Ong Teng Cheong
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as of now, the position is this. We have signed an in-principle agreement with the Suzhou Municipality to help plan, develop and manage a township. There are two parts to this development. So far, we have put up a rough outline plan for the development of the township.”
“The consortium would include members or companies from both the Government as well as the private sector. Whether SLF will hold a significant share it has yet to be decided. I believe SLF will hold a very small share or no share at all, because, as I have said, our role is that of a facilitator.”
“Like all other projects undertaken by SLF, such as the Pasir Ris Resort, the Sentosa Beach Resort and the Orchid Country Club, the ultimate objective of SLF's investments is to help raise the social and economic status of our workers, and ensure that our workers will continue to enjoy a fair share of Singapore's progress.”
“Sir, I think Mr Chiam has got all this confused. PAP and NTUC run BEST classes jointly. NTUC does not run BEST classes by itself. George Sita, he is referring to, is a member of the SDP who stood against the PAP in the last election. He was employed jointly by NTUC and PAP.”
“NTUC Comfort is a co-operative. The taxi-drivers are members of the co-operative, and there were more than two members who had been removed from membership of the co-operative because of misbehaviour or misconduct, or arrears of their instalment payments, or whatever it is. There were many reasons why they were removed.”
“But when members of the co-operative are actively involved with opposition political parties against the PAP or NTUC, then they are acting against the resolution of the National Trade Union Congress, and it was a compliance of that resolution that action had to be taken against them.”
The complete record
Every one of 720 lines we hold for Ong Teng Cheong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 15.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill in principle, which no doubt will enable many of our urban redevelopment schemes to be more effectively implemented. However, there is one aspect of the Bill which I would like to comment, and that is, Part VIII of the Bill which deals with the regulating and controlling functions of the Authority. Part VIII of the Bill requires that every person who wishes to develop any land shall submit to the Authority proposals and plans for the provision of car parks and car parking spaces before applying to the competent authority under the provisions of the Planning Act for permission to develop such land. I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse, since the provision of car parking spaces is dependent upon the use and intensity of any proposed development which may be permitted by the Chief Planner. Besides, this regulatory function is not explicitly stated either in Part IV of the Bill or in the Schedule to the Bill, which deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. I wonder whether this is a deliberate omission, or whether Part VIII of the Bill is an afterthought or a subsequent hasty addition. I have no doubt the House will agree that there could be a basic conflict of interest if the Urban Redevelopment Authority, whose main functions and duties are to prepare and execute proposals and to sell and manage properties, etc., is also empowered to perform regulatory and enforcement functions as well. Although such function is only in respect of car park provision, it is to be realised that such a provision is normally an integral part of any land or building development.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very fine explanation. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $39,282,400 for Head 1108 ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $27,391,000 for Head 1108 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Pursuant to a resolution of the House, Mr Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“If 50,000 or 70,000 people go to the National Stadium for the opening of the SEAP Games, it is obvious that everyone cannot drive up there. It is also pretty obvious that the motor cars or buses in which they travel will have to be parked not immediately next to the Stadium but perhaps a little further away, in Beach Road or in the old People's Association ground. It is physically impossible for everyone to drive up in grand fashion and alight at the entrance to the National Stadium at Kallang.”
