of who he is, and because of what he has done for the country. But there are some who are frustrated because they cannot afford private property. Someone wrote to me complaining that a graduate couple cannot be expected to live in an HDB flat.”
“Of course, Ministers themselves must guard against receiving such favours. In our small and closely-knit society, if there are any wrongdoings by Ministers to use their position to procure favours or any unfair advantage, rumours will quickly spread. This is more so for property purchases, where transactions are in public records, and property brokers and agents are fast to pick up the news and spread news of purchases by prominent persons. I feel that the wider and more important issue is the integrity of our entire political and moral value system. While we are sad that Senior Minister and DPM Lee are subjecting themselves to such close public scrutiny; at the same time, I am actually gratified to see that the very system that the Senior Minister has created allows it to question the integrity of anyone, even such personages as Senior Minister himself and Deputy Prime Minister Lee. More commendable is that Senior Minister and DPM Lee have willingly subjected themselves to public inquiry by the MPs here. We used to be extremely proud to quote instances when Ministers and civil servants refused to accept even a cup of coffee from contractors. The integrity of our system is intact, or has remained very much the same, although we have become a bit less rigid. But I believe Ministers and civil servants are still uneasy with having a free cup of coffee or a free meal. The final verdict, I believe, Sir, is that Senior Minister and DPM Lee have established beyond doubt that they have not taken any advantage, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I note that the Opposition MPs have not asked questions on the purchases and have not said or hinted that they are improper. This speaks volumes for the stringency and strength of our political system.”
“We have heard some comments outside, which are also repeated by Mr Chiam See Tong yesterday, that since Ministers earn huge salaries, why should they be so greedy as to want to invest in properties. I feel that Ministers, like us, need to invest for the future, plan for their children and plan for their eventual retirement. Therefore, it is only fair that Ministers be allowed to invest in properties. Yesterday, we heard Mr Cheo Chai Chen propose that Ministers should be allowed to own only one private property each. This is what I call "beggar thy neighbour" ideal. This type of unrealistic, communistic concept has long gone out of fashion. Our meritocratic system, with fair rewards for fair work, has worked better for us. Mr Cheo's other proposal that Ministers should seek Parliament's approval when they want to sell properties is even more impractical. Do we want to have a debate on every sale by a Minister? After all the debate, who should finally decide? Maybe the Speaker should. I think the pertinent question really is: should Ministers participate in soft launches that are not open to the public? Some people feel that Ministers should not take advantage of having the inside track. This is actually a very difficult issue. A Minister may have a genuine desire to purchase a property at a particular project because of its proximity to his parents' home, or maybe to his children's schools, or other factors. Therefore, it is not fair to deprive them by saying a blanket "no". I think it is better to be more flexible. The Prime Minister has said that he will devise rules on property purchases by Ministers, top civil servants and MPs. Whatever are the rules, developers must be careful that they should not offer special prices to Ministers.”
