R Ravindran
Singapore
“Sir, on behalf of all Members who raised various cuts under this amendment, I would like to thank the Minister for Defence, the Second Minister for Defence and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their detailed explanations. I would like to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“All this training only comes when the critical time for us to play the game and stay there on the field after the critical 30 minutes. I think it is critical that the SAF provides safe training but, at the same time, realistic training. I would like to ask the Minister how the SAF intends to provide for more safety.”
“Sir, ASEAN, as an organisation, looks like it is back on track. The last ASEAN Leaders Summit showed that the leadership shares a common vision and is committed to meeting the goals set henceforth.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Yeo, and the Minister of State, Mr Zainul Abidin, for their very comprehensive answers to the queries raised by Members and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $257,379,160 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“If such rivalries continue, there is every risk that the community-building exercise would be fatally compromised. At best, the EAS may just emerge as another talk-shop like APEC or ARF, where leaders meet, declarations are made, but little community-building is achieved.”
“Sir, the big plus over the recent debate on the Melvyn Tan's case was the tremendous understanding of the role of National Service by all Singaporeans and the spirited defence of it by many.”
The complete record
Every one of 385 lines we hold for R Ravindran, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“Let me now move on to a wider question, and it is whether the type of competition that we are having in Singapore in the public transport market needs to be re-looked. I think it is something that the Minister has to look at the Ministry's level and see whether there is indeed a call which can be justified to re-look at the type of public transport operators that we have in Singapore, and not rely on some consultant's report which was made some decades ago. That is the format that is being used in Singapore. Considering the present public transport usage and the type of market that we have, perhaps it is time we re-looked at the whole market itself, and see whether we can allow for more competition so that we can achieve greater efficiency. Sir, let me now move on to the second part of the Motion that deals with the call to ensure that essential public services remain affordable, and that any price increases during this difficult period should be kept to the absolute minimum. In my view, this is where the real crux of the debate lies. Fare increases are the chosen rhythm of the day. The others, like carpark charges, utilities, have been let off lightly. The wider debate is how do we scrutinise increases in the price of essential services. While we have some mechanism to ensure that some public services are subject to market mechanism and competition, not all are. Some public services are in the hands of the Government, some in autonomous Government bodies, some in statutory boards and some in the public sector. In the public sector, I again applaud the Ministry of the Environment for its practice to call for fresh tenders at the end of the tender period for refuse collection contractors. In some cases, public bodies, like PTC, or CASE, have a role to play.”
“Indeed, I speculate that the portion of transport expenditure would be higher relative to one's ordinary income, particularly the ordinary wage earner. Naturally, it leaves one wondering whether the Senior Minister of State has difficulty in producing the relevant figures. I would urge the Minister to address this issue. In respect of the role of the PTC, I must say that I have great sympathy for the PTC, because they are handling a difficult assignment. How can they be fair to both the public transport operators and to the commuters at the same time? The parameters of their job are defined by an Act of Parliament. My colleagues have raised many issues in relation to the job of the PTC, questions about the conflict of interests, whether the members are qualified to be able to be sitting in the council. And I would like to add one more issue, whether the PTC has, in the course of its deliberations, independent studies put up by think-tanks, or academics, to advise the PTC, or whether they just rely on the reports furnished by the bus companies as the sole source of reference and decision-making. Perhaps some clarification could be given, both by PTC and the Minister to clarify to the public on how they arrived at these figures. Because being a lawyer, I can always say that there are two parts to the argument, and it depends on who presents the argument. If the bus company is the only company that is able to present the argument, I pity the PTC because they need additional support and research from other independent researchers, or academics, to support the PTC in whatever decision that it is going to arrive at.”
