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 5 of 38.
“Sir, although the answer given by the Minister of State is that it is next month, I am not quite satisfied. But since he has at least given me an answer to that question, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, with due respect, how soon is very soon?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8103 of the Development Estimates. Sir, again, this is an item which has attracted considerable attention, and that is, the Singapore International Garden Festival. A sum of $26.16 million is envisaged for this project, out of which $1.35 million has been spent in FY 86, and this year $10 million is being sought. In this respect, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what programme is being planned to meet this appropriation which will cost some 40% of the project, what publicity is being carried out, and what benefits Singapore will derive from the Singapore International Garden Festival.”
“Sir, I am not entirely satisfied with the answer given, with due respect, by the Minister of State and I am not withdrawing my amendment. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Sir, I think that concerns replacement of certain equipment rather than renovation, as I understand it to mean. In other words, the MND complex needs to be renovated and renovation certainly, to my mind, means that some renovation work must be carried out to certain parts of the buildings. That is why I notice this new appropriation for which the project cost is $51 million. For FY 87, it is $9.3 million. Just now the Hon. Minister of State has just replied that it is only for the mechanical and electrical works. What is the programme? $50 million is a huge sum of money. I am quite sure that for this provision to be made for this project, it must have been worked out into a number of years, and over the number of years the various areas of renovation works must have been worked out. Could the Hon. Minister of State enlighten this House?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8102 of the Development Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I notice that there is a project to renovate the MND complex, and this project costs $51 million. For FY 87, $9.3 million is being sought. I would like to know how long it will take to complete this renovation project for the MND complex. Is it really necessary? After all, if my memory serves me right, the MND complex is about 20 years old. How will this huge sum of $51 million be apportioned, ie how many years will it take to enable renovations to be completed?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-2140 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely have a question to ask of the Hon. Minister, ie, the estimated amount to be voted for is only $1,300 as opposed to the estimated and revised figure of $602,000.”
“Apparently so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am glad that the Hon. Minister has taken note of our comments. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I think the Hon. Minister just got my point on the last part of his answer. When I said urban renewal development programme, I mean there are certain parts within the city where one can see these high-rise buildings as opposed to some low-rise buildings which were built many, many years ago, and I do not know whether the leases are up or not. To me, this question of optimal use of land has always been of concern. In this respect, that question has been asked.”
“Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not replied to a suggestion of mine with regard to urban redevelopment. I was suggesting a review on a rolling basis of five to 10 years and be bold enough to make the necessary redevelopment.”
“Earlier on, in reply to the comments of the Member for Clementi, the Minister did point out that the construction industry has been adversely affected in the last couple of years. My suggestion is by opening up the tender system, instead of having the core contract system, it may well be that more competitive and much cheaper but, of course, without sacrificing the quality and design and that professional workmanship will be brought in. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that HDB in future will be more concerned with the building of flats (quality flats, quality designs) as stated by the Hon. Minister yesterday. So therefore the pricing will have to be considered, in other words affordability. How will this committee under the chairmanship of the First Deputy Prime Minister address this question?”
