Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 58 of 61.
“The Government is prepared to put it to the test. But whatever the outcome, we have already benefitted from active public participation in policy-making. If out of this exercise arises a better understanding of the problems that we face and a realisation that the solutions are not always simple or straightforward, then we will gain even more.”
“The COEs of the other two categories, namely, Category 5 (goods vehicles and buses), and Category 7 (Open), will remain transferable. Validity Period The validity period for non-transferable COEs will be extended to six months, while transferable COEs will remain valid for three months. There will be no refund for unused COEs. Role of Motor Distributors For the period of the trial, the 30-bid allocation to motor distributors, which was meant for transfer to their clients, will be withdrawn. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC, in its report, stated that in coming up with its recommendations, foremost in its list of considerations was that the trial should not only be a fair one, but should also be one in which conclusive results could be obtained. How will we measure the results of the trial? The trial is meant to test whether transferability has led to higher COE prices. Without transferability, so the argument goes, COE prices will fall. The public expects prices to fall. If they do fall, then I will be happy for the car buyers who will benefit, and the Ministry of Communications will make non-transferability of COEs a permanent feature of the Quota System. If they still go up, then I hope the public will accept that transferability is not to blame for high COE prices. Whatever the outcome, I believe that the trial package that I have outlined is the fairest under the circumstances, and it is one which takes into account a broad spectrum of views and concerns that have been raised by the public. The Quota System will continue, whether COEs are transferable or not. The Government believes that transferability provides for efficiency, and efficiency brings maximum benefits, maximum convenience to all, in the long run. The public believes otherwise.”
“Yet others expressed concern that major motor distributors would be given an unfair advantage if they were allocated transferable COEs when we have a non-transferable system. I am told that this issue found no consensus even among motor traders. On balance, I am persuaded by the arguments against allowing motor distributors to continue with transferable COEs. Except for COEs in the Open Category, during the trial each person who wants to buy a car should bid for his own COE. The 30 bids that are allocated to each motor distributor will be withdrawn. (e) Transfer of new cars The GPC also highlighted an interesting point made by some members of the public that, even when COEs are non-transferable, speculators can still try to beat the system by registering a new car and then re-selling it as a new car. So this has given rise to suggestions that we should now disallow the transfer of newly-registered cars so that we plug this new loophole. I do not intend to take up this suggestion. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, we would have to start preventing leasing companies and hire-car companies from leasing out new cars in order to get around the non-transferability of COEs or non-transferability of new cars. Summary and Starting Date of Trial Period Let me now summarise the decisions to be taken. The trial will begin with the September 1991 tender exercise, for COEs valid from October 1991. The trial will last 12 months and the following will apply during this period. Structure of Trial The COEs for the following categories of vehicles will be non-transferable, namely, Category 1 (small cars), Category 2 (medium cars), Category 3 (big cars), Category 4 (luxury cars), Category 6 (motorcycles) and Category 8 (weekend cars).”
“Since motorcycles and cars are both means of private transport, they should be treated the same. I will therefore make motorcycle COEs non-transferable as well. (b) Trial Period The GPC has recommended that the trial period be for 12 months. They feel that this period of time is needed for the public to adjust to the new system and also to take into account short-term seasonal fluctuations. This is a valid point. This recommendation will be accepted. (c) Validity Period for Non-transferable COEs What about the validity period for non-transferable COEs? Many speakers at the dialogue session have asked for an extension of the validity period for non-transferable COEs, from the current three months to six months. The argument is that we should allow sufficient time for prospective buyers to choose their vehicle and to register the vehicle. Others have proposed the alternative of keeping the validity period unchanged at three months, but allow for a partial refund if it is unused. In view of the restrictions imposed by non-transferable COEs, I will extend the validity period of these non-transferable COEs from three months to six months, but without refund for unused COEs. Transferable COEs will remain valid for three months. (d) Role of Motor Distributors Another issue concerns the motor distributors. Should we allow them to bid up to the limit of 30 COEs which are currently transferable to their clients? The GPC has reported divided views on this. Some were of the opinion that motor distributors, in their effort to sell more vehicles, would resort to a bidding war to lay their hands on more COEs. Others felt that motor distributors should retain their allocation of COEs to cater to impulse buyers and unsuccessful bidders, in other words, as a service to their clients.”
“As car buyers form the majority of those arguing for non-transferability, the GPC recommends that the four main car categories, in other words, Categories 1-4 should be made non-transferable, while the other four categories remain status quo. The GPC observes that distributors of commercial vehicles have made a good case for the COEs of buses and goods vehicles to remain transferable. This is to allow businessmen to react to business opportunities. If they want a vehicle urgently, they can find one even if they have not been successful in their tender. The GPC also makes the point that the flexibility of the Open category should not be compromised by making it non-transferable. As for Weekend Cars, being mostly purchased for leisure travel, the GPC feels that they also can remain status quo, in other words, remain transferable. Finally, the GPC notes that there is no need to make motorcycle COEs non-transferable. Based on feedback from motorcycle distributors that, as fewer Singaporeans are buying motorcycles, there is very little speculation in this category in the first place. My Ministry has considered the recommendations of the GPC. We are in general agreement with the thrust of the recommendations, in other words, make some of the categories non-transferable and keep the others transferable. Specifically, I agree that Categories 1-4 will be non-transferable. However, I will include the Weekend Car Category in this group as well, so that all the car categories will be made non-transferable for the trial. We should, as far as possible, treat Weekend Cars similarly with other cars. Although motorcycle distributors prefer the status quo, I anticipate that there will be calls for non-transferability from motorcycle buyers in the event that COE prices go up.”
