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 12 of 38.
“Sir, I think the Minister for Home Affairs has been kind to us and he has given us a satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $230,034,830 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $6,883.800 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. ALLOTTED DAYS FOR CONSIDERATION OF HEADS OF EXPENDITURE (Rearrangement) Resolved, "That Head I, Ministry of Communications, and Head S. Ministry of Law, be considered after Head T. Ministry of National Development." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS (Suspension of Standing Orders) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QH-02 of the Main Estimates*. *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho See Beng. Sir, in moving this amendment, I have iust two small points on National Registration. In 1948 identity cards were issued and they were replaced by the laminated identity card in 1966 to differentiate Singapore citizens from permanent residents of Singapore. So some 15 years have come to pass. I would like to seek elucidation from the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs as to the number of forged identity cards which have been detected since the replacement of the identity cards with laminated cards. If the number should be too large, may I suggest that from time to time we review this process of issuing personal identity cards.”
“Sir, for the first time I am very satisfied and happy with the reply of the Minister for Home Affairs. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon - (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QD-03 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has left out one small question of mine, and that is the issue of small arms.”
“What can two or three policemen do? When we talk about vertical policing or policing on the ground, have we got enough staff to do the rounds? Over the last few months, we have read of robbery, theft and even murder, I only hope that the Hon. Minister would be able to get more staff for the Police Force. I see a long list of national servicemen doing police work, etc. There is a whole range of descriptions regarding their roles. I am wondering whether we are making use of national servicemen to serve as policemen. Are they, in the first instance, properly trained or not? Secondly, as regards junior officers who are promoted from Lance Corporal to Sergeant, are they allowed to bring home the small firearm that is issued to them? Or do they draw it from the armoury only when they report for duty and return it on going off duty? I remember reading a report in the papers recently about a detective or policeman whose small firearm was used by an unauthorised person and death had resulted. If that is the case, Sir, my concern is that for plainclothes policemen, i.e. detectives, or the like, we have to consider very carefully whether they should be given such arms for any length of time or to restrict the carrying of such arms to their duty hours only. Otherwise, we are in for some trouble. I can only express my concern in this respect. So we have to definitely increase the staffing of the Police Force because, after all, the role of the police is to enforce law and order and they have come up with so many descriptions under the Home Affairs Ministry.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head a be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QD-01 of the Main Estimates.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Encik Saidi Shariff. Sir, in moving this amendment on Patrols and Policing under the Crime Control Programme, the Member for Mountbatten has already touched on some of the issues that I intend to raise. But in any case, as I understand it, the prime objective of the programme is to prevent and reduce crime. The Hon. Minister for Home Affairs has, in reply to a Question the other day on the spate of resignations in the Police Force, dealt at great length on the success of the Home Affairs Ministry in its efforts to recruit staff. On this matter, I would like to raise a few points. Recruitment of staff for the increasing responsibilities in the Police Force is an important part of the whole process. But after the recruitment, there is the question of training. On the one hand, we lose some experienced staff and, on the other, we have to recruit staff to fill the vacancies. And if more vacancies arise, they need to be filled. Therefore, Sir, my question is: with a total of some 8,000 men in the Police Force, how successful are the training programmes? From the latest available statistics of the 1980 census, we have got close to 2.4 million people. Just now the House spent some 45 minutes on the question of a police station in Ang Mo Kio which has got a population of 200,000. The Minister went on to discuss the pros and cons on the need or otherwise of a police headquarters station to be sited in Ang Mo Kio. Here, I question the number of policemen for a station. As I understand it clearly from the Member for Ang Mo Kio, the Ang Mo Kio police post has got two or three policemen.”