“I do not think by rejuvenating them, they will be attractive. People are moving out. People are upgrading themselves. So the net analysis for these old estates is, I believe, that the older folks probably will be left behind. What I am trying to say is that it makes more economic sense if we were to demolish the older estates to make way for the new. This question is addressed with regard to making optimal use of land. We have been talking so much about the scarcity of land, and that land is almost our only commodity and therefore it is very very valuable. Therefore, we need to make optimal use of land. I hope the committee will give its consideration in this respect. I will go on to suggest that urban redevelopment be reviewed more often, say, once every five to 10 years on a rolling basis. Now that URA has come within the ambit of the HDB and a lot of urban renewal development has indeed taken place but more needs to be done. In this respect, with HDB building some 20,000 units from now, the question of core contractorship may have to be reviewed. This was already mentioned by the Chairman of the HDB in the Annual Report for 1985/86. On page 7, he says: 'The Building Core-Contracting Scheme was extended for another year. This Scheme is designed to upgrade the technical and management capabilities of our better contractors so that they not only produce better quality flats but also improve their potential for exporting their services. The performance of our core contractors has gradually improved since the inception of the Scheme in 1982.' Would the committee then consider the question of the open tender system? That is, with better quality design in housing.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the announcement by the Hon. Minister yesterday that a committee has been set up to review Singapore's public housing policy, under the chairmanship of the First Deputy Prime Minister, is indeed a step forward and very relevant to Government's declared policy of home ownership. We in the GPC on ND and Housing welcome the setting up of this committee. But we would like to pose some questions for the consideration of the committee before its report, as indicated that it will be out in the middle of the year. First, will it take into account the question of buying land from Government at the so-called market value? How will this value be arrived at? Second, in the past, land value was not clearly explained and determined. Because, to my mind, lands that were acquired and which were cleared were either heavily squattered and in areas outside the busy business district; in other words, in the numerous constituencies which are suburban or rural and also within the central business district where there were many old buildings with rent controlled premises. Therefore the question of cost of acquisition of land was not that high. Now, Sir, the picture is different. May we ask what is the position with regard to this question of land value in the context of the future public housing policy? This brings me to the next question. Will it not be more economical or, to borrow the Hon. Minister's phrase, will it make more economic sense to demolish some of the older estates, particularly those that were built by the Singapore Improvement Trust, more than 30 years ago? Earlier in the day, we had a reply from the Hon. Minister of State to Oral Question No. 2 on the Order Paper on rejuvenation of these old housing estates.”
“In that case, Sir, is the Hon. Minister suggesting that our national carrier, the Singapore Airlines, does not have the necessary expertise nor the skills to operate such a concessionaire?”
“May I ask the Hon. Minister for Communications and Information that, in view of the Government's policy to encourage local enterprise, how can they be helped when a foreign company is allowed to operate such concessionaire, particularly when I see no transfer of technology involved?”
“' Whereas in the 1985-86 Report there is no qualification. I am glad that this is so. Nevertheless, Sir, on page 4 of the Report for the year ending 31st March 1986, explanatory note 12 says that there is a Government subsidy of $1.17 billion. So herein lies the question of what I mentioned earlier that the public has to be informed as to how such costing of the flats has been arrived at. I believe one of my Members, the Member for Paya Lebar, will be touching on this aspect in greater detail. Sir, the third point that I wish to make is that I welcome the Hon. Minister's announcement on the 11th March as reported in the Straits Times on the 12th March that HDB may seek a commitment from applicants to buy flats so as to enable the HDB to get more accurate information. However, the HDB should ensure that in so doing and when the time comes for allocation, all applicants for a particular new town or zone will get their flats. Finally, Sir, on the evolution of town councils. This will be touched on in greater detail by my colleague, the Member for Bo Wen, who is one of the chairmen. I would like to seek further support that town councils will not only be given greater autonomy but also authority in the management of the housing estates.”