“The new road-building programme and other enhancements will increase the carrying capacity over the next five years by something like 15%. This is the basis for concluding that a vehicle growth rate of about 2.5% to 3% a year will not cause additional congestion over the next three to five years. In the longer term, the introduction of new usage-based traffic management measures such as the electronic road-pricing or ERP will give us more room to allow more Singaporeans to own cars. But I must caution that there is a limit to this. So long as economic growth is strong, demand for vehicles will outstrip the supply of available road space and our ability to increase the capacity of these roads. We will still need to manage the growth of our vehicle population via policies like the Vehicle Quota System. But growth there will be. The Vehicle Quota System On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to return to the Vehicle Quota System and the GPC's recommendation for a trial bidding system. (a) Structure of Trial The GPC has reported that there was no consensus on the structure of the trial. A wide range of options were suggested. Many felt that all the COEs in all the eight categories should be made non-transferable. So that is one option. Others felt that only half of the COEs in all categories should be non-transferable. So you slice all the eight categories in the middle. Another group suggested that only COEs in some categories should be made non-transferable and leave the rest alone. The GPC has recommended this third option, ie, that COEs in some, but not all, categories should be made non-transferable.”
“Roads and expressways already use up something like 10% of the total land in Singapore, and this is almost as much as housing. Housing occupies 11%, roads about 10%. We need land for other essential needs - industries, reservoirs, parks, recreational land. Road-building cannot proceed indefinitely without encroaching on land that has been earmarked for these other purposes, and without eroding our quality of life. Having said that, I am sure many motorists will congratulate the PWD for doing a remarkable job in providing an efficient network of roads and expressways, within this tiny island we call home. There is still scope for improving the network. The PWD will soon be embarking on the following new road-building projects: (a) the new Kranji Expressway; (b) the extension of the Pan-Island Expressway to Tuas; (c) Phase III of the Tampines Expressway; (d) Phase II of the Seletar Expressway; and (e) the widening of the PIE, along the stretch between Kallang Bahru and the Bukit Timah Expressway. The PWD also plans to construct flyovers and interchanges to relieve traffic bottlenecks at some seven major junctions. Some of the major junctions which you may be familiar with include those at (a) Bukit Timah Road/Farrer Road/Adam Road junction; (b) Holland Road/Farrer Road junction, and (c) the Yio Chu Kang Road/Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3/Hougang Avenue 2 junction. Besides adding to our road network, the PWD has also been maximising the capacity of our existing roads using state-of-the-art technology. The GLIDE system which essentially improves travelling time by synchronising traffic lights has been successfully implemented in the CBD and will soon be extended to cover a wider area.”
“Despite all these new schemes, ownership of cars continued to go up and kept pace with increase in household incomes. If you translate this growth in the number of cars into the number of households owning cars, the percentage of car-owning households in 1972 was 17%, rising to 30% in 1987. If you express these figures in another way, there were 6 cars per 100 persons in 1972 and 9 cars per 100 persons in 1987. I asked for some comparable figures. We have to compare cities to make sure that there is the same basis of comparison. Look at the city close to us, Hong Kong. In 1989, Hong Kong had 3 cars per 100 persons. So long as our economy keeps expanding, the number of cars on our roads will continue to go up, and the percentage of households owning cars will continue to rise. My Ministry estimates that, with the new road-building programmes and other enhancements that are being carried out to increase the carrying capacity of these roads, we should be able to sustain our current growth rate of vehicles of about 17,000 per annum, or roughly about 2.5%-3% per annum for the next 3-5 years. This means that within the next five years, another 40,000 to 50,000 households, or another 6-7% of households, will be able to own cars. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned earlier in his reply to a question that the Government's task is to manage this increase in the number of households owning cars, not to reduce the number of car owners in Singapore. The challenge is how to manage this growth without creating congestion. Road Building and the Land Constraints To sustain this growth, we must maximise whatever limited land we have set aside for the provision of roads and expressways, so that we do not choke on our own success.”
“The result has been satisfying - smooth traffic, no hassles on our roads, our buses and trucks moving about at peak efficiency. This is a precious asset. I would say that it is as precious as our world-class port, our world-class airport and our world-class telecommunications infrastructure. It has helped our companies to maintain our international competitive edge. It has also enhanced our quality of life. It has been achieved at some cost to the Government's popularity and also at some sacrifice on the part of the public. But the price of the alternative - congestion and gridlock - is even higher. Economic Growth and Vehicle Growth We should continue to ensure that our traffic is free-flowing. At the same time, there is a growing aspiration among our people to own a car. You call it a status symbol, or you consider it as a means to greater mobility, to greater independence, or you consider it simply as a time-saving way to get around. The fact remains that the desire and the ability to own a car will only grow stronger over time and as we become more affluent. The Government recognises this aspiration, and has factored this aspiration into our land transport policy-making process. The experience of the past 15-20 years is revealing. The average monthly household income has almost doubled during this period. The Deputy Prime Minister gave some figures just now. In 1972 it was $1,200, and in 1987 it was $2,213 (both figures in 1987 $). This is a compounded annual growth rate of something like 4.2%. Coincidentally, during this period, the growth rate of the vehicle population was also 4.2%, despite the many vehicle restraint measures. ARF was introduced. ARF went up, road taxes went up, and the Area Licensing Scheme was introduced.”