“I also agree that since nothing wrong has been done, there is really no need to return the discounts to the Government. The second conclusion is that discounts can vary between different units in the same development. Varying discounts are given to reflect differences in factors such as facing, level, unit size, unit configuration and collective purchases. In the above examples that I have mentioned, there were between 4% and 10% differences between the lowest and the highest discount rates. Therefore, there should also be no misunderstanding as to why DPM Lee actually received 12%, whereas Senior Minister received 7% for their units at Nassim Jade. The key figure to focus on is, in fact, the net price per square foot. I note that DPM Lee's unit's net price per square foot is $1,568, which is only marginally 1% lower than the $1,583 per square foot paid by Senior Minister. This slight 1% lower price for DPM Lee's unit is, in fact, very understandable as it is larger and irregular in shape. It is also a very common practice for developers to conduct soft launches before the official launches. The objective is to test the market. Developers normally invite staff, staff's relatives and friends, business associates and others who have indicated prior interest to select units at soft launches. This is a mechanism for us to eliminate the risks and test market reactions before the official launches. Moreover, it is a common practice to invite prominent persons, including politicians, professionals and media personalities, if they are interested, to soft launches to purchase units. This is a form of product endorsement. Sir, the question is: should Ministers be allowed to invest in properties? My view is an unequivocal yes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to declare my interest as a director of a company actively involved in property development. Yesterday, we heard very thorough and clear explanations by the Senior Minister and DPM Lee Hsien Loong on the background and circumstances on their purchases of properties. I would like to draw upon my experience as a property developer to substantiate the points raised regarding these property purchases. Sir, there has been widespread misunderstanding over the discounts given for the purchases. As a director of one of the largest property development groups in Singapore, I can affirm that discount off the list prices is a standard market practice. We initially prepare a price list for all the units on sale. Then, we offer various discounts to reflect the actual market prices. Allow me to quote examples of some recent residential projects: In West Bay Condominium, discounts were given ranging from 6% to 16%. In West Cove Condominium, 15% to 20%. In Seasons Park Condominium, 9% to 13%. These are projects that were all or almost sold. Discounts given for the above projects are even higher than those given for Nassim Jade and Scotts 28. From the above examples, the first conclusion that can be drawn is that list prices and discounts have no meaning. Discounts are mere marketing ploys of developers,. The discounted prices are the real market prices. Therefore, no special favours were accorded to the Senior Minister and DPM Lee when discounts were given to them. This is an industry practice. From the industry's practitioner's point of view, my unreserved conclusion is that no impropriety has been committed by Senior Minister and DPM Lee. I believe this opinion is shared by my fellow industry colleagues.”
“I notice that during the rush hours after schools are dismissed, school children tend to scramble and rush to board buses. As a safety measure, I would like to suggest that the Government should construct queue barriers at bus stops, especially at bus stops that are near to schools. This will assist the children to be more disciplined in queuing for buses and avoid any mishaps that might happen when they rush to board buses. I hope the Minister will consider these suggestions.”
“Sir, there are many old, run-down bus shelters in HDB estates. The town councils, as well as the HDB, are upgrading these old HDB estates. There are many Main Upgrading Programmes undertaken in various parts of Singapore. Most of these upgrading works include the construction of covered linkways connecting the HDB blocks to the bus shelters. At present, it is rather incongruous as the bus shelters are often very old and dilapidated. Hence, like old flats, the bus shelters also need upgrading. However, I understand that the funding provision for HDB upgrading programmes does not cover the cost of upgrading and reconstruction of bus shelters. On the other hand, CIPC funding also does not cover construction of bus shelters. Let me cite a real example. We have four blocks of HDB flats in Sin Ming Estate in Thomson GRC. There are plans to upgrade the four blocks of flats, as well as constructing linkways from the blocks to the bus shelters. But we have been told that the rebuilding of the bus shelters is not covered under the HDB Main Upgrading Programme. On the other hand, CIPC funding is also not helpful because CIPC funds can only be used for building bus shelters' seats and bus bays, but not the bus shelter itself. Hence, we have a real problem of who should pay for the building of the new bus shelters. I would like to ask the Government whether it should consider making a provision, either through the HDB Main Upgrading Programme, the CIPC grants or direct funding from LTA, to enable all old bus stops in Singapore to be upgraded. This is particularly meaningful if the upgrading programme coincides with the HDB Main Upgrading Programme. 4.00 pm Sir, I wish to raise another subject on bus shelters.”
“(4) This policy is not new as owners of HDB flats are already allowed to use their CPF for HDB Main Upgrading Programmes. Hence, applying this scheme to private apartments, condominiums and HUDC estates is only an extension of the existing rule. I hope the Minister would be more persuaded on my proposal this time round.”
