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 59 of 61.
“If I may be allowed to respond to Mr Chiam's comments first regarding the quota system. Mr Chiam has made mention of the fact that because COEs have not been taken up, therefore, the quota system has been prematurely introduced and he goes on to say that it is unnecessary. I fail to see the connection between these two points. The reason why COEs have not been taken up is very simple. People who have bid for the COEs found that they have not been able to dispose of them or they have, for some reason or other, not wished to buy a car themselves and have simply not taken them up. I think it is a choice that has been made by the bidder of the COE. He is perfectly entitled not to take them up if he so wishes. He has also mentioned the fact that since the quota system has been implemented to limit car growth and because COEs have not been taken up, therefore, we should scrap the quota system. It is precisely because we have the quota system that we have been able to set a certain percentage of increase of the vehicle population and that we have seen this happy state of affairs where the purchaser of the vehicle can determine for himself how much he is prepared to pay for his vehicle. As we have seen so vividly illustrated over the last few months, where the demand for vehicles is high the tender has been very high. It has gone up to $11,000 for a certain category of cars. But that same category of cars, when the demand has been low, has only fetched a COE of one-tenth of that amount. As the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, mentioned in his Budget speech, this is one of the vivid examples of the market mechanism working to regulate the availability and demand for a scarce commodity in Singapore.”
“So I would like to assure the Member that the Ministry of Communications will not shirk its responsibility of maintaining a public transport system that is of the highest quality and at an affordable cost.”
“What the Government has done to contribute to keeping the public transport cost affordable is both direct and significant. First of all, the Government invests very heavily on basic transport infrastructure. The Government has spent $5,000 million to build the existing MRT system. It is going to spend another $1,000 million to build the Woodlands extension of the MRT system. In addition to that, the Government pays for all bus interchanges, each of which costs $10 million. These are not small sums of money by any means. The second way that we contribute is to make sure that our roads are kept congestion free and stay that way. We do so by our car restraint policies, by high ARF, by the Area Licensing Scheme, by the quota system, by the proposed electronic road pricing system and so on. And in pursuing such policies, the Government pays a political price. But by keeping the roads congestion free, by allowing the buses to move faster, this means that the bus companies require less buses, this means that their operating costs are lower, which in turn means lower bus fares. Thirdly, and finally, the Government supports measures by the bus operators to eliminate, wherever they can, wastage and duplication in the system. One example of this wastage would be the implementation of the feeder service system. Another would be the ongoing network rationalisation. The exercise is being coordinated now by the public transport operators, bus companies as well as the MRT operators, because if there is wastage in the system, in the end all commuters will have to pay for it. And if there are savings, such savings can go towards either improving the level of service or to keep the bus fares affordable.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to bring the debate back to firmer ground. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Mr Eugene Yap's points on land transportation. The Member for Mountbatten had in his speech earlier made two points that I would like to address. The first was his call for Government to ensure that public transport companies maintain their fares for as long as possible. The second point he made and in fact he used the words "strongly urge", if I am not mistaken, was for Government not to take a hands-off approach towards public transport operators. Sir, bus fare increases are hardly the most popular measure at the best of times. They affect a very large part of our population and, in fact, according to the statistics, more than 2 million Singaporeans take either the bus or the train to work, to school, and back every day. And because of this, bus fare and train fare increases are not treated lightly. But in this particular case, let us give credit where credit is due. For the record, I would like to inform this House that when bus fares were increased in October last year, it was the first time that they had gone up in almost a decade. And during these nine years or so, wages had gone up. The average wage had almost doubled and other operating costs, spare parts, maintenance costs, had also gone up, compounded over the 10 years. During this period also, the Japanese commuter faced bus fare increases for six times and the Hong Kong commuter had to bear the brunt of bus fare increases for eight times. So all in all, I am sure Mr Eugene Yap is gracious enough to accept the fact that this is not a bad effort on the part of the public transport operators at all.”
“The second incentive is the Investment Study Grant Scheme. This, I must add, is a very popular scheme. What this scheme does is to defray part of the cost of looking for opportunities overseas, whether this be in the form of hiring experts or merchant banks to advise on potential acquisitions overseas. Yet another incentive under the IDI programme is that under section 13(7) of the Income Tax Act, the foreign sourced income that is earned can be exempted from Singapore taxes when this income is repatriated back to Singapore. I must add that these incentives apply to large as well as small companies and I am sure that where these local companies have a good business reason to do so, they would naturally team up and such incentives would be made available to them. Of course, there are other incentives that are available. TDB and EDB organise missions, operate other incentives like the Product Development Assistance Scheme, Market Development Assistance Scheme, and so on. And many local companies have used these schemes to good effect. I have had the opportunity to visit some of these local companies and I must say that I am very encouraged, both by the optimism and dynamism of the management of these companies and their staff. They do appreciate the little help that we can give to them and they also appreciate that ultimately it depends on themselves.”
“Again the Economic Development Board has, within its organisation, specific industry officers who have available to them the various contacts within each particular industry and who also have years of experience in their own particular industry. In actual fact, they are specialists in these industries. Again, the reason for doing so is, as the Member has mentioned, to concentrate on specific problem areas within specific industry groupings. The other comment that the Member has made is a point that he has raised before and this is the question of Government-owned companies competing with local companies. So long as these local companies compete fairly with the other local companies, I do not see any reason for them to restrict themselves to just one part of the market and leave the other part of the market. Such segmentation is not really done in the business world, as he is very well aware. The main point to be taken note of is that such competition is fair and that the playing field is level. The last point that the Member has mentioned is to ask what sort of incentives the Government has in place to allow or to encourage small local companies to team up with larger ones. Again, I wish to inform him that the EDB set up a programme in 1988 specifically for this purpose. The programme is called the International Direct Investment (IDI) programme and there are several incentives which have been specifically formulated to get this programme off and running. I just want to mention three of them. The first incentive is what is known as the Overseas Investment Tax Incentive. This incentive allows for any financial losses that have been incurred as a result of their overseas investment to be written off against their local income.”