“Minister not consider this question of setting up more statutory boards so as to devolve central authority? It is just like the case of the Ministry of Communications. It has got various statutory boards like the Port of Singapore Authority, the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Telecoms and so on. That is the first point. On the second point, Sir, I would like to refer the Hon. Minister to HDB's new accounting system vis-a-vis on the following points. First, the pricing and sale of flats. There needs to be explanation on how losses are incurred in the sale of flats, how valuation is done and the ways and means of buying land from the Government at the market price. Coupled with this, there is the likelihood of a slowdown in the housing development programme. Here again, I would like to ask the Minister to intimate to the HDB that with the slowdown in the housing development programme, they should consider proper planning and design for the development of new towns. Earlier in the day, in replying to a question of mine, the Hon. Minister for National Development said that Punggol New Town would be envisaged in the year 2000 and after. In other words, there must be a conceptual plan and design for these new towns. If we are to go one step further, it is to have better quality housing and a more gracious living environment. Sir, I notice that in the HDB's Financial Statements for 1984/85, the Auditor-General made a qualification on the question of costing. He said: 'As reported in previous years, the Board's accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats built by the Board and the leasing of land. However, a new costing system has been implemented with effect from 1 April 1985.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would just like to make a few points and observations and thereafter leave much of what has to be discussed under the various subheads to Members of my GPC. First, Sir, I notice that in the allocation of time for debate under the Head of the Ministry of National Development, it is from today until Thursday, 12.20 pm. I note that from the first amendment to amendment No. (38), no less than 40 hon. Members have indicated their desire to speak. Hence, one can see the importance of this Ministry and the matters that draw the attention of hon. Members. Sir, if I may turn to page 27 of the budget, the estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates for FY 87/88 under Head T, Ministry of National Development, a sum of $280 million is to be voted. But the actual fact is that this Ministry has the biggest appropriation of $7.624 billion, with $7.34 billion for development and nearly $100 million for manpower development, compared to other Ministries like Education, Health, Home Affairs and Environment. So it is in this context, Sir, that I say the Ministry of National Development is indeed a very large Ministry. And I have a very serious question to pose to the Minister for National Development. Should there not be effective control over the many departments under this Ministry with regard to the implementation of the policies and where Government sees the need to have two Permanent Secretaries, one of whom is a very senior Permanent Secretary? In other words, what I am trying to suggest is: would the Hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not given the reasons for the delay in responding to the demand, ie, in part (ii) of my question.”
“In that case, Sir, can I ask of the Hon. Minister for National Development whether he will consider allowing the few facilities that are still there, for example, the seafood eating shops, that are not yet affected by such reclamation works to be allowed to remain until such time when reclamation works and other plans catch up.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am aware of the limits of the land that we can have for building roads. But I think the Hon. Minister has missed my question, and that is, how will the Government convince the people, because of this drastic change in the land transport system? In other words, will a committee be set up and persuade the people to accept the change - that it is necessary and that there is a price to pay for both the users as well as the non-users, as it seems to imply in his Ministerial Statement earlier?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I ask of the Hon. Minister for Communications and Information that, in making so drastic a change to the land transport system, how will the Government convince the people of the need to accept such a change and at the price for both the users and the non-users, as it seems to me in his Ministerial statement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State can be assured that I will take this matter up, but first of all, would not his Ministry exert or rather convince the Hon. Minister for Finance of the desperate and inevitable need of these mission schools that in order to have higher standard of educational facilities,such capital grants should be forthcoming?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Hon. Minister of State has indicated that his Ministry is taking up this matter with the Ministry of Finance, does he not realize that, with greater improvements in standards of education, it does require more funds? And in this respect, Sir, how does the Ministry propose to convince the Ministry of Finance of the desperate and inevitable need of the aided schools to try and get more funds and therefore they should be more generous and accede to their request for more grants in aid?”
“In that case, Sir, could the Hon. Minister of State indicate how his Ministry will expedite and probably increase the tenure of lease so as to encourage the optimal use of such lands?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister of State for National Development indicate as to how the rest of the land will be tendered out for non-pollutive farming, taking into consideration that much land has already been acquired and is now lying idle?”
“They do not expect rewards and, suffice to say, they will be satisfied, at the end of the day to see a job well done. This means that the remuneration of the Board members is negligible compared to that of the private sector. Therefore, Sir, when I suggest caution in the light of my observations, I just want to draw the Hon. Minister's attention to this point: that if it is imperative for surpluses to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund account, would it not be better to require only those statutory boards which have surpluses for which there is no justification to retain them or such surpluses have already been channelled into areas not related to the objectives of the statutory board concerned, these surpluses are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund account. I know of one statutory board which has invested some of its funds by way of shares in a public company. Therefore, Sir, I would urge the Hon. Minister to consider a selective recovery of statutory board surpluses, and such selection based on the extent to which each statutory board relies or does not rely on the surpluses in meeting the objectives of that Board. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that by bringing up these points, the public will become aware of how the statutory boards are run. And in conclusion, I support the motion in the Hon. Minister's name.”
