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 13 of 38.
“It can be by way of interest-free loans.”
“In other words, the better educated our younger generation is, the more income they will get. Therefore, I believe that the Government should not forget those who have helped and contributed towards the economy of Singapore in the past, and if we are sincere enough, Government should take the lead. In any case, I hope that something will be done for the pensioners, especially those whose gross pensions are less than $650 per month. I am not asking for those who are above this amount. Finally, I can only say now that I do hope that my observations and suggestions will be given more than due consideration. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I give my full support to the motion moved by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health. 5.26 p.m.”
“The Accountant-General has been asked to pay this and I believe the revised quantum has been paid out to the pensioners. As a matter of interest. Members may wish to know that for a pensioner drawing a gross pension of $100 or less per month, the allowance has been increased . .'. He went on to give details of these revised figures. Whilst this will help the pensioners in one way, it shows that the Government has not neglected this particular group of people who have contributed to the economy of Singapore in the past. But I do feel that a revision of pensions is still necessary because of the fact that a good number of pensioners whose gross pensions are below $500 are facing financial hardship as a result of inflation and the cost of living. And if we recognize their contribution to the economy of Singapore in the past, surely we do not wish to see them suffer much financial hardship if the pensions are not revised as a result of the increase in the cost of living. We talk so much about encouraging children to look after their aged parents so as to maintain cohesion of the family unit. I know that if we were to increase the pensions to this group of people, the Government would have to cough out more money in order to pay for this. Ours is an eastern society built on the concept of a closely-knit family and so whilst incomes have increased quite dramatically in the last two or three years, I think we can afford to give the pensioners more. This is merely a small price to pay. Because we place so much emphasis on meritocracy, the young and more capable workers who have acquired a good education and better skills are able to earn more. We should, therefore, not let meritocracy lose its meaning and purpose.”
“Indeed, Confucius has elevated this into a basic ethical principle, and Chinese classical literature is replete with examples of outstanding acts of filial piety. In these circumstances, it would be unworthy of us to introduce mercenary considerations such as relief from income tax.' But "over a period of time", the Hon. Minister for Finance relented and in the 1973 Budget he said: [Hansard Vol. 32 Col. 476] Last year, many Members suggested that reliefs should be given for the maintenance of aged parents . . I am therefore prepared to give some tax relief as an encouragement to taxpayers who look after their parents and grandparents . .'. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I appreciate that the Government has given a tax relief for such maintenance, I do feel that the time has come for Government to review the quantum of tax relief which now stands at $750 per parent. This is only equivalent to the maintenance of each of the taxpayer's first two children. When there is so much talk of filial piety and emphasis on the need of grown-up children to maintain and live with the aged parents, surely this encouragement must be manifested and, therefore, Govern- ment should set the example. Hence I maintain the need for a review of such tax relief. Next I would like to turn to the question of pensions. This has also been mentioned by other speakers. The Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry in his annual Budget Statement of 17th March, 1980 dealt with the question of pensions in Hansard Vol. 39, Col. 1027. He said: '. . the quantum for the New Singapore allowance has been increased with effect from the 1st January of this year. Circulars have been sent out to the Pensioners' Association.”
“I now wish to raise two more points, one on Pensions and the other Tax Relief for maintenance of aged parents. Although these have been touched upon by the Members for Telok Blangah and Henderson and just now by the hon. Member for Changi, I believe that repetition of appeals can help to drive home to the Minister the importance of these issues and cause him to re-think, and hopefully touch some soft spot in him which I am sure he is not without any, because he must also realize that it is only a matter of time before he himself would be a pensioner and an aged parent. To give one instance of the value of repetition, the Hon. Minister for National Development suggested recently that the SBS should consider giving concessionary fares to the aged or senior citizens during off-peak hours. The immediate reply of SBS was a flat "No". But when the matter was further debated in Parliament, the Minister for Communications gave some hope when he said that he would look into the matter. At this stage, however, I am not calling for an endless repetition of bread and butter issues but rather, with an enlarged Parliament and with the addition of new blood, I ask the younger MPs now to look into a problem from all different angles so as to reveal the importance or gravity of the issue raised. This matter of tax relief for aged parents is a good example. When I first broached the subject in 1969 and asked for tax relief for the maintenance of dependent and aged parents, I was shot down. Let me quote the then Minister for Finance, now the First Deputy Prime Minister, in Hansard, Vol.29 Col. 85 of 15th October, 1969: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, in Asian societies, the support of aged parents is an acknowledged responsibility of all decent citizens.”