“Perhaps the Government could explain whether it is the Government's agenda, or the public bus operators' or MRT operator's request that such facilities be built. Sir, misunderstanding No. 2 is that he explained that fare increases are not to fatten the profits of bus companies. I beg to differ because I cannot see any other reasons. I cannot recollect any of our public transport operators being in deficit, or close to it. They have always enjoyed good profits and they have always come back to PTC for fat profits, not to pull them out of any deficit, or any other serious problem. In any event, as listed companies, they can always go back to the equity or loan market to raise funds that they may need, instead of relying on fare increases as the sole source of raising money for their business. Let us not reward them for their lack of financial creativity. Misunderstanding No. 3. It was stated that bus companies have huge losses in other business, and they have attempted to cover it by fare increases. He has explained this misunderstanding. I spoke to many people and they are clear in their mind that there is no such misunderstanding, and that this was never an issue in the debate that has taken place over the last few days. Misunderstanding No. 4. He raised the issue whether PTC was uncaring. He said that PTC indeed was caring, and he highlighted some figures. He mentioned that the average wage has gone up by 136% over 15 years. CPI has gone up by 29%, but the transport fares have lagged behind. Unfortunately, no data was provided by how much it has fallen behind the wage group. A better comparison would be to see how much is transport expenditure in relation to a Singaporean's wage now, as compared to 15 years ago. I do not think there would have been a drop.”
“I would urge the Minister to consider such an approach as a way to control costs and introduce competition to the public transport sector. Let me highlight one more sector to show how competition in the public sector helps control fare increases. Sir, when taxi fares were liberalised, the taxi companies did not increase their fares because they knew that demand was not inelastic. They know that customers have other choices, like bus, MRT, and other taxi companies, to reach their destination. In the case of public transport operators, like bus and MRT, the public has no choice. They are fixed by the present operators - use them or be doomed. In the long run, I do not think that this is the model that we want to have in Singapore. Sir, as I was listening to the debate yesterday, I was impressed by the arguments of the Senior Minister of State for Transport, Mr Khaw Boon Wan. He highlighted there are many misunderstandings among the public. However, I felt that there are still a lot of misunderstandings remaining, despite his brave attempt to clear the misunderstandings. Misunderstanding No. 1, which he highlighted, is that fare increases are not due to frills, and that these are paid for by the Government. But what he fails to state is that the operators have to maintain it. As my colleague earlier highlighted, more airconditioned bus terminals are going to come. A PUB officer advises any consumer who goes there and complains about high PUB bills that airconditioning is the biggest culprit. Here, again, we have to ask ourselves whether the operators are going to bear the cost of these new frills. In his speech yesterday, he did not cover this aspect. The misunderstanding continues. This misunderstanding is legitimate.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether the present policy for allowing route and transport monopoly is the best model to achieve a good, efficient and reasonably priced public transport system. I am sure the Minister will agree that the public policy favours competition over monopoly. In many countries, public policy relies on the competitive market to establish the price and quality of goods and services. Yet, in Singapore, in the public transport domain, we have monopolies. I would urge the Government to seriously consider calling for public tenders to run certain transport routes, which was mentioned earlier by my colleague, Ms Irene Ng. This would certainly not unsettle the present operators, as many of the infrastructure and mass public facilities, like MRT stations, bus stations, and depots, are built by the Government with taxpayers' money. By calling for tender, say, once in five years, I think it will allow these public transport operators to be benchmarked against the market mechanism, and to see whether true efficiency can be delivered by the market. In the present set-up, the only available models to compare cost efficiency are the present two operators and the two MRT operators. They enjoy a monopoly in perpetuity. Opening up the market and testing the existing operators against other potential competitors, I am certain the public would benefit. A good example is the case of the garbage collection companies. I understand that the Ministry of the Environment divided Singapore into eight sectors and called for tenders for each of these sectors. The cheapest was selected by competitive tendering and their contract period is limited to five years, after which a fresh tender will be called.”
“Many have not had pay increases for the last few years. Some have their pay reduced, some have just been re-employed, and some are still unemployed. The impact of the public transport fare increases on this group of Singaporeans is tremendous. They are angry but, at the same time, they are helpless. I join in the call of the people to demand an explanation as to why public transport fare increase was allowed in these difficult times. Last year, the Public Transport Council took into account the prevailing economic situation and only allowed the alignment of adult feeder fares with the minimum trunk fares. Even then a 10-cent increase, from 50 cents to 60 cents, came up to about 20% increase in the feeder fare increase. I thought it was a substantial amount because many Singaporeans use feeder services in the public housing estates. It was a substantial jump for many Singaporeans because they use these feeder services. For this year, despite no substantial improvement in the economic environment, the PTC has approved an across-the-board increase. I would like to ask the Minister why an increase was allowed when the economy is still in the recovery phase. I am equally puzzled as to how the wage bill for the public transport operators can be increasing, the CPF cut is still in place and wage increases are minimal. When some companies are in the red and many more are without a steady business, was there a real need to pamper our bus companies with a fare increase? For a monopoly who enjoys a steady profit, even in bad economic times, could they have sacrificed more and alleviate the financial burden of the public?”