“Sir, I would like to just deal with the comments made by the Member for Paya Lebar, Mr Philip Tan, regarding local companies. His sentiments regarding local companies are shared by Government in the sense that they do have an urgent need to upgrade. At the same time, Government has in place quite a few incentives to encourage and to promote such upgrading programmes. But I do not quite agree with him that they face a difficulty in the multitude of agencies which offer such incentives. I think it is much more preferable for as many agencies as possible to offer different kinds of incentives to help local companies. But the point is taken that where there is a possibility of confusion or difficulty for local companies to avail themselves of these incentives, then we should try and minimize such confusion. It is for this reason that he may be aware that the Government has set up within the EDB a Division known as the Enterprise Development Division (EDD) which is supposed to serve as a one-stop centre for local businesses, both small and large. The officers in the EDD are well familiar with all the incentives, the whole plethora of incentives that are available and have got excellent contacts with all the agencies that offer such incentives. So there is already available such a one-stop centre which the Member has suggested. If there are any difficulties encountered, I would be very happy to receive any further suggestions as to how we can improve the work of the EDD. 2.30 pm He has also quite rightly pointed out that different industries require different solutions to the problems. They have different needs.”
“Will they continue to get their funds from the Finance Ministry and the other Ministries or other organisations that they report to? I am pleased to inform him that after its formation, NSTB will take over all the funds which are currently being handled by the various organisations. This is in fact one of the reasons why we have set up the National Science and Technology Board, to coordinate the activities of the various research institutes which currently, as he is aware, are answerable to different organisations, different Ministries and so on. So henceforth, NSTB will take over all the funds responsible for funding the public sector expenditures which are used to run these institutes. 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. RECLAMATION (Sentosa/Buran Darat)”
“The second point he has made is about the fundamental philosophies of R&D, whether we should continue to follow the American model or whether we should take a closer look at the Japanese model. I would like to assure the Member that these are very important issues to be discussed when the NSTB takes on the function of formulating the long-term R&D master plan for Singapore. I think there were many other points that he has made which are very relevant and I will encourage the NSTB to take a closer look at these points and to consult the hon. Member so that we can pick his brains. The fundamental point that he has made, that taxpayers' money should be well spent on R&D and that we should be getting value for money, I could not agree more with. That will remain the cornerstone of R&D expenditure for Singapore. Mr Chng Hee Kok has urged that when we look at the Board members we should be enlisting the services of people who understand technology. I can assure the Member that when we appoint Board members, not only for NSTB, but for all statutory boards, we look for people who can contribute positively and significantly to the job at hand. In the case of NSTB, in the first place, we will cer- tainly be including representation from both the public and private sectors. In the case of the private sector representatives, we will certainly be casting our net as wide as we can to get the right people with the right temperament and expertise who can make significant contributions to the Board. So I take his point that when we are looking at people we will be looking at their expertise in this particular area. Last but not least, Dr John Chen has asked where the various research institutes are going to get their funds from after the formation of the NSTB.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have spoken and who have supported this Bill. I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of their queries. First of all, may I take Mr Chiam's query regarding where the Government's R&D funds have gone into. I do not have all the details but I can explain to the Member in general the two areas of funding for R&D which are supported by the Government. First of all, there would be the grants given to the various R&D institutes, such as the IMCB, which will be used to run these institutes. The second area of funding, will be in grants for research and development schemes, such as the Research and Development Assistance Scheme for private sector R&D effort. These were originally run by the Science Council but, as I indicated in my speech, it is going to be taken over by the NSTB. These are the two broad areas of funding. I turn to the points made by Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I think the question of Government curtailing R&D activities in times of shortage of R&D manpower has to be addressed the other way round. Rather than curtailing these activities, what we should be looking at are: (a) to see how we can coordinate all the various activities so that we can make the best use of the available manpower; (b) to see how best we can attract further R&D talent into Singapore. This is where initiatives like the Science Habitat and the fundings for the various R&D institutes come into play. The point is taken that in a situation where there is a shortage of R&D manpower, there will be tremendous pressure and tightness in the labour market, thereby pushing up cost. But I think we should address the issue from the other way round, looking at increasing the supply of R&D manpower in Singapore.”
“This is provided for under clause 18, read together with the Third Schedule. Mr Speaker, Sir, economic success will depend increasingly on the strength of our R&D and our ability to harness the results of such R&D. The NSTB will be an important part of the total national effort required to meet the challenges of our next phase of growth in the 1990s and beyond. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“So clause 5 of the Bill charges the NSTB with the following functions: (i) to encourage and promote research and development in science and technology; (ii) to coordinate the establishment and development of research institutes and other facilities connected with science and technology; (iii) to undertake programmes and provide funds to promote and facilitate scientific and technological research and development in both the private and public sectors; (iv) to assess scientific and technological manpower needs and engage in programmes for developing such manpower; (v) to undertake exchanges and joint programmes with other national and international organisations; and, last but not least; (vi) to promote activities to increase public awareness of the importance of science and technology. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out the powers of the NSTB to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. These include the powers to finance research institutes, specific R&D projects undertaken by the private and public sectors, and the development of science and technology manpower. The NSTB will also be able to form companies or enter into joint ventures or partnerships. Such a private sec- tor approach will be useful in developing, for example, the Science Habitat, as a centre of innovation by providing research opportunities as well as social and recreational facilities to attract scientific talents. Clauses 8 and 10 empower the NSTB to raise loans and invest money in trustee securities respectively. These are similar to provisions in other statutory boards. Current employees of the Science Council as well as all existing contracts, assets and liabilities of the Science Council, will be transferred to the new NSTB.”
