Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 38.
“Sir, I am grateful to the Minister of State of Defence for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Yes, Brickworks, Ang Mo Kio. My question is really this. Is it because last year I raised the question as to why it was reduced that the result this year is the total removal of the amount of $11,000? 6.30 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KB-02 Object Group 3110 of the Main Estimates. In fact, there is no provision at all for this Subhead Group and I was tempted to ask of the Minister of Defence this question. On 20th March last year in this House, during the deliberations on the provisions of the Ministry of Defence, I asked the Hon. Minister why the grant of $37,740 was reduced to $11,000. And this is contained in Hansard of 20th March, 1981, Vol, 40, No. 11, col. 975. This year the amount of $11,000 has disappeared. This is the case, Sir, and I am just wondering whether the Singapore Armed Forces Reservists' Association (SAFRA) would be able to continue to enjoy some form of grants. I notice that the Hon. Minister is shaking his head. The question is that SAFRA club-houses have been built in some constituencies with large concentrations of national servicemen reservists in areas like Toa Payoh, Bukit Merah - The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Brickworks.”
“No more Sungei Road! Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Maybe a replacement of Sungei Road. If anyone has got a son who is 18 years old, and I have two, he will know. In fact, he has to spend more than just $90 and he is not getting an increase.”
“Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang. Sir, in national defence the Singapore Armed Forces has a critical role to play to ensure the security of our Republic. This point cannot be over-emphasized. In this respect I will come straight to the point. A total provision of some $1.66 billion have been set aside for both the recurrent and development expenditure for the coming financial year. This total provision represents a mere increase of 13.5% over FY 81. At this rate, it is lower than the annual growth rate of 16.6% over the previous years, i.e. FY 78-81. Sir, we have no standing army and so we have to rely solely on our citizens to form the backbone of our defence. Nevertheless we must be realistic to the hard fact that there is a need for modernization in our Armed Forces, vis-a-vis the acquisition of more sophisticated weaponry. The Ministry of Defence is about 15 years old. I am just wondering if this sum of $1.66 billion is adequate to meet the objectives of the Armed Forces Programme. For example, Sir, I see under the development estimates an appropriation of $150 million. This, Sir, appears to be on the low side. I am quite sure that maybe some of the weaponry or equipment that our Armed Forces have may be obsolete or can even be classified as vintage. Therefore, I hope the Hon. Minister of Defence will assure the House that the provision for both the Main and Development Estimates for the Armed Forces Programme is adequate to ensure the security of Singapore.”
“(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SB-03 of the Development Estimates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister has not replied to my last question, i.e. the measures taken to trap water in view of the reasonably good rainfall that we enjoy. I was thinking of the drainage system. In this respect, the then Minister for the Environment disclosed in this House that if we can trap, say, 10% of the heavy rainfall, then we will have an abundant water supply in Singapore.”