“Sir, matters may have improved somewhat. But there are some red-herrings. Now I have to take up the issue of fishermen's licence and fishing boat licence with the Hon. Minister for National Development. The Port of Singapore Authority main- tains that the sea-bed and the sea are under their jurisdiction. The Ministry of National Development has a department called the Primary Production Department under which there is the Fisheries Division. The Fisheries Act was passed in the 60s and the Fisheries Division is, therefore, the licensing authority for fishing rights. The Department is sceptical of granting a licence because of their contention on this point, "What can we do? The fish is to be found in the water." Therein lies the dilemma. Who is the issuing authority now? The Port of Singapore Authority says that they have to license all craft, including pleasure craft. Pleasure craft cannot be used for fishing as a livelihood. It can only be used for pleasure-fishing, i.e. with a hand-line, not with drift nets, etc. The position has improved somewhat. But, as I have said, other problems have cropped up. But it will suffice if I make this clarification, so that the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs will not think that I am confused. I do not think I am confused.”
“Sir, with your indulgence, when I said "harassment", I have already qualified my statement by saying that I am not questioning the authority of the Marine Police to check on all craft in the Straits of Johore within the territorial waters of Singapore. What I am more concerned about is that those boats were small fishing boats with drift nets and that the Marine Police were going after them once too many. There were only a few fishing boats around that area. In the course of the checking some of the drift nets were damaged. Who is to pay for that? I have taken upon myself to speak to the officer-in-charge of the Marine Police because I do not want to burden the Minister with such details unless he wants to. I will from now on write to him officially rather than spare him the trouble of having to direct it down for an investigation, getting a report up to him and sending a reply to me. That is the position. I always maintain a very close and harmonious relationship with the police officers in charge of the division. From time to time, in the course of our conversation, I would point out to them such matters and asked if they would look into them. They always promise me that it would be done. I just want to highlight the fact that the Marine Police has been doing more than is necessary because their primary role is still to keep a close watch on the territorial waters of Singapore. But if the Hon. Minister so wishes, then from now on I shall write to him as and when I come across cases of this sort.”
“If that is the case, Sir, here are a few matters. First, on one occasion I noticed a Marine Police boat anchored near one of the beacons off Changi Point. They were not even aware of my boat, although we had navigational lights on, etc. unfil we were very close to them. When we realized there was a dark object in front of us, we veered away. They did not even know it. So what kind of surveillance was that? Do we call that surveillance? They had powerful searchlights and if they were aware of a craft passing by them, they need to switch the lights on. But they did not. On another occasion I was in my boat going towards the Johore Shoal buoy early in the morning. They saw us speeding outwards and they chased after us. I said, "Look, there is police boat coming. We had better slow down." When we stopped, they checked our credentials. Everything was in order. But I found that one of the policemen who was a corporal, was not in uniform. Moreover, he was not wearing a life-jacket. I remember the time we had a misfortune several weeks ago when one police officer was drowned because he did not wear a life-jacket and he could not swim. But on this point I stand corrected. There were other occasions when they would anchor their boats farther out. I thought I need not bother the Minister for Home Affairs with these matters. But to be very honest, I did speak to the officer-in-charge of Marine Police and I think he has tightened up the position. What I wish to emphasize here is that the Marine Police has got a more important role to play. That is why I mentioned their harassment of the fishermen. They know the fishermen. They say that if the fishermen have no licence, they cannot fish there. But they have been fishing there for years. They fish in very shallow waters.”
“But when the Minister goes fishing, people follow him. They know him.”
“Sir, if it so pleases the Member for Khe Bong, but I will wait until the Hon. Minister has withdrawn his remark.”
“Is the Minister trying to make matters worse? If I want to, I can unravel a lot of things which the Marine Police have done wrong. But I just want to highlight the point that their important role is the security of the territorial waters of Singapore. But if they choose sometimes to anchor at beacons without switching on the lights, it creates danger to other seacraft. If the Minister says that my boat was suspicious-looking, or they presume so, let me tell him that my boat is duly licensed, checked and even has an insurance cover. In all fairness, I want him to withdraw that remark, otherwise I would press on with some other things which would not be pleasant for the House.”