“Phase I involves the updating of traffic projections to 1982 and 1992, preparation of economic evaluation of the expressway system, recommendation of alignments and interchange layouts, and comparison of alternative schemes. This phase would take about seven months to complete. Phase II is concerned with detailed designs, specifications and estimates, and will take a further nine months. The P.W.D, will offer a counterpart personnel in this phase. 6.15 p.m. Sir, with or without the proposed expressway, there will be more cars on the road with the growth of our national economy. The Ministry of Finance has taken steps to increase the taxes on cars, but I doubt whether this will prevent more cars being bought and driven on our roads unless the tax is further raised. But I am not encouraging him to do this. It is obvious that we have to do something about our transport and parking problems. The parking policy will, in fact, be reviewed when the recommendations of the Mass Rapid Transit Study, now being conducted by the Ministry of Communications, are finalised. Some of the findings of this Study will be used as data for the proposed Central Area Expressway Project. As for the other suggestion that cars or even vehicles should not be allowed into certain parts of the city, we had tried a pilot scheme to ask owners of cars to park in Kallang. All they do is to park there at night for different purposes! However, the day will come, and perhaps it is not too far off, when we may have to stop traffic from going right to the heart of the city. But our people are so used to driving up to the office and driving up to a restaurant that this will be bound to annoy them. If I may close with a reference :o the National Stadium.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 49*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr J. F. Conceicao.) Sir, I only wish to seek information from the Minister concerned regarding the Feasibility and Engineering Study for Central Area Expressway under this subhead for which a sum of $3 million has been allocated. Would the Minister be kind enough to inform the House as to who will be conducting the study, and how long will it take? Sir, although the object of the Central Area Expressway is to relieve traffic congestion and to make the Central Area more easily accessible, the consequence may quite possibly adversely affect the urban environment and the economic use of space. With the implementation of this Expressway and improvement of other existing roads, more cars would be attracted and expected to enter the Central Area. Unless, of course, supplementary policies and measures are introduced simultaneously to effectively control the vehicle population in the Central Area. I wonder if the Minister would also be kind enough to inform the House whether steps have been or will be taken soon to formulate policies and to introduce measures to discourage and control the use of private cars in certain congested parts of our city. Mr Barker: Sir, may I first thank the Member for his suggestions. He has expressed some fears over which my Ministry is genuinely concerned. As for the Feasibility and Engineering Study for Central Area Expressway, this study will be conducted by a consulting firm, or consortium firms, specialising in traffic engineering, planning or engineering economics. The study will be in two phases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister concerned, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $573,990 for Head 1101 ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The Chairman: From now on, we will strictly follow the guillotine times. This Head of Expenditure has exceeded the guillotine time by a few minutes. Head 1104 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to my earlier remarks about the construction of bus shelters. I was only suggesting that the Housing and Development Board should, in future, be responsible for the provision of bus shelters in new satellite towns. This is because I cannot under- stand why millions of dollars had been spent by the Housing and Development Board on the provision of car parks in Housing Board estates, and not a single cent has been spent on the provision of bus shelters. In this respect, I wonder whether bus commuters are regarded as second-class Citizens. Why do we look after the haves, who own cars, and neglect the have-nots who have to depend on public transport and whose continued support and patronage of public transport services is much to be welcomed? I think they deserve the comfort and convenience I have suggested. My plea is to ask the Ministry to make the lives of bus commuters less miserable than what it is today. I believe a senior member of the Housing and Development Board sits on the Board of the Bus Services Licensing Authority, and therefore there should be no difficulty in planning and establishing bus routes and allocating bus shelters in new public housing estates. I do feel that the Housing and Development Board should provide bus shelters as they have been providing car parks in Housing Board estates. I would like to ask if the Minister concerned is satisfied with the present state of affairs in respect of the provision of bus shelters in Housing Board estates created by his Ministry, and if he would take steps to improve the situation.”
“I would like to suggest that the Housing and Development Board should, when constructing new housing estates or new towns in future, be responsible for the construction of bus shelters, instead of the present practice where the PWD constructs these shelters years after the estates were completed. This is to ensure that bus shelters are provided for bus commuters as part of essential facilities, just as car parks are provided for private car owners in Housing and Development Board estates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Tay Boon Too and Cheong Yuen Chee.) Sir, during the debate two days ago on the Ministry of Communications, I managed to obtain, in principle, support from the Minister for Communications to my suggestion that private bus operators contribute financially towards the provision of bus shelters. I will talk about bus shelters again today. While I fully agree in principle with the Minister for Communications that this is a question of priority, and that the profits of bus operators should at present be ploughed back for the purchase of new buses and other rolling stock, I still feel that there is a lot yet to be done for our bus commuters generally. I would therefore like to turn to the Minister for National Development and urge his Ministry to look into these questions again to see if his Ministry could expedite the provision of bus shelters to those bus stops which do not as yet have any form of shelters at all at the moment, especially in highly populated residential areas created by his Ministry. First, I would like to suggest, Sir, that the Ministry should try to secure additional funds for the construction of as many bus shelters as possible within the shortest possible time, especially in existing Housing and Development Board estates. Toa Payoh New Town is a case in point, where bus commuters have been put to unnecessary inconvenience for the last few years. Second, Sir, is the transfer of part of the executive functions of the PWD to the Housing and Development Board.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his explanation. Before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to comment on the principle involved, i.e, that there should be a ceiling for the grant. I think we should conceive that the facilities in the community centres or the provision of community centres is a form of public institution, like the provision of schools for the children, provision of public recreational facilities, as part of the State responsibility. In that sense, I feel that although I agree with the Minister that we should encourage or would like to see local participation, the main responsibility of these provisions should be that of the State. If the State can provide additional funds, then it should do so to lighten the burden of the local residents, like residents in my constituency, for example, where almost 100 per cent are Housing Board residents, 30 per cent of whom are one-room flat dwellers. And for them to raise $150,000 or even $100,000 is rather impossible. Sir, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong - (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 62.”