“Yes, Sir. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak so that I need not move my other amendments.* For FY 82, about $211 million will be spent on the Sewerage programme under the Main and Development Estimates. Of course, the good work done by the Sewerage Department in providing modern sanitation is appreciated. But I must say that more could be done. For example, certain parts of Punggol have yet to have a sewerage system. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister that whilst about 82% of the population are served with modern sanitation, what is the number of households or families this 82% represents? How does our sewerage system compare with other countries? What are the measures taken to reclaim waste water for use by industries and households, and what measures have been taken to control water pollution except for the report earlier on this afternoon, and whether the Minister can elaborate further on that? Lastly, what plans are there to trap as much water as possible since Singapore enjoys good rainfall each year? 4.45 p.m.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MB-08 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in the Memorandum on the Budget, at page 23, mention is made of a drop in the overall manpower in the Ministry of the Environment which is able "to delete a total number of 115 monthly-rated posts or 5% of the current establishment." While this results in a saving of $1.18 million, I am concerned about the reduction of staff for the Quarantine Services. At page 180 of the Estimates, it is stated under Quarantine Services that for Medical establishment, two posts are abolished; General Nursing, 10 posts are abolished, and for Public Health Inspectorate, two posts are abolished. Will this reduction not affect efficiency, particularly at the Airport, where large numbers of tourists and other persons arrive throughout the year? What about those who come in by ship? Will Singapore not be exposed to the introduction of infectious diseases? I am fully aware, Sir, that health certificates for small pox and cholera are no longer required, but I am talking of other infectious diseases. The question is whether a reduction in the number of staff in the Quarantine Services will not lead to a greater exposure of Singapore to infectious diseases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MA-01 Project 8102 ofthe Development Estimates. Sir, the project is the New Building for the Ministry of the Environment. The total cost is estimated to be $104,300,000. In moving this amendment I merely wish to seek elaboration from the Minister with regard to the provision of $7 million for this new building for his Ministry, since in-principle approval has been given for its construction. As it is indicated that the building will accommodate the various departments of the Ministry of the Environment which are currently dispersed in four locations can the Minister enlighten this House where this building will be sited? (Of course, I am not asking that it be sited in Punggol.) And when will it be completed? Sir, I can just imagine the size of the building since the project costs $104,300,000. 3.15 p.m.”
“I thank him for the "Hear! Hear!". He may also have the same dilemma that I have, namely, the residents have appealed that they cannot afford the high cost of over $1,000. I must say that I have written to the Hon. Minister and, being sympathetic and understanding, he has agreed to allow the installation cost to be paid over a period of five years by way of instalments. But what I wish to point out is that part of Punggol, as I understand it, is not within the catchment area and why should they have to comply with this requirement? Another point I wish to ask of the Hon. Minister is - Why was not a proper survey taken so as to ascertain whether these households really need to install the R2 system? They are mainly served by the bucket system, of course. (I have a question to raise later on on the sewerage system.) Some of these areas which have been served with such notices and to comply with the Ministry of the Environment's requirement, are under clearance. In other words, they will be cleared within a year or two. Therefore, serving them with such notices makes no sense at all. May I know whether the Minister will take steps to have these notices withdrawn? Another problem is that many of these kampung houses are built so close to one another. Some are in the swampy areas. So where is the place to install the R2 system? If a kampung house is in a swampy area, the Hon. Minister can just imagine what happens at high tide. I hope the Hon. Minister will look into this matter.”
“I hear that even the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development whose constituency is Bukit Panjang may have the same trouble.”
“The hon. Member for Kebun Baru has touched on the question of the installation of the R2 system. Since I have an amendment on the sewerage scheme in the catchment areas under Subhead MC-05 on Water Pollution Control, entitled "Rural sanitation in Catchment Areas", I shall refer to the R2 system also. The Minister in his reply has provided a Table on the provision of the R2 sewerage systems, listing six catchment areas. I notice that the first column gives the total number of premises required to provide R2 system at start of programme. The second column gives the total number of premises provided with R2 system as at December 1981. The third column gives the balance number of premises to be provided with the R2 system. Under the Development vote, the original project cost is $4.31 million; actual expenditure up to FY 80 was $1.377 million; estimated expenditure for FY 81 was $916,000 and for FY 82 $900,000, leaving a balance of slightly more than $1 million. I take it that this provision would more or less complete this project. 3.00 p.m. But what I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister is the question why the Ministry of the Environment served AR registered notices (AR stands for Acknowledged Receipt) to many of the residents in Punggol, namely, shops along Punggol Road, kampung houses in Tracks 24 and 26, Lorong Buang Kok and Lorong Renjong, just to name a few, and these notices demand the residents to install the R2 system and to comply within a certain period. The estimated cost of installing this R2 system was projected at $1,370 each. Many of the residents have appealed to me saying that they cannot afford to install the system because they are living in kampung houses.”
“Sir, I have an amendment* on this subject. Can I have your permission to speak now so that I need not move that amendment later?”