“Sir, on a point of order. The Minister is alleging that my boat looked suspicious. May I inform him that my boat is licensed and I carry the licence with me every time I go out. In all fairness, I think he should withdraw that remark.”
“This was not the first time. Mr Chua Sian Chin: Maybe the boat in which the Member for Punggol was in - I do not know the facts - looked very suspicious. They might be watching that boat.”
“But on that occasion they took more than five minutes off because I happened to anchor my boat over the other side and I was watching them while waiting for the fish to bite. So I think I have to draw the attention of the Minister to matters like this. I know that the Marine Police has done a good job. They have purchased faster craft, PX class which has got, I believe, two twin-engines of 150 hp or so, and they are very fast. I hope the Hon. Minister will enlighten this House in the light of my comments.”
“But what is equally important to bear in mind is that these fishing boats are very small boats, 12 feet or, at the very most, 16 or 18 feet long, and they have very small outboard motors ranging from about 5 hp to about 15 hp. There are two types of Marine Police craft, with PB and PC numbers which are quite fast. I hope the Minister will look into this. Because the Marine Police has a more important role to play in patrolling our territorial waters, such as curbing smuggling and making sure that no illegal immigrants come into Singapore. They should not spend too much time on checking the smaller fishing boats. It is not easy for a small boat to go from, say, Punggol Point across the Straits of Johore to Pasir Gudang on the Malaysian side, or even to Pengarang. Surely they have their own priorities of work, but I think the patrolling of our territorial waters to check smuggling and illegal immigration is more important. On the other hand, I wish to bring the Minister's attention to another point about the Marine Police. Sir, he knows that deep-sea fishing is my only hobby. One night, whilst out fishing, I noticed a police boat anchored to a certain beacon off Changi Point, and I noticed that the whole boat's lights were off. This poses a danger to other boats travelling along this sea-lane. It was only when I got a bit close that they switched on their lights. Other boats are not allowed to anchor at this beacon because it is an offence to do so. The point I am trying to drive at is why the Marine Police anchored there. And what were they doing down there? To use a military term, I think they were just on "Take five", which means they were taking five minutes off apparently.”
“Thank you, Sir. I share the sentiments of the Member for Serangoon Gardens on maritime policing. There are a few points I wish to seek clarification and elucidation from the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs. One is the purchase of faster craft to enable the Marine Police to do a better job of policing our territorial waters. We have read from time to time that the Marine Police have been able to apprehend smugglers or even illegal immigrants. We have also read of reports of illegal immigrants who succeed in coming into Singapore. In this respect, I do not know whether the Marine Police is doing enough to patrol our territorial waters so that no illegal immigrants will, if it is at all possible, land in Singapore, and also whether the Marine Police are doing enough to check the smuggling activities that have been going on for umpteen years. 3.45 p.m. Sir, the other point I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister concerned is this. It appears to me that the Marine Police from time to time would harass fishermen, and these inshore fishermen might not have a fishermen's licence or even a licence for their fishing boat, I have taken up this matter with the Minister for National Development and this matter is being looked into. Under the guise, if I may use the term, of wanting to check whether or not these fishing boats are carrying out smuggling activities, these police checks sometimes affect the livelihood of the fishermen. It does not happen only once or twice. Of course, I do not question the authority of the Marine Police to go around checking fishing vessels which is fully within their right.”
“Sir, can I have your permission to speak on this topic now, because I have an amendment no. (4)* which is on Maritime Policing? *The amendment reads as follows: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QC-03 Project 8101 of the Development Estimates.”