“But, Sir, I see the success of the statutory boards as a result of the autonomy they enjoy. With operations and decision-making entrusted to the integrity of a selected few, these statutory boards were set up at considerable public expense, not to mention the MRTC. In my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the statutory boards are well and efficiently run and make acceptable returns. We make no apologies for this. They have come a long way since their inception and it is only right and just that they be taxed on their returns, as with other corporations. It is only right, but I would nevertheless suggest, that the Government implement this new tax policy with caution. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, some statutory boards need loans to help finance their capital development projects because the surpluses are not sufficient to finance their development projects, and some are only sufficient for partial financing of their projects. With this new policy it would not be unexpected of statutory boards to now maximize the use of their surplus in funding development projects. Sir, another point I wish to make is that statutory boards cannot and should not be compared to private corporations where the directors receive substantial fees and allowances. Appointments to the statutory boards are made by the Government through the respective Hon. Ministers and each member on the Board is paid a nominal allowance. Some even forgo this allowance and serve gratis. So what I am trying to emphasize, Sir, is that the people who serve on these Boards merely take it as a privilege to be called upon to shoulder responsibility of their appointment and to make contributions to the nation.”
“So let us take the case of the Housing and Development Board. The HDB was set up in 1960 and charged with building homes for the people and even better homes for our citizens. At that time, homes for the people was one of the main and numerous preoccupations of the PAP Government which had been voted into power in the 1959 general elections. The acute shortage of housing and the replacement of the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) by the Housing and Development Board saw the acceleration of housing programmes on five-year plans. So lands had to be found for the high-rise blocks, slums had to be cleared and people had to be persuaded to cooperate and make way for this major development programme. In short, to meet the challenges and to surmount the problem of public housing, Government had to expend large sums of monies in the form of subsidies, capital grants and loans to the HDB. And it is only through the Government's continued assistance that we have subsidies to the public housing projects that our citizens today have been able to own their homes. More than 80% of our people live in HDB flats today. Indeed, the success of our public housing programme is a showcase in the region, if not the world. So year in year out, hon. Members need only look at the amounts of monies voted to subsidize the HDB for its operations and grants and loans for its housing projects to be able to see for themselves that there is an obvious need for continued Government assistance. On the other hand, other statutory boards such as the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), Telecoms and Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have, with less extensive government assistance, not only performed well and produced good track records but have even accumulated large operating surpluses in recent years.”
“The Minister for Finance's decision to transfer the surpluses of statutory boards, which have been accumulated in excess of their development needs, to the Government's Consolidated Fund is indeed timely and I do support this policy. But in doing so, we must not forget the primary objectives of setting up the statutory boards and the services they provide to the nation. Sir, I have stated earlier that I am a Board member of the Public Utilities Board and I have been there since the last five years and am still serving on the Board. What I want to point out is this. I am not speaking on behalf of the PUB, the Board, nor its members. So the views I express are the views I want to share with Members of the House and they are purely my own. Because of this appointment to the Board, I have become aware of the tremendous amounts of capital that have to be invested from year to year to provide a reliable and efficient supply of electricity, water and piped gas to the public and to continue to make improvements on these services. Whilst the surpluses may seem to be large, nevertheless the surpluses have always been insufficient to cover the capital expenditure programme and over the years the Board has had to borrow substantial sums from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other financial institutions to help finance development projects. And these loans, of course, have to be repaid at market interest rates. In this respect, Sir, I hope the Government in implementing its new policy would not merely look at the surpluses per se, but also into the extent these surpluses are required by the statutory boards to be ploughed back to finance the capital development which is necessary for the improvement of their services to the nation.”