“Sir, I am pleased with the Minister's reply, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe:- (10) That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.”
“My question is this: Will the reduction in staff affect the efficiency and smooth operation of this Department?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NG-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, one of the defined objectives of the Customs and Excise programme is the prevention of "smuggling of dutiable goods, controlled drugs and other prohibited or restricted articles." Sir, may I refer to page 10 of the Annual Report, 1980, of the Customs and Excise Department under the heading "Preventive Branch - Container Division" wherein it is stated that "A total of 180 offences against various legislation under the Department's purview was detected during the year." It does not state the kind of action taken. May the House be informed as to what kind of action was taken against these 180 offences. Similarly, for the Docks Division, a total of 296 offences were detected, and in the Land Division 748 drug offences were detected. 453 persons were arrested and prosecuted for trafficking or possession of controlled drugs, and also the distilling of illicit samsu has been reduced as a result of urban renewal and housing development. Sir, the Customs and Excise Department plays a very important role in assessing and collecting excise duties, in preventing smuggling and in providing general services related to the warehousing and manufacture of dutiable goods, etc. It was proud to collect some $715,470,940.13 in 1980. I am just wondering whether the overall staff is sufficient enough to cope with the workload, as I notice there has been a decrease in the number of staff. For FY 81 the number of staff was 1,735 but it has been reduced to 1,603 for FY 82. There is a net loss of some 132 staff. The Report dealt very comprehensively with the activities and scope of this very important Department.”
“Sir, the question of justification is always there. Tax paid is tax paid, whether it is much or little. But I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for Finance for being patient with me, and I am happy with his reply. On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it does seem that presumptive taxation as a measure produces results to a certain extent and is therefore worth pursuing even though the administrative cost may be high because of the underlying philosophy of the statement of the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry yesterday. Whilst I do not quarrel with the Hon. Minister for Finance on the question that it is not prudent to discuss the measures taken so as to draw more taxpayers within the tax net, surely the Inland Revenue Department as well as the dishonest tax evaders should realize that, as the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry says, there are two things we cannot escape in life: one is to pay taxes and the other is death. So I hope I will be able to get an assurance from the Hon. Minister for Finance that he will pursue this matter before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for the Environment for the assurance that the air in Singapore is clean and that the numerous measures which he has enumerated are being taken to ensure that the clean air in Singapore is free. On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $36,392,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $37,079,600 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UD-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in the last two months there have been press reports on why the people in Ankara and Taipeh have to suffer from severe air pollution. Whereas Singapore is a small, compact industrialized city-state, no one can disagree that we must have stringent control on the emission of toxic substances into the air, otherwise our citizens may have to suffer the same illness as a result of smog and other poisonous fumes in the air. We must not forget, Sir, that more than 70% of our population who live in highrise buildings will be subject to this exposure. Therefore, Sir, the Anti-Pollution Unit has a very important and crucial role in ensuring that the air in Singapore is free from pollutants. I am aware, Sir, that this Unit has been in existence for more than 10 years. My question to the Hon. Prime Minister or the Minister responsible is whether he can inform the House of further progress made by this Anti-Pollution Unit; whether this Unit has been able to bring emission of toxic gases under control; whether the level of air pollution is within satisfactory limits, and whether the Unit has any new measures to control air pollution which make Singapore air free for gracious living.”