“However good they are, the structure of government is such that everyone is required to work closely together and in this respect team work is essential. I can only hope that we do not have too many of the likes of such impatient high flyers in the public sector. As for the private sector, I think they can take care of themselves. I welcome the Hon. Minister's hand-out on increasing the ceiling of exemption of estate duty from $200,000 to $600,000, but I must add that such exemption will particularly benefit those who own HUDC flats, terrace houses and semi-detached houses. Therefore, if it is Government's declared policy and intention to encourage home ownership, Government should see that a family unit is not displaced upon the death of the head of the household who owns a residential property valued in excess of $600,000: as otherwise the family may have to sell the property in order to pay estate duty and may thus be unable to purchase alternate accommodation. I think it is time we changed the rules and, if I may be allowed to suggest, we should consider granting exemption of estate duty to a single residential property or a family house. In other words, if the owner of a residential property has only one such property, then upon his untimely demise his family will not be displaced just because his property is valued to be in excess of $600,000 or whatever figures set down. Of course, there will be a small group of very well-to-do people, living in residential properties costing very much more, but the question at issue is that the majority of our people should benefit. After all the very well-to-do constitute a very small number and percentage, and they certainly know how to take care of themselves. I need not elaborate on this.”
“They should be made to realize and understand the virtue of team work, for without team work they alone are unable to become supermen. Whilst reaching to the top, they must pull others, their lesser peers, along with them so that a harmonious relationship and concept of team work can be achieved. This cohort must accept the virtue of patience and tolerance as well as an understanding of the total team spirit and team work that spur Singapore onwards to progress and prosperity. Sir, here I would like to illustrate my concern as to why some of these high flyers, or technocrats as one may call them, think of themselves. I had one occasion to give a talk on the Parliamentary System of Singapore to a small group of overseas merit scholars who were undergoing an intensive course conducted by the Civil Service Institute. That was sometime last year. One of them asked me a personal question as to how I felt with more and more of the younger technocrats taking up politics and rising up so fast. Of course, Sir, I said that the ablest and most capable deserved to play a bigger role in government for the better well-being of the people and country. However, I feel that this question bears out an indication of conceit as well as an impatience to reach the top, forgetting the hard reality that however brilliant a person may be and who is fresh and "green" from the University, ["green" graduates which the Hon. Prime Minister mentioned just now! needs some time to fully grasp what it means to reach to the top. Because under him or her, there will be lesser peers whose cooperation is equally and vitally important to keep him at the top, that is to say, alone he cannot carry out the policies and plans.”
“He said: 'The Payroll Tax is an important source of Government revenue and it is needed to defray increasing Government expenditure. Payroll Tax will, therefore, continue to be levied.' Collectively, the contributions have the effect of raising the cost of labour to employers. This should force employers to economise in their use of labour and to upgrade their operation through mechanization. Labour is now a scarce resource and it is important that it is used efficiently. Waiving Payroll Tax will hinder us in this objective.' Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a change of policy with regard to the utilization of payroll tax. What I wish to ask of the Hon. Minister concerned is that, with the introduction of the Skills Development Fund Act, contributions to the Fund have resulted in millions of dollars being collected but use of this Fund has not been, as far as I am able to gather, good enough towards achieving its purpose and meaning, that is to say, upgrading of skills. It is estimated that payroll tax collections for the financial year 1981 - 82, would be in the region of $130 million and, of course, I do not wish to question the wisdom of the Hon. Minister for Finance as to the continued collection of it. But what I do like to seek elucidation is the application and reimbursement of the collection of the Skills Development Fund for the purpose of upgrading of skills so that it will not eventually become another source of revenue. Talking of meritocracy, I think we should be more than clear enough as to what meritocracy means. Personally, I do not wish to see a small cohort of the younger high flyers, as they are called, forget those below them and think only of themselves as being the most able and, therefore, command high incomes.”