“In this respect, Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister whether he would consider asking the manufacturing, hotel and construction sectors to make every effort to recruit local workers for the necessary jobs in the various areas and to give them the necessary training during employment (or what is known as learn-as-you-earn scheme). Needless to say, Sir, the manufacturing sector is an important and integral part of our economy and so is the hotel industry in the promotion of tourism. Whereas the construction industry may have suffered somewhat in the last two to three years, surely the industry can take advantage of this slowdown to consolidate itself and to upgrade by way of introducing new forms of mechanization or new building innovations which other developed countries have already been doing for some years now. In this respect, Sir, I want to make a plea for the reduction of the levy, particularly for foreign workers in the construction industry. This may seem contradictory to my observations but I am informed that some foreign workers in this sector are more ready to accept longer hours of work since the wages are better and they come here because of this need. Hence, they work harder. Thus, in making these suggestions, Sir, it is envisaged that our dependence on foreign workers in the sectors mentioned will be reduced somewhat. Hence, I am optimistic that Singapore can achieve its objectives if we are conscious of the undesirable social consequences of having to rely on foreign workers all the time. In short, the local skills pool in all these industries must be continuously developed and upgraded. Now, Sir, I come to this question of surpluses of statutory boards.”
“Here, I hope the Government should seriously consider whether it is necessary to set up a committee comprising the various private sectors, the Finance and Health Ministries, with the objective of making recommendations on how such a policy can get the positive response and support of the young people as well as to monitor the success of these incentives. In respect of the latter, the public also need to have the Government's assurance that this new policy is here to stay and will not be reversed in future. In short, public confidence is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, mention has also been made about the policy on foreign workers and the levy scheme. I am glad the Government has decided to allow a con- trolled revolving pool of foreign workers on short term work permits to remain even beyond 1992 and the sectors involved are manufacturing, hotel, construction and domestic. But for so long as these sectors continue to rely on foreign workers as a result of a shortage of local workers, such a policy would only help alleviate the shortage for a time. As our dependence on foreign workers does bring about social problems, I would urge that there be a constant review governing the issuance of work permits. Otherwise I foresee social problems. An illustration was made by the Member for Rochore just now when he said that work permit holders are under the impression that after five years of working here they can get married. Yes, they can, but they have to apply. So there is a big difference between a right and a privilege. There is no right. This is the problem that I am addressing the Hon. Minister too.”
“The tourist industry in Singapore is definitely a plus for our economic growth and Singapore has been featured as a shopper's paradise, and this point has been made by the Member for Whampoa. I come to the question of the domestic needs of the people, with particular reference to selectivity on consumption tax list. We have seen a steady rise in the standard of living and change in the lifestyle of our people in the last two decades or so. Our people can afford to have more in all respects. Therefore, the question of selectivity of items is pertinent to the item-by-item approach at this point of time. In short, I hope that the people kept informed and are persuaded to accept this policy as a necessity and also be prepared, as stated by the Hon. Minister, for a comprehensive consumption tax in the future. In other words, Sir, I welcome the setting up of a Consumption Tax Division under the Inland Revenue Department to look into the collection of such taxes. Previous speakers have also touched on the question of incentives to encourage procreation. But I would like to touch on other areas concerning this new policy on procreation and how to succeed. If I may venture to suggest, one possible area is the question of time, in the sense that time should be given for hospitalization and confinement or the care and upbringing of the children in the first two or three years. These are critical years. I am glad to note that Government has taken the first step by announcing incentives to allow working mothers in the civil service to have more time-off to look after their children. And I do hope the private sector will also respond positively in the same manner.”