“Not in politics. Sir, the Member for Anson, in his criticism of the Government's financial policy, has shown himself to be dangerously ignorant of what makes for our economic performance and success. If we follow him, far from having a caring society, we will have a scaring society. You are scared and you know what it is to be scared. There will be chaos in the nation and all that we have so painstakingly built up over the last 23 years, 1959 till now, since independence it is 17 years, will be destroyed. Hon. Members may be aware that in the Workers Party publication Towards a Caring Society on the subject of defence, the party states that in the present-day context of relations between nations, the present expenditure on defence is wasteful and unnecessary. It further states that the party sees the main threat to our society is from within and therefore advocates the maintenance of a regular army (not a National Service army that we now have but a regular army) to meet the threat to our society and to maintain peace. Sir, it is clear that somehow in a confused way the Member for Anson has arrived at the right conclusion. The conclusion is that if his economic policies are implemented, there will soon be such a mess that it will require the army to intervene to maintain law and order. Sir, I cannot think of a more certain prescription for the demise of our nation. On that note, I would like to add my support to the Motion moved by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry. 3.45 p.m.”
“Not in the House. An hon. Member: Not in politics.”
“No one is prevented from job-hopping but it would be insane to expect that people should be encouraged to job-hop. The Member talked of the need to motivate workers. Is not the incentive to stay and become skilled in a job a method of motivation? The trouble with the Member is that his mind works in such strange and mysterious ways that even he cannot understand the meaning of his utterances. Sir, the Member made much of the fact that his party was the first to use the phrase "a caring society". I do not have to tell hon. Members that this is not true. But even if it were true and his party first used the "caring society" slogan, what does it prove? Does the Member think that leading a nation and solving its problems is a matter of finding the right slogans? One does not solve problems by coining slogans. We in the PAP have leaders who cared enough to put their lives on the line from 1954 to lead this nation. Where was the Member for Anson when the communists and communalists were running loose?”
“Sir, in his more tuan 45 minutes of verbosity, there was only one attempt by him, as I could discern, to support his argument by facts when he tried to show that the average NWC increase did not result in any increase in real income. But, Sir, unfortunately he came to grief because he does not seem to be able to add 2 and 2 and get 4. Sir, he took the average NWC increase of 14% and deducted 4% CPF as if the CPF contributions were not the workers' money. This 4% belong to the workers which they have contributed. He then deducted further a cock-shy figure of 10% increase in food prices for the lower income group and then stated that it was possible that they suffered a cut in real wages. Sir, if a first year 'A' level student indulges in this kind of economic argument, he will find himself out of the class in double quick time. The hon. Member must remember, having been taught in school, that one cannot add apples to oranges. He has just mixed up apples, oranges, papayas and what-have-you and obtained not a fruit cocktail but a product, to use an euphemism, which if spread evenly on Parliament grounds will give a luxuriant growth of grass. My purpose in drawing attention to the Member's confusion is not to belittle him but to show the danger that he poses when he has absolutely no grasp of even simple economic concepts and yet he holds himself forth as one who can do a better job of managing the economy. To give yet another example of his confusion, he lamented the fact that workers have been penalized for job-hopping. Sir, does he not realize the difference between incentives and penalties? Of course, there are incentives for workers to stay in a job and if they job-hop, they lose these incentives - they lose certain privileges. This is how it should be.”
