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 13 of 18.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the pay-as-you-bid system will be higher or lower compared to the present Dutch system has not been tested as yet. But could the Government consider putting it on trial for a few months just to see how it will work out? Because in the pay-as-you-bid system, those who can afford will actually pay a bit more, but those who cannot afford will pay a bit less. So for those who can less afford the COEs, they may end up paying a bit less. But you may actually have an average that is similar to the present system. Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the present bidding system is a fair one because everyone who bids for a COE in the same category pays the same price for the same Certificate of Entitlement. If you have a system in which you pay as you bid, then there will be, for the same item, for the same Certificate of Entitlement, for the same class of cars, a variety of prices, and I am not entirely sure that that is a fairer system than the one we have.”
“I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government will consider other forms of bidding for COEs since, as we all know now, the COE is very high. Are there other alternatives that we can consider for the bidding of COEs? For example, one method that is often suggested is the pay-as-you-bid system. Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, this question has been raised a number of times. The pay-as-you-bid system is in no way superior to the current system, which is the single strike price system. There is a good body of knowledge on this subject which has been developed by economists and the theory shows that the present bidding system is a fair system, and the price should not be affected, whether or not you use this bidding system or a pay-as-you-bid system. But we would be willing to accept any reasonable suggestion which Members may have to improve the system.”
“My question to the Minister is: why is it not possible, within practical reasons or international banking rules, to allow for both domestic and foreign banks to be subject to the same standards and requirements, and the same rules? Perhaps, the Minister can elaborate and explain. I would like to conclude by commenting that the tougher banking rules as required by the new Banking (Amendment) Bill are all very well-received and would be beneficial for the future development and growth of the banking industry in Singapore. Sir, I wish to express my support for the Bill.”
“I would like to voice my concern about the foreign banks which are able to take local Singapore dollar deposits; would not our local depositors in these foreign banks be less protected since their minimum capital requirement is only $200 million? In fact, they are being favoured compared to our local banks which need to have $800 million of capital funds. On the topic of capital adequacy ratio, I note that the Bill has stated a minimum requirement of 12% for Singapore-incorporated banks. I understand that most local banks will have no difficulty in meeting this capital adequacy ratio. It is, indeed, a reflection of the strong and healthy state of our banks. This is most commendable. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), however, lists out the minimum adequacy ratio of 8%. I presume that the BIS has come to a conclusion that 8% is generally enough for protection. As a contrast to our local banks which will have to meet a higher adequacy ratio of 12%, the foreign banks operating here which are subject to their own domestic requirements overseas may actually be operating only on an adequacy rate of 8%. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are setting too high a ratio for local banks which, although is a prudent move, put them at a competitive disadvantage. Similarly, for depositors who put money in these foreign banks, would they therefore not be less protected because many depositors, especially those who are less educated, may not be aware that foreign banks may be subject to a lower adequacy ratio of only 8% whereas our local banks need to have a higher ratio of 12%.”
“I would like to state that the general effect of this minimum requirement of $800 million capital funds is a very strong stabilising factor for the banking community. It will create more confidence in our local banks, both domestically and internationally. However, some view that this Bill provides for a consolidation or rationalisation of the banking industry in Singapore. The minimum capital requirement of $800 million would force the banks to form into major groupings. This, while having the beneficial effect of providing a more prudent banking environment, may also pose a barrier to entry for new banks which need to have $800 million before they can form new banks in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister whether this would restrict competition and also prevent new entrants with new ideas, new concepts and new technologies into the industry. On the other hand, I note that, as Dr Ow has also mentioned, the Bill has defined a minimum capital requirement of only $200 million for banks whose headquarters are not based in Singapore. For some of these foreign banks, they may have been given full banking licences and therefore operate practically on the same basis as other local banks, except for the number of branches. In this case, as compared to our local banks which are required to have a capital fund of $800 million, there may in fact be a discrimination in favour of foreign banks. This could be seen to counter the allegations in the past by foreign countries that our banking laws favour and protect the local banks and discriminate against the foreign banks. Now, it appears that the opposite is so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some interest in this Bill as I was formerly working in the banking industry. I have spoken to various people in the banking industry. The general reaction I received was that they were all supportive of this Bill and they found many of the provisions very acceptable. I too would like to say that I find the provisions well conceived and well intended. I would like to just comment on two major provisions in this Bill. They are on the minimum requirement of capital funds and the capital adequacy ratio. I note that the definition of "capital funds" in this Bill for companies having their headquarters in Singapore is "the paid-up capital and published reserves of that bank deduction having been made in respect of any debit balance appearing in the profit and loss account of the bank". It appears to me that this definition is fairly general and may even be sometimes unclear. I could take it in accounting terms to mean shareholders' fund. I do not know whether I am right. But if it is the case, many of the large local banks would definitely have no problem in meeting this minimum capital requirement of $800 million. However, there are several smaller banks (which are not the four, five or six major banks in Singapore) which do have some difficulty in meeting this $800 million capital fund requirement. However, several of these small banks are subsidiaries of major banks in bigger banking groups. For these multiple-bank groups, they would have to definitely rationalise their operations to consider whether to merge the few banks under their control into one, as now provided for in the Bill, or to spun them off as independent banks, provided they can add in the capital funds, as required under the Bill during the next five-year period.”
“The first alternative is to be very generous, ie, to allow all existing and future COEs to be attached in perpetuity to their cars. This means literally abolishing the 10-year limit on COE. Hence, there will be no need to pay a second COE, perhaps of a much higher sum, after the initial 10 years for those people who want to keep their cars after 10 years. But then they will still be surcharged on the higher amount of road tax if they keep the cars and maintain it properly. To be equitable, all those who have already paid their second COEs for cars above 10 years may have to be considered for a refund. Here, as I said earlier, is a very magnanimous move by the Government. But the Minister has said before that revenue collection was not the objective for the Government to introduce COE. The second, perhaps a more workable option, for the Minister to consider is to allow car owners to bid for two types of COEs. The first is the standard COE of a 10-year limitation. The second, another kind of COE which is attached in perpetuity to a car. Obviously, there will be two differences in the bidding prices for these two types of COEs. The latter type, that is the one with a perpetuity attached to a COE, would have a higher price. But the advantage here for the bidder is that he may have to pay one higher price now, rather than to pay two prices later; and the second price for the second 10-year COE could be a much higher figure. Relative to the old car's value, the car-owner may have a bigger sum as well. Sir, I raise these suggestions because they are points being talked about in the public. I would like to ask if the Minister could consider these proposals.”