“Sir, the motion being moved in this House is a significant one. It is both timely and bold in its call. It was unfortunate that a slew of public service charges have increased over the last few months. It could be that some have decided that it is a politically safe time to raise charges without incurring the public ire. Sir, the public has spoken. Looking at the quality and the tone of the letters, comments and feedback, both in the public and private domains, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed a sense of frustration and despair among many Singaporeans. The increase in the garbage collection charges was the first whip the public tolerated. Then came the carpark fee charges and the public transport fare increases. Collectively, they will make a financial dent in the lives of Singaporeans. Many people are worried how do they cope with these increases when their salaries are frozen and, in some cases, cut. Many Singaporeans' feedback was rebutted with the usual statistical and textbook answers. The increase was a small percentage in relation to the overall fare per trip, that is what some said. What it fails to highlight is the percentage increase, and the fact that many Singaporeans take public transport many times a day, and not once or twice, as some people have highlighted. I recall that, during the last four years, some Singaporeans had seen many MPs, in the course of their meet-the-people sessions, with sad stories that they could not afford to go for job interviews, because they did not even have money to pay for their fares. Sir, I sympathise with many Singaporeans, particularly our low-wage earners, for whom public transport can come up to 10% of their monthly expenditure if one includes the total income they spend on public transport.”
“Sir, I asked the question on decoupling the suspension and the driving test, and I did not get an answer. Perhaps the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could respond.”
“So I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider whether there is really a need for those who have been suspended for a year to go for driving test again, and whether we can decouple this exercise so that we reduce demand on our driving test centres.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could review why there is a delay in allowing people to take driving tests in Singapore. Here, particularly, I would like to ask whether he can look at the supply and demand side. On the supply side, whether we can explore the possibility of having more driving centres or, alternatively, whether we can recognise driving test results issued by overseas driving test centres which are properly accredited and which conduct their tests according to international standards. And, thirdly, whether we can also consider if somebody wants to set up a proper driving centre in a neighbouring country, say, in one of the islands and have it properly accredited, and have international standards of testing, we can recognise such driving test results. On the demand side, one of the groups of people who regularly go for driving tests in Singapore, and adding on to the queue, are those who get 24 demerit points, or whose licences are suspended by the court. At the moment, there is a double whammy. Sir, if you commit an offence, you get a fine and you get 24 points, your licence is suspended. Then if your licence is suspended for a year, you get a triple whammy. You are required to go for a driving test all over again. My question is whether we can decouple the third whammy, which is the requirement to go for a driving test one more time. Because there are certain offences, for example, driving in a bus lane, which carries three demerit points, not wearing a seat belt, carries three demerit points - all these things do not really relate to driving skills. They are more mistakes and simple offences which do not impact on the driving ability or pose any serious danger to other drivers on the road.”