“So the purpose of the Bill which is being read a Second time today is to facilitate the expansion and upgrading of the existing Science Council to perform this larger role. Sir, our expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP has increased three-fold over the last 10 years, up to the years 1978-88. Our figure for 1988 was just under 1% of GDP devoted to R&D. But this is still far behind the 2.5-3.0% of GDP which is currently the case for the major industrialised countries. Even compared to the NICs like Korea and Taiwan, we are quite a long way behind. We have some catching-up to do. Taiwan, for example, already spent about 1% of GNP in 1986, and has set itself the target of achieving 2% by 1995. Korea spent 2.4% of GNP last year and has set itself an even more ambitious target of 5% by the year 2000. Both these countries have very high-level coordinated mechanisms for science and technology planning. In the case of Taiwan, they have the National Science Council; for Korea they have the Ministry of Science and Technology. Such a coordinated mechanism to direct our long-term science and technology strategy is what we seek to achieve through the National Science and Technology Board. I must stress at this point that this greater emphasis by Government is by no means meant to dilute private sector R&D efforts. On the contrary, we recognise that the private sector should continue to be the main driving force in R&D activities. The role of the NSTB is to ensure a conducive environment and provide sufficient infrastructure and resources to support these efforts.”
“We have also seen a substantial increase in the number of engineers and scientists over the years, which has served to encourage more foreign companies to set up R&D centres in Singapore. However, we need to continue our strenuous efforts in attracting more R&D expertise from abroad to strengthen our indigenous R&D capabilities. At the same time, given our limited resources, we need an organisation that can provide greater direction for the development of our science and technology human resources and the systematic identification of new and emergent technologies that will help contribute to our economic growth. Sir, in the Budget debate earlier this year, if I remember correctly, in response to the hon. Member for Hong Kah GRC, Dr John Chen, I informed the House that MTI was studying ways to strengthen our coordination mechanism for R&D and our science and technology management structure. MTI has set up a group which includes officials from the Ministries of Finance, Education, as well as the Economic Development Board, NUS and NTI, and private sector representatives, to coordinate the R&D efforts of the various agencies. This multi-agency approach will ensure that we take a national perspective when we chart our long-term strategies for harnessing science and technology for economic development. Work has in fact already started. We have set up various expert committees with representatives from both public and private sectors. Each committee will make recommendations in their respective fields of expertise, and some of these fields include information technology, biotechnology, agrotechnology, and environmental issues. Responsible for serving the main committee in the formulation and implementation of this master plan will be the new NSTB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the expansion and upgrading of the existing Science Council into a new organisation known as the National Science and Technology Board (NSTB). The NSTB will play a larger role in the promotion of R&D activity in Singapore and in the for- mulation of national science and technology policies. I will elaborate on the functions of the NSTB later, but first, why a new statutory board? Over the last few decades, our economy has matured. It has moved from high dependence on entrepot trade, to one which is driven by the twin engines of services and manufacturing. This has enabled Singaporeans to enjoy a standard of living which is one of the highest in Asia. Singapore no longer competes on the basis of low wages, but rather on a workforce which provides value-for-money. In order to keep improving our standard of living and to justify higher wages, we cannot maintain the status quo, but must move our economy up to a higher plane of development by focusing on higher value-added economic activities. We need to do several things, including upgrading the skills of our workforce, especially technical skills, investing in technology and infrastructure, and investing in R&D, to exploit and to harness the full potential of the latest developments in science and technology. In recognition of this, several research institutes have already been set up over the last few years and these include the Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB), Institute of Systems Science, the Information Technology Institute, etc. In addition, two more institutes will be established next year, namely, the Institute of Microelectronics and the Institute of Manufacturing Technology.”
“Sir, last but not least, I would like to respond to Dr John Chen who has asked whether, in the setting of the maximum allowable circulation limit, we will be generous in our setting of the ceiling for those publications which do not engage in domestic politics. As I indicated in my speech earlier, it is the intention of the Ministry to make sure that when we set the ceiling, for those publications which have no cause to get involved in our domestic politics or who have not shown any inclination to do so, that ceiling will be set in a way which will allow for continued growth. But, on the other hand, where a publication has shown an inclination to do so, I think it is within the Ministry's prerogative to set a ceiling which will ensure that the rules, as they have undertaken to follow, namely, that they do not engage in our domestic politics and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of our courts and appoint an agent, are followed, and followed closely. 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. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“The gazetting amendments have shown that, with it in place, our replies have been printed. Whether foreign publications enjoy greater privilege in Singapore - yes, I believe they do. Cigarette advertising is just one example, and many others. But this particular anomaly whereby our local newspapers are required to obtain an annual permit, and a foreign publication is not - that has been a glaring anomaly which this Bill seeks to rectify. Sir, Mr Chew supports the Bill, but he has expressed some concern about whether this Bill would have any impact on the intention of Singapore to be a printing and publishing centre. He has also given us interesting figures. He has mentioned that the growth of this particular industry over the last three years has been about 15% per annum. Over the last three years, if he recalls, we have made two amendments to the NPPA. And the fact that that has not in any way curbed or inhibited the growth of Singapore as a printing and publishing centre is fair evidence that this latest amendment will similarly not have any significant impact. I think publishers use Singapore as a printing and publishing centre because there are many direct advantages, whether it is in the efficiency of our printers, or whether it is in the efficiency of our airport and our telecommunications systems, or whether it is our courier system. I think the sum total of all these efficiencies taken together will decide whether they print here, as opposed to Hong Kong or Bangkok. So the fact that the conditions have been favourable for them over the last three years is ample testimony to the fact that our effort at making Singapore a printing and publishing centre is showing results and will continue to do so.”