“Sir, there are many old apartments and condominiums in Singapore which are over 20 years old. These old apartments and condominiums, including former HUDC estates, are in need of upgrading. 2.00 pm The upgrading of HUDC and private condominiums requires substantial funds. There is an HUDC estate in Thomson GRC called Lakeview HUDC. The Management Corporation of Lakeview HUDC plans to upgrade their estate. This is similar to the work done in the Main Upgrading Programme of HDB flats. This upgrading work is for the external and common areas. It does not include the internal renovation of the flats, which rightfully should be the direct responsibility of the individual flat owners. The residents of Lakeview HUDC have persistently asked me to request the Government to allow the owners of private condominiums and HUDC flats to use their CPF to defray the upgrading costs. I support this proposal and I have raised this issue with the Minister previously. I wish to persuade him to reconsider this issue again. This proposal deserves support for the following reasons: (1) It encourages owners of such old apartments and buildings to upgrade their blocks and common areas. This will reduce the number of ugly run-down buildings in Singapore. (2) The upgrading work would be in support of the Government's plan to help the people enhance the value of their assets. (3) There will be more stability. Like residents of HDB estates, residents in these old apartments and condominiums prefer to remain in the same flats which they have been residing. Hence, instead of moving into new flats, if they upgrade, they can remain in their present homes which will be upgraded through their own funds.”
“I would like to ask what are the criteria for admission of new local and foreign stockbrokers into the SES.”
“Sir, before I speak, I wish to declare my interest as a Director of a company that has an indirect minority interest in a local stockbroking firm. I am raising this topic as a matter of general interest to the public. Sir, we wish to promote Singapore as a financial centre. Having a buoyant and healthy stock market and a strong stockbroking industry is an integral part of the sophisticated financial centre we wish to create. Compared to the bourses around the world, the size of the Singapore stock market is relatively small. Our Singapore stock market has a total market value of about US$150 billion. Compared to the other financial centres around the world, like New York, Tokyo, London and others, we are actually relatively very small. For example, the New York market has a total value of about US$6,300 billion; Singapore's stock market is only about 2.5% of the New York market. It is also only about 4% of the Tokyo market; 10% of the London market, and about half of the Hong Kong market; three-quarter of the Malaysian market; and just about the same size as the Thailand stock market. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are plans to further strengthen the breadth and depth of the stock market in Singapore. In particular, I would like to know whether there are plans to admit more local and foreign stockbrokers. For instance, more stockbrokers, such as foreign stockbrokers could attract more foreign institutional interests in Singapore stocks, hence making our stock market more active. The new local and foreign stockbrokers could also introduce more expertise and innovations. We are aware that admission of new members to the Stock Exchange of Singapore has been restricted for several years.”
“Sir, the Finance Minister has assured the House that the formation of Autonomous Agencies will not give rise to tariff increases. However, I still have some concerns. I understand that the plan is to eventually convert all Government departments into Autonomous Agencies. I would like to suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider whether it is desirable to convert certain revenue-collecting or law enforcing departments into Autonomous Agencies. Some Government departments' raison d'etre is to collect fees and fines or just to enforce the laws. Examples that come to mind are the Traffic Police Department, the ROV, and the Customs and Excise Department. The worry is that the performance measures to be introduced to gauge these agencies could well be based on their capability to collect revenue or catch offenders. This could prompt them to become over-zealous in money or debt collections or getting defaulters. Therefore, they may be also more diligent in collecting the fees and may be less tolerant in allowing late payments or giving leeway to defaulters. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would exclude such revenue-collecting agencies or law enforcement departments from being converted into Autonomous Agencies. I would also like to know whether the Autonomous Agencies scheme has been tried out in other countries. If so, what is their experience? Sir, could the Minister take note of the above concerns in implementing the Autonomous Agencies scheme? Will measures be taken to address these concerns?”