“You must not ignore the ground reaction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the House seems to get the same answer as the one which the Hon. Minister gave to me last year when I spoke about the divisional police headquarters. Yesterday I mentioned that the Joo Chiat Police Station was about to go. Now it does appear to us that there is no proper and comprehensive planning as far as building a new town is concerned. I recall the case of Toa Payoh New Town. The same thing is now happening to Ang Mo Kio New Town which has got a population of over 200,000. They have no police station. Now, the Hou Gang New Town is coming up with 26,000 housing units. I do not know whether there will be a police station when some 130,000 people will be moving into this new town. 3.15 p.m. I think the time has come for the various Ministries to sit down together and carefully work out the priorities and plans whereby certain basic amenities like a police station, schools, markets and hawker centres, etc. are provided. But, most important of all, Sir, is a divisional police station. We cannot just have a police station like Paya Lebar, "F" Division, covering almost one-quarter of Singapore. Sir, the Minister in his answer said, "We have got plans, we are looking into it" then after that, what? The Minister should get the Finance Minister to agree to cough out the money. They have to sit down and work it out. The HDB is building thousands of flats in Ang Mo Kio and still there is no police station. That means they have not allocated or even thought about having a police station there. I do not think the answer is satisfactory. I hope my good Friend, the Member for Ang Mo Kio, will persist and try to get the police station built.”
“Sir, I mentioned this because it occurred to me that there were occasions when I received allegations that the Police had made wrongful arrests and had detained persons for a short period of time for, say, secret society activities. Subsequently, when I wrote in to inquire, some of them were released and a couple of them were detained, so much so that the parents came to me and said, "Look. My son never did those things and he has been detained for so long." What else can we do? I would like to put to the Minister that the police, in the discharge of their duties vis-a-vis law enforcement, ought to be very cautious so as to cause minimum embarrassment to those who have been wrongfully arrested for having allegedly committed some anti-social activities or anti-national activities.”
“Sir, if the person is not conversant with the law, that's that. He can only complain to his Member of Parliament that he has been wrongfully arrested and the MP puts up a case, and I think at best he gets an apology from the police. It entails a lot of legal costs to bring the case to court. 2.45 p.m.”
“Sir, with your kind permission, I would just like to ask the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs one question. What happens in the case of a wrongful arrest, and if the arrest has caused much embarrassment to the person arrested and it is subsequently proved that a wrongful arrest has been made?”
“Sir, it looks like I will have to keep on raising this matter until it really falls on open ears and not deaf ears. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $151,574,750 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $194,437,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS (Suspension of Standing Orders) 6.21 p.m. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-02 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I have just a small question to ask of the Hon. Minister for the Environment. It relates to sewerage schemes. For FY 81 a huge sum of $137,674,000 will be allocated for the development of sewerage schemes, etc. I would like to reiterate here that in an area stretching from certain parts of Upper Serangoon Road right up to Punggol Road (except in the case of HDB estates and private housing estates) there are no sewerage facilities. I have raised this matter before and the previous Minister promised to do something about it. But I see in this year's budget that there is no provision for a sewerage scheme in this area. So if there is no sewerage scheme, then that part of Punggol and that part of Upper Serangoon, which is now part of Serangoon Gardens and part of Paya Lebar, will continue to be serviced by the bucket system which, I think, is not only unhygienic but very unhealthy.”
“Sir, since he has explained that his Ministry has great diffi- culty in getting clearance from the Planning Department of the Ministry of National Development over the use of certain land for the building of markets and hawker centres, I would like to urge the Hon. Minister for National Development to consider the problem of the Ministry of the Environment. I am happier now because he has given us a clearer picture of the position and the magnitude of the problem. On that note I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, that is one of the worst answers I have ever come across. If the provision is for land acquisition he must have the plan to indicate which part of Singapore is a market to be developed. I am going to press for a vote on this amendment if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary does not give me a satisfactory answer. Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, if the Member wants to request for a vote to be taken on this amendment, of course, he has the right. If his question is what the provision is to be used for, I have already told him that since it is provided that the money is to be used for the development and improvement of market and hawker sites, then if a site is found it will, of course, be directed towards that purpose. As for locality, it is up to the Planning Department. All over Singapore, many areas are to be developed according to the Planning Department's programme. We cannot say that if a certain place is acquired we can definitely use it to build a hawker centre or a market. We have no right to say that, because it comes under the zoning of the Master Plan governing the development of that land. I can give him a good example. Although we have tried several times, in fact, three requests and a dozen meetings altogether, to build a hawker centre on a site next to the entrance to the General Hospital, which we deemed very suitable for the purpose, in the end permission is still not given. We have done our homework and presented our case suitably. But, according to the authorities, it has been designated for other uses and not for a market. So, even though we have the money, what can we do?”