“With the advent of Anson, however, its Member gave us notice both at the hustings and through the international press, that Singapore was henceforth going to be a different place and that the Workers Party was about to swing into a wide-ranging philosophical attack on the Government's policies. Yesterday, the Member for Anson spoke for more than 45 minutes. It is unfortunate that he spoke immediately after my good Friend, the Member for Whampoa. A greater contrast in content, reason and argument could not have been revealed. The Member for Whampoa gave a reasoned argument supported by facts and figures. He was persuasive enough, even though I cannot agree to all he said. On the other hand, the Member for Anson waffled through his speech, setting out suppositions and conjectures which he was never able to substantiate. I think the trouble with the Member for Anson is that his opinions are always chasing facts which are non-existent. Sir, the PAP Government has never claimed infallibility. Far be it for us to claim that we are always right. But we have been right most of the time and where we have not anticipated developments correctly we have had the courage and capacity to adjust. This financial policy as set out in the Budget Statement is based on a cold and sober assessment of our future and sets out a realistic plan. No doubt there can be improvements as can be seen from the deliberations and contributions made by my colleagues, the PAP Backbench, have suggested and will be suggesting. But, Sir, the suggestions and comments must have cogent reasons behind them. The Member for Anson had, however, decided that the financial policy must be opposed and made a pathetic attempt to find points that he could attack.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Indus- try. The Budget proposals are well balanced and have been aptly presented by the Hon. Minister. These were predictable for they grapple with the realities of the world economy that press upon us. If the give-aways this year are marginal, it is simply because most of what were giveable were given away by the Minister's predecessor last year. To my lay mind, I am happy with the Budget, And the case to be met by the Hon. Minister in this debate was analysed in his characteristic fashion by my Friend, the Member for Whampoa, in the House yesterday. Whilst it is a hard fact that inflation is a phenomenon that no developing economy, in particular a fast developing one, can escape from, there must be cogent reasons to justify specific Government measures that had the effect of fuelling our high rate of inflation. These specifics were clearly dealt with by the Member for Whampoa in last year's debate, but there was no effective response. Therefore, we can anticipate an analytical reply from the Hon. Minister to the said Member's critical remarks this year. Sir, with the exception of the hon. Member for Anson, and this we shall soon test and know as we go along, this House accepts the Government's philosophy underlining the Budget proposals. The criticisms in the House have been directed largely at questions of detail. This has been so over the years during which we, the PAP Government and the people of Singapore, saw Singapore through her worst periods of unemployment and social dislocation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is the hope of the Hon. Minister that legislation may not be necessary, may I know what steps the Government is taking to ensure that such legislation may not be introduced? Does this also mean that the Hon. Minister believes that legislation can promote filial piety? I have my doubts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the public assistance recipients welcome the increases in the rates of public assistance, would the Hon. Minister agree with me that the increases as stated by him just now are still on the low side?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will ask a question of the Minister for Trade and Industry. May I strongly suggest to the Minister for Trade and Industry that he take seriously the suggestion of my good Friend, the hon. Member for Moulmein, and that is, the payment of 14th month bonus or the 14th month annual wage supplement as an interim measure in recognition of the fact that the arms and legs and the heart of the other part of the civil service do play an equally important role in the overall structure of the entire civil service. Also, should not due recogni- tion be given to an upward revision of salaries to all the various services in Divisions II, III and IV down to the daily-rated and the monthly-rated workers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware of reports that the Khmer Rouge would not participate in the formation of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea? Would this not then be a futile effort on the part of both the Hon. Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) and the Hon. Minister himself? May I therefore also ask what other solutions the Hon. Minister has in mind?”
“To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he will ascertain from the Public Utilities Board the cause of the power failure which affected residents and businesses in several areas for some hours on 5th October, 1981 ; (b) what steps are being taken to prevent such recurrences; and (c) whether the PUB has an emergency unit capable of moving into action swiftly to restore any power failure quickly.”
“To ask the Minister of Defence (a) how many Housing and Development Board areas have been installed with physical fitness facilities to enable reservists to keep themselves fit and trim: and (b) whether his Ministry has plans to provide such facilities in all the HDB housing estates so that the reservists can have their physical training nearer home.”
“To ask the Minister of Defence whether his Ministry has plans to construct more Singapore Armed Forces Reservists' Association (SAFRA) branches with similar facilities like the one in Toa Payoh in the Housing and Development Board new towns, namely, Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Hou Gang and Tampines; and, if so, where and when these will be built.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the implementation of the measures vis-a-vis law enforcement, will it not impose a heavy strain on the Ministry of Home Affairs? If this is the case, does the Ministry of Home Affairs have sufficient manpower to implement the measures as enumerated by the Hon. Minister? Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, the answer is that if we can get more manpower, of course, we welcome it. But I do not think that the implementation of these measures will impose a heavy burden on either the Ministry or the Traffic Police. NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH SCHEME (Implementation) 12. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what progress has been made in the implementation of the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme; (b) how many constituencies have introduced the Scheme; (c) what are the tangible results; and (d) whether his Ministry is monitoring the progress of the Scheme and will make the necessary changes to ensure its success.”