“But he is puzzled as to why we need an extra instrument, as he puts it, over and above the availability of the chopper or the scalpel. And he suggests that the new amendment to limit the circulation of foreign publications, is to establish a ceiling for foreign publications a carrot, as an additional weapon or tool available to the surgeon. Sir, I am not exactly sure in what way a surgeon uses a carrot in the course of his work. Perhaps a screw is a more appropriate analogy. I am not so familiar with what is going on in the operating theatre, but perhaps I could use another analogy, and that is, a football game. I think what we are really doing, as Dr John Chen mentioned just now, is to set the rules of the game. If you want to circulate in Singapore, follow the rules, understand and accept the rules, and then we play. If anyone infringes the rules, yellow card, first offence; second time, red card. Or if the first offence is serious enough, then red card. So there is no question asked that the decision of the referee is final. And if anyone does not like those rules, then don't play here, go somewhere else. I think that is basically the situation that we find ourselves in. Sir, Dr Wang is also in support of the Bill, and I thank him for that. But he asks whether this will be misconstrued as another form of censorship. I think he is quite correct in his argument that it is not a form of censorship. It is rather a means of making sure that there is fair, responsible, objective reporting. We are not talking about blanketing or blacking out criticisms. Our experience has been that even with the gazetting, foreign publications are criticising and are free to do so. But if they do so, and if we feel that their criticisms are out of order, we have the right of reply.”
“So the issue is not really whether this Bill curbs the free flow of information. I think the issue in this case is who controls the political agenda for Singapore - the Government of Singapore, or the foreign press? Who is responsible for the political agenda? Who is given the mandate to run Singapore - the Government, or the foreign press? Who is responsible for the progress and prosperity of Singapore - the Government, or the foreign press? So the conditions for the foreign press to circulate in Singapore are conditions which any reasonable publisher would be able to accept. Why have there been many changes to the NPPA over the last few years? The gazetting of foreign publications came into effect primarily because the circulations of these publications have grown to the extent that, as I indicated in the Second Reading speech, their influence and their numbers have made some believe that their role and influence is similar to that in their home countries. We moved the second amendment to the Bill to allow for photocopying to give the lie to the point that this gazetting amendment is to restrict the free flow of information, which is not the case, because any Singaporean who is interested in what is being published by the FEER is free to get a copy. This third amendment is to give further substance to the Government's position that foreign publications circulate as a privilege and not as a right. Sir, I move to Dr Hong Hai's comments. I thank Dr Hong Hai for restating his acceptance and his support for the Bill. He asks in particular why we need to have a ceiling on the circulation of foreign publications. He accepts the fact that we need to have a yearly permit, that they must subject themselves to jurisdiction of the courts and appoint an agent.”
“Sir, I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate. Let me first of all respond to the NCMP, Dr Lee, who opposes the Bill on the grounds that it curbs the free flow of information. Sir, how can anyone who has lived in Singapore over the last so many years believe that the Government can actually succeed in curbing the free flow of information? Indeed, how can anyone believe that it is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to curb this free flow of information? Is it wise? We are an international business centre. We are a trading centre. We make a living out of knowing what is happening in the world, out of making sure that there is a free flow of information. Would we be celebrating 25 years of independence in the manner and in the mood that we have done this year if in the last 25 years we had curbed the free flow of information, or, worse still, if we had practised thought-control? I think if anyone wishes, he can have many, many sources of information, without having to go to too much trouble. There are 4,500 publications circulating freely in Singapore, without any curbs on their circulations. Three of them have had their circulations gazetted. But even then they are freely available in Singapore. The Far Eastern Economic Review, for example, which has declined to circulate in Singapore, is freely available. In fact, I checked with Mr Lim Boon Heng just now and he tells me that there are 33 outlets in Singapore where a copy of the Far Eastern Economic Review, without advertising, is freely available. This includes all the outlets of NTUC Fairprice. It is also available by individual subscription. There is the BBC 24-hour service, 24 hours of information freely available at the twist of a dial.”