“I feel that such a state of affairs is neither in the interest of justice nor sound financial management. I am of the opinion that there is a pressing need to introduce reform in relation to the system of fines, both in the interest of justice and with a view to relieving pressure on prison accommodation generated by the current system. In the same review, I would also urge the Minister to consider alternative means to release alleged offenders, pending trial, other than by using the bail mechanism. Presently, when an alleged offender is unable to furnish bail, before he is charged and before the actual trial date, he is remanded at Queenstown Remand Prison. At times, the bail amount may be small but, as the alleged offender is poor, he is unable to furnish bail. According to statistics provided by the Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators, as of mid-2000, there were 2,311 such unconvicted remandees, or 16.8% of prison population in Singapore came under this category. It really hurts me to hear of cases where such individuals are subsequently acquitted and their detention all along was an injustice. Perhaps we can consider a home detention system, or allow a bail bond insurance system that is being practised in the US.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether a review could be undertaken on the number of offenders who have been sent to prison arising from offences which do not carry custodial sentences, particularly, fine defaulters, ie, a person who is unable to pay, eg, car park summonses, or a person who is unable to pay a small fine for a simple driving offence. I am asking the Minister to do a review to find out whether we are sending people unnecessarily to prison. These offences are usually not serious enough to merit custody. They go to prison anyway, due to their inability or unwillingness to pay. Such a sanction impacts most severely on those without means, giving the impression that justice discriminates against the poor. By sending such people to prison, we can cause severe hardship to them. They lose their jobs, the family is in distress, they earn the ill repute of having gone to prison and, most damaging of all, they are demoralised. In many cases, the individuals who end up in prison are those who have low incomes. Of course, it would lead to another debate, whether the punishment should fit the crime or the offender. I am asking the Minister whether he could undertake a review of the number of prisoners who have ended up in prison, and see whether alternative methods of punishment can be considered for them. For example, they can be required to do community service. Alternatively, the courts can be asked to allow these individuals a longer period of instalment to pay up their fines. I am quite sure that my proposed approach is a better approach. Imposition of a prison term means that the fine goes uncollected. In addition, there are significant costs associated with incarceration.”
“Madam, this year, the defence budget is, once again, way below the cap set at 6% of the GDP. The actual amount is $7.69 billion. In 2001, the actual defence expenditure was $7.09 billion and, in 2000, it was $6.56 billion. While some may comment that we are overspending on defence and see there is money spent without hard tangible benefits, I beg to disagree with them. Defence expenditures play a key role in having a Keynesian multiplier effect. There are also externalities experience from the state-of-art technologies developed and adopted in the defence sector by organisations like the Defence Science and Technology Agency. These can have civilian applications and they can help boost growth. In addition, the expenditure also creates and provides jobs, training and education to a large pool of people. It creates jobs in the marine, aerospace and engineering industries. Finally and, most importantly, it indirectly supports the growth of the economy by creating a secure environment for trade and investment. Madam, we are situated in a unique geopolitical situation. The strategic and political environment can change rapidly and catch everyone off guard. In addition, the challenge of international and domestic terrorism has brought a new sense of realism that a threat can come from both within and outside. In the light of these developments and the recent resumption of arms acquisition by our neighbours, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether we are spending adequately on defence. I would also like to ask him whether, at these levels of expenditure, we are able to maintain our qualitative and quantitative advantage against our potential aggressors.”
“Sir, I join my GPC colleagues in asking the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in sharing with us what are the changing security and strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific, in particular, the state of the tripolar relationship between China, Japan and the US. What are the existing relationship between Taiwan and China, especially in regard to the Straits of China? Also, what has the September 11 incident given rise to in the Asia-Pacific, particularly given the increasing engagement of the Americans in many of the Southeast Asian countries to counter terrorism? More importantly, what are the external and internal challenges facing many of the Southeast Asian countries, and how Singapore can respond to this external environment, particularly the security and military environment that is fast changing in Southeast Asia? 5.15 pm”