“Sir, COE used to be a very hot topic in the last two years. Today, I notice that, except for Mr Heng Chiang Meng and myself, no other Members have been asking questions about COE. It is evident that perhaps the popularity of COE has been overtaken by GST. Sir, I would like to pose some questions on the COE to the Minister. I recall that the former Minister for Communications has said that the COE would be refined further after its mechanism has been put in place for a while. I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry would be reviewing or refining the features of the COE and, in particular, in the following aspects. (1) Is it confirmed that the COE would be non-transferable? (2) Is there any intention of the Government to further reduce the ARF, PARF, or the import duty on cars to partially offset the additional revenue that has been collected by the Government from COE? As Mr Heng has said earlier, this may not be necessary or desirable, as the end result would be that the COE bid prices would simply increase. It is then the question of the money going into different pockets, right or left pockets of the Government. (3) Would the Minister consider introducing a COE that is attached in perpetuity to the car, and not to the person, rather than limiting it to 10 years? I understand that many car owners would like to have a perpetual COE for their cars, especially those who feel that they can maintain their cars well for over 10 years. To discourage the poorly maintained cars of over 10 years to be on the road, the Government has already implemented a 10-50% surcharge on old cars exceeding 10 years old. I feel that the Government can consider this proposal with two options.”
“Sir, there is a difference of view between the Minister and us. We see education as a form of capital investment whereas the Minister seems to see education as a form of consumption. Perhaps I will mount another campaign next year with my colleagues again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, just some remarks about CPF for part-time education. I think our plea has been quite strong because there were at least four MPs who spoke on this subject. As the Minister said, many people have asked for it outside the House. Perhaps, we could explain that the idea is not so much to use the CPF as a loan scheme, but to apply it as part of the investment scheme that the Government has on CPF for investment. There are people who do not want to spend money on buying stocks and shares with their CPF, but may want to use the money from the CPF for education, particularly for part-time education. The Minister probably should also be aware that nowadays the costs of part-time courses are getting higher and higher, particularly for some part-time graduate courses. For some in the low income group, these courses are not within their means. Therefore, if they are able to use the CPF for this purpose, it would be very helpful. If it is not a loan scheme, they do not have to repay their own CPF. They can withdraw from their CPF and use it for their education.”
“Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Sir, at present, CPF members can use their CPF savings to pay for their own or their children's full-time education courses at the six local tertiary institutions. However, they are not allowed to use their CPF savings for the Open University Degree Programmes (OUDP) run by the SIM. The OUDP may be a part-time programme, but it is not any part-time programme. It is supported by Government grant. Despite this financial assistance, however, fees are expected to be in the region of about $20,000. Working adults wishing to pursue this course at the OUDP will welcome the use of CPF funds as many working adults with families cannot afford to give up their jobs to pursue higher education full time. Sir, in view of the liberalisation of the CPF for investment, would the Government consider liberalising the use of CPF for the part-time OUDP programme. Control can still be imposed by capping the CPF withdrawal at the amount approved for a similar full-time degree course at the NTU or NUS.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SA 1500. Sir, the Minister for Labour has recently announced further liberalisation of the use of CPF for investment. This is a very laudable move. The Government has also previously approved the use of CPF for education. Now I would like to urge the Minister to consider allowing CPF to be used for part-time education. I believe this is in line with the move to liberalise the use of CPF for investment. I believe we should view education as a form of investment. In fact, it is a very valuable form of capital investment. Unlike financial investment which is risky and provides material well-being only, an investment in education adds substantially to the value of a person and it is an investment that cannot be lost by somebody. More so, since the Government has now urged our people to venture overseas to do business, many people would like to arm themselves with more training and knowledge before they can venture to battle in the foreign field. Many young working adults may not be ready or very interested in spending their time and money, including their CPF funds, in dabbling in stocks and shares. But, I believe, many will be more than prepared to invest in improving themselves educationally. I would like to urge the Minister to seriously consider allowing CPF to be used for part-time courses organised by certain responsible and reputable private and public educational establishments, such as the universities, polytechnics, professional bodies, SIM and the proposed Singapore Open University.”
“In the UK and the USA, they have found to their horror that generations of neglect resulted in the exposure of the crack in the cash-based system. And, finally, because our population is still young, so our long-term liabilities like pension funds, CPF payments, are not severe enough to highlight the problem. Sir, there is, in fact, no need to change now. But it would be good to set the motion in process. Unlike the GST, this change will not generate heat. I think it will only bring light, in the sense that it is the strength of our economy and the soundness of our civil service system, and the prudence of the PAP Government. I would like to ask the Minister if a formal change from cash-based to accrual-based system is indeed on his Ministry's agenda.”
“Sir, we have the reverse problem here. Our budget is in surplus, so adding asset sales will increase our surplus even further. This is technically wrong. Under the accrual-based accounting system, the privatisation of Singapore Telecom, for example, reduces assets and debts by roughly the same amount, leaving the net worth and operating balance unchanged. Sir, accrual-based budgeting system better reflects the financial position because it accounts for the changing value of assets (like roads, airports, schools) and liabilities (like pension funds and CPF payments). Sir, in my briefings by the Ministry of Finance officials, I have been informed that our cash-based budgeting system has been designed to overcome some of the inherent defects. I am not unhappy with the present system. It has worked very well, but, perhaps, because of a convergence of special circumstances. First, because this PAP Government is prudent, having accumulated a healthy surplus through years of careful and meticulous control, capping expenditure at about 20% of GDP. But I am unsure if future generations of governments will be equally prudent. Like the Elected President mechanism, I think it is better to put a check on the system by adopting the accrual-based budgeting system. The second reason why the cash-based system has worked for us is that we have honest, diligent and competent civil servants at the Ministry of Finance. Over time, things might not be the same because more competent officers might be lured by the more lucrative private sector. The third reason why it has succeeded is that our infrastructure, (roads, sewers, and all that) are relatively new.”