“Based on this feedback, the GPC on Communications has made its recommendations on how the trial should be carried out. Land Transport Policy Mr Speaker, Sir, before I respond specifically to these recommendations, I would like to spend a few minutes to put this issue of COEs and the Vehicle Quota System itself in the context of the Government's overall land transport policy. Our land transport policy objective, to put it very simply, is to keep traffic on our roads free-flowing so that people and goods can move about smoothly and efficiently. To achieve this, the Government has adopted a comprehensive, four-pronged approach, namely: (1) Systematic town planning to provide for offices, schools, factories, shops, and recreational facilities close to housing estates so that the need for travel is minimised; (2) To build a comprehensive network of roads and expressways on our limited land and also to maximise the capacity of these roads and expressways for carrying traffic; (3) To develop an efficient public transport system, and to maximise the usage of this public transport system; and (4) To manage the growth and usage of vehicles so that everyday, we can move around, for business or pleasure, in speed and comfort. This multi-pronged approach to the problems of urban transportation is not unique to Singapore. The problems themselves are faced by major cities the world over. And if you ask any transport expert, whether he is a highway engineer or an urban planner or transport economist, all of them will agree on what needs to be done. But what is unique is that Singapore has implemented these solutions comprehensively and consistently over the last 15-20 years.”
“This was vividly illustrated by the behaviour of COE prices over the last year. During the Gulf crisis, when the economic outlook was uncertain, and when the demand for vehicles was low, prices of COEs fell sharply. With the end of the Gulf War early this year, and with the recovery of the share market and property prices going up, COE prices have also rebounded as demand for vehicles picked up. Of course, the fact that the ARF was lowered twice by 15 percentage points in November last year and another 10 percentage points this year has also got something to do with it because people have factored in these two reductions, that is, this 25 percentage points saving into the cost of COEs. Decision to hold a trial However, the public still believes that transferability contributes to high COE prices. In the Prime Minister's community visit to Ang Mo Kio on 2nd June 1991, he suggested that a trial be carried out to test whether the transferability of COEs has in fact pushed up COE prices. The GPC on Communications decided to collect feedback from all interested parties on how such a trial can be carried out. The public has responded enthusiastically, reflecting the keen interest in this subject. Opinions and suggestions have come through all available channels, through the telephone, the mail, the mass media, grassroots organisations and so on. To round this up, a dialogue session was held by the GPC on Communications together with the Feedback Unit on 13th July 1991 for grassroots leaders, car dealers, motorists and non-motorists alike. GPC's Report The Chairman of the GPC, Mr Eugene Yap, submitted his report to me on 20th July 1991. It is quite evident from the report that many people have taken the trouble to send in their views or to speak up at the dialogue session.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vehicle Quota System was implemented on 1st May 1990 after considerable debate and discussion, both inside and outside this House. It would be fair to say that the Quota System, despite its brief history, has become generally accepted as an effective and a reliable way to control the growth in our vehicle population. However, one feature of the Vehicle Quota System has attracted much attention, namely, the transferability of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE). Many Singaporeans believe that transferability has attracted speculators, who have been able to profit by re-selling COEs to genuine car-buyers at a markup, and therefore driving up COE prices. The argument goes that without these speculators, prices of COEs would be lower. There is a sense of indignation that some people should be able to profit from a Government policy, which has been introduced for public good. I can understand why some people are unhappy, especially those who have been unsuccessful in their bids. But I should also point out that the transferability feature was introduced precisely to cater for such unsuccessful bidders who are in urgent need of a vehicle. During the Gulf crisis, when quota premiums fell, there was no criticism of transferability at all. But, with the end of the Gulf War, quota premiums have again risen and so has public criticism. The Ministry of Communications does not believe that transferability increases the prices of COEs. COE prices are determined by market forces of supply and demand. As the supply of COEs is released at a steady rate, any changes in the prices of COEs essentially reflect changes in their demand. Speculators can influence prices only in the short term, not over the longer term.”
“Sir, it is not possible to put a public telephone in every block. So it is incumbent on Singapore Telecom to find out which is the most convenient and well located position for each public telephone. SERANGOON NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD 5 (Building of shoplets) 15. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for only building 3 shoplets but no neighbourhood shops or a dry market in Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5, which consists of about 52 blocks and 4,077 residential units.”
“Sir, in general, that is correct. But in the case of telephones which are not well utilised, it is Singapore Telecom's policy to make sure that they are put in places where there is good usage for them. So in this particular case, in their constant review of payphones, they, as a matter of course, would move the public telephones to places where there are more people using them. It is not a matter of removing them completely.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 7, to leave out marginal note, and insert "Repeal and re-enactment of Schedule.". (2) In page 7, line 32, to leave out "Schedules", and insert "Schedule". (3) In page 7, to leave out line 33 to line 39 in page 9 and insert - " "THE SCHEDULE Section 23.". Sir, as I have explained, the First Schedule on Financial Provisions is not required. So the three amendments erase the Financial Provisions in the First Schedule and replace it with the contents of the Second Schedule on the "Matters in respect of which Minister may make Regulations." Amendments agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT FULLY ANSWERED AND NOT REACHED BY 1.30 P.M. LIGHTED FOOTPATH TO TANAH MERAH MRT STATION 1. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will arrange with the developer of a HDB privatised site (located opposite Bedok South Avenue 3/New Upper Changi Road) to construct a lighted footpath that will provide a shorter and more convenient route from the Jalan Tanjong/Tanah Merah Kechil Road area to the Tanah Merah MRT station as the original footpath used for gaining access to the station has been demolished and an alternative footpath provided is too far away.”