“As what we have done in our major labour legislation and policies, the NTUC will be the first we would approach for their views and suggestions on the scheme.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not recall having seen any recommendations for the setting up of such a scheme. Nonetheless, there appears to have been a change of policy with regard to the utilization of payroll tax. As can be seen in the Budget Statement of 8th March 1971, the Hon. Minister for Finance, who is not here, in Hansard Vol. 30, Col. 589, said: 'The revenue estimate for payroll tax is $17 million. Here I have news which employers should welcome. The proceeds of the payroll tax will be used to lighten the burden of employers in two areas. Firstly, the proceeds will be used to compensate employers for the "make-up" pay when national servicemen are called up for their annual training exercises with the Singapore Armed Forces and they do not work in their factories and offices. Secondly, it is proposed to allow reimbursements to industrialists for approved training or apprenticeship schemes in skills, of which there is a critical shortage in the Republic. Details of the approved schemes will be worked out by the Economic Development Board and the Ministry of Education.' Sir, I believe that employers have made use of the make-up pay for their employees who are doing national service through the use of payroll tax as such. When I say there appears to be a change of policy in this respect, I would again refer to the reply of the Hon. Minister for Finance on 24th March, 1980 in Hansard, Vol. 39, col. 1293, when he was asked whether he would consider waiving the collection of the payroll tax.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry on behalf of the Hon. Minister for Finance has presented a good Budget which very few can quarrel with. However, like the few speakers before me, I would like to compliment him for this good Budget. Nevertheless, I have reservations on some issues which the Hon. Minister concerned has not taken up. One of them is the question of tax on CPF contributions. With rising incomes, many CPF contributors have to pay to the CPF more than $5,000 per year and the maximum tax relief allowed on both CPF contributions and life insurance premiums is only $5,000. In other words, in addition to contributing the more than $5,000 to CPF for old age, this group of contributors have to pay income tax on the CPF contributions in excess of this figure. In one way, this limitation discourages them from buying a life insurance policy - I am not here to advocate the sale of life insurance policies - as they would not benefit from any tax relief. This is one area which I hope the Hon. Minister concerned will look into. Another matter which I want to touch on is the question of payroll tax which was introduced when Singapore was a part of Malaysia. Here I would like to refer to what the previous Minister for Labour, who is the hon. Member for Queenstown, said when he explained why Government did not intend to stop the collection of payroll tax. I refer to Hansard of 16th December 1965, Vol. 24, Col. 205 in which the then Minister said: 'Instead, we intend to use it (payroll tax) solely for the benefit of the workers. We intend to set aside the revenue collected under this head to form a fund for the social security of the workers. We will set up a committee to put up recommendations for the implementation of the scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your kind indulgence, my other question is this. The Hon. Prime Minister just now mentioned that as regards the whole Civil Service, i.e. the public sector, the increases given to this protocol list will affect those who are not on the protocol list. How much time will be needed to look into the ramifications, and probably the dissatisfaction. The Administrative Officers at the lower salary scales might say, "The officers at the top have got such big increases. What about us?" I hope the Prime Minister can comment on that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to seek clarification from the Hon. Prime Minister. As regards Annex I, having seen the proposed salary scales and bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said, that is, the gross disparity in wage earnings between the top earners in the private sector and the political leadership, including the Judiciary, my question is: how does the Prime Minister come to the conclusion for this amount, considering the fact that Annex 11 shows a gross disparity in spite of the fact that there has been a decrease.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the House would be grateful if the Hon. Minister could indicate when can a decision on this matter be taken. The Minister is just being very vague, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister could indicate to the House as to when the Primary Production Department could come to a decision on the construction of the pig-waste treatment plant?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Review Team's Study is to be conclusive enough, as the Hon. Minister has just pointed out, then could the Hon. Minister assure the House that this will be the final Study before a firm decision on the MRT can be arrived at?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Hon. Minister enlighten this House the age group of those persons involved in these secret society incidents or fights? Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of the secret society elements are between the age of 18 and 25 years. PLANNING PERMISSION (Measures to prevent speculation) 5. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development, since he is aware of deliberate delay by developers who have obtained planning permission without the desire to develop their properties, what measures he proposes to take to prevent speculation; what other measures he will introduce to ensure the commencement of building operations as soon as plans are approved; and what leeway he will accord to bona fide developers who are unable to commence building operations for cogent reasons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Hon. Minister inform this House when ratification of this Agreement would take place?”