“New Zealand's cash-based budgets did not and could not reveal the serious cracks in her economy. But when she switched over to the accrual-based budgeting system, the flaws began to show. For the six months to December 1991, the period for which the accounts were prepared under the accrual system, the budget revealed an operating loss of NZ$3.7 billion. But under the old cash-based system, the operating loss was only NZ$500 million. So it was NZ$500 million on the old system (cash-based); NZ$3.7 billion on the new system (accrual-based). For this reason, New Zealand's accrual-based budgeting system is worthy of our emulation. It is clearly a better system, if nothing else, it gives us a different picture of the economy. Accrual-based systems are familiar with accountants. Briefly, it includes incorporating a balance sheet of assets and liabilities, an income and expense statement accompanied by a cash flow statement. Like the rest of the world, Singapore adopted a cash-based system for budgeting. It is a workable system but it has inherent defects. A cash-based system does not take into account the difference between current and capital expenditure, even though our budget has been modified to distinguish between recurrent expenditure and development expenditure. Generally, a cash-based system does not reflect the cost to future generations of present policies like the failure to maintain infrastructures. The UK and the USA have found to their horror that successive governments have allowed infrastructures on transport and sewer to run down because it is politically easier to chop than welfare. Many countries have refused to convert from cash-based to accrual-based because politicians find it expedient to use asset sales to reduce budget deficits.”
“Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister: do we set rules when the statutory board is being privatised, to encourage it to be formed in two or three parts, and also to encourage the public to form similar companies in competition? A good example is SBC. If SBC is privatised, perhaps a commercial television station can also be encouraged to be formed. If a body is being kept as a monopoly that sets its own market rates; for example, Telecom on telecom rates, PSA on port rates, MRT on MRT fares, then how would the Government regulate these bodies once they are privatised? Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, when the Singapore Government finally decided to implement the GST, it adopted the New Zealand model. I say, good show. Sir, New Zealand is a fascinating country, a land known for its magnificent landscape and friendly people. I think that perhaps were the reasons that drew our SDP leader there to study his first degree. Less well-known, however, is the fact that New Zealand was one of the pioneers in the field of social security. But New Zealand's honeymoon with welfarism proved fatal. Her economy took a severe beating with the concomitant fall in the standard of living in the eighties. In the sixties, they were okay. In the seventies, they were still okay. In the eighties, they went down. In the eighties, New Zealand began to seek a divorce from welfarism. It introduced a series of welfare-cutting measures, introduced GST and it revolutionised government budgeting procedures. Her economy is still unwell, but because of these radical reforms, I think New Zealand will come out stronger. Sir, part of New Zealand's economic malaise lay in not knowing what went wrong.”
“Sir, with the announcement that Singapore Telecom will be listed this year, I believe that the market is now very keen to know more about the Government's privatisation programme. Therefore, I would like to raise a few questions with the Minister on the Ministry's plans for privatisation of statutory boards and Government-linked companies (GLCs). First question, Sir, is, besides Telecom, does the Minister have any other details as to the timing and structure of the privatisation of other statutory boards such as PSA, MRT, PUB or SBC? Second question is, has the Government further intention or plans to privatise other GLCs which include listing of GLCs on the stock exchange, or divestment of GLCs to private corporations? Thirdly, Sir, since there will be a series of privatisation of statutory boards, has his Ministry formed a central body that controls privatisation and establishes some form of guidelines as to what would be the most appropriate structure when statutory boards are being privatised? The concern here is that when a statutory board is being privatised, it may turn into a privatised monopoly which, I believe, is quite a dangerous move. Because, while a Government monopoly can be controlled, in terms of its pricing for its products and services, a privatised monopoly may be overly driven by its profit motive and can therefore lead to increase in its prices. Whenever a Government agency is privatised, I think it should generally retain the regulatory functions within the Government so that there is price control, while more than one operating unit should be formed so as to create competition.”
“Business people are naturally very wary of case-by-case or project-by-project rules, especially for entrepreneurial businesses, where quick decisions are sometimes needed. The fear of the danger of hollowing out, as expressed, of the local industries and of round-tripping for tax avoidance is hard to defend. Does it mean, for example, that the approved cases on a project-by-project basis will not have the avenues of round-tripping, or that such systems of control which apply against them cannot be done so for the others? And how does the Minister intend to justify to the entrepreneurial businesses who is hollowing out and who is not?”
“They are less organised, perhaps, in the target countries for us to go and venture into, such as China, Vietnam, or the surrounding ASEAN countries. On the other hand, the TDB has in fact more offices, I believe in places like China and Vietnam. It also has a more outward orientation mentality. So although EDB has a bigger strength in terms of manpower, I would propose that the TDB be beefed up or reorganised to turn it into an overseas promotion arm of the Government. This can be called the Overseas Trade and Investment Promotion Board and give it a special mission to spearhead our country's drive for local companies to venture abroad. These are two ideas that have been voiced before, but I would like the Minister to consider them. Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Sir, in the 1993 Budget proposals under discussion, various tax incentives have been announced to promote the development of an external economy. Naturally, businessmen look forward to such incentives, whether they are unilateral tax credits, double tax deductions for approved expenses, foreign capital losses set-off against domestic income. One such provision in the Budget is the overseas enterprise incentive under which companies which venture abroad on its own can have exemption from tax for approved investments on a project-by-project basis. Sir, approved investments imply a certain degree of uncertainty from having projects approved. In order to minimise bureaucratic problems, many business people think that it is better to have the basis transparent and applicable to all so that any business enterprise moving overseas can immediately see its tax exempt status, rather than requiring approval on a case-by-case or project-by-project basis.”