“Sir, many MPs have raised queries regarding the privatisation of Singapore Power. In the Budget debate, I have also raised the point that there is a need to provide more explanation on the rationale for the privatisation of Singapore Power. There is also a need to justify the target rate of return of 10-11%. Unfortunately, there is a public perception that the proposed electricity tariff increases are linked to the plan to privatise and list Singapore Power. The question asked is whether there is really a need to privatise Singapore Power. To most people, the previous entity, that is, the PUB, appears to have functioned quite well. So what are the benefits for creating Singapore Power now? Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister whether Singapore Power can be further sub-divided into two or three entities. This will create some form of competition between the two or three entities created. In the process, we hope to see better efficiency and more innovation if there is competition among them. At present, Singapore Power appears to be operating as a monopoly and therefore it may not be spurred by competition to attain maximum operational efficiency.”
“Sir, this issue of rising business costs has been raised by MPs every year. It is again necessary for us to air this issue this year, and continue to moan and groan to the Minister about the problems faced by local companies in rising business costs. Business cost increases come from many fronts, such as rising manpower costs, rentals, utility charges and workers' levy, among many others. I wish to ask the Minister to give a comparison of the unit labour cost between Singapore and its main competitors, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. Are we still competitive? In addition, we should also be aware that we have other competitors in the neighbouring countries, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and even the PRC which are lower operating centres compared to Singapore. Therefore, it is imperative that we must keep our business costs low so as to remain competitive. Hence, I would urge the Minister to also track the cost competitiveness of Singapore versus the neighbouring countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.”
“Sir, the Government has started the regionalisation programme a few years ago. Much publicity has been given to this exercise. The Prime Minister, Senior Minister and other Ministers have led several Government and business missions to promote this regionalisation exercise. The impression created, I agree with Dr Ow, has been that we seem to focus a lot of our energy and time on going to China, Indo-China and India. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give details on the investments made by Singaporeans in the regional countries to show how much we have spread our investments in the respective countries in this region. Sir, since we have been promoting regionalisation for a few years, I would like to ask the Minister to give a status report on the success we have achieved so far, and what are the problems we have encountered. For example, I understand that we have problems in terms of shortage of managers to send overseas. Many businessmen have encountered difficulties in the ambiguity of local laws and practices, and lack of information and contacts. Perhaps the Government can consider setting up a central unit to collate information on local rules and opportunities, and also to act as a central reference for records on the experiences and pitfalls in doing business in overseas countries. This unit will be especially useful for the small and medium enterprises which lack information, contacts and experience in seeking opportunities overseas. Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give an update on our Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Project. What is the status and what are the problems and progress made so far?”
“Since we give regular pay revisions to Ministers and civil servants and the men-in-the-street get yearly rebates and reliefs from the Finance Minister, I thought some consideration should be given to pensioners as well. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Sir, at the moment, the Public Service Commission grants scholarships only to those 'A' level students. With more and more students going into the polytechnics and many of them have good potential, the Government should consider giving scholarships to these polytechnic graduates as well, so that we may enlarge our pool of talented scholars. Meanwhile, Overseas Merit Scholars, normally after their graduation, will be put in high positions and they enjoy better promotion prospects than other civil servants. Will that cause some kind of unhappiness among the other officers who are non-scholars? I would like to know, among civil servants who are above the grade of Superscale E, how many of them are Overseas Merit Scholars. If two applicants are engaged, one is an Overseas Merit Scholar and the other is a local scholar, what sort of promotion prospects do they have? Are they equal? Next, how many scholarships does the PSC give to existing serving officers? 12.45 pm”
“Over the years, pensioners have not received any pension adjustments except for an adjustment announced in 1994 but this adjustment only affected pensioners who retired before 1977. No adjustments were made for pensioners who retired after 1977. Meanwhile, the cost of living has increased year by year. Hence, I would like to ask whether the Government should consider adjusting the pensions. It is fair, as other Singaporeans are benefitting from the various rebates and reliefs given by the Minister for Finance year by year. Most pensioners, especially those on low pensions, do not pay tax. Hence, they miss out on the tax rebates and income tax cut. The Medisave Top-Up scheme that was introduced last year for senior citizens above 65 years old is not meaningful to pensioners as they are already covered by free medical benefits, and therefore have no need for more money to be put into their CPF Medisave accounts. In particular, I would like to point out that there are pensioners who live in private estates, usually old terraces built by cooperatives years ago. These pensioners do not enjoy S&C, rental and utility rebates given to HDB dwellers. I would like to suggest that the Government consider allocating a special fund to cater for such cases. This fund can be administered by the Citizens' Consultative Committee of each constituency. Based on certain approved criteria and on a case-by-case basis a sum that is equivalent to the total amount of S&C, rental and PUB rebates can be paid to deserving pensioners, especially those who draw low pensions and are not living in HDB flats.”