“Sir, since the Hon. Minister has informed this House that there has been a slight delay in completing the construction of the Passenger Terminal Building at the Changi International airport and that he is hopeful that the airport will be operational on the 1st of July next year, can he indicate to this House that definitely by next year - not necessarily the 1st July, just in case we cannot have the first aircraft land at the Changi International Airport on the 1st July - that sometime next year Changi International Airport will become operational?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the House appreciates the due care and caution taken by the Hon. Minister before making a decision on the proposed Mass Rapid Transit System, however the study has taken a period of not less than eight years. And it will be longer than that because the Minister disclosed to the House just now that another Comprehensive Traffic Study will be carried out in two phases, Phase A and Phase B, which will take some 30 months or so. In short, can the Hon. Minister indicate to this House how much more money will have to be spent on such further feasibility studies on the MRT? And when a firm decision on the MRT has been reached, how much will it cost Singapore, not forgetting the fact that by that time, the cost of setting up the MRT would have doubled, if not trebled?”
“Sir, whilst I rise to speak in support of the Bill, I have just three simple points to raise to the Minister for National Development. First of all, I think it is not fair to evict those flat dwellers who contravene or infringe the conditions laid down by the Housing and Development Board. I think this measure is a bit too harsh, and therefore I welcome a change in the provision which empowers the Minister, or the Housing and Development Board, to impose a fine. Secondly, there are owners of temporary dwellings who may qualify to apply for Housing and Development Board flats. I would like to ask whether they could be allowed to apply for such flats if they disclose that they own a temporary dwelling structure but are not property owners in the actual sense of the word, because the buildings are temporary in nature and the land does not belong to them. I think the Housing and Development Board should consider this favourably. The third point concerns housing eligibility of those who are affected by resettlement or clearance schemes because of acquisition by Government. These people are not eligible to apply for re-housing simply because of the income ceiling. For these people, it was because of resettlement, which was not of their doing, that they did not apply for HDB flats. So why was this benefit not passed on to them? I know of instances where such people who do not qualify for re-housing have not benefited. I would be glad if the Minister could clarify these points.”
“Sir, I am afraid the Hon. Minister missed my point. Clause 3 in Part 11 of the Bill is very clear. It reads: 'There is hereby established the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority which shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession . . .'. So the provision is very clear for the Authority. My question relating with regard to clause 13 is this. Since there is provision in clause 12 for the Minister to make grants to the Provisional Authority, is it therefore really necessary to bring in clause 13 which gives the Provisional Authority the borrowing powers? The Minister has not answered that point, Sir.”
“On that note, Sir, I give my full support to the Bill, though it should have been introduced much earlier.”
“Well, an economist sitting behind me says, "Not to worry." I think he is just repeating what some Members have earlier said, "pay out first and then come to Parliament for approval." Whether that is good practice or bad practice, money has to be spent and the Minister has the authority under the Bill. I think Parliament should consider favourably on this aspect. But I am trying to see the link between clause 12 and clause 13, because clause 13 relates to the borrowing powers of the Provisional Authority. I am unable to reconcile the provisions in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 empowers the Minister to make grants from time to time, subject to such conditions as he may impose on the Authority, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. But is it really necessary to have clause 13 to give the Provisional Authority the borrowing powers? In clauses 12 and 13, there are two phrases concerning the functions of the Authority. Clause 12, line 2, states, "to carry out its functions," clause 13, line 5, states, "for performing its functions . .". I think we have to be more precise. I am not an English language expert, but I would like to seek clarification on this, Sir. Sir, all in all, I think clause 17 takes care of the operations of the Authority because even though the Provisional Authority has certain powers, it still has to get the approval of the Hon. Minister concerned for making regulations. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister as to how soon a decision can be made or arrived at so that we can implement and set up the MRT system in Singapore. He has given the reasons earlier. But if all the pointers are correct and with the passage of the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority Bill, the next step follows quite easily, I hope.”
“Sub-clause (2) sets out four functions and powers that the Authority will have. What I would like to point out here is that a big premium will be placed on land along which MRT stops or stations are being planned. In other words, the value of land designated for MRT stops or stations, whether it is landed property or building complexes, will be greatly enhanced. Why can we not include another paragraph (e) to the sub-clause to ensure that no speculation is allowed? I move on to clause 12 which empowers the Minister to make grants to the Provisional Authority out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. I notice that there is no provision in FY 1980.”