“Rather, it is to establish the point that foreign publications circulate in Singapore as a matter of privilege and not of right, and if they want to sell here, they must abide by our laws and must agree to come under the jurisdiction of our Courts. This is a position which, I believe, no foreign publisher can reasonably disagree with. Asiaweek, for instance, has publicly accepted our stand, and, in the case of Dow Jones, in an exchange of letters between our First Deputy Prime Minister and Miss Karen Elliot House, Vice-President, International of Dow Jones, these points have also been acknowledged. I quote from a letter dated 31st May 1990 to the First Deputy Prime Minister: "Dow Jones & Company, inc acknowledges that the Journal's activities within Singapore are a privilege granted by Singapore and not (as under the American Constitution) a right. I also repeat that we recognise that Singapore's courts have held that The Asian Wall Street Journal in 1986 engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. We have no further rights of appeal from that decision; it is final, and we accept it as such.". Further on in the same letter, she says: "... it [in other words, The Asian Wall Street Journal] will continue to be subject to Singaporean law. We respect the countries in which we operate worldwide and their laws.". This Bill, therefore, is a natural follow-up to reinforce the Government's position and to put in place a set of rules, so that no foreign publication circulating in Singapore has any doubts as to the conditions under which it is allowed to circulate. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“This means that the plaintiff will have first to ask for leave from the High Court in Singapore and then after having successfully obtained an order of court, effect service on the defendant outside the jurisdiction, with all its attendant difficulties. Sir, to give one recent illustration: Lawyers acting for the Prime Minister had for more than five months been unable to serve notice of the Writ of Summons on Mr Peter Kann, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Dow Jones. The Solicitors for Dow Jones wrote to say that they had no instructions to accept service on behalf of Mr Kann. The US Department of Justice was also unsuccessful in serving the writ as the attorneys in Dow Jones Corporate Legal Department in New York refused to accept service for Mr Kann and claimed not to know his whereabouts. It was only after the First Deputy Prime Minister raised this with Miss Karen Elliot House of Dow Jones that the General Counsel of Dow Jones wrote to say that he had been authorised to accept service of the writ on Mr Kann's behalf. Mr Speaker, Sir, as only offshore newspapers with sizeable circulations in Singapore will be subjected to the permit requirement, only a small number of foreign publications and newspapers will be affected by this Bill. Newspapers which are published at intervals exceeding one week and those with small circulation are not affected. The majority of international and regional publications are not affected. They will continue to have free access to the Singapore market. This Bill is not intended to curb the circulation of any publication, neither is it intended to prevent the free flow of information.”
“They do so as foreign observers of the local scene and should not interfere in the domestic politics of Singapore. Sir, the new section 15A, subsection 4, provides that the permit granted shall be for one year from the date of issue and may be renewed for further periods not exceeding 12 months. In granting the permit, the Minister can specify the maximum number of copies that the approved offshore newspapers can circulate in Singapore, and this number can be varied from time to time. Generally, the permitted maximum for foreign newspapers will be more than their existing circulation, to allow for growth. And the maximum will be reviewed when the permit is due for renewal. However, for foreign newspapers which engage in our domestic politics, it is likely that this maximum will be held at some fixed level for some time or even reduced, if the situation warrants. Sir, the new section 15A, subsections 3(b) and (c), provides that offshore newspapers applying for a permit to circulate must undertake to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts, appoint a person within Singapore to accept service of any notice or legal process on behalf of the proprietor or publisher and furnish a deposit for the purposes of meeting any liability or costs arising out of legal proceedings taken against the newspaper. This new amendment will overcome problems and difficulties encountered in the service of process on defendants. As the law now stands, the defendant who is outside jurisdiction would have to be served in that country where he has his head office and where he normally carries on business.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act to require an offshore newspaper to apply for an annually renewable permit if its circulation in Singapore is 300 copies or more per issue. An offshore newspaper is defined as a newspaper published outside Singapore at intervals not exceeding one week and contains news, intelligence, reports of occurrences, observations or comments, pertaining to the politics and current affairs of any country in South-East Asia. Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to correct an anomaly in the treatment of newspapers which are published locally and those which are published outside Singapore which have sizeable circulations in Singapore. Currently, local newspapers, which include those which are published and printed in Malaysia, are required to apply for a newspaper permit under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. But, on the other hand, newspapers which are published and printed outside Singapore are circulating in Singapore without permit requirements. In recent years, some foreign newspapers have built up sizeable circulations in Singapore. This rise in circulation may have given some foreign publications the impression that they have the right to circulate in Singapore. And it may also have led some of them to the assumption that they must play the same role that they play in their home markets; in other words, of being part and parcel of the political process, of taking sides and influencing events. This Bill serves to reinforce the Government's consistent position that it is a privilege, and not a right, for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore.”
“Sir, I would just like to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech that the Ministry has been particularly concerned about this question of confidentiality and has taken ample steps to safeguard such confidentiality. We have excluded information obtained under certain legislations, especially those administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. We have made sure that such information will be disclosed only if requesting agencies are already empowered to collect such information. We have made sure that requesting agencies are forbidden to use such information to enforce any legal obligation. Finally, we have made sure that people who do misuse this information face severe penalties. I think it is fair to say that the Non-Constituency MP has not taken this into account and has tried to take this opportunity to make certain allegations. But I am glad to hear that he has confirmed that there are no such instances.”