“The balancing act performance of the Government in seeking ways and means of reconciling the budget in terms of revenue and expenditure takes on a new dimension. The tax changes, though not numerous and complicated, do show a shift in fiscal policy, particularly for 1987. Revenue yield from an increase in duties on bets, cigarettes, tobacco and liquor is expected to total some $88.8 million. In addition, Government has now decided to transfer $1.5 billion in FY 87 from the accumulated reserves of the statutory boards to the Consolidated Fund and it also requires statutory boards to pay into the same Fund an equivalent to what they would have paid if their annual operating surpluses had been taxed at the corporate tax rate of 33%. I shall come back, Sir, to this point later. But may I come to the question of consumption tax which has been referred to by earlier speakers. Apart from this tax, Government has also decided to introduce a longer list of individual items in preference to a comprehensive consumption tax at this point of time. The Hon. Minister has indicated that the public must be prepared for such an eventuality when we are faced with a permanent budget deficit. Therefore, Sir, he argues that there is an eventual need for a comprehensive consumption tax which must be seen in the overall context of Singapore's economic imperatives. I fully agree with him on this point but I would like to ask that for such introduction to be made it must be done on a selective basis. This is to be viewed from two angles. First, the domestic needs of our people, and second, the importance of the tourist industry in our economic growth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad he has made the point that he is not against that. As a matter of fact, I am all for it. But, as I said, I am a practical man. He is a well-known economist and I think I can take it further, he is more on the theoretical side. On the other hand, Sir, I will take up the issue of materialism, as I see it. After all, he is a good friend of mine. On this question of materialism, he has said that this had led to a sharp decline or reduction in the birth rate. I do not agree with his clarification there. The sharp reduction in the birth rate is the result of the success of the PAP Government's policies. First, equal opportunities for all on education. Secondly, as pointed out by the Member for Rochore, there is the question of abortion, ie, abortion on demand. In other words, abortion was made readily available in the Government hospitals or private hospitals and even in other private clinics. On the third point, unfortunately the hon. Member for Rochore is not here, otherwise I would have to ask him when he made mention that the PUB has got a captive market and that the cost of water is too high; in other words, the tariff charges on water are too high. Here, I am not replying on behalf of the PUB although I am a Board member but I shall come to it later. I would like instead to pose him the question as to whether or not he really understands how much it costs to get the water piped through, from raw untreated water into your homes so that when one turns on the tap, the water is potable. In fact, I would go on to say that the cost of treatment of water is quite high and the tariff charges are not commensurate with the costs. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now come to the Budget statement delivered by the Hon. Minister for Finance last week.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first pick two points made by my good friend, the hon. Member for Whampoa who kicked off the debate on the Government's financial policy for 1987. With due respect, I know he is a good economist but I am a practical man. The two points he made are: (1) That we are too materialistic, and he expressed his great concern and questioned the wisdom of upgrading with regard to housing, particularly the HDB, from a 3-room to a 4-room, and from a 5-room to an Executive flat. In short, what he was trying to point out, if I am right, is that a big slice of money is being tied down to properties and this is not good for the country. While seated at his back, I prompted him with the question, "What's wrong with that?" And when he gave his answer, I thought it was not too plausible. After all, it was Government's deliberate policy to encourage home ownership, to make homes available to the people. So I see nothing wrong with this question of upgrading. Of course, I do not know whether he has forgotten the 1984 PAP election manifesto on the Vision in 1999 - that we want to enjoy the standard of living of the Swiss of 1984. So if we do not build more HDB units, particularly those demanded by our people and we slow down the building programme, what will be the future?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how long will it take to complete this college?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, must it take two years or so for such a decision to be made?”
“May I ask the Hon. Minister of State for Education why there has been such a long delay in the construction of a junior college at this site?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister consider lifting the income ceiling as one of the ways to accelerate sales?”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his kind replies and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $50,733,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. Head R -”
“This, I believe, is necessary to give further impetus to a realization of the objective of a better qualitative education through conversion to single session schools, particularly the secondary schools. Sir, in making these observations, I take note of what the Hon. Minister for Education has mentioned earlier at this point.”