“Sir, if that is the case, what about those outstanding cases which do not meet that criterion?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have there been any further changes in the criteria for processing of the applications so that citizenship may be granted much sooner?”
“Simply put, if an owner-occupier of a single residential property runs the risk of having to pay estate duty and if he has no other estate in Singapore, the question is: How deep will their roots be? The Hon. Prime Minister has pointed out at a sitting of Parliament that we must take roots and he has likened it to the instant tree against the tree planted from the seed which has a tap-root. Nevertheless, Sir, I would still like to appeal to the Hon. Minister to consider my point, maybe not this time if he does not think it opportune but certainly the next time as he has done so over the past few years when raising the exemption ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, to $200,000, and now $600,000. I think he fully understands the purport of my intention as I am sure he is aware that there are many people who have struggled hard and through hard savings and thrift managed to buy such properties in earlier times. Surely, we do not want to see them, especially their families, lose their homes, hence, the tap-root.”
“After the residual effects of the estate were equally distributed among those who were entitled, the co-administrators, i.e. the son and his family, got a rude shock when they were told by the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board that since his deceased father owned a house and that he had a share in it upon his father's demise, he was disqualified from applying for an HDB flat. I must add that in this case the beneficiaries were numerous and the residue due to each was a paltry sum. How about that? The Hon. Minister in reply may well say that a single swallow does not make a summer, but I still maintain that it is about time we changed the ground rules. Surely we can afford this change by allowing the family of the owner-occupier to keep the only residential property they have and not to impose any estate duty, even though it may well be above the exemption limit. This is to enable the beneficiaries to live peacefully and happily together in his (deceased) only property. Sir, when I said "his only property", I use the term "his" in the sense of a first person and in the legal context the masculine gender embraces the feminine gender. If I may be audacious enough to ask of the Minister, "Please, give this matter much more serious thought", I think the Hon. Minister is a kind and generous man and he would consider my humble plea favourably. After all, let us not forget that the HDB does allow owners of HDB flats to sell their flats at a profit and then to register again for the purchase of another flat. Here, I am not, of course, suggesting the same in this case but it is true that many people have sold their HDB flats and obtained new flats. All these HDB flats up to now do not cost as much as $600,000 each. There is a parallel to this.”
“Minister for consideration to be given to those who simply have one piece of owner-occupied residential property and do not want to dispose of it, bearing in mind that such owner-occupied property might have been bought years ago when property prices were much lower then. In this case they might be caught by this Bill despite the fact that this exemption limit has been raised to the quite generous figure of $600,000. Owners of single residential property with a market value well above the $600,000 mark may have no choice but to dispose of them now or, at best, hope not to die. If they have to dispose of such property for fear of imposing a financial burden on the family, then the pride of owning a residential property after having worked and slogged so hard in their lifetime just to have a roof over their heads will render it meaningless. It will not be good for them and Singapore as well for, coupled with the prospect of having to be displaced, the family will have to look for alternative accommodation. If I may point out, the likelihood of getting such accommodation, whether through purchase or rental is bleak; bleak in the sense that it is not easy under the circumstances existing today for each member of the family who qualifies for HDB flats will still have to wait accordingly. I would like to cite an example in support of my appeal. I know of a case in my constituency where a family is affected by resettlement upon compulsory acquisition of land by Government. Before the acquisition can be finalized, the owner-occupier died intestate, rendering it imperative on his widow and eldest son to take up Letters of Administration to administer his estate which consisted of a house and land.”