“Sir, the Government recently announced that it is recruiting mid-career executives in their 20s and 30s to strengthen the Administrative Service. The objectives are laudable as this will encourage the flow of talents from the private sector to the public sector. In line with this new initiative of attracting more private sector talents into the civil service, I would like to make the following suggestions. (1) Why not extend the entry level from mid-level to top-level? Why not take people, if they are good, at the Director, Deputy Secretary or even Permanent Secretary levels? (2) The Government can expand the scheme to other services, such as the Engineering Service, Legal Service, Foreign Service and others. I can imagine that these other services will benefit from the inflow of private sector professionals as well. (3) To be able to attract the good candidates, could the Government be more flexible in offering special perks and allowances so as to better attract talents and high-flyers from the private sector? In the past, there has been some sense of mistrust between the businessmen and the civil servants. With the regionalisation drive, the Government and the business sector must work closer together. Over time, I hope that the above measures will see more cross-flows of people between the private and business sectors. This will lead to better understanding, mutual regard and trust, thereby creating a more cohesive Government-business environment. Sir, I move on to my second cut on pensioners. In the Budget Statement, the Government announced several tax reliefs and rebates. However, there is no specific tax incentive given to pensioners. Pensioners have also contributed to the progress and economic growth of Singapore, but pensioners seem to be a forgotten lot.”
“I am pleased that the Government has introduced further incentives to promote water and energy conservation in industry. Water and electricity are two very important scarce resources. I would like to suggest that the Minister should give an update to the House on the status and success in water and electricity conservation campaigns and the future plans for these campaigns. The second topic is on the woes of the retail industry. The retail industry currently is facing acute problems of poor business arising from excessive competition and rising costs. These problems are encountered by both large and small retailers. I would like to ask whether the Government can do something to assist them. The Minister for Trade and Industry has said previously that the best thing to do is for the retailers to refuse higher rentals or simply not start the retail business if costs are too high. But I think more can be done. The Government should look into whether less retail space should be added to the current over-supply by releasing fewer tenders of land for shopping centres and retail spaces. Another idea is to provide retailers with more information of the current stage of the retail industry so that new entrants can be better informed as to whether they can well afford to start viable new retail shops. Sir, I wish to conclude by congratulating the Finance Minister for his generous Budget this year. Let us hope the economy can continue to do well in future so that he can be equally generous in future Budgets, if we can afford it. 2.38 pm”
“The people's perception is that the electricity tariff increases are linked to the plan for privatisation and listing of Singapore Power. The question is then asked: Why not just corporatise and abort the idea of listing, and then aim for a lower rate of return? As a general policy review, I would like to suggest that the Government can also do a review of the overall policy and strategy of privatisation of Government agencies. The public perception created so far is that corporatisation and privatisation appears to lead to increases in rates and charges. Other instances that come to mind are the restructuring of Government hospitals that leads to higher hospitalisation bills, rationalisation of MRT and bus routes that leads to more inconvenience and higher charges for those affected. Of course, there were good explanations for these policies. It appears that there is a need to explain further and remind the people of the wider objectives of these privatisation programmes. And more needs to be done to conduct talks and seminars, and provide publicity materials to enable the overall purposes and intentions to be put across clearly to the people. One excellent example of a well planned exercise conducted to explain a new Government initiative is the introduction of the GST. We may take a leaf or two from this example. Another need is to do a review of the progress made in the past privatisation exercises such as hospital restructuring, Singapore Telecom, MRT/bus rationalisation, to demonstrate or substantiate whether the original objectives have been achieved. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to round up my comments by referring two other subjects to the Minister. One is on the subject of promotion of water and electricity conservation.”