“Now, I welcome the introduction of this Bill to establish the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority which will, among other things as pointed out in the Explanatory Statement, "do all such things as are necessary or expedient (including the making of studies and the carrying out of works and services) in the planning and establishment of such a system, pending a firm decision of the Government." My question is this. A lot of time, effort as well as public funds have been spent. Whilst I am aware of the enormous costs and the practicability of implementing such a decision, if at all, the Study shows that not only do we need an MRT system but that it is also a viable project. I can well remember, Sir, the remarks of my good Friend, the Member for Khe Bong, when he stated that "the MRT should be a service to the people." It should be a service and not a project out of which the Government intends to make a profit. I would now like to deal with some of the clauses in the Bill. I am surprised, Sir, that the Hon. Minister did not explain certain important clauses in the Bill. For example, clause 4 provides for the setting up of the Provisional Authority and how it is to be constituted. My question is whether we will have a Board comprising competent officers. To which, the Hon. Minister may say, "Look, we are not competent enough; we do not have the competence regarding the MRT for various reasons." But I have already pointed out on earlier occasions that we can look at other MRT systems now being run in other countries and also look more closely at the MRT that is now being built in Hong Kong. I move on to clause 7. According to the Explanatory Statement, clause 7 sets out the functions and powers of the Provisional Authority.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been much talk about the MRT and the Hon. Minister has just said that "the Mass Rapid Transit System was first mooted in the late Sixties." It is more than ten years now. As far as I can trace the records, I think we have spent a lot of money on feasibility studies. There was a Report on the Singapore Mass Transit Study presented to Parliament in August 1974 [Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 979] contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1974, which is a Report in Brief on the MRT system. Over the years further studies had been made, and just now the Minister for Communications mentioned that Phase II study has been completed. Since the Report on Phase I of the Study was presented to Parliament, my question is: why was the Report on Phase II not presented? Was it because of the fact that the Study was sponsored by the World Bank and there was some hitch over the release of the Report? I think it would surely be proper for the Hon. Minister to enlighten the House as to why the Report on Phase II of the Study, even though it may well be a brief report, could not be presented to Parliament, considering the fact that more than $8 million of public funds have been spent on the feasibility studies. The next question I would like to ask the Hon. Minister is on Phase Ill of the Study which, he says, "will be completed sometime in June 1980." The House takes note of his assertion that this will be completed by June 1980. Nevertheless, there appears to be some contradiction in the Minister's statement in that he still talks of engineering studies. I suppose these will be the detailed studies and the ultimate plans.”
“Sir, what about those people who are self-employed? Many a time I come across reservists who are self-employed and they complain that when they go for reservist training their business is affected. In such a case, what plans has the Ministry of Defence got to help them overcome disruption of their own business?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the responsibility for the defence of Singapore falls on the reservists, I would like to ask the Minister of State of Defence what steps are being taken to correct the misconception that national service ends after 2 to 2 1/2 years and that reservist training is just for training purposes?”
“By all means, cheer for Singapore when Singapore play against other countries and please, no jeers for the opponents. Here, I am more than happy to hear the Kallang Roar in the pre-Olympic Soccer match when Singapore beat China. Such is the evolution of a Singapore identity. My overall question to the Minister is simply: "How soon can we develop the reflexes and sinews of a Singapore identity?"”
“In short, we want fair comment. This view should not be construed as press control. Nevertheless, it should be viewed as maintaining the Singapore identity for, after all, the press is accountable to the people and the nation of Singapore. They must be loyal to Singapore. On the national front, the Ministry of Culture has been quite vigilant, such as taking action against those who persist in acts detrimental to Singapore. But there are others outside Singapore who for one reason or another, write bad about Singapore because they do not like Singapore. Singaporeans must be aware of them. They are an unfriendly lot who are ever-wanting to put Singapore in bad light for their own ends. They exist even among our ASEAN countries. Take, for example, the badminton match between Indonesia and China played here recently. When the Indonesian men's teem lost, some of the Indonesian papers made adverse reports on the fans who watched the matches. They singled out Singaporeans for attack. Were these so-called papers looking for a scapegoat just because they could not take defeat, or was it because they had other motives? I would like to believe that it is the latter. I do not believe that all the badminton fans, numbering some 7,000, were all Singaporeans and that all except the Indonesian fans were cheering for the Chinese players and jeering at the Indonesian players. The question, therefore, is: "Why do these Indonesian papers want to stoke up heat against Singapore?" They themselves can best answer this question. But I would add that there are much bigger political stakes behind all these campaigns. Hence, the sooner Singaporeans become aware of power politics behind international games, the quicker we can forge a Singapore identity.”