“I, therefore, wonder if the Minister for Culture will kindly inform the House as to how he intends to utilise the limited funds made available, and what programme of activities is he contemplating. Finally, I would like to know whether he would consider taking steps as soon as possible to secure additional votes for the coming financial year to upgrade the facilities in the community centres.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 61*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Ho Kah Leong and Tuan Haji Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi.) Sir, commenting on the effect of industrialisation and citizens' fashions and ways of life during the last week's debate on the Budget statement, the Minister for Finance had agreed that there is a lot to be said for turning away from materialism towards more cultural projects and worthwhile activities. I have no doubt that the Minister for Culture will agree with me that community centre development and activities are worthwhile projects. Activities in this direction provide alternative outlets for our energetic youths. In our endeavour to encourage our youths to participate in cultural and other healthy activities, in order to keep them away from less desirable indulgence, especially drug-taking and other pill-abuses, there is no question that we need to urgently upgrade the facilities of most of our community centres. Sir, many of the 180-odd community centres in our Republic are sub-standard. Besides, a good number of our constituencies are without a community centre. In this connection, I am of the opinion that the total sum of $1.03 million allocated for the People's Association for the development of community centres, i.e, the purchase of land, equipment and furniture, and for other activities, is grossly inadequate. If we divide this sum equally among the 187 community centres, it will come to something like $6,000 a year for each community centre, or $500 a month, which in many cases is barely enough to pay for the PUB bills, let alone upgrading the facilities, like providing colour television in the next financial year.”
“Sir, I am going to talk about invisible pollution. The chief medical adviser of the Industrial Health Unit in the Ministry of Labour has very recently stressed the importance of controlling noise in the Republic. He claimed that noise levels up to 90 decibels is considered dangerous, as exposure over a number of years to such levels will give rise to a number of undesirable effects and consequences. Sir, many of the residents in urban areas, especially in the Geylang and Katong districts, are already suffering from aircraft noise of 80 to 100 decibels. Whenever a plane flies over, one would have to give up his television viewing, telephone conversation, or suspend his class temporarily. I am sure we do not want to allow these conditions to deteriorate any further. In this connection, I wonder if the Minister for Communications would be prepared to categorically rule out the possibility of extending the existing airport runway further southwards in the future.”
“It appears that there should be no financial difficulty in ploughing back more funds from the Revenue for the provision of bus shelters, foot bridges and other facilities for the commuters. Since the Ministry of Communications is looking after the public transport services and the Ministry of National Development is responsible for the construction of bus shelters, foot bridges and footways etc., I would suggest that there should be closer co-ordination between the two Ministries. 5.00 p.m. Sir, during last year's Budget debate, the Minister for Communications quoted the conclusion of a critical article from the New Nation, and I like to quote it again [Hansard, Vol 31, No. 12, cols. 806-7]: `It would also be nice to bear in mind that Singapore has the best public transportation system in the region, if not the whole of Asia. And the tax-paying public can rejoice in the fact that it is also one of the few-non-Government-owned non-subsidized services in the world. It makes a profit!' Sir, in order to ensure that our bus commuters give their continued support and patronage of the public transport service, for which they deserve comfort and convenience, and that part of the profits made by these bus operators is ploughed back to serve the bus commuters, I wonder if I can suggest to the Minister for Communications to look into the possibility of requiring bus operators to make financial contributions in future for the provision of bus shelters along new service routes, as an integral part of their services.”