“Hence, for this incentive, the National Servicemen, their parents and wives can have a choice to opt for either the full tax relief or an equivalent amount (say 10%) as direct payment into their CPF accounts. This way, the relief offered can become a real and meaningful one, so that it can be enjoyed by the lower income groups who do not pay tax. I would like to suggest that the Government can also do more to upgrade the common areas in the private residential estates, such as constructing more footpaths, jogging paths and even covered linkways and more play equipment and landscaping in the private estates. These expenses form only a relatively small amount compared to the $1 billion to $1.5 billion being spent on HDB estates on the Main Upgrading Programme, Interim Upgrading Programme and other CIPC-funded projects. Since comparatively a smaller amount of money is spent on these private estates, I think the Government should not be stingy to help private estates to upgrade a little. Although the Government has given explanation and clarification on the proposed privatisation of Singapore Power, I am afraid there is a need to explain further. I do not know whether this is a case of the Government not explaining clearly enough or the people not listening carefully. Fundamentally, I believe we can understand the Finance Minister's clarification in his Budget Speech that we need to raise electricity tariffs so as to price our factors of production, such as electricity, at the true economic value. This is to avoid distortion in consumption and wastage. This part I believe the people can understand and accept. What needs more explanation is the rationale for privatisation. There is also a need to justify the target rate of return of 10-11%.”
“While there are some positive effects in getting the schools to mobilise teachers, pupils, parents, alumnis and well-wishers to raise funds, I think it can also be very taxing, disruptive and time-consuming for all concerned. Principals, teachers and pupils should be allowed to devote more of their time to teaching and learning, rather than to fund raising. Hence, I would call on the Government to be more generous and allocate more funds to schools to pay for the useful supplemental expenses such as computers, video libraries and enhanced sports facilities. Government can also consider giving more overseas scholarships, Government-sponsored retraining programme for workers, expansion of technical institutes, polytechnics and universities. Along this vein, I would like to say that more funds can also be allocated for the highly commendable Edusave Merit Bursary Awards Scheme that was introduced last year. This is a brilliant scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise a few specific issues and suggestions. It is a kind gesture of the Government to increase the tax relief for National Servicemen to $2,000 and give tax relief of $500 each to their parents and wives. However, I understand that about 75% of the population do not pay income tax. This means that three out of every four parents or wives do not enjoy this tax relief. This is particularly true for the low-income group. I would like to suggest that the Government consider offering an equivalent amount in the tax payable (say, they are taxed 10% average nationally) in the form of a direct payment into the CPF accounts for those who do not pay income tax.”
“In the worse case, even our HDB Upgrading Programme and Edusave Programme will have to be scaled down if the Government cannot generate enough surpluses during the current financial year. At present, we have a happy problem of how to spend the surpluses. Many people are clamouring to suggest how to spend this extra money earned by the Singapore Government, the PAP Government. Many ideas have been suggested and more will be proposed by both Government MPs as well as our Opposition MPs who are eyeing these surpluses and telling us how to spend them. I would like to suggest that the Government should focus on channelling the surpluses into two main areas: (1) on physical infrastructure; and (2) on education and training. On physical infrastructure, I wish to suggest that the Government can spend more and advance the development plans for the MRT system, light rail system, roads, industrial parks, land reclamation and power stations. In fact, more Government spending on physical infrastructure is beneficial directly to the Government, as the State owns 52% of the total land in Singapore, while statutory boards own another 21%. Any appreciation in land value will see the State as the largest benefactor, as it is the owner of 73% of all lands in Singapore. On education and training, I feel that the Government can afford to be more generous in upgrading our education system and the school infrastructure. For example, schools get grants for the basic standard items. However, for extras such as video facilities, computers and others, the schools are expected to raise their own funds via fund raising. As a result, we often hear of calls for donations or fund raising projects by schools.”