“The remainder of the first amendment retains in the Act the existing stipulation that the annual accounts be audited by the Auditor-General and presented to Parliament through the Minister. These conditions were listed in the First Schedule on Financial Provisions in the Amendment Bill tabled in March 1991. The second and third amendments are consequential. Since the SDF will continue to be governed by the Financial Procedure Act and the Financial Regulations 1990, unnecessary to have a separate set of Financial Provisions in the First Schedule of the Amendment Bill tabled on 11th March 1991. The First Schedule is therefore deleted in the fourth amendment. The fifth amendment deletes the transitional provisions which are not required since SDF will remain a Government fund. Amendments agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 5, to leave out lines 34 to 36 inclusive and insert - "Application 16. The members, of Financial employees and agents Procedure Act. of the Board shall, in Cap. 109. relation to the administration of the Fund, be deemed to be public officers for the purposes of the Financial Procedure Act and section 20 of that Act shall apply to such persons notwithstanding that they are not or were not in the employment of the Government. Financial 17.-(1) The Board shall, statements. as soon as practicable but not later than 30th June in every year, prepare and submit the financial statements relating to the Fund in respect of the preceding financial year of the Board to the Auditor-General who shall audit and report on them. (2) As soon as the financial statements have been audited by the Auditor-General, a copy of the audited financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General shall be submitted to the Minister. (3) The Minister shall as soon as practicable cause a copy of the audited financial statements and of the report of the Auditor-General to be presented to Parliament.". (2) In page 6, line 1, to leave out "Fund", and insert "administration of the Fund by the Board". (3) In page 6, line 7, to leave out "Fund", and insert "administration of the Fund by the Board". (4) In page 7, lines 12 and 13, to leave out "Second Schedule.", and insert "Schedule.".". (5) In page 7, to leave out lines 14 to 30 inclusive. Sir, the SDF is subject to the Financial Procedure Act and the Financial Regulations. The first amendment serves to appoint the employees of NPB as "public officers" as defined in the Financial Procedure Act.”
“Sir, it is the intention that this clause be deleted. Sir, the unutilized accumulated fund of the SDF is currently placed as fixed deposits with banks. This practice will continue under NPB's administration. There is therefore no need to amend the clause on investment of SDF monies and the decision will continue to be made by the Minister. Question put, and negatived. Clause 8 accordingly disagreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 2, line 36, to leave out "control and". (2) In page 3, line 27, to leave out "appointments and delegations", and insert "appointment and delegation". (3) In page 3, to leave out lines 30 to 32 inclusive. Sir, the SDF will remain in the control of Government and not transferred to NPB. The second amendment is a grammatical correction and the third amendment is that since the Fund will be protected by Government, there is no need to define the limitation of the liability of the NPB. Amendments agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 24, to leave out from "(3)" to the end of line 30. Sir, the reason is that the Fund will continue to vest in the Government as a Government fund. There is therefore no need to transfer the Fund vested in the NPB. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 13, to leave out "Board" and insert "Government". Sir, I have indicated in the debate on the NPB (Amendment) Bill that the intention is to preserve the status of the SDF as a Government fund. So any money outstanding in the Fund is therefore money owing to the Government. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -”
“These are: (a) to appoint employees of the NPB as "public officers" as defined in the Financial Procedure Act so that they will be held financially accountable to the Government for the Fund's monies; (b) to stipulate explicitly in the Skills Development Levy Act that the NPB will submit the accounts annually to the Auditor-General and the Minister will present the audited statements to Parliament as is the present practice. The continued presence of the Auditor-General in the SDF administration is an added insurance for the financial integrity of the Fund. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Skills Development Levy will remain a key factor in building up our training infrastructure for post-employment training. The appointment of NPB as the Administrator of the SDF will provide a closer coordination between trainer and financier and will strengthen our post-employment training structure. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -”
“It is therefore logical for the NPB to be appointed the overall administrator of the Fund. To effect this, the Skills Development Levy Act has to be amended: (a) to appoint the NPB as the overall Administrator of the Fund and to delete references in the Act to the Comptroller of Income Tax and the payroll tax; (b) to give the NPB the flexibility to appoint agents for the administration so that the existing machinery of the CPF Board and the Accountant-General need not be duplicated; (c) to incorporate the relevant sections of the Payroll Tax Act and its associated Regulations in the Skills Development Levy Act so as to provide NPB with equivalent power to enforce levy collections; and (d) to dissolve the SDF Advisory Council, as its functions will be taken over by the National Productivity Board. The Ministry is aware of the dual role of the NPB as an administrator and user of SDF funds. In recognition of this, we have taken precautions to ensure that MTI will still hold the casting vote in the Fund. NPB will have to seek the approval of the Minister for any new direction or any new programme for SDF funding. The Fund's annual budget will still be vetted by MTI. Any major project requiring SDF financing will also have to be approved by MTI. I am also introducing further amendments to the Skills Development Levy Act so that the SDF will remain a Government fund protected by the Government even though NPB is appointed as the Administrator.