“I would like to see the Government put in more effort to make the bus commuters' journey less miserable and less dangerous by providing proper and safe pedestrian footways either along the ground, overhead, or underpass and also providing sufficient bus shelters, especially in highly populated housing estates, within the earliest possible time. We are aware that there is a study currently in progress to advise the Government on the feasibility of introducing the Mass Rapid Transit System. The failure or success of the system depends very much upon the rate of switching of commuters from buses to private cars before the Mass Rapid Transit System is put into operation. Experience elsewhere has indicated that once a commuter has experienced the comfort and convenience of travelling in a private car, it would be extremely difficult to persuade him to give up his car and to travel in a bus or in a Mass Rapid Transit System. Even if we are eventually going to have a Mass Rapid Transit System, we would still have to provide good and efficient bus services to supplement the Mass Rapid Transit System to form a totally balanced transportation system. Sir, it is estimated that the total revenue from road tax and motor vehicle registration alone for the coming financial year will amount to some $73 million. However, the vote allocated in the Development Estimates for the construction and improvement of roads and bridges total less than $23 million. Of this figure, only half a million dollars has been set aside for the provision of bus bays, bus shelters, vehicle parks, road-side curbs, etc. This is obviously grossly inadequate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Government is aware of the deteriorating urban traffic situation. It has, in the recent past, introduced measures to improve the public transport services and to retard the increasing rate of private car ownership and usage with a view to achieving a more balanced traffic situation. For example, the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Services in 1970 and the recent Ministerial statement introducing increases in road tax on private cars are highly commendable measures, but they alone do not provide a total solution to the urban transportation problem. Although the public transport service has greatly improved since the last reorganisation, there are still many shortcomings. We should not forget that bus commuters have to walk from their homes or from wherever they are to the bus stops, and having to wait for the buses under local climatic condition is an experience which we all know what it is like. Many bus stops are still without any form of shelter. As a representative from a highly urbanised domestic constituency, I would be failing in my duty if I do not bring to the attention of the Minister that there are only about a dozen bus shelters in the whole of Toa Payoh New Town, which presently houses some 100,000 people. Some of them have been living there since 1965 and 1966. I cannot see any reason why we should continue to allow our fellow bus commuters to be subjected to the dangers, humiliation and inconveniences which most of them are facing today.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened with interest to the commendable objectives of this Bill, now being read a Second time by the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to ask him if he can inform the House as to how many Government creches are being planned in the immediate or foreseeable future, especially in the densely populated housing estates, like Toa Payoh or Queenstown and even in the rural areas?”
“In this connection I feel that particular attention should be given to the development of a more effective working relationship between Government departments and statutory bodies. At the same time, in order to achieve higher standards in everything, as the President has stated, it is essential also to cultivate simultaneously the quality of our people and hopefully to be able to nurture and develop a broad base of intellectual freemasons whose conviction and passionate interest in social responsibility stand in harmony with that of the sound and dedicated leadership. Full well do we realise that in order to attain the ultimate goal it is imperative that the leaders should do the thinking, commanding, and carry most of the responsibilities. But in the pursuit of these qualitative goals, it is preferable that the leadership have the support and collaboration of like-minded beings than the need to drive or spoon-feed all the way those who are led. I do not believe that there are simple solutions to the complex and intangible tasks ahead of us. What is needed is greater team work inside and outside this House. It is only through team work and closer collaboration that effective plans evolve and higher standards in everything achieved. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Batok. 4.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the achievements of the Government in the last five years can be attributed mainly to the sound and dedicated leadership on the one hand and the cooperation of our diligent people on the other. We have mopped up unemployment, generated jobs, built flats, new towns, factories, etc. These can be regarded as tangible achievements. The tasks ahead of us with emphasis on "quality" are more complex and intangible than some of us would have realised. To achieve quality in jobs, homes, social and recreational amenities, we require much more than just more money to be spent on capital equipment, prolonged training of technicians, and on educating the professionals whose expertise is part and parcel of an industrial society. It requires greater effort on research and planning before action in order to attain qualitative goals. It is needless for me to stress that the main efforts of our Government have been directed towards improving the lot of every citizen of Singapore. We have very little space in this island state and we have hardly any natural resources worth speaking about. It is precisely for this reason that I feel that there is an urgent need for the formulation of a comprehensive socio-economic and physical development plan whose framework should be flexible but clear enough to guide our long term and short term investment decisions, and to help put every square foot of space in this island to its best possible use. It is only through comprehensive planning and thorough research will we achieve better communication and transportation, better places of work, better community facilities and amenities, a better Singapore for our children and for our children's children.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask The Minister one very simple point of clarification. He mentioned that with the introduction of the new tariff, the revenue of the PUB will be less by approximately $1.8 million, and that it will cost the PUB approximately over a million dollars to switch over to the single meter system. The Minister mentioned that in the new system there would be savings in the administrative cost, but he did not indicate the figures. I was just wondering how much savings there will be.”