“However, in comparison, there are only a limited number of incentives given to the business sector. The Budget can be deemed to be not overly stimulative to the business sector. I would remark that this approach is quite appropriate this year, since the economy is doing relatively well. Any unnecessary over-stimulation of the economy may well lead to further cost increases, wage increases and inflationary pressures. The Government is giving away many incentives and rebates which total $1.86 billion in 1996. It is remarkable that after spending this amount in "hong baos", the Minister for Finance will still have a $7.1 billion surplus in the new financial year 1996/97. Moreover, this surplus is attained after paying for both operating and capital expenditures. If such healthy surpluses are continuously achieved in future years, I would like to suggest that the Finance Minister should try to continue to give rebates on S&C charges, rentals and utility bills. These rebates are particularly meaningful to the low-income group. In addition, I would also like to urge the Minister to consider further reduction of direct taxes such as corporate tax and income tax. These rebates and tax reductions serve as a counter balance to the increasing contributions being made to other indirect taxes, such as GST, COEs and maids' levy. However, I think it is also worthwhile to remind Singaporeans that these numerous rebates and tax reliefs can only be given by the Finance Minister if our economy continues to do well. If any unexpected events were to occur or the economy suffers a setback, then Singaporeans should know very well that there will be a cutback on the rebates and reliefs.”
“The Government has accumulated surpluses no doubt, but it has also built excellent physical infrastructure, industries and, at the same time, lowered taxes, given rebates and made CPF Top-Up contributions. Secondly, the various rebates and tax reductions have also been given in the previous years. Most of the goodies are not only given for the first time this year. The Prime Minister announced today that the Government has in fact returned $1.65 billion of surpluses last year. So we must be the envy of many governments. Many Western countries have not been able to even balance their budgets, not to say any attempt to put up election budgets during election years. Thirdly, if the Government had wanted to win votes, it could easily have introduced many give-aways and set up many social welfare schemes to dole out millions, maybe even billions, just to win votes. We have seen the perils of such social welfare programmes especially in the Western countries. I am sure Singaporeans do not want our Government to adopt such welfare schemes that will lead the country down the slippery perilous path of doom. If we were to examine the Budget very closely, we can see that this year's Budget is not really a rampant free for all. It is a very carefully prepared Budget. As I have said, the Minister is generous no doubt. But the incentives are not given away freely and mindlessly. There are several incentives, rebates and measures being introduced that are set to achieve certain specific objectives. These are tax incentives to encourage industries to promote energy and water conservation, rebates on utilities, rental and S&C charges to assist the low-income group, and tax relief to reward National Servicemen and their families in recognition of their national service contribution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has been extremely generous this year. Adding up all the numbers, I have counted that he is giving away a total of $1.86 billion in 1996 in the form of tax cuts, incentives and rebates announced, and another $1.07 billion in 1997. Therefore, I think that Mr Ling How Doong is dead wrong in giving the example that the Singapore Government is like a sheep farmer, meaning that it has taken all the wool and giving only one strand of wool back to the people. If he sees one strand of wool to be worth $1.86 billion, this must be a very long and thick strand of wool! It can go round and round the world and create a lot of woollen clothing for Singaporeans as well. And even the $1.07 billion announced this year is for 1997. In 1997, it could even be a bigger figure. Indeed, like Dr Ow Chin Hock, I can call this a very generous Budget. During this year's Lunar New Year festive period, the Finance Minister has become the " " or God of Fortune. In Chinese, cai zheng bu zhang cheng wei cai shen ye [ ] He is bringing huge hong baos and good tidings to all Singaporeans. Even though this is a generous Budget, I agree with Dr Ow Chin Hock that it is quite mean of the Opposition MPs, such as Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Ling How Doong, to debase the Finance Minister's generosity by calling this an "election budget". This creates an unfair impression that the Government is giving out incentives just to win votes. Let me give a few reasons why. First, it is as a result of the 37 years of good PAP Government that our country is doing so well, attained international recognition and achieved excellent economic results consistently year after year.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister, since there may be some difficulty in getting local workers, whether there is a limit in the percentage of foreign workers that can be employed as bus drivers, and if this percentage is too small, whether he should ask the Labour Minister to increase the number, so that we can have more bus drivers to cater for the industry.”