“I had dealt with the need to evolve such an identity in my debate on the President's Speech. Amongst other points made, I suggested how this notional identity can be evolved by the Ministry of Culture through its media of broadcasting and television. And I quote from the same Hansard, Vol. 36, col. 279: 'Its programmes (that is, the RTS, but now the SBC) and productions must be carefully planned, selected and thought out. In short what is relevant to our national cultural evolution towards the Singapore identity should be exploited to the optimum.' My question is, "How much have we done in this respect?" The radio and TV programmes of the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation must be geared towards inculcating attitudes and political understanding as well as to educate and inform the public. Whilst I agree that there have been improvements in the programmes, I must say that there is plenty of room for improve- ment; hence the SBC should be aware of its crucial role as the mass media to educate and inform the public and ultimately help quicken the pace towards achieving the national aspiration, that of a Singapore identity. Another question is, "What plans has the SBC got in this respect?" 3.00 p.m. On the other hand, the Ministry of Culture should keep a very close watch on another form of mass media - the local press. They too have an equally important role to play in the evolution of a Singapore identity. We have seen how press reports slanted; how sensationalism played up: how sentiments whipped up; how editorials stoked up chauvinistic sentiments, and the like. To my mind, press reports should be factual and informative; and if there are criticisms these should be constructive and not destructive or malicious to Singapore. They can also disagree on certain issues.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. First of all, I wish to express my full support for the sentiments expressed by my Friend, the Member for Alexandra. In his reply to queries on the programmes of the SBC, the Acting Minister for Culture mentioned something about Singapore identity. The Member for Alexandra also made the same observation. In his statement on "A Philosophy of Government" which was part of the Addendum to the Presidential Address dated 8th February, 1977 [Hansard Vol. 36 cols. 52 and 54] the Hon. Prime Minister stated: 'For Singaporeans, it cannot be a simple copying of either China, the Malaysian archipelago, or India, from whence most of our ancestors came. Nor can we be a copy of Britain, which governed Singapore for some 150 years, but as a colony through an appointed governor, not an elected Parliament. We are different from China, the Malaysian archipelago, India and Britain. We are Singaporeans. We must seek practical solutions, solutions which will work in our context, to our problems which are basically Southeast Asian.' And he went on: 'Man does not live by broad alone. Hence we take immense pride that in the past two decades we have begun the process of forging one people out of disparate groups brought together by the accident of history. Disasters, floods and famines in China, India and the archipelago around us, led to successive waves of migration of different peoples of different races, different religions and different cultures. We have become a more integrated society than we have ever been in the past.' What I wish to re-emphasise in the above statement are three simple words: "We are Singaporeans." This is the national identity of Singapore, a Singaporean Singapore which we forge.”
“Sir, I rise to speak in support of the sentiments expressed by my good Friend, the hon. Member for Toa Payoh. I did raise this matter in the House on the 17th March during the debate on the Budget statement made by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry. I think this is quite a serious situation and it is certainly detrimental to us if we allow foreign trading companies to be set up locally and to act as agents when hitherto we have our own local trading companies which have done a much better job in establishing the market for the products of those countries. I see no reason why we should allow a proliferation of such foreign trading companies acting as agents in Singapore. I would also be grateful if the Hon. Minister could care to comment on the remarks.”
“Sir, this is one credit which I must give to the Ministry of Defence. I asked one question which embodied the other sub-questions, and forthwith came all the answers. This is where I am more than satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,119,740,130 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $150,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 3310 of Subhead Code KB-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this concerns the Grant to the Military Welfare Fund. I notice that for FY 79 as well as FY 80 a token sum of $10 was provided. I am wondering how this token sum of $10 grant can help in achieving whatever the objective of the Military Welfare Fund is. The explanation given under the Programme of Welfare Services is "for contributions to the Military Welfare Fund." I would like to know from the Hon. Minister of Defence - he is not here, but maybe his Minister of State of Defence who is here in the House - if he could elaborate further as to how this token sum of $10 can help towards maintaining better welfare in the Armed Forces. 4.15 p.m.”