“Sir, in the previous two days of Budget debate, there has been much talk and suggestions as to how we can improve the overseas effort of local companies. I would like to take this occasion to give two further suggestions to the Minister. First, as Dr Ow has said earlier, how do we organise Singapore as a Singapore Inc. to target our overseas markets. Here I would like to propose that, perhaps, the Government encourages, not forces, local private companies and the GLCs to form a small number of bigger groupings, for example, the concept of Japanese Zaibatsu, whereby they can be stronger as a force to go overseas and target different markets. Here, I would suggest that, instead of having big numbers of Zaibatsus, maybe three, or at the most four, would be sufficient as the few major groupings for Singapore, each one being led by a major GLC as well as one or two major local companies. We can learn from the Japanese because they have done this very well, as they have in the early days carved out the world for their own Zaibatsus to compete in. 1.30 pm The second proposal is with regard to the formation of a new agency or focal point for our overseas promotion. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mentioned this yesterday and Dr Ow has mentioned it just now. I would like to weigh the differences between, say, EDB and TDB and see which is a better agency for us to incorporate this overseas mission rather than to form a new agency. To my mind, the EDB has been very successful in promoting investments into Singapore. It has a very established network of overseas offices and has a very dynamic team of officers. Its shortcoming is mainly that its overseas offices are actually located in the developed countries, eg, US, Europe, other Western countries, and Japan.”
“It is like dangling a juicy two feet long carrot in front of them and then put up a five feet wall so that they cannot get to the carrot. This can be quite frustrating. I would like to urge the Minister to consider some alternatives in introducing this scheme: (1) to consider waiving the $500 deposit for CPF members who do not choose to top up. But they can still buy odd lots of shares, eg, Telecom shares, with the $200 contribution from the Government. Others who do the top-up can buy up to $700 worth of Telecom shares. (2) to consider allowing CPF members to accept topping-up from the CPF accounts of their immediate family members such as parents, children or siblings; (3) to consider allowing those who top up with $500 cash to withdraw the original $500 cash contribution when the shares are sold later. (4) to consider imposing a moratorium period of perhaps two years or more for those shares purchased with the $200 contribution from the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to conclude by congratulating the Minister and his colleagues for an excellent and well-considered budget for FY 93. In turn, I hope that he will consider some of the comments I have made.”
“Here, the idea is that while our people go overseas to work and toil, Singapore is the place for us to return happily to rest and recreate, and perhaps to procreate as well. In relation to the above, I agree with the Minister for Finance's two proposals in his budget. First, the cut in personal and corporate tax rates. It is justifiable to introduce GST so that personal tax and corporate tax can be reduced. If we continue to maintain high personal and corporate tax rates, while other countries such as Hong Kong and the Western countries have lower tax rates, we will find that our local talents may be attracted to live overseas and eventually to stay there and may not return. However, I notice that the Government still maintains a 3% difference in the new rate of 27% for corporate tax rate and 30% for the top personal tax rate. Perhaps to encourage personal effort, the Government can consider bringing down the top personal tax rate over the years in future to match the lower corporate tax rate. On the CPF share ownership top-up scheme, it is a very generous gesture of the Government to give $200 to all citizens above 21 years old and who are CPF members so that they can buy shares or invest. This gesture will particularly help the poor and the working class. However, at the same time, the Government has also put them at a grave disadvantage by requiring them to pay $500 into their CPF account. This rule is particularly difficult for the low-wage casual workers who have no CPF contributions, the self-employed, housewives, retirees and the unemployed. Many of these people may have to top up with cash, which they do not have much to spare.”
“The emphasis here is that cooperation can start even in Singapore, rather than just for overseas ventures. In this area, I am sure Commodore Teo Chee Hean's Committee will no doubt study further. Since Singapore is a small country, and we are very limited in the number of entrepreneurs who can venture overseas, I feel that we, as a group, should be very focused as to which are the target markets for overseas expansion. It is correct to start by defining that it should be regional rather than global. But within this region, in the immediate future, we should also focus on countries which are ripe for us to expand into. The three obvious possible targets are Malaysia, Indonesia and China. In view of our limited numbers, even within these countries, I think we should zero in on a few suitable cities in these countries. Take China, for example. It is a huge country and if we all go out looking for joint venture partners and businesses there, we would be very spread out. I think we should focus ourselves on a few main cities in China. On strengthening our stake and attachment to the nation, while we are encouraging our dynamic, young and talented people to venture abroad, we may run the risk that these precious people do not return. Hence, we have to strike a balance between encouraging a global mentality and strengthening the people's ties and attachment to Singapore. There are a few areas that need further review. These are: (1) to inculcate a stronger national patriotism and comradeship; (2) raising each individual's stake in the nation, eg, owning HDB flats and private housing, and larger stakes for them in local investments and local companies' share ownership; (3) maintaining the high level of living standards and physical environment in Singapore.”
“I read recently that even in the UK, the Prime Minister, Mr Major, has proposed a change in the UK's honours system. Prime Minister John Major has announced reforms to the British centuries-old honours system, saying that it would no longer reflect class distinctions and would reward achievements rather than long service. Similarly, in Singapore, we should I think do a thorough review of our National Day Awards system here. The typical practice is to confer yearly National Day Awards to people who have served with distinction in the civil service, in public service or in community service. Awards are rarely given to entrepreneurs and businessmen who have contributed to the country's economic growth. In fact, more often than not, businessmen get clobbered, summoned or fined by the authorities, less so for the awards. At present, the private sector organises its own honours system, for example, Businessman of the Year and, lately, Woman of the Year. One Member in this House, Dr Kanwaljit Soin, was recently conferred the Woman of the Year award. I feel that prominent business leaders, entrepreneurs, researchers and professionals should also be considered for National Day Awards. And all of them, together with those who have contributed significantly in public or community service, should be equally honoured. In addition, they should be respectfully addressed by titles such as Dato, Tuan, Tun or Tan Sri, in recognition of these people's contribution to society. Given the better understanding between the public and private sectors, we should also encourage GLCs and private companies to cooperate in joint ventures. These joint ventures can be for projects both in Singapore and overseas.”