“Sir, I am not satisfied with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's reply. Can he inform this House what this $100,000 is to be used for? Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since this vote is for the development and improvement of market and hawker sites, it will, of course, be directed towards that end. As regards locality. I cannot say for sure. I can only say that the sum will be used for the purposes designated.”
“We talk so much about building hawker centres all over the place. I think that constituency has got one too many, and it is a waste of public funds.”
“It is not that they do not want to travel a longer distance. That is not the reason. According to our study, the reasons are, first, nowadays many young couples are both working to earn a living. It is not like in the past when the man would be working outside the house and the woman would be working inside the house. Present-day women regard going to the market in the morning as something out of place, because both husband and wife are working and have no time. The second reason is that it is very difficult to get domestic help. The third reason is that there is a change in the practice of preserving food. In the past, perhaps 10 out of every 100 households might have refrigerators. But today, in Singapore, although I have not made an actual survey, I am sure more than 90% of our people have refrigerators at home to preserve food. This is another trend. Whatever the trends may be, I am sure that whenever the number of residents living in an area warrant it, a new market or centre will be built to meet their needs. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the matter at great length. But can I suggest to him that, first, in respect of the $100,000 to be re-voted for land acquisition, can he assure this House that he will look into the question of providing a market in Joo Chiat? Secondly, on the question of markets and hawker centres, let us take Whampoa. There is a market and hawker centre there, and next to it, just within a stone's throw, there is another hawker centre. Here is one constituency, so small in terms of area, having two hawker centres, so much so that one group of hawkers would do business in the mornings and the other in the evenings. Is this not a waste of money?”
“That is why I have to clarify earlier on that I have not been prompted by the Speaker to raise this matter. Of course, Mr Speaker cannot bring up these matters, but I am aware of them. So can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please be more explicit? If he does not give me a satisfactory answer, I will not withdraw the amendment. Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of liaison with the HDB when we build markets and hawker centres, I want to assure the Member for Punggol that we have been working hand in hand. That is why in the planning programme of Hou Gang, we are holding back the building of a market there, because in a few years as more areas of Hou Gang are developed and occupied the estate will gradually grow. At present, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of National Development and the Housing and Development Board are working hand in hand with one another. I cannot say what will be likes hereafter in regard to this work. It may fall on the Housing and Development Board alone. But I know that, in principle, the construction of a market depends on the number of residents in the area. In this way the number of markets and food centres overall can be proportionate to population in any one area. In Joo Chiat, I think the Housing and Development Board will be planning the development of this market. It is not under our charge. In our liaison with the HDB in its planning and development of markets or centres, we usually give them advice. I have said a few days ago in this House that in recent years, our younger generation is becoming more different from the older generation, following the change in social environment. They are more choosy now. They want to go to shopping centres to do their marketing instead of in the markets.”
“Sir, I do not insist that a market or hawker centre must be in Punggol constituency. Let me remind the Senior Parliamentary Secretary of this fact. If the Hou Gang new town is to be built, would not the Ministry of the Environment and the Housing and Development Board sit down and do some serious thinking together and conclude that, with a new town of 26,000 units housing some 130,000 people, as mentioned by the Hon. Minister for National Development in reply to my question, it would mean that they have to build a market and hawker centre in that new town? What I am interested is that the needs of the people must be looked into. Give them as little inconvenience as possible. Of course I am mindful of the reply given by the Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office, that Singaporeans are becoming choosy. For them to walk one or two kilometres is a long distance. But do not forget that they have got to shuttle up and down the high-rise blocks of flats. The new market that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned is close-by to Punggol. In fact, I think it is part of the new town centre he is talking about. But, on the other hand, although some 30-odd street hawkers as mentioned by him will have to be resettled there, I hope they will be happy when they are resettled there. 6.00 p.m. But the other question which the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered is this. In the constituency of Joo Chiat, if the three existing markets had been taken away and moved to Marine Parade, the result is that Joo Chiat residents have no markets. The residents there are complaining that they have to go all the way to Marine Parade market and there is no shuttle bus service. These are problems which we have to look into as a whole.”