“Sir, I rise to speak in full support of this Bill which, when passed, will increase the relief from estate duty payable in respect of dwelling houses from $200,000 of the aggregate value of the deceased's interest value therein to $600,000. This increase will apply in respect of persons dying on or after 1st January, 1981. Sir, I must congratulate the Hon. Finance Minister for his pragmatism and foresight. It is a well-known fact that the prices of housing property today have increased by leaps and bounds. Surely we would like to continue to encourage home ownership and not see a family displaced from its owner-occupied residential property, the value of which may exceed $600,000 at today's market price on the untimely demise of the owner. Here, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister that, after all, in keeping with the encouragement of the home ownership scheme, surely it will not cost the State coffers too much if we could exempt one owner-occupied residential property from the liability of estate duty. I know, Sir, the Minister will shoot me down on this simply because there are owner-occupiers of residential properties whose values may be worth more than $1 million. It is also true to say that such owners number only a mere handful and if their property is worth more than $1 million, they will surely know how to get round it and avoid paying estate duty by dividing the property into a number of shares or through inter vivos, in which case it will only take effect after a five-year lapse. What I mean really is to ask the Hon.”
“As regards clause 4, the onus of proof lies on the owner; in other words, he will not be liable if he can show that the oil escaped as a result of an act of war, hostilities, or wilful act of a third party, or negligence of an authority responsible for navigational aids, In the case of a wilful act of a third party or negligence, the owner may try to establish that he is not liable. Therefore, I do not think that this clause is adequate enough. Clause 5 restricts the owner's liability. This is not clearly spelt out, especially clause 5(b) which states that: 'no servant or agent of the owner nor any person performing salvage or cleaning operations with the agreement of the owner shall be liable for any such damage or cost.' Well, I must add that this Bill is highly technical and though I have very limited knowledge of the technicalities of the Bill, can I have the Hon. Minister's assurance that this Bill has been carefully thought out and drafted accordingly? For example, clause 17(1) states that: 'The provisions of this Act shall not apply in relation to any warship or any ship for the time being used by the government of any State other than for commercial purposes.' Can the Hon. Minister clarify this? Also, if I may ask the Hon. Minister whether, in the enforcement of this Act, the authority, in this case the Port of Singapore Authority, has sufficient manpower as well as equipment and facilities to implement this Bill when passed, and, if necessary, to carry out the enforcement. If I can get the assurance, I will definitely give my full support to the Bill. 3.33 p.m.”
“But I have to mention them in order to highlight the global nature of pollution and the consequential need for international co-operation. Hence, the question to the Minister on how cooperation amongst ASEAN states can be achieved. Further to this, I would also like to ask the following questions:- 1 Under existing circumstances, how is compensation obtained? 2 What are the main causes of oil pollution in our waters? 3 Since we know that much money has been spent on the prevention and control of pollution, the House would welcome the Minister's disclosure as to how much has been spent and whether enough has been done? 4 Why is the Bill necessary and what is the intention of acceding to the CLC Convention? Sir, I now come to the various clauses of the Bill. Whilst the House is grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the provisions in the Bill, there are clarifications to be made. For example, clause 3 makes a ship owner liable for oil pollution damage in Singapore and for the cost of measures taken to prevent or minimize such damage resulting from the escape of oil from a ship while carrying oil in bulk as cargo. The question is: What about the discharge of u"d oil in this respect? The Minister mentioned just now that it pertains only to ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. That is not the escape of oil from a ship while carrying oil in bulk as cargo, but a ship cleaning itself on a high sea. As I have said earlier, tides and fast currents can pollute our waters as such.”
“So can the Hon. Minister for Communications enlighten the House on whether we have adequate facilities for investigation and enforcement? Of course, in the case of a collision or disaster, the situation is well known and facts may not be disputed. However, it may be very different where vessels which are traversing our waters discharge oil indiscriminately. I say that we should have sufficient means to investigate and establish the facts. Otherwise, all these legislative provisions on liability will be rendered meaningless. Therefore, whatever efforts we take to ensure that our waters are free of pollution, as we are a coastal state, such efforts will be negated if there is no international co-operation. Similarly, because of tides and fast currents, pollution occurring in one place can be a cause of concern to countries in neighbouring places. What I have in mind is the close cooperation and coordination of the ASEAN countries in this context. May I ask the Hon. Minister how such a cooperation can be brought about? I am aware that the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III) has been going on for some years, and it is significant that this Conference is now presided over by Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. This draft Convention of the Law of the Sea which has emerged from the numerous sessions contains elaborate provisions for prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment. The provisions deal with enforcement by flag states, port states and coastal states. The concept of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) also complicates the issue. Hence, I do not intend to go into this in detail.”