“(d) It will be an offence for any civil servant who receives such information to further disclose it without the permission of the Superintendent. The maximum penalty of the offence is a fine of $1,000 or one-month imprisonment or both. Consequently, section 17 and section 18 of the Census Act are also amended to increase the maximum monetary penalty of offences under the Act from $500 to $1,000. The Central Provident Fund Board is the first and only agency to be involved in this information exchange. The First and Second Schedules to the Bill will enable the CPF Board and the Superintendent of Census to exchange information relating to individuals obtained under the CPF Act and the Census Act. Once again, Sir, may I stress the importance of the 1990 Census and seek the support of Members for this Bill to ensure that the forthcoming census will be carried out successfully. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Bill proposes to introduce a new section 16A to give the Superintendent the statutory power to release census information to certain Government agencies. Otherwise, these Government agencies will have to spend time and effort to mount its own data updating exercise. Not only will this mean more work and more cost, but also the public will be inconvenienced by repetitive surveys from different agencies asking for similar information. The proposed sharing of information is not unprecedented. For example, the UK Statistics of Trade Act allows for release of individual estimates to other government departments for the exercise of their functions. My Ministry is well aware that there is a special need to safeguard the confidentiality of census information to make sure that such information do not fall into the wrong hands. We also understand that the data collected will be more complete and more accurate if people are reassured that the confidentiality of information is safeguarded. Sir, I would like to list several steps that have been taken by my Ministry to provide such assurance. (a) Information which is obtained under legislations relating to taxation or legislations administered by the MAS are excluded from data exchange under section 12A, as I indicated earlier. (b) Section 16A proposes that information will be disclosed only if the requesting agency is empowered to collect such information under other laws. For example, data on occupation and qualification which is collected in the Census can be used to update the CPF database because CPF could have collected the same information under the CPF Act. (c) Section 16A also forbids the requesting agency from using the information to enforce any legal obligation or liability.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Department of Statistics carries out a Census of Population every 10 years. This year, 1990, is census year. The 1990 Census will commence very soon. It is a very important exercise. The information that is collected will be used by Government for planning and evaluating policies which will have direct impact on the population. It is also a costly and time-consuming exercise. More than 2,500 officers are involved in the project. We must do all we can to improve the efficiency of this data collection effort. The purpose of the Census (Amendment) Bill is to facilitate data sharing and to avoid duplication of data collection efforts. The Bill proposes that a new section 12A be introduced to give the Superintendent of Census access to information which is collected by certain Government agencies under specified written laws. This will enable the Superintendent to make use of information in various Government data hubs and to pre-print it on the survey form for the 1990 Census of Population. It will result in less manpower for conducting field interviews, as well as for coding and for inputting the information. To preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information, information which is obtained under legislation relating to taxation or legislation administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore are specifically excluded from the data exchange. The Census is a rich source of data for other Government agencies to update their information. It has basic demographic and economic data which is required by other Government agencies for their studies of trends and studies of impact on public policy.”
“I have just posed a question to the NCMP and I would like his response.”
“Sir, I have asked him for substantiation of a very serious allegation. If he does not substantiate them in this House, I think he should withdraw them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite amazed at how Dr Lee has managed to turn what is quite a straightforward matter of providing for the Chief Statistician to have access to information for the purpose of efficiency of information collection into one that touches on political dossiers and phone tapping. I grant that there is concern that information should be safeguarded and should not fall into the wrong hands. This is precisely the reason why my Ministry has been very concerned that no such breach of privacy takes place and in fact where there is information which is sensitive and which is not of particular relevance to the Chief Statistician's activities, eg, legislations under the Monetary Authority of Singapore or under the Banking Act, those are already specifically excluded. So I do not understand why he brings up matters such as misuse of statistics, phone tapping and so on. If he has any specific allegations of this nature of phone tapping, I would like him to substantiate those allegations. Otherwise I think he should withdraw them.”
“These seven RSUs are the RSUs of the EDB, of the Ministry of Education, of the Ministry of the Environment, of the Ministry of Health, of the Ministry of Labour, also the Construction Economic Research Unit of the Construction Industry Development Board, and the Statistics Unit, Banking and Financial Institutions Department of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. In addition, the Chief Statistician will have access to the following particulars and information collected by Government agencies as specified in the Third Schedule to the Bill: (a) Particulars and information obtained under the Census Act; (b) Section 3 of the Registration of Imports and Exports Act; and (c) Particulars and information relating to employment, employers and wages of CPF members obtained under the Central Provident Fund Act. Sir, I beg to move, Question proposed.”
“This will give the Chief Statistician the required data for statistical compilation and analysis as more data collection is decentralised to other Ministries. No breach of privacy is involved in giving the Chief Statistician access to information collected by research and statistics units under the Statistics Act. This is because the Chief Statistician could well collect the same data under the Statistics Act. It is an anomalous situation at the moment, in the sense that the Chief Statistician does not have access to data collected under the Act if the data are collected by research and statistics units in other Ministries. As such, he has to collect the same data all over again if he requires them. As for particulars and information supplied by Government agencies, section 5 of the Act is amended to forbid the Chief Statistician from releasing these particulars and information without the permission of the agency concerned. This will ensure that the privacy of information supplied to the Chief Statistician is respected. Moreover, information obtained under legislations relating to taxation or legislations administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore are specifically excluded. This is to preserve privacy of sensitive information. As listed in the Second Schedule to the Bill, seven research and statistics units (RSUs) will have to comply with the Chief Statistician's recommendation on national statistical standards and to release particulars or information collected under the Statistics Act to the Chief Statistician.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to confer upon the Chief Statistician the duties of the National Statistical Coordinator, and to give him more access to statistical data collected by other Government agencies. The Bill proposes that a new section 3A be introduced to make the Chief Statistician the National Statistical Coordinator. His duties shall be as follows: (a) to co-ordinate statistical activities in Government agencies; (b) to advise Government agencies in the gathering, compiling, analysis and utilisation of statistics; (c) to develop national statistical standards and standardise definitions, classifications, terms, procedures and concepts for use in statistical activities; and (d) to promote the observance of approved national statistical standards by Government agencies. These duties are similar to those undertaken by the Chief Statistician when he was Chairman of the National Statistical Commission, which functioned up till 1983 as the national statistical coordinating body in Singapore. Section 3A also proposes that research and statistics units comply with the Chief Statistician's recommendations on matters pertaining to national statistical standards. It further suggests that the Minister for Trade and Industry be the final authority to resolve any disagreement between the Chief Statistician and a research and statistics unit on these matters. The Bill also proposes to introduce a new section 4A to give the Chief Statistician access to particulars or information collected by certain Government agencies and research and statistics units, on or after the commencement of the Bill.”