“For larger countries, especially those with rich natural resources, such as the USA, Indonesia and Australia, the pressure to expand overseas is less urgent. For countries with limited resources, such as Japan and Switzerland, the need is quite strong. But for a country, like Singapore, which is both small (with a very limited local market), and lacking in natural resources, this urgency to develop an external economy is indeed very pressing. The Minister for Finance has announced some incentives to encourage local businessmen to go overseas. Besides financial incentives, I feel strongly that we must also set out to organise ourselves in an effective manner in our plan to expand overseas. I would like to propose the following strategy to organise ourselves. First, the need to restructure our domestic orientation. Second, better cooperation in overseas ventures. Third, focus in targeting markets, and fourth, strengthening our people's stake and attachment to the nation. There is a need to completely change the mindset of the Government as well as the people. In the past, the Government and the public officers tend to harbour a certain mistrust of businessmen. Businessmen are looked upon with suspicion, as sharp and unscrupulous and also, very often, too profit-seeking. Businessmen, in turn, feel that the Government is too intrusive and, maybe, very restrictive, and Government officials are often also very inflexible and uncompromising. But, fortunately, with the new thrust to venture overseas and the closer interaction between the public and the private sectors over the last few years, the attitude has changed for the better. In line with this change of orientation, I would like to suggest that the yearly National Day Awards system be also modified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this very important debate. If you take a global review of the 1993 Budget Statement proposed by the Hon. Minister for Finance, we can discern that the Budget has two main thrusts - the first is the new direction to promote a stronger external economy and the second is the tax reforms arising from the introduction of the GST. These are two new developments which will mark a critical milestone in the economic growth of Singapore, that is, we are setting a new course of growth via external expansion, and that we are making a complete revamp of the philosophy and structure of our tax system. This is why I call it a very important debate. In fact, I would term it as a "watershed" one. Ironically, though these two issues are the main thrusts of the debate, maybe we have to leave the detailed discussion on these two matters to a later date. The reasons are that there will be a Second Reading on the GST Bill (where there may be a fuller debate on GST), and we are still awaiting the report of Cdre Teo Chee Hean's Committee to Promote Enterprise Overseas. Nevertheless, I think it would be an opportune occasion for us, as Members of this House, to put forth our views regarding these two subjects at this juncture. Since there will be a Second Reading on the GST Bill for the subject to be debated further, I intend to confine my remarks in this debate to the issue of developing an external economy. Sir, in the early years of Singapore's economic development, it is natural that the initial emphasis should be inward-looking. Local businesses have to establish a firm domestic base before we can start to have the confidence and desire to expand overseas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise to support this Bill and the proposed amendments to the People's Association Act. I would just like to say, as Mr Maidin has said, that the People's Association has organised several activities, courses and programmes in the community centres which are beneficial to all people, people of all segments, different interest groups and even different political interest groups in Singapore. I would like to quote an example. In the case of the community centre in Thomson Constituency, I understand that an Opposition Member of Parliament indeed supports the community centre by sending his child to the kindergarten class organised by the community centre. This is a very good endorsement of the very good courses and programmes organised by the People's Association for community centres. I think it is a good endorsement by all sectors in Singapore. Therefore, it should not be said that our community centres are only political in nature.”
“I would suggest to the Minister to consider whether the complainant should be required to produce a petition with more than, say, 20 signatories of bona fide shareholders or representation of at least, say, 5% shareholdings, before such action which invokes section 216 could be considered in Court. Clause 23 (section 328) I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the intent of this section 328 which provides that in the situation of winding-up of a company, the amount payable to employees should not exceed the amount equivalent to five months' salary or $7,500, whichever is lesser. I agree with Mr Chew that I also find this proposed limit of $7,500 to be very disadvantageous to those employees who earn more than $1,500 a month. As we all know, nowadays several employees can easily earn more than $1,500 a month, particularly those who have been working for many years and those who have families to support. Even a graduate engineer could command that amount as starting salary. I would like to ask the Minister to consider lifting this limit of $7,500, but retain the proposed limit of five months' salary of the employees affected. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Companies Act has grown in volume and details over the years. Now, it is a book covering over 550 pages, not including the new amendments that are being proposed in this Bill. Perhaps it is why we need so many lawyers nowadays to understand these provisions. Sir, as this Bill is of importance to the operation of companies in Singapore, again I agree with Mr Chew, I would like to ask the Minister to refer the proposed Bill to a Select Committee to allow for wider views and representations to be obtained from professional bodies and the public. 3.30 pm”
“It may provide and give rise to too liberal litigious tendency as any complainant, even those who are owning one share, could raise a personal vendetta against the directors of a particular company. This complainant, though purporting to be acting in the interest of the company, could have many personal, competitive or other reasons for taking actions against the directors and apply to Court to use the company's funds for the purpose. These Court actions could soak up much time and attention of the directors away from the proper running of the company. This would result in overall adverse effect on the performance of the company and therefore definitely will not be in the interest of the company and all the other shareholders. Naturally, Sir, directors who have acted and managed the companies with their utmost ability and in the best interest of the company need not fear. However, I do feel that there is a need for a balance between allowing shareholders to take pot-shots at directors (using the company's funds as ammunition) and for shareholders to take errant directors to task. I note that there is a provision in section 216A(3) which provides that any action may be brought against a director unless the Court is satisfied that the complainant is acting in good faith and it appears to be prima facie in the interest of the company. In order not to appear to be acting in oppression of the interest of minority shareholders, the Court may take a more liberal interpretation of this section 216A to permit action to proceed and allow the use of company funds to cover legal expenses.”