“Sir, Indonesia has been an anchor partner of ASEAN and a key trading partner of Singapore. It is undergoing tremendous political, economic and social change since 1998. Its economy is in the path of recovery and there is greater optimism of its economic prospect this year. Our relations with Indonesia are excellent, and we must continue to build on the good work done by our political leaders, bureaucrats, the SAF and businessmen. We have extended many forms of support and assistance to the Indonesian government and other NGOs. These efforts are well appreciated both in Jakarta and at the provincial levels. Our recent suggestion to provide an export corridor for exports from Batam and Bintan to the US, under the proposed FTA, is an excellent effort to help Indonesia increase its economic growth and create more employment for Indonesians. I would like to ask the Minister as to what are his Ministry's plans to further promote this excellent relationship between the two countries, particularly in three areas: (i) in promoting greater trade and investment between the two countries; (ii) whether we can see greater cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism; and (iii) what measures can be put in place to increase contacts between Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, businessmen and people.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, the point I want to say is that we want to have good relationships with the Malaysians and we want to be friendly with them but, yet, we must be firm and tell them that, please deal with us as a sovereign nation and as a good friend, and do not treat us, as my colleague said, as in an "abang-adek" relationship. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are the other steps that perhaps the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister in particular, can suggest to see how we can move our relationship forward and to have a better relationship, both between the leaders and the people in the two countries. 4.15 pm”
“I sincerely hope that our High Commission in Malaysia can put all these bilateral issues on its website with detailed answers, so that whenever these issues are raised by the Malaysian media, Malaysian leaders or even ordinary Malaysians, our High Commission can just send them a simple note telling them, "Please refer to this particular page on our website on this issue which has been raised many times in the past." And, I think, by reminding them and telling them to keep on going to the website with those particular pages, we show them that they are, basically, playing the same old broken gramophone record. Sir, what really perturbed me was the recent comment by the Malaysian Prime Minister where he stated that just like there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many ways to skin Singapore. That it was not a Freudian slip, but a careful statement, bothers me a lot and many other Singaporeans, some of whom wrote to the press about it. Sir, I am heartened to see that there are many lions in this House, just like there are many other lions out there who will stand and show that there are many varieties of cats. Do not always think that this is a kucing kurap. This is Singapura and, if you try to skin the wrong cat, you may end up getting into a lot of trouble. So, while it is directed to the domestic audience, the implications of the statement are very grave. Do the Malaysians have a grand plan to fix Singapore, which directly fixes every Singaporean? Is the grand plan to fix Singapore supported by all Malaysians? If so, in what ways are they planning to fix us? I am sure that if a Singapore leader had made a similar statement about Malaysia, they would have made a ruckus about the statement and even gone to protest before our High Commission.”
“Sir, my parliamentary colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, is a very nice man, and he means very nice things for everybody. Sir, I, like him, was very optimistic, being a young generation of Singaporeans, that with a new generation on both sides of the Causeway, we will have a good relationship in the long run. But, unfortunately, as a person who visits Malaysia regularly, the contrary is happening in Malaysia. I remember Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew made a call a few years ago that we do not pass this historical baggage to the next generation. But, if one goes and talks to the younger generation in Malaysia, on the contrary, the Malaysian leaders keep on passing historical baggage and keep on raising issues which predate historical matters. I wonder whether they sincerely want the new generation to start their relationship on a new basis or do they want all this historical baggage to be at the back of their mind when they deal with Singapore. Sir, I would add that let us be cautious but, at the same time, try to keep an even keel with our Malaysian friends. The cat was let out of the bag recently when the Malaysian Prime Minister told UMNO to get ready for early elections next year. It explains the issues that were raised by the Malaysians in the last few months. I think the standard operating procedure for the next few months will see the usual barrage of issues across the Causeway, from Pulau Pisang to reclamation, to water, so much so that somebody even remarked that they may raise goreng pisang also. Sir, the latest salvo, which was fired just last week, was that our Malay brothers are being left behind in Singapore, as compared to those up north.”
“I think the previous speaker stated that I have made a mistake by saying that the Free Trade Agreement is only due in 10 years. I want to clarify that the Free Trade Agreement will be signed by the end of this year and the hope is that a Free Trade Area will be created in 10 years' time. That was the statement in the press.”
“Could I just provide a quick clarification, Sir?”
“Sir, the GPC Chairman and Members have drawn a very good picture of ASEAN and I would not like to go through the details of the state of ASEAN except to ask the Minister to address three issues. One, what are the initiatives that ASEAN and Singapore in particular have taken to strengthen ASEAN as a strong and vibrant regional organisation, especially in the aftermath of the 1997 crisis and the September 11 incident? Two, what are the new initiatives ASEAN has taken to further engage the super powers and the regional powers in dialogue and confidence-building through the ASEAN Regional Forum? And three, whether ASEAN is exploring other Free Trade Agreements similar to the one being negotiated between ASEAN and China.”