“Sir, when I asked for views and comments from the Non-Constituency MP, I was asking for his views, not Dr Phang's views. Dr Phang's views that he quoted have already been taken into account.”
“The quota system is part and parcel of our total land transportation policy. It was recommended by the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy which had representations from a broad cross-section of people, including the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the PARF, I think my Minister has explained to the House that we need more time to study the implications of making any adjustments to the PARF. So if there are any recommendations or points of view that he would like to raise with the Ministry of Communications and Information, we will be pleased to receive them. In so far as the quota system is concerned, I think it is quite clear that the whole question of land transportation in general has been thoroughly debated and it has been the subject of extensive discussions over the period of many months, if not years.”
“It is not the intention of this particular clause to discourage people from making genuine tender bids. If it is a genuine bid and if it is not successful, as I indicated, he will get his money back.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam raises a red herring.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common in all tender exercises for deposits to be required and the reason is very simple. First, it discourages frivolous speculation on the bids, and secondly, it makes sure that after the tender has been accepted and the person withdraws for a very frivolous reason, then those tenders will have to be discouraged. I would like to assure him of course that if the tenderer for whatever reason is unsuccessful in his bid, eg, if he is not successful in his tender quota, then obviously the deposit will be refunded to him. There is no intention on the part of the Government to retain those monies under such circumstances.”
“He accuses the Government that there is no genuine consultation and that because everyone has a complaint, therefore the system is not fair. We have taken more than 1 1/2 years to debate the quota system. It is not something that has been sprung on this House or on the Non-Constituency MP and I think he has had ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the quota system. If he feels that there is any part of the quota system which is not fair, which can be improved, I have yet to hear from him what are these areas which are not fair. We have debated this matter for the last 18 months. We have had numerous opportunities for dialogue and debate. The Select Committee has sat and met and heard many, many different points of view and I believe the consensus has been that the quota system, granted it does not satisfy each and every person in Singapore, nevertheless has met one of its principal objectives, which is to be as fair as possible to all Singaporeans, motorists and non-motorists alike. Sir, I would also like to clarify one point and I think it is a clarification that needs to be made. Dr Lee is mistaken. We do not intend, and we have stated so, to abolish the PARF or to diminish or remove the investment value of vehicles. I hope that Dr Lee checks his facts before he makes such statements in Parliament because they can be very misleading.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to Dr Wang Kai Yuen for his contribution to the debate, especially his comments on the proposed amendments pertaining to licensing and use of vehicles. Dr Wang seeks some clarifications on, I believe, clauses 2 and 10 of the proposed amendments. In so far as clause 2 is concerned, the amendment seeks to allow the Minister to appoint several officials in the Registry of Vehicles, specifically the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. This is just an opportunity for us to change the appointing authority from the President to the Minister. The appointing authority vested in the President is a historical one. When Singapore became independent, all appointments which hitherto were made by the Governor was changed to the President. Subsequently, this authority was transfered from the President to the Minister in charge. Many Government Ministries have made this change. In so far as clause 10 is concerned, he asked whether the proposed amendment pertains to reconditioned or new vehicles. I would like to inform him that the maximum permitted age for vehicles will be applicable to registration of reconditioned vehicles. At the moment, we have not yet decided on the prescribed age limit. The reason why we are applying it to reconditioned vehicles is obviously in line with our objective of trying to keep the vehicle population young, to make sure that there is no influx of reconditioned vehicles of any age as the cost of vehicles in Singapore begins to rise. Sir, I turn to the comments made by the Non-Constituency MP regarding complaints about the so-called unfairness of the quota system. He has given us a predictably cynical view on things.”