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill is to streamline the administration of the Skills Development Fund (SDF), to clarify the financial accountability for the Fund, and to appoint the National Productivity Board as the overall Administrator of the SDF. Sir, the SDF was set up in 1979 as a Government fund under the Ministry of Finance to support worker training and skills upgrading. Operationally, the CPF Board collected the levy, the Accountant-General managed the Fund, the Economic Development Board administered the SDF programmes and the Revenue Division of the Ministry of Finance disbursed the grants for these programmes. In 1986, the SDF and the NPB were both transferred to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to consolidate resources for workers' training and productivity. The Skills Development Levy Act was not amended. As a result, six Government agencies and statutory boards are presently involved in administering the Fund, namely MTI, the Accountant-General, the Comptroller of Income Tax, the CPF Board, NPB and the SDF Secretariat. Sir, although the Act still specifies that the Comptroller of Income Tax collects the Skills Development Levy, the Comptroller does not report to MTI. Furthermore, MTI is accountable for the Fund even though actual grant disbursements are administered by the staff in NPB and SDF. Sir, the involvement of such a large number of agencies obviously results in a diffusion of financial responsibility. There is therefore a need to rationalise and to streamline the system so that financial accountability is more clearly defined. In practice, the NPB has been assisting the SDF Secretariat in formulating new training initiatives since 1986.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, to leave out "control and". Sir, the intention of the amendment is to conserve and preserve the status of the SDF as a Government fund while appointing NPB to administer it. This means that control of the fund will be retained in Government's hands. NPB will administer it in accordance with the Financial Procedure Act and the associated financial regulations which govern all public monies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT LEVY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“The Minister's approval is also needed for any change to SDF policy or any new scheme or programme which uses SDF funds. All this is to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the NPB's role as an administrator and as an end-user of SDF funds. I would also like to take this opportunity to make other amendments to the NPB Act to bring it more in line with the Acts of other statutory boards. The more substantial changes are:- (a) to give the Minister the flexibility of determining the exact number of Board members (up to 3) that will represent a particular interest group. (b) to empower the Board to raise loans from Government, or, with Ministerial approval, from other sources; (c) to invest its moneys in trustee securities; and (d) to update the provisions relating to the appointment of the Executive Director and other employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the NPB Act will give NPB greater operational flexibility in achieving its mission of working for continued growth in Singapore's productivity performance. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -”
“The present NPB Act is, however, silent on whether NPB can form companies or enter into joint ventures. It is therefore proposed that: (a) Section 8 of the NPB Act, relating to Powers of the Board, be amended to allow NPB to form companies or to enter into joint ventures, subject to Ministerial approval; and (b) Section 21(1) (Funds of the Board) be consequentially amended to allow NPB to receive dividends and other incomes generated by these companies that NPB may own, whether solely or in partnership. The need for the restructuring of the SDF will be dealt with in detail in the Second Reading on the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill. Very briefly, I propose that NPB be made the Administrator of the SDF. The NPB has in practice been assisting the SDF in formulating new initiatives and programmes for worker training, and also administering the ongoing SDF programmes since 1986. The appointment of NPB as the administrator of the SDF will enable the present informal arrangement to be placed on a proper legislative footing, with NPB legally and financially accountable for the administration of the Fund. To allow NPB to administer the SDF, additional clauses have to be added to section 6 of the NPB Act (Objects of Board) to make it an object of the Board to:- (a) promote the development of skills and expertise of persons in employment; and (b) administer the SDF. It is not the intention of this amendment to allow SDF funds to be used to finance NPB projects. To make this clear, the accounts of the SDF and NPB will be kept separate, as is the current practice. NPB will submit, through the Minister, the audited accounts of the SDF for presentation to Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the National Productivity Board (Amendment) Bill is to enable the National Productivity Board (NPB): (a) to form companies, whether solely or in partnership, so as to enable it to play a wider role in promoting productivity and upgrading the skills of our workforce; and (b) to be appointed as the Administrators of the Skills Development Fund (SDF) with overall accountability for the Fund. Since the launch of the Productivity Movement in 1981, the NPB has adopted a collaborative approach, by tapping the expertise of companies in the private sector to accelerate productivity growth of local businesses. I would like to quote some examples here. First of all, the NPB-IBM Information Technology Training Centre, which was launched in April 1988 to provide hands-on computer training for clerical and secretarial workers. The NPB-Motorola Training Design Centre, which was launched in May 1989 to assist companies develop customised training programmes, for example, for training of mid-career workers. The NPB-SIA Service Quality Centre, which was set up in November 1990, conducts programmes for frontline staff, supervisors and managers to improve service quality. The NPB-Philips Industrial Engineering Training Institute, which was launched in January 1991 to train workers in the manufacturing sector in the application of IE techniques. Due to the widening scope of productivity-related issues, NPB will in future need to introduce many more new programmes. In some cases, it may not have the expertise nor the resources to implement them by itself. It may need to form joint ventures with other companies that have the required expertise.”
“Sir, I can confirm that that is not the reason for this particular policy of the MRTC. As I indicated, the paramount consideration is public safety and if the Member were to go down to the station and have a look, I think he will appreciate what I mean. GOLF COURSE LAND (Review of rentals and alienation) 8. Mr S. Chandra Das asked the Minister for Law whether the Government is reviewing the rentals for golf course land as well as the method of alienating such land and, if so, on what basis such review will be conducted.”