“What would be the case if the Depository has made a recording error? I note that the new section 130H states that: "Subject to the regulations, the Depository, if acting in good faith, shall not be liable for conversion or for any breach of trust or duty where the Depository has, in respect of book-entries in accounts maintained by it, ... " The ambiguity here, Sir, is that should a staff in the Depository make an error in book-entry, but having done it in good faith, this could result in either losses or damages incurred by the rightful owner, or the company having breached the foreign control limit. In the event of the above circumstances, it is uncertain as to where the responsibility should lie, and where appropriate, from whom can redress or compensation be sought by the affected party. If the Depository is not at fault, since the staff has acted in good faith, and, on the other hand, as the company does not maintain the registry of shareholders and therefore could not be deemed to be responsible, we have a case of having to point fingers in circles, as no one would be prepared to take the responsibility. Clause 22 (section 216) I note that the Minister has introduced a new provision to allow a complainant, who could be a member of the company, to take action against the directors in the name of the company should there be a breach of right or duty owed to the company, with legal fees to be borne by the company. I am generally supportive of this intention in this Bill as it allows an aggrieved shareholder to take action against directors who have acted not in the interest of the company; and by association, not in the interest of the shareholders. However, I am concerned with this new provision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to state that the proposed amendments to the Companies Act are mostly much welcome, as they seek to define better several anomalies that are present in the existing provisions. Most of the proposed amendments to the various sections, including the elaborate amendments to the Central Depository System, are most appropriate. I wish to voice my in-principle support for these amendments. Sir, I thought I would like to use this opportunity to seek some clarification from the Minister on certain clauses of the Bill. Clause 16 (section 130) I welcome the many additions to the Bill to specify the functions of the Central Depository. I believe that it is not clearly spelt out whose responsibility would it be to determine and verify whether a shareholder is local or foreign. At present, many companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore have to conform to certain limitations on percentage of foreign ownership. Therefore, it would probably be the responsibility of the company concerned to monitor closely whether these limits on the foreign ownership have been breached. It is not well defined as to whose responsibility, however, to verify the local or foreign status of shareholders. I note that section 130E states that, "The Depository shall be under a duty to certify the names [but not status] of persons on the Depository Register". However, it is only performing a registry or recording function to certify the names. I presume the company itself would be responsible for the policing work to watch over the foreign shareholders limit. If this is the case, would the company then have the power to instruct the Depository not to accept any additional registration of foreign shareholders should the foreign limit be reached?”
“Sir, I note from the recent press reports that the Malaysian authorities do not intend to conduct an inquiry into the mishap of the "Royal Pacific" and therefore may not come up with measures to ensure the safety of ships plying in the Straits of Malacca. May I ask the Minister whether he will consider approaching the Malaysian authorities again to review their decision?”
“It may well be possible that the IRAS could just simply seek to employ more and more people to process the backlog of tax assessments rather than to be more cost conscious and to seek out more innovative and efficient methods, such as to intensify its computerisation programme. Sir, a final query that I have is that in the formation of the IRAS, would the Government be thinking that with its plan to eventually introduce consumption tax, there will be more manpower and administrative cost involved? Therefore, forming a statutory board now could be a conduit for more flexibility in manpower recruitment and future cost increases. My primary concern, Sir, is: Would the taxpayers be paying more to process their own tax assessments than before?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my support for the Bill which provides for the conversion of the Inland Revenue Department into a statutory board to be called the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). At present, one of the major difficulties of the Inland Revenue Department is the lack of manpower to process tax returns. As a statutory board, the IRAS will be better placed to attract and retain good officers by offering them competitive wages and more flexible perks and benefits which are closer to the market. I agree with the Minister that a tax administration which has motivated and well-trained staff will mean greater efficiency and better service to the taxpayers. While I am, in principle, supportive of the Bill, I would like to seek a few points of clarification with the Minister with regard to how he envisage the new Authority would operate and how it could function in an efficient and cost effective manner. As the IRAS is acting essentially as the managing agent of the Government to provide a service in administering, assessing and collecting taxes, I wonder how the IRAS' efficiency and effectiveness can be measured and sustained. The point I would like to make is that unlike other statutory boards where some performance reference can be made to similar private sector practices or entities, or to similar activities in other countries, the proposed IRAS is not subject to market competition. Therefore, it does not need to be cost or manpower conscious as there is no bottom line or profit and loss for the IRAS to be conscious of. Along the same line of argument, I wonder what kind of checks and controls the Minister would apply to ensure the financial and manpower usage discipline of the IRAS.”
“If we can get a better person to take up an important Ministerial job, it would be better for the country. However, I wish to caution that this route should only be used sparingly and only during an exigency. At the appropriate time in future, the NMP who joins the Government Bench as a Minister should contest in an election in a constituency and seek a personal mandate from the people to become an elected MP. We are all aware of the advantages of subjecting an MP to public scrutiny through an election process whereby people can review his background and make an assessment of his ability before he becomes an elected Member to join this House. Notwithstanding this positive aspect of the NMP scheme, on balance, I would rather take a very purist approach that Members of Parliament should go through the electoral process. Although I have previously voiced some support for this NMP scheme, I am now less enthusiastic and not supportive, as I am inclined to feel that, fundamentally, Members of this House should be elected. 3.20 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill was debated and passed about two years ago. Then we saw the implementation of the concept with the appointment of two NMPs. During this period, we have more time to ponder about the NMP concept and the possible repercussions. One of the main reasons for introducing NMPs is to allow for a wider representation of views to be expressed in Parliament. On deeper reflection, I am coming round to the view that it may not be necessary to interfere with the democratic process of having elected MPs in Parliament just to allow for more views to be expressed in Parliament. Even if we can attract persons to become NMPs and they have special areas of interest, how can we be sure that their views are representative of their interest areas, as they have not been elected by the members of their interest groups. If we wish to seek alternative views, I believe there are many other and more extensive channels to gather feedback without the need for NMPs. As we know, we have now four Opposition MPs in Parliament who could provide alternative views. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is no need to introduce NMPs just to provide for fuller expression of views in Parliament. As I see it, there is one practical use of the NMP concept, ie, if the Government needs to urgently recruit a very capable and suitable person outside Parliament to fill a Ministerial post, and there may be various reasons why we cannot arrange for this person to become an elected MP, then the NMP process is indeed a very speedy and convenient route for this outside person to fill the Ministerial post. I believe we Singaporeans are quite pragmatic.”