“Sir, with the introduction of the quota system, we need to be vigilant to ensure that motorists who play by the rules do not lose out to others who try to beat the system. For this reason, certain provisions of the Bill serve to provide for more effective enforcement. Clause 3 proposes to make it illegal to keep a deregistered vehicle. The proposed amendment will facilitate enforcement action against people who use deregistered vehicles, which is already an offence. Clause 5 proposes to make it an offence for any person to give incorrect information which would affect the amount of tax chargeable on the first registration of a vehicle, and would also allow for the recovery of the amount which is undercollected. Clause 7 seeks to require that all arrears of fees, taxes and outstanding penalties be paid before the Registrar will renew a vehicle licence. Clause 8 seeks to allow for the deregistration of vehicles which are in road tax arrears for one year or more. Sir, allow me to conclude by returning to the quota system. The scheme that we have formulated may not be perfect. It needs to be fine-tuned in the light of experience, and in response to more feedback from Singaporeans. As such, clause 4, which provides for the quota system, has been drafted in as general a manner as possible, to allow for changes at a later date. This is a system we have all put together. Let us give it a chance to work to keep our roads free-flowing. Along the way, where it is necessary, to make changes to improve upon it, we shall do so. Sir, may I now request the Minister for Home Affairs to deal with the amendments regarding driving safety. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Then followed by an avalanche of views from Singaporeans of all walks of life - motorists as well as non-motorists alike. In this House, 21 MPs spoke on the subject during the parliamentary debate of the Select Committee's Report on 15th January this year. Taking into consideration the various views expressed and the suggestions put forward to make the system equitable for everyone, a scheme has been painstakingly constructed by my Ministry. Its very complexity attests to the diversity of public opinion which was taken into account. Since the announcement of the principal features of the scheme, we have received further suggestions from the public and grassroots leaders on how the scheme should be operated. Motor traders, motor-cyclists, taxi operators, present owners, aspiring owners - we have received proposed amendments from all of these groups and more. One thing that struck me amidst the flurry of proposals was that most Singaporeans have come to understand and to accept the need for a quota system to manage vehicle growth. In fact, at the dialogue session which was held by the First Deputy Prime Minister for grassroots leaders, there was an impromptu show of hands which indicated that those in favour of the quota system outnumbered by two to one those who were in favour of the existing method which was to raise ownership taxes. Sir, this is a collective recognition that congestion is not a problem that can be solved painlessly. That, as a problem of success, its solution must come with some sacrifices. Restraint amidst plenty - this is the paradox that needs to be grasped to make our roads congestion-free. Failure to understand this, and more importantly, a failure to act upon this, has clogged up the arteries of most cities of the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Road Traffic Act (RTA) serves to regulate the licensing of vehicles as well as their drivers. The provisions governing the licensing of vehicles, their registration and their use are administered by the Registry of Vehicles while the provisions on driver licensing are administered by the Traffic Police. With your permission, Sir, I shall speak on the amendments proposed by the Ministry of Communications and Information, after which the Minister for Home Affairs will deal with the amendments on driving safety. Sir, MCI's major amendment to the Road Traffic Act is contained in clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for the implementation of the vehicle quota system. Other amendments serve mainly to update the RTA to meet our current needs and practices. Sir, to say that the quota system has been actively debated would be an under-statement. I cannot recall any Government policy which has been so thoroughly discussed or debated as the land transport policy and the quota system in particular. First, there was the marathon dialogue session on land transport with my Minister which was held in July last year. This 6-hour long session provided SAF reservists as well as journalists a unique opportunity to discuss with the Minister all aspects of land transport policy, with no holds barred, and no time limit. Then followed the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy which was appointed by Parliament in August last year. The Committee received 71 written submissions from the public. After studying the land transport issues for about five months, they recommended the quota system.”
“I thank the Member for his comments and I am pleased to note that he agrees with the broad thrust of our approach. I will be pleased to hear some more comments from him and perhaps to ask for his assistance to help us formulate future R&D policy.”
“In this way, the Science Council can also serve as the central body which Dr John Chen has proposed to oversee and to coordinate our major R&D institutes.”
“Sir, Dr John Chen has quite rightly pointed out that R&D is a key factor in Singapore's economic development strategy. May I also point out to him that R&D is a relatively new area for us. So in this respect it would be prudent and useful for us to learn from the experiences of other countries. Taiwan, for instance, has the National Science Council (NSC) which is responsible for the planning and coordination of national science and technology development. The NSC promotes the establishment of high-tech industries through a science-based industrial park, such as the Shin Chu Science-Based Park, which has been highly successful and it has spawned a whole range of new high-tech industries staffed by many local Taiwanese. Sir, in Singapore, we have at the moment five main R&D institutes and Dr John Chen has pointed them out to us - IMCB, ISS, ITI and so on. Each institute is supervised, managed, and guided by its own advisory and management board, which comprises influential members from industry, Government bodies and academia. These R&D institutes specialise in their own fields in different areas of technology and they answer to different parent organisations. As we strive to develop expertise in new technologies and new R&D institutes are established, I think what Dr John Chen has pointed out, ie, the danger of duplication of resources and perhaps non-optimal use of resources may arise. So together with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance, my Ministry will explore this possibility of strengthening the present role of the Science Council. For example, we will be looking at whether the Science Council can take on a broader role in promoting R&D efforts and in formulating R&D policies and strategies.”
“But I believe if the proprietors of the smaller companies can cooperate among themselves and also work with EDB to make use of all the schemes and concessions provided by the Government, they can improve gradually year by year and lessen their problems, and the problem will diminish. The statistics, show that although the productivity of workers in the smaller companies is still only about half that in the bigger companies, the Productivity growth in smaller companies is faster than that of the bigger companies. So in the long term, the smaller enterprises in Singapore should have quite a bright future.”
“Therefore, we have this problem: how do we help the local enterprises to develop side by side with the MNCs? One way is to make use of the purchasing power of MNCs to help the local enterprises, because many of the customers of the local enterprises are the MNCs. The MNCs can provide advanced technology to the local enterprises and help them to improve the management methods and raise their productivity and competitiveness. This is the purpose of LIUP plan. Another way if for the Government to set up agencies to provide various schemes such as SITAS, SDF, RDAS, etc, to help the local enterprises to improve their performances. However, the most important thing is not what the Government can do, but what the companies themselves can do. If we look at the statistics, with the smaller companies, the average productivity per worker is about half that of the worker in the big companies annual productivity of a worker in a large company is $55,000, whereas in a smaller company, it is only $28,000. If your productivity is half that of others, how are you going to compete with others for your salary? It is very difficult. So the most basic problem is that local small companies must reform themselves and change their method of management and operation, eg, by changing from a small sundry shop into a modern style minimart, so that their turnover can increase and the display in their shops could be modern and attractive. They can be air-conditioned with lighting effects, etc, to provide better service to the customers and also improve their profits. You cannot just do it like a magician, nor is the Government a magician. We cannot perform miraculous stunts overnight.”