“The responsibility of the MRTC is, first and foremost, public safety. In this regard, I think it has taken all things into consideration and, as I said just now, it is looking into other measures. But this particular move that it has made has been made in the interest of public safety. I think in this case it has decided to err on the side of public safety and the Ministry supports its stand.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the MRTC is now looking into suggestions similar to what the Member has put across just now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two reasons why the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC) decided to prohibit sitting on the parapet walls; firstly, the safety of members of the public and, secondly, the need to ensure a free passage for passengers. The parapet walls at MRT stations serve to prevent people from falling down the stairs, the escalators or the gaps in between such facilities. They are not a safe place to sit on. If someone should fall off the parapets, he would not only hurt himself but could seriously injure other commuters travelling on the escalators. Furthermore, MRT stations are designed to serve high volumes of passenger traffic. Therefore, passage ways should be kept free-flowing at all times. Any unnecessary gathering of people or sitting on the parapets at the station will obstruct and slow down the flow of passenger traffic and cause inconvenience to commuters. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, rather than making it an offence to sit on parapet walls, why does the MRTC not design the walls in such a way that one cannot sit on them?”
“On the contrary, Sir, there was a reduction in the total collection as a result of this particular exercise. SITTING ON PARAPET WALLS IN MRT STATIONS (REVIEW OF OFFENCE) 7. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Communications if he will direct the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation to review the necessity of making it an offence to sit on parapet walls in MRT stations.”
“To facilitate enforcement, the licence plate of a weekend car will be of a different colour from that of a normal car. The licence plate will also have to be sealed to prevent tampering. The requirement for sealing of licence plates is provided for in clause 7 of the Bill. Sir, if I may summarise, the Weekend Car Scheme will make a car cheaper to buy and also cheaper to run, if it is used under certain conditions. More Singaporeans who want to can own a car. If they do not contribute to congestion, they pay less. This is fair. If some car buyers find these conditions to be too restrictive or too onerous, they can opt for a normal car, which is more expensive to buy, more expensive to run, but also with no restrictions. They now have a choice. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill is to enable the rebate on COE and ARF respectively to be given. The Minister for Finance will be moving an amendment to the Customs Act to allow for the rebate on import duty. The Scheme will allow for convertibility between weekend and normal cars. An owner of a weekend car who wants to convert it to a normal car will be required to pay back the rebate he enjoyed earlier. He will also need to obtain a new normal car COE. This is to ensure that the normal car population does not increase as a result of the conversion and thereby add to congestion. He will then be refunded the remaining balance of the weekend car COE premium. Clause 2 of this Bill also provides for such a refund to be made. Normal cars, in other words, those who have normal car COEs, can convert to weekend cars without having to bid for a weekend car COE. They will be given a 95% rebate on their annual road tax. They can reconvert back to normal car status if they so desire by paying the full annual road tax. The conversion of existing normal cars to weekend cars will be provided under the rules to be made by the Minister for the implementation of this Weekend Car Scheme. The provision to enable such rules to be made is specified in clause 4 of this Bill. Clause 4 also spells out the restrictions to be imposed on weekend cars and the penalties to be imposed for any breach of these restrictions. Heavy fines will be imposed should a motorist be caught driving a weekend car without a valid daily licence during the restricted hours, or using a false number plate to pass off as a normal car. This is necessary because enforcement of the scheme will be on a random basis.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,"That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act to enable the Weekend Car Scheme to be implemented. At this stage, Sir, I would like to reiterate that the main objective of our land transport policy remains to keep our roads congestion-free so that people and goods can move about freely and at minimum cost. At the same time, however, we recognise that Singaporeans have a strong desire to own cars. The Weekend Car Scheme seeks to accommodate this desire without compromising on our land transport policy. The Scheme provides for a lower tax rate for private cars which will be allowed free use of our roads during weekends and off-peak hours. More people can afford to own cars without causing congestion on the roads. Since the announcement of the Scheme in February last year, my Ministry has received many suggestions from the public ranging from policy issues to implementation issues. Many ideas for the Scheme also came from the Automobile Association, from the press, including Lianhe Zaobao, and the Feedback Unit. We found the feedback very useful, and we have in fact incorporated many of the suggestions. The formulation of the Weekend Car Scheme has been very much a collective effort of the public and the Government. Details of the proposed Weekend Car Scheme have already been released. Let me just highlight the principal features of the Scheme as spelt out in the Bill. Under the Weekend Car Scheme, a new weekend car will enjoy a full rebate of the net ARF (Additional Registration Fee), a full rebate of the import duty and a full rebate of the COE (Certificate of Entitlement) premium, subject to a total maximum rebate of $15,000.”
“Sir, the ERP system is proposed to be fully operational towards the middle of this decade. During this time, we will be implementing the weekend car scheme. The Member's question was how these two schemes will dovetail. Basically, the ERP system is a usage scheme in the sense that a motorist will pay if he uses certain roads. These roads will either be those in the CBD or those outside the CBD which tend to be congested. The weekend car scheme is also a usage scheme in the sense that a motorist, under certain conditions, for example, he will not be allowed to use certain roads at certain times, he will pay less in road tax. The two schemes are intended to merge one with the other when both schemes are fully implemented. In other words, when the ERP system is fully implemented, all cars could be deemed to be one class of cars. You can call it weekend cars or normal cars, but it will be one class of cars as compared to the proposed weekend car scheme when there are two classes of cars created. OPTICAL FIBRE CONNECTION TO HOUSEHOLDS (Installation) 2. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Communications whether the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore plans to install an optical fibre connection to every household so as to provide enhanced telecommunications services, including digital telephone service and cable television and, if so, what is the timetable for this infrastructure improvement programme.”