“To require them to cut down the number of hours worked immediately as a result of this will inevitably mean a curtailment of service because it is not possible for them to be able to recruit this number of drivers. So there has to be a very conscious effort made on the part of the management to make sure that drivers are properly trained and there are sufficient measures in place to ensure that the drivers adhere to traffic rules. Ultimately it is also important for all road users to cooperate with the drivers on the road to make sure there is as low a traffic accident rate as possible on our roads.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister what is the average number of hours worked by the bus drivers per week and on a daily basis? As the Minister has said, the accidents could be due to human error or fatigue. May I also ask the Minister whether there are plans to limit the number of hours that the drivers have to drive at a stretch before they need to rest and to limit the number of hours of overtime work per day or per week? Mr Mah Bow Tan: The average number of hours worked per day is something like 9-9 1/2 hours. This is on a continuous basis but in between there are rest periods. The question is whether the rest periods are sufficient and this is determined by the rosters and schedules that the bus drivers are given. SBS and the unions are having another look at the schedules. Schedules are looked at on a regular basis but in view of these concerns they are re-looking at the schedules again to see whether there is sufficient rest time. In so far as whether we will limit the number of hours worked, at the moment there is no reason for us to limit the number of hours worked, including overtime hours, because there is no positive correlation between the number of hours worked and the accidents. As I said, the accident rate has not shown a worsening trend. The number of hours worked and the rosters have not been any different from those in the past. The drivers have been working these hours and they have been working on the rosters that they are currently working today. The implication of this is that SBS should relook at some of these working conditions, including the terms and conditions of service so that it is able to minimise the number of overtime hours of work.”
“The Minister was saying earlier that even after accounting for the interest cost, SP will achieve a 6%-plus return, and he mentioned that a 12%-plus return is even more justifiable. But compared to, say, the case of SBS that obtained listing and aimed for 8% return, why not go for a lower percentage like 8%, rather than going for a higher 12% return? Because in the end, if you are going for a higher return just for the sake of getting a listing, then is it worth it? Should we go for a listing for a higher return? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I did not say 12% return. I said, 10% to 11% return, lower than what SBS is earning today, and lower than what all the other utility companies are earning today.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the Government has given SP an interest-free loan. If we were to impute the interest cost into SP, will we still be operating a profitable or loss-making entity?”
“Sir, the Minister said that one of the difficulties for these students overseas is the second language. Perhaps the Ministry can consider facilitating the organisation at some of these centres overseas, not to function as full schools, but to provide courses for second languages; so that when the children come back to Singapore, they can get back to the Singapore system.”
“At present, the international school only caters for primary school curriculum. Would the Ministry also consider extending it to secondary school curriculum because I understand there are many parents whose children are in secondary school and who would like to have this facility?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister which is the next likely location for the Ministry to consider setting up another international school? Mr Lee Yock Suan: I cannot give a definite answer because we have not decided where to locate the next school yet. As I have said, in all the other locations, there is an insufficient number of pupils and Singaporeans are scattered all over the place. For example, even in China which is a huge area, Singaporeans are in so many locations such as Suzhou, Wuxi and Shandong.”