“Sir, the Singapore Land Authority is the biggest owner of land in Singapore. Two years ago, I made a call in this House for the then Land Office to be pro-active in putting up land for public use. Sir, I believe that Singapore Land Authority can be more pro-active in putting up vacant land for public use. Recently, in a dialogue session with my grassroots leaders, it came across very clearly that whenever grassroots organisations want to make use of State land, the Singapore Land Authority usually requests a high rental or they claim that land is needed for other purposes. Sir, I would like the Singapore Land Authority to seriously consider how they can open up State land for public use, particularly in the area of sports and recreation. I understand that pressure comes from the Auditor-General's Office, which demands that State land be rented out at market prices wherever possible. But my call is that we should release such State land, particularly those which are not required immediately within the next three years, to be let out for public use so that we can encourage greater use for sports and recreation. Sir, my second point relates to zoning in Singapore. Many of the State land are usually either zoned as commercial or residential usage. I would like to make a call whether it is possible to create some new category called critical and essential services such as sports and electricity plants where we do not charge the full market value so that many of our leading corporations, eg, PSA and Changi Airport, can compete with other big players in the world which enjoy cheap land and other special grants from their respective governments. I would like the Singapore Land Authority to consider this request seriously.”
“We should leapfrog and establish our economic and political links everywhere. But we must remind ourselves that our home base is here and we learn to live in this tough neighbourhood. We have done so as a nation for the past 37 years. I am confident that with a sound Government, united people and a strong SAF, we can meet these challenges. I support again the Motion.”
“When I first read the article, I thought, "What a brilliant planner we had in the SAF who was able to think decades ahead" because they alleged that in a few decades we will be able to cross the straits through this process of sedimentation. Then, I reflected, "But are they not making it easier for Malaysian amphibious vehicles to come to Singapore with ease?", in which case, our reclamation will end up helping the Malaysian Armed Forces to fix Singapore. Maybe this is a game of reverse psychology or even a case of poor logic or poor argument. I do not know. But what one can think for sure is that this "tak ada logic" barrage from across the Causeway will continue. What is clear is that there are many voices emanating from across the Causeway. By the time it reaches us, it becomes noise, a noise we have gotten used to just like aircraft noise generated from time to time over Singapore. They are a pain, but we have got used to it. Our destiny is here and we have to do business here. Let us continue to be friendly but firm, respect each other and not denigrate each other, let us discuss but not be talked to or talked down. Let us work for our mutual benefit and not for our mutual detriment. Sir, our Government has been doing right in treating our Malaysian neighbour fairly but firmly. We demand respect as a sovereign nation and we give them respect as a sovereign nation. We encourage investments and tourism in Malaysia. We have many relatives and friends on both sides of the border. We wish them well, for their prosperity augurs well for regional prosperity, as does ours for them. Sir, Singapore is a small nation. We have been successful in finding a place under the sun for our people. We must work as a team and look beyond these problems.”
“There are proper and a range of diplomatic tools to raise matters of concern between nations. While one can forgive small time politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and businessmen for not understanding the art and use of diplomacy, it puzzles me that the lack of understanding reaches the upper echelon of the Malaysian leadership. Perhaps, we can offer them some scholarships to undertake academic programmes in diplomacy and international law at some renowned universities. To compound the matter, the Malaysian press has been unhelpful in publishing the truth when explanations are given on why the reclamation will not impact or affect Malaysia. In fact, it gets no coverage at all. I recall the article put out by the Straits Times on 30th March which reads "Reclamation will not hit shipping lanes". It has yet to be reprinted or published in Malaysia. In fact, to show the attitude of the Malaysian press, let me just highlight one case. The New Straits Times just last week deliberately omitted a crucial paragraph that refuted the "underclass" claim in an article about Malays in Singapore. Well, that certainly helps us to know where the Malaysian media stands on matters concerning Singapore. Sir, in fact, if you want a joke, I picked up one last week. Malaysia's Berita Harian ran a comment by an unnamed retired navy rear admiral that our reclamation had paralysed a Malaysian navy centre in the Johor Straits. The article stated that the narrow gap between the two countries would cause sedimentation over the next few decades. This would allow Singapore's amphibious military vehicles to cross into Malaysia with ease.”