“Sir, the public bus operators and the MRT have formed a company known as Transit Link which is responsible for the integration of the bus and MRT services and also for the introduction of a common ticketing system. The company will be responsible for also providing the public relations to make sure that these services and changes are as widely publicised as possible. However, if there are any gaps in the PR at the moment I will be happy to ask Transit Link to address this issue. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head P (cont.) - Amendment moved [20th March, 1991], "That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PD 1500 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Yeo Toon Chia].”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the integration of the MRT and the bus services was the basis upon which the Government decided to build the MRT system. Integration of the public transport system is necessary to reduce wasteful duplication of services, so that operating costs can be kept low, and fares affordable. The integration of the public transport system involves not only physical facilities but also fare systems and routes to provide for easy connection between buses and the MRT. Bus interchanges and termini have been sited as close as possible to MRT stations. Covered walkways have been constructed to provide protection from the sun and the rain for those walking between the MRT stations or bus interchanges and nearby flats. With the introduction of the Farecard, a common ticket can now be used on both the buses and MRT. Apart from the convenience of cashless travel, the common ticket allows for through-ticketing, and makes it possible for the operators to give a transfer rebate when transfers are made. Since the commencement of MRT operations in 1987, the bus operators, with the approval of the Public Transport Council, have been making gradual adjustments to the bus network to provide for easy connection between bus and MRT. This rationalisation of the bus network is an on-going process to meet the changing transport needs of the population. Wasteful duplication of services will continue to be removed, wherever possible, with minimum inconvenience to commuters, and more buses will be redeployed to serve high demand services. All these measures, taken together, will provide for a more comfortable, accessible and affordable public transport for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Polytechnic and Ayer Rajah Housing Estate are currently linked by a total of nine scheduled services and six Scheme B services to the Central Business District, and other housing estates like Ang Mo Kio, Clementi, Jurong East, Marine Parade and Serangoon. Planning of bus routes is done by the public transport operators who must seek the approval of the Public Transport Council before implementing them. I will ask SBS to look into the Member's request and to liaise with his grassroots leaders on how the public transport needs of the area can best be served. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head S (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [18th March, 1991], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Lim Boon Heng]. Question again proposed.”
“The late Chinese news over Channel 8, for example, was watched by about 21,000-43,000 viewers, while the news at 8.00 pm in Chinese would commonly draw 435,000 viewers in 1989, which is about 5%-10%. As for the English news, which was telecast over Channel 12, it drew 1,000-3,000 viewers compared to news at 9.00 pm on Channel 5 of about 96,000 viewers in 1989. SBC has alternative sources of news in SBCText and in its various radio services for those who want to keep in touch with the news. SBC will, however, continue to monitor interest in the late night TV news and reinstate them if the demand justifies the resources required for this. As for news by telephone service, there is really no need for this as listeners can easily tune in to radio for the news. There are late news bulletins on our various radio channels. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head Q (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [15th March, 1991], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam]. Question again proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the vehicle quota system has been effective in controlling the growth in vehicle population. The quota premium reflects the price that car buyers are willing to pay for the ownership of a vehicle given the present rate of taxes for ARF, customs duty and road tax. If we reduce the Additional Registration Fee for cars further, the reduction will most likely result in higher quota premiums. For buyers of new cars, this will, on the average, make little difference because the increase in COE prices will be offset by the reduction in ARF. However, owners of old cars who wish to extend their COEs will have to pay much more because the prevailing quota premium would now be much higher. This would be disadvantageous to owners of the older cars. My Ministry will monitor the situation carefully and we would like to see how the quota system works under different economic conditions before changes that would severely affect the quota premiums are introduced. LATE NIGHT NEWS (Telecast) 4. Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (a) whether the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation will telecast shortened news programmes later in the evening for those who miss the earlier programmes and (b) whether, as an alternative or in addition to the repeat news programmes, the SBC will consider having a news-by-telephone service for persons without access to the teletext service. The Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation had late night news bulletins until 1989. This was discontinued due to low viewership. The demand could not justify the considerable resources needed to produce and telecast such late night news.”
“Sir, it is extremely difficult to say that during these hours, there is no congestion outside the CBD. I think all of us would have experienced congestion during these hours at one time or another. The point I am trying to make is that, for a start, for the weekend car scheme to work, we would have to demonstrate that it is attractive enough for Singaporeans to want to own a car and at the same time not use it to the extent that it clogs up our roads. For those hours that the Member is suggesting, PWD statistics show that there is a certain amount of congestion, perhaps not as much as during the peak hours, but certainly not enough for us to warrant extending the hours of usage at the moment. ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION FEE (Further reduction) 3. Dr John Chen Seow Phun asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider a further reduction of the Additional Registration Fee to better allow market forces to determine the price of owning cars since the vehicle quota system is now working well.”