“The reason is, as he has observed, that the Hou Gang housing estate is to be built and the Government has to see that plans for supporting facilities go hand in hand with the development of the area. Therefore, we have delayed the renovation of the market and food centre there. On the one hand, according to our records, in Punggol there are still 29 hawkers whom we intend to resettle. On the other hand, the Member for Punggol will be rather disappointed to know that although the market is now being built at the boundary of Punggol, it is inside Tampines constituency. It is not in Punggol constituency. It is near the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Tampines Road. Construction of this market is being carried out now. It will be completed by 1982. The 29 hawkers that I mentioned just now will definitely be moved into this market.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MB-05 Project 8401 of the Development Estimates. Sir, one can see from the Development Estimates that last year there was a provision of $100,000 for land acquisition for development and improvement to market and hawker sites. Not a single cent has been spent. This year the $100,000 has to be revoted. In this respect, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why the Ministry of the Environment's Hawkers Division has not been able to find land to build hawker centres and markets. I will take Joo Chiat as an example. Of course , I am not prompted by Mr Speaker to raise this. Three markets, I am told, were gone and there is no more market in Joo Chiat. As a result, the residents have got to go to Marine Parade to do their marketing. Has the Ministry of the Environment looked into a matter like this? I remember, Sir, last year when I touched on the same subject about the Hou Gang New Town, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into this matter. But I am surprised that nothing appears to have been done. The question is: do we keep on coming back to Parliament asking for a revote? If his Ministry has got certain plans to develop the markets and hawker centres and needs to acquire land, the Ministry must have these plans and the areas in mind, and not merely putting it down in the Estimates and ask for a revote the following year. I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify this. Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, on the question raised by the Member for Punggol, he has brought it up for the third time now. And this is the third time I am answering this question.”
“I thank the Hon. Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $6,092,610 for Head X ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head M - The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not touched on the other part of my question, i.e. to meet payments arising from the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Singapore Governments on the transfer of pensions liability in respect of expatriate officers.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head X be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead XA-02 Object Group 3310 (7) of the Main Estimates. Sir, this subhead code, among other things, deals with retirement benefit payments and 14 other items under Other Transfers. Whilst I do not wish to go back to my request yesterday for more pensions for pensioners, certainly, Sir, this is not my topic. What I do know is that maybe additional funds are required because of an increase in the number of officers retiring or completing their contracts of service. But there is one area in which the Memorandum states that it is used to meet payments arising from the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Singapore Governments on the transfer of pensions liability in respect of expatriate officers. Here, I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister for Finance as to this particular point. However, Sir, item 2 is the provision of Singapore allowances and item 7 is New Singapore allowances. I suspect it must have something to do with the Harvey Salaries Report. I would like the Hon. Minister for Finance to clarify the difference between Singapore allowances and New Singapore allowances. 4.30 p.m.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for Finance for his close attention to this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for Finance for his detailed reply. Nevertheless he mentioned that 2% of the total development budget of $5 billion, which is a mere $10 million, is a very conservative figure. Whilst I agree to that, it does appear to me that as far as estimation of expenditure with regard to development is concerned, some Ministries may not have been accurate enough in forecasting such expenditure, and the House has had on two occasions to approve supplementary expenditures for FY 80. Could the Hon. Minister for Finance assure the House that the Ministries concerned, in so far as development estimates are concerned, would be more realistic and accurate in future so that we do not have to set aside 2% for contingencies?”