“Sir, I am not so happy with the Minister's reply on the evening ALS. But I am quite happy with the assurances given by the Minister on the ERP. On that note, I wish to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what is the latest plan with regard to the system and whether he will actually reconsider critically the need for such a system in Singapore.”
“37 million in the next financial year's budget for the ERP project. I would like to express some areas of public concern on the proposed ERP. There are three main areas of concern. First is the expected cost and complexity of the project, ie, the cost to the motorists. At the moment, there are about 300,000 motorcars in Singapore. If each car has to be affixed with a measuring device costing, say, $200, the total cost to all motorists in Singapore will be about $60 million. Second, there will be the cost of the R&D of the project, infrastructural cost, cost of the computerised system, manpower cost and administration cost. All this would add up to a very huge bill for a very complex system in Singapore. And this cost, of course, will be borne by taxpayers. The third area of concern is the common fear of invasion of privacy of the motorists. Most people will be concerned about the Government knowing where they went during the day, and where they have been for the past month or past year. This invasion of privacy is, in fact, a political issue which should be taken at the point when this system is being introduced. Sir, I wish to make the point that at present, we already have a very excellent traffic system in Singapore. In fact, one of the best traffic control systems in the world, the best flowing with the least congestion. Is there really a need to change the present system and to introduce an Electronic Road Pricing system instead? I understand from a press report that in Hongkong, they actually aborted the ERP system in 1985, and in the UK, there was a report in 1990 that "UK drops plans for Electronic Road Pricing system". For us in Singapore, we are going ahead with this very complex system.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I raised this topic of whether the evening ALS should be lifted with the completion of the CTE tunnel with the Minister previously in this House. The Minister replied that there was no drop in the number of vehicles entering the CBD in the evening before and after the completion of the CTE. Sir, I would like to flog this horse one more time through the Minister. Sir, the impression of those motorists who enter the CBD in the evening seems quite different from what the Minister told us in this House. There appears to be less traffic congestion in the CBD after the completion of the CTE. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would wish to reconsider the suggestion of lifting the evening ALS for a trial period of, say, one week. This trial is to establish whether there will be any sharp increase in the traffic in the CBD in the evening, without the ALS. If the traffic situation is, in fact, tolerable, which means that the evening ALS can be lifted, or at least can be shortened, then this would be beneficial to all. The Traffic Police will save on manpower to man the gantries, there will be more convenience to motorists and residents and, perhaps, businesses in the CBD in the evening will improve. Sir, I move on to my second topic which is on the status of the Electronic Road Pricing system project. I wish to ask the Ministry for more details on this particular project. The Ministry of Communications has stated that the proposed Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) project is an integral part of the long-term land transportation plan of Singapore. This ERP is targeted for introduction in mid-1990. I notice that there is a provision of $5.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, first, is the comment made by Mr Low Thia Khiang on why the Singapore General Hospital is called Singapore General Hospital (Private) Ltd. As the Minister has said, it is actually a technical matter, because for a company that has less than 50 shareholders, it has to be called a private limited company. Whereas, if it has more than 50 shareholders, then it will be just a limited company and the word "private" is dropped from the name. So there is no distinction as to why it should be called "private" or otherwise by the Government, except for technical reasons. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Health, Dr Aline Wong, about the community hospital in Ang Mo Kio. Is it the intention of the Government to actually introduce also A class wards in this hospital? Because that may seem to be not in line with the concept of a community hospital, which is low cost base.”
“In view of the above objectives, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions. First, what are the Ministry's plans to expand the number of community hospitals? Second, what are the capital grants or operating grants that will be offered to these community hospitals, especially for those that are privately operated, to ensure that the hospital charges are affordable? I presume that the Minister plans to have only Class B2 and Class C beds in these hospitals. Third, what criteria will be used to select the operators for these community hospitals, if they are not run by the Government? I understand that the Government may wish to call for tenderers to run these hospitals. Here, I would like to caution that price should not the sole criterion in the selection of the private operators. The community hospitals should not be profit-oriented. Other criteria such as the background, experience and social objectives of these private operators should also be considered.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, a community hospital fills the gap between the private nursing homes and the general hospitals. At the top end of the scale, we have the expensive private hospitals and the general hospitals which offer specialised health care. They are very well-equipped with sophisticated equipment and have renowned specialists and surgeons to attend to their patients. Therefore, their charges can be high. At the other end of the scale, we have the private nursing homes or private clinics which are generally very small and provide very limited medical facilities. We read recently about Singapore's first 60-bed St Andrew's Community Hospital. The Government is planning to build a 200-bed Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital which will be ready by mid-1992 and I understand that one more is being planned at Simei. The Health Review Committee chaired by Dr Aline Wong, Minister of State for Health, has recommended that the Government build more community hospitals and encourage private groups and civic bodies to manage them. Sir, I fully support the recommendation that more community hospitals be built. The community hospitals can be affiliated to the large general hospitals. The general hospitals can concentrate on major cases while minor cases can be dealt with at the community hospital level. It will be more cost effective as community hospitals can be operated at a lower operating base. I see these hospitals as fulfilling two main objectives. One, it will help to lower hospitalisation cost for the community, and two, it will cater for the increasing hospitalisation needs of our aging population.”