“Sir, what the Member is suggesting is that we extend the hours whereby the weekend cars are eligible to be on the road. The fundamental purpose of the weekend car scheme is to allow more Singaporeans to own a car and at the same time make sure that they do not use it at certain times which would congest the road further. Our present study shows that these so-called off-peak hours where congestion will be much less are in the evenings and on weekends. It does not include those hours that the Member suggested just now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when Government agreed to allow existing cars to convert to weekend cars, we had two choices when considering what rebate to give. The first choice was a pro-rated refund of the net Additional Registration Fee (ARF) and import duty. The second choice was an enhanced rebate on the road tax. We decided on the latter scheme. In lieu of a refund on ARF, we decided to give a 95% rebate on road tax, in other words, 25 percentage points more than the 70% for new weekend cars. The reason why we opted for road tax rebate was that it was simpler to administer and also fairer to the motorist. Let me explain. The net ARF of a car is the ARF less the lump sum PARF value. For many of the older cars, the ARF paid could be either equal to or even lower than the lump sum PARF value. So if we had opted for the first option, these car owners would end up getting very little or even no rebate of the ARF and import duty. They would then only enjoy the 70% rebate on the road tax. So under the second option that we finally decided on, they would enjoy a 95% rebate on road tax.”
“Sir, the time period at the moment is about 10-12 days. Part of the reason is that there is a large number of tenders to process. The banks will also have to process the drafts to make sure that they do not bounce and that the amounts are correct. All in all, it takes about 10-12 days. We will ask the ROV to consider reducing the time period but in so far as releasing the preliminary results of the tenders is concerned, the Member will appreciate that doing so would mean that the preliminary results and the final results would vary. How much the variance will be, we are not sure. It depends on what sort of checking procedures have been instituted. But I will ask the ROV to consider releasing the preliminary results if there are no other repercussions involved. CONVERSION TO WEEKEND CARS (Rebate on Additional Registration Fee) 2. Dr John Chen Seow Phun asked the Minister for Communications whether a rebate on the Additional Registration Fee will be given to those who wish to convert their normal cars to weekend cars.”
“Sir, the viability of the service will be determined by the ridership on a case-by-case basis. If the ridership is found to be not sufficient or the demand is not high enough, the taxi operators are free to apply for a change in the fares for that particular ride, and the Ministry will support the application.”
“My apologies, Sir. As I indicated earlier in the other reply, the taxi service is also part of the public transport system. In this context, it is the desire of many of the residents in private estates to be able to take advantage of the most convenient mode of transport which they find and, in this case, the MRT system has been found to be a very popular mode of transport. However, we have to take into consideration the fact that it is extremely difficult to justify a regular scheduled service for the public housing estates. There are constraints of the roads. Of course, a more serious constraint is the fact that the load factor may not be able to justify such services. However, the economics of it may justify a niche service. It is quite possible that taxis may be able to find this niche and may be able to provide such a service that satisfies both the demands of the residents as well as provide extra income for taxi drivers. So we have, on a trial basis, made this requirement to see whether we are better able to maximise the total usage of the public transport system, in this case, to maximise the usage of the trains, and the main trunk bus routes, for that matter, for residents of the private housing estates. It is also in line with our objective of trying to provide a comfortable and viable alternative for the private housing estate residents, an alternative to the private motor car.”
“As we move from a vehicle like a bus, or train for that matter, which is a mass rapid transit vehicle, to a vehicle like a taxi, which is more akin to a private car, the cost for the public transport commuter must vary depending on the level of comfort and the level of convenience that he wants and is prepared to pay for. So within this framework, the Ministry will from time to time review the charges, taxes and fees to be levied on each of these various modes of public transport. We will conduct regular reviews of this. We do not have any plans at this very moment to levy any new taxes on any of the various modes of transport, but this will be an on-going exercise of the Ministry, and when we do conduct such a review, we make it a point to consult all the interested parties, including the GPC for Communications and the various transport operators, including NTUC Comfort, as and when it is necessary. Sir, in so far as the daily payment of road tax and diesel tax is concerned, it is not a simple matter of changing from the current system to a daily payment system. There are many legal and technical issues that need to be looked at. However, in view of the Member's very persuasive arguments and, I might add, his persistence, since he has raised this matter in the House many times, I will ask the ROV to look into his suggestion to see how it can be implemented.”
“Mr Chiam has also mentioned the fact that it is more equitable to make use of usage controls to control road congestion. The Ministry agrees with him. In fact, we have mentioned all along that we intend to use a judicious mix of both ownership and usage control measures to regulate the flow of vehicles on our roads. For this reason, we have already publicly announced the proposed implementation of an Electronic Road Pricing system. This is one of the ways whereby we could more equitably price the use of roads so that people who want to use the roads more will pay for it and those who do not wish to will be able to save some money. As for the implementation of the weekend car scheme, I am pleased to inform him that it is ready for implementation. In fact we have tabled a Bill before this House and this Bill will be due for Second Reading sometime in the near future. I look forward to Mr Chiam's inputs and comments during the debate for the weekend cars. Sir, I turn now to the point made by Mr Lew Syn Pau with regard to taxis. As the Ministry's policy on taxis is one that involves the total public transport system, we have to decide where taxis fit into the scheme of things. Between buses, on the one hand, MRT and taxis, on the other hand, we would have to decide how each of these parts plays a role in the whole scheme so that the most efficient public transport system can be provided for Singaporeans at the most affordable cost. This has to be seen against our car ownership and car restraint policies.”