“It is, therefore, both imperative and definitely in our interests to support measures which will provide for effective and remedial measures to combat oil pollution at sea. At the same time, we have also to look after our own national interests as dictated by our role as a major port and its vital importance to world shipping. Hence the measures to combat pollution must be proportionate to the problem. I say it must be effective but they must not be disguised to arbitrarily or unreasonably interfere with legitimate international shipping. Therefore, this Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, 1981, together with the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1981, take the approach of attaching liability on the basis of effects or harm or damage done within Singapore or Singapore waters. The important reason is that if only the territorial basis of jurisdiction is to be used for measuring liability, then ships will be liable only if they are physically within our territorial waters at the time of causing damage by pollution. Sir, this is clearly untenable, as the waters of the ocean know not nor respect any man-made boundaries. In other words, oil pollution occurring outside territorial seas can be brought by currents into territorial waters and beaches of one or more countries. Ships, therefore, should not be allowed to abuse the concept of freedom of the high seas by polluting the high seas. If the pollution they caused in the high seas subsequently cause damage to our state or other states, they must well know that they will be liable. This basic principle seems to be well covered in this Bill. But one major problem envisaged will be that of enforcement, investigation and establishment of facts. This is important if liability is going to be established.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Undoubtedly, it is an important piece of legislation which, when passed, will enable Singapore to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage done in Brussels on 29th November 1969 and the Protocol thereto done in London on 19th November 1976. But before I deal with the various clauses of the Bill, I would like to make some general remarks. First of all, it is a fact that Singapore is located at a strategic point in the Straits of Malacca, and hence it lies at the crossroads of busy international sea-lanes. Singapore is the world's third largest port and a large number of ships come into our port and traverse our waters, or are harboured in our port. In a way, we can call it a port state. Also, we can call it a flag state as many ships have been registered with Singapore and are carrying our flag. But above all these, Singapore is a state whose economy also depends on maximum freedom of international navigation and communications, whether by air, sea or telecommunications, We have to bear all these important factors in mind as they affect our national interests. But, Sir, because we are a coastal state, a busy port and because of our strategic location, we are, therefore, very vulnerable to oil pollution by ships. The effects of oil pollution are too well known to all, especially the effects on fishing. And the precious little beaches that we have for recreation will also be adversely affected. In the long-term, the serious effects on ecology caused by oil pollution can upset the delicate life cycle that supports all life on earth. So it is both a national and an international problem.”
“Sir, although the Hon. Minister has mentioned that the various trades are separated into three blocks, viz. Blocks 12, 13 and 14, is it not true that the three blocks are situated so close to one another?”
“Sir, if that is the case, would the tenants in the three blocks of industrial workshops be given priority under the scheme in the Defu industrial estate?”
“Sir, on a point of clarification , On the question of land cost which I have raised, is the Minister taking it at the cost of acquisition plus ex-gratia compensation, and then from there to calculate what is the subsidy? Or is the Minister trying to suggest to this House that the land cost is based on today's price and, therefore, gives an unrealistic figure of subsidy? I would have imagined that the land cost to the Housing Board which it pays after acquisition would not be high. That is the point of my contention. With regard to the terrace house if I had a terrace house (which I do not), I would have bought it for myself and not to sell it. That is exactly the point that the Hon. Minister has missed - home ownership. Do we want to encourage home ownership, or do we want to encourage homes for sale?”