“More importantly, Sir, if our budget can be more prudent and accurate, then the substantial amount that has been over-budgeted every year can be used on more meaningful areas in improving the livelihood of the people or to lighten the burden of the people. Alternatively, if this over-budgeted amount is used for investment, we will be able to earn quite a handsome profit. Another point I wish to raise is that in the Government's budget for manpower expenditure in the civil service, the Administrative Service takes up the largest share. Let us take a look at figure 2. In the 1992 budget for manpower expenditure, the Administrative Service which has the least number of officers in the various Ministries seems to have the highest average expenditure per person. Take the Ministry of Finance, for example. In the Ministry of Finance, there are only seven officers in the Administrative Service, but when I calculated their manpower expenditure, it works out to an average of more than $100,000 per officer. Whereas for the other categories of officers, totalling 4,150 in all, the average per head is only about $20,000. Now, let us look at figure 3. On the average, the increase in manpower expenditure in the Administrative Service is generally much higher and faster than the others. In fact, it is double that of the other services. So if we allow this kind of increase in manpower expenditure to persist, then the Administrative Service will continue to have the fastest and highest increase in terms of manpower expenditure. Will this result in a lopsided development in the Government's manpower expenditure? May I ask the Minister for Finance whether this is a healthy state of affair?”
“If the Finance Minister can announce the details early, perhaps they can offer suggestions on how to make the proposed scheme more effective and thereby helping Singapore to be a better financial centre. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Sir, I notice that our expenditure on manpower seems to have been over-budgeted. Of course, this over-budgeting has got to do with the manpower planing strategy in our civil service. I think Mr Chew Heng Ching has already mentioned this when he spoke earlier on. Take figure 1 of the Table. In 1990, the budgeted manpower expenditure was $137 million more than the actual expenditure. In 1991, the budget for manpower expenditure was $158 million more than the revised expenditure. So, there appears to be an increasing trend in over-budgeting. If we compare the actual manpower expenditure of 1991 to that of 1990, the increase was only 5%, whereas in this year's budget the Minister for Finance predicted an increase of 11.4% in manpower expenditure. In this way, would our budget for manpower expenditure not appear to be getting more and more over-budgeted? What I do not understand is that, basically, changes in manpower expenditure can normally be predicted quite accurately. For example, the annual wage increase, bonuses, adjustment in CPF, promotion, and even if you want to engage more people, you can always predict and project. Furthermore, as far as I know, the various Government Ministries and departments have already attained its target of "zero growth" on manpower. By right, expenditure on manpower should be estimated more accurately than any other type of expenditure.”
“Even if we compare the various markets listed in the Far East, Singapore is only listed number 8, behind markets of Malaysia, even India, Korea, Australia, Hong Kong and Taiwan. But the differentiation may not be just a matter of numbers, compared to our neighbouring countries. We must also take into account the qualitative measures in terms of number of companies and financial institutions we have in Singapore and the kind of activities we provide as a financial centre. Sir, I think this chart is very stark in that it shows that for us to promote financial engineering, the market we have to play in, which means the playing field we have, is relatively small. If we have a bigger playing field, we have more room for innovations, more room for a variety of games and different types of activities. When the playing field is small, perhaps we can only do table tennis and badminton, and not games like golf, skiing or football. Our limitation is actually our size, to promote Singapore as a financial centre. I think the key for us in the next stage actually is to go for sophistication, or what the Minister calls financial engineering. We already have the basic infrastructure of companies, both local and foreign, in Singapore. The way to progress and improve ourselves is on a regional basis. To promote ourselves, at least as a regional financial centre, is to aim for financial sophistication of the Singapore centre. This is also a more difficult objective to achieve. Sir, I feel that the people in the financial sector fully support the Finance Minister on the proposed scheme and would like to know more details of the scheme.”
“The objective of the scheme is very sound as it serves to advance Singapore's financial engineering expertise and thereby reinforcing Singapore as a financial centre. Its introduction is also very timely. The question I have is that although we pride ourselves as an established financial centre, most financial engineering and financial R&D activities are undertaken by international banks in their headquarters in London or New York. Then these new financial concepts are passed on to lesser centres such as Singapore. The aim of the proposed double taxation deduction scheme is very laudable. But I do wonder whether the incentive to be given is strong enough to induce financial wizards from London and New York to undertake such financial engineering activities in Singapore. Do our financial markets have the sophistication and maturity to test out and accept new concepts? Mr Speaker, Sir, if you allow me, I will ask the Clerk to circulate a table which shows the comparative stock markets around the world measured by the total market capitalization or total worth of all the local companies listed in the respective stock markets. Looking through the chart, the largest stock market obviously is the USA which has US$3,696 billion worth of market capitalization. Japan is next with about US$2.6 trillion or US$2,600 billion. UK is next with about US$967 billion. When we compare ourselves, Singapore has only US$50 billion, you can see the comparison of the size of ourself as a financial centre versus these world markets. The US is about 73 times our Singapore market; Japan or Tokyo is about 51 times; and London is about 19 times.”
“Sir, before I speak on this subject of Singapore as a Financial Centre, I wish to declare my interest in that I am working in a merchant bank. Singapore has established itself as an international financial centre. It has all the necessary credentials which include a strong domestic economy, stable currency, strategic location, a broad base of international and domestic financial institutions, established financial and banking expertise; and finally active stock markets. The financial sector has been chalking up double digit growth of about 15% per year for the last 10 to 15 years. However, last year the sector suddenly slowed down to only 2.9%, versus about 19% in 1990. In fact, it registered a negative growth, or a decline of 1.4% in the third quarter of 1991. Is it a symptom of Singapore losing itself and its edge as a financial centre? 1.45 pm About two years ago, when the Malaysian and Singapore stock markets split up, we lost a large chunk of Malaysian stocks to trade in. However, the formation of the Central Limit Order Book or CLOB International helped to partially offset the loss. Last year, Malaysia announced that it would eventually convert its trading of shares in the stock market to scripless trading like Singapore. This may have an adverse effect on the trading of CLOB International. We are aware that our neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand are trying to build up Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok as financial centres, thereby posing some competition to us. These are natural developments to expect. In this regard, the financial sector in Singapore is very heartened to hear from the Minister about the proposed double tax deduction scheme for financial institutions undertaking financial engineering or finance-related activities of an R&D nature.”
“So long as there is no hindrance to the free flow of pedestrian traffic, I urge the Government to be sympathetic to these coffeeshop owners. As a long-term solution, the HDB should lay down some guidelines or regulations to enable the coffeeshop owners to make use of the open space outside their shops to do more business and make more money.”