“I am a bit reluctant, Sir. Anyway, I will let the Hon. Minister off the hook. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, with regard to the number of people living in Punggol Estate, the Hon. Minister has been misinformed, There are 3,091 units to be exact. The Minister says there are 5,000 people. I think the figure of 10,000 is missing somewhere. Is it because of a typographical error, or could it be that the Hon. Minister has been misinformed? The Minister mentioned Neighbourhood 4 of Hou Kang Estate that is coming up. For the information of the Minister, Hou Kang Estate stretches from Upper Serangoon constituency, i.e. from Surin Avenue along Upper Serangoon Road, past Jalan Hock Chye, down to Tampines Road and into Punggol. Hou Kang Estate, therefore, covers not only Punggol proper.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of project 8101 of Subhead Code IE-04 of the Development Estimates. Under this Subhead Code, the provision is for minor improvements to postal services. We see a paltry sum of $83,480 allocated for this item and it is well explained in the Memorandum. What I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister for Communications is the problem faced by my constituents. They live in Punggol Estate which has about 25 blocks with 3,091 units and the population is no less than 16,000. At present the nearest post office is at Lim Ah Pin Road which is about 1 km away and it is also known as a non-delivery post office. The problem here, Sir, is that residents who want to purchase postage stamps or to post letters have to walk no less than 1 km on the average. I would therefore like to ask the Hon. Minister whether, with the expansion of Punggol Estate, he will consider setting up a post office in Punggol Estate. The Hon. Minister for National Development, in reply to a question, has said that Punggol Estate will be expanded by a few hundred units. Therefore, there is a need for a post office in Punggol estate. I am surprised to see that there is no provision for this purpose. A further question can also be asked. What plans does the Postal Services Department have with regard to the setting up of post offices not only in Punggol but also in the other large housing estates?”
“Sir, I am not moving. The sum of $165,080,450 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $881,852.700 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS (Suspension of Standing Orders) With the consent of Mr Deputy 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 Hon Sui Sen]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I must thank the Hon. Minister for his patience in giving us a detailed reply. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code N F-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister could elaborate on the total amount that would be needed for the petrochemical plant. He mentioned a sum of $58.3 million. Also, could he elaborate further on the Ship Financing Scheme which has taken up a few hundred million dollars?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NE-03 of the Development Estimates. Sir, again I wish to raise some questions with regard to this provision. The loan to industrial and commercial enterprises has been doubled, from $400 million to $800 million. The Memorandum explains that: 'This provision is required for loans to industrial and commercial enterprises, such as the Petrochemical Corporation of Singapore (PCS), the Ship Financing Scheme and the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS).' There is a hefty increase. So I would like, among other things, to ask the Minister for Finance if he would be kind enough to inform the House as to how much DBS would get out of this provision. I must say that I have no pecuniary interest in this question except the interest of the public.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his detailed reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon - (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code ND-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NB-06 of the Development Estimates. Sir, under this subhead, Central Services and Expenses, the vote is for "New Projects and Under Estimation." Here, the Memorandum states that: 'The provision for "New Projects and Under Estimation" is reduced to $80.00 million because this vote is always underexpended.' In FY 79 there was a provision of $105 million. My question is, would the Minister for Finance enlighten the House as to what are the new projects to be charged under this vote, and why are the Projects under estimation?”
“Sir, I thank 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 N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code N B-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this subhead concerns Budget Management, and I think there was the Performance Budgeting System which was introduced in the financial years 1 978, 1979 and 1980, in other words, this new format of the Budget has been adopted over the last three financial years. My question is: does this Programme Budgeting System reflect the effective use of manpower and resources under each Activity programme against the respective Objective and Performance, and whether the Hon. Minister has any proposal to make with regard to further improving this Budget format? 5.55 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“Sir, I must thank the Minister for his kind reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $204,694,290 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $12,196,900 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code QH.05 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in fact, some of the questions that I intend to raise have already been answered by the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs. But, nevertheless, I would still like to ask him a few questions with regard to Immigration Enforcement and Control. He has spoken of computerisation with regard to the entry and exit of visitors. Sir, I would like to seek elucidation and further information from the Hon. Minister as to the effectiveness of such enforcement and control of the Immigration Department. With regard to card-matching as a result of computerisation, the Minister said that the Department would be alerted if the control numbers do not match. Would the Minister be able to inform the House of the number of visitors found overstaying, and whether there has been any abuse by these visitors by taking up employment. The other question is the number of immigrants who have been arrested, that is, they were found to have entered Singapore illegally. Can the Minister also enlighten this House on this aspect? 4.45 p.m.”
“As I understand it, Sir, if a child was born in Singapore of parents who are not citizens, then he has to take out a Minor Citizenship. I stand to be corrected here.”
“Point of clarification, Sir, if the Minister will give way. Mr Chua Sian Chin resumed his seat”