“Sir, under this subhead there is a vote for Central Services and Expenses. Comparing the estimated development expenditure for FY 80 with that for FY 81, there is a hefty increase of $140 million. New Projects will be given $20 million more. Two new items are included, i.e., Transfer to the Contingencies Fund, $90 million and Exgratia payments $30 million. I have only a simple question to ask the Minister for Finance. The Memorandum on the Budget explains that the Contingencies Fund is to be augmented, and this accounts for the increased vote under the Ministry of Finance. To me, Sir, this explanation is rather vague. 1, therefore, seek further elaboration from the Hon. Minister for Finance as to what the new projects are for and what is the definite purpose for such a transfer to the Contingencies Fund, which is a new item, and what sort of ex-gratia payment is the sum of $30 million for.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead N B-06 of the Main Estimates. Sir, if I may have your permission to range my remarks over amendment No. (3)* which stands in my name, as it is related to the same subhead in the Development Estimates? *The amendment reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NB-06 Project 8503 of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, on a point of order, could the hon. Member for Yio Chu Kang declare his interest?”
“If that is the case and since salary is the attraction for those able and wanting to go into community work in the community centres, will the Hon. Senior Minister of State find a solution to the problem? I would suggest that PA and Ministry of Finance officials sit down together and have a heart-to-heart talk and thrash out these matters with a view to ensuring that there will be sufficient numbers of people who would man the community centres. I think community service development is an important area in our society. Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Members of Parliament appreciate the importance of the work of our Organizing Secretaries and other staff of the PA. Negotiations have been going on for donkey's years. We have not lost hope. We are still trying to negotiate and we only hope that the officials concerned will have the same spirit of appreciation which has been expressed by some Members of Parliament.”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State has not touched on the development of staff as well as the required training to be given to applicants who aspire to be Organizing Secretaries.”
“Sir, I would just like to seek clarification from the Hon. Senior Minister of State. I believe the People's Association is now faced with the problem of staffing of Organizing Secretaries, especially in the community centres. In this respect, how much has been done to try to retain such staff? I remember, Sir, that there was a career development training programme for the staff and also certain basic qualifications have been prescribed for the post of Organizing Secretary. They have to undergo a stint of training and, after passing, they will be placed on a certain salary scale. I am told that the People's Association is having difficulty in recruiting such staff. I do not know whether the Hon. Senior Minister of State can elaborate on this.”
“Sir, I asked the supplementary question because I expressed concern yesterday over the collection of the Skills Development Fund. Just now the Hon. Minister for Finance has indicated to the House that a sum of $76 million has been contributed. This is indeed a very big sum. Could he assure the House that this Fund will be used for the development of skills?”
“Sir, could the Hon. Minister for Finance inform this House how many applications are still outstanding, and what is the amount committed to these outstanding applications for the use of the Skills Development Fund?”
“Thank you very much. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer the Hon. Minister to the same Volume 24 of Hansard of 16th December, 1965 [Col. 205], when the then Minister said, with regard to payroll tax mentioned by the Member for Bras Basah who is now the Member for Khe Bong: 'This tax was foolishly imposed by the then Federal Minister for Finance. It has the ill-effect of discouraging employers from employing more labourers that we have in surplus. When we were in Malaysia, we opposed it strongly in Parliament. But since this has already been imposed on us and since they have been collecting it for about a year, we do not intend to stop it yet.' Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to clarify.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a clarification?”
“The Minister need not enlighten me. I thought I have gone through the whole subject. Mr Goh Chok Tong: The reasons for Government's decision to abandon the social security scheme were, first, the proposed scheme as advised by the International Labour Organization experts at that time will require contributions from both the employees and employers. This could not be done since employers and employees were already contributing to the Central Provident Fund. Secondly, and this is a more important reason, it was better to solve problems of unemployment through economic expansion rather than by arranging transfers of income from those who are well-off to those who are unfortunate to lose their jobs.”