“Thank you. Sir, I welcome the provision necessary to supple- ment the expenditure incurred for accelerating our development programmes, particularly the primary and secondary schools as well as junior colleges. Therefore, Sir, I would like to know how many primary and secondary schools have been completed under such a programme; where are they located; what kind of facilities would be available? Sir, this question is asked particularly in anticipation of our secondary schools becoming single session schools in the very near future, as explained by the Minister for Education earlier on. What will be the enrolment in these schools? As for the junior colleges, Sir, I would like to know how the sum of $924,000 could have helped to accelerate the development programme. I know that one junior college is supposed to be built in Hougang, as indicated by the then Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education who is now Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information, and this is contained in col. 1471 of Hansard, 26th March, 1985. But, indeed, I am unhappy to say that there is no sign of it being built as yet, let alone any activity that seems to indicate that the said junior college is being built. Hence, I have put in a Question for Oral Answer. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not trying to be impertinent in raising this matter but I merely wish to know what and where these junior colleges are. In the larger context of the building programme strategy for schools and junior colleges, I want to know if more funds will be needed and made available to increase the facilities and make for better amenities in the next few years.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8101.* Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to range my remarks over Amendments (2) and (3)* so that I need not waste time in having to move them?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the reply of the Hon. Minister for Finance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,750,000 for Head W ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. Question, "The sum of $16,750,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1987", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.”
“If this is the case, then I think it is not asking too much. There is another area, Sir, where I think recognition can be given, and that is, Government should consider reviewing the medical benefits for Government pensioners, particularly hospitalization benefits and attendance at outdoor dispensaries or polyclinics. I am given to understand that older people, with due respect, Sir, tend to have more ailments and require more medical attention. If the range of medical benefits to the Government pensioners can be reviewed, then I think this is another positive way to reflect Government's concern and care for these Government pensioners.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-02-5111(07) of the Main Estimates.* Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, firstly, may I thank the Government in general, and the Hon. Minister for Finance in particular, for heeding the call for an upward revision of the 1982 Singapore Allowance. This $25 increase, as I stated last year, was equal to 33 1/3%, that is, from $75 to $100. I am quite sure that those Government pensioners who benefited from this increase were indeed grateful for it. In short, the Government was quick to respond to the request, and therefore this provision of $1.75 million is needed. Here, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Finance whether he would indicate the number of Government pensioners who stand to benefit from this upward revision. In this respect also, what is the percentage of the total number of Government pensioners as a whole? No one can dispute the fact that the Government pensioners have contributed much to the progress and prosperity of our modern Singapore, particularly in the last 30 years or so, although some quarters have alleged that they are a forgotten lot and that the Government does not care for them. Sir, I do not agree with that view because this increase in the 1982 Singapore Allowance speaks for itself. However, if recognition of their contribution means that they should be invited to public functions in a representative manner, and I believe there is the Singapore Government Pensioners' Association, then I agree that consideration be given such as issuing invitations to them to attend some of the National Celebrations, for example, the National Day Parade or the National Day Reception hosted by the President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask of the Hon. Minister for Education five questions relating to his Ministerial Statement. (1) Could he enlighten the House as to the cost for students in the Dental and Medical faculties? (2) Why try to recover only 9% in this respect and not, say, 12% or 15%? (3) What is the rationale for getting only 9% in return? (4) For how long will this increase be applicable, and (5) Will there be another upward review of fees in the foreseeable future?”
“Sir, whilst I agree with the Hon. Minister about not being able to put up everything together at the same time, nevertheless, could his Ministry ask the Housing Board to try and put in as many basic facilities as possible, especially when the new town is under construction? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member would let me know what are the high priority items which he finds missing, I would be very glad to discuss with the Housing Board to see how they can expedite the construction. LITTERING, SPITTING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING (Prosecutions) 7. Dr Aline K. Wong asked the Minister for the Environment how many cases were prosecuted in each of the past five years for (i) littering; (ii) spitting; and (iii) illegal dumping in public places. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) (for the Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. The answer to this question is rather lengthy. It consists of a set of numbers. I have therefore arranged for the answer (Cols. 105 - 106) to be circulated to Members. It should be with the Member by now. answer - LITTERING, SPITTING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING (Cols. 105 - 106)”