“What is clear from the press reports is that there is as yet no comprehensive report on the matter. The various reports are still being waited by the central government. Sir, their own government has stated that they are waiting for the reports to come from the various authorities. It may become embarrassing if later it transpires that (a) the reclamation does not infringe Malaysian territory (which we already know) and (b) that there is no substantial damage to Malaysia in any way. Having taken a stance that the reclamation is damaging even before the official reports have come in, clearly shows the mentality of our Malaysian neighbours - "Shoot first - we will find a reason later". Fortunately, neither our Government nor Singaporeans are rattled by this present rhetoric or past rhetoric. What is puzzling to me is what are the intellects in Malaysia thinking? Are they wondering why the Malaysian government has not done a proper study on the matter earlier? Were their government leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats so inept and inefficient that they were unaware of these reclamation works? Mind you, these reclamation works are well publicised in advance. In some cases, the reclamation project has been completed some years ago, eg, at Tuas. What then is the latest agenda of the Malaysians? To tell us what we should do and not do within our territory? To rally their ground for their domestic politics? I really do not know and it may not be worth our time pondering over it. What is more puzzling is the new style of diplomacy that is emerging in Malaysia. Whenever there is a bilateral issue, the position there is to use the media. It is elementary diplomatic convention that relations between states are conducted through diplomatic channels.”
“I have spoken to many Indonesians and many have highlighted of new investments from Europe, Japan and China into the provinces. I am not hearing much of substantial private Singapore investments in the provinces. I do hope that the Ministry of Trade and Industry will study ways to help Singapore businessmen explore and invest in Indonesia. My fear is that when real economic recovery returns to Indonesia, Singaporeans may be too late to join the bandwagon. Let us not ignore our own backyard where we have a distinct advantage and concentrate on faraway markets where the competition may be greater. In the case of Malaysia, it is the same old story. The season for Singapore bashing used to be spread out over a longer period of time. Recently, the time gap appears to be narrowing. The several by-elections there could be a factor. Well, the bad news is that analysts are predicting an early general election next year. The media in Malaysia has dutifully done its part in portraying Singapore as the bad boy down south. Much as we ignore the Malaysian media, we must also understand that there is a whole new generation of Malaysians who get a regular dosage of anti-Singapore articles and news reports. Many have come to believe that many of these articles and reports are true. Sir, the latest issue on the land reclamation is a case in point. What started out as a comment by someone has now snowballed as a serious issue for them. Interestingly, no report has been disclosed by the state of Johor or the Federal government on what exactly is the damage done. The newspaper reports faithfully the comments by politicians, businessmen, academics, bureaucrats and even fishermen on the effects of reclamation in Singapore.”
“This will certainly go a long way in helping ordinary Singaporeans. Let me now move on to my second topic on relations with our neighbours. Sir, the President has spoken succinctly when he stated that our own region has fundamentally altered. Our two immediate neighbours are facing different challenges. Indonesia is still on the course of finding stability in many areas. We have seen the change of three Presidents in three years and the emergence of hitherto hidden but powerful forces. Their foreign and economic policies will be strongly dictated by a myriad of political parties and leaders and the need to soothe an increasingly stronger Muslim electorate. Compounding the problem is the emergence of the media as a new power in Indonesia. The media is still groping on the markers between absolute free speech and responsible journalism. Important issues are commented and debated according to the political flavour of the day and the political affiliations of the media. Fortunately, our ties are deep and our friendship network is extensive. Sir, I am happy that we have helped and continue to help Indonesia recover economically. The participation of GIC in the purchase of assets by IBRA, the government-to-government loan assistance package, and recently the idea of including Bintan as an export corridor to the USA under the proposed US-Singapore FTA are laudable. The actions will help show that Singapore is indeed a friend in need. Sir, we must continue to remain engaged in a big way in Indonesia. It is a big and very large neighbour. Although some Singaporeans have turned negative about investing in Indonesia, we must never take our sights from Indonesia. Sir, regional autonomy offers tremendous business and other opportunities to Singapore businessmen.”
“If we can start setting benchmarks on how public donations are being used, I am sure that the Government can set even higher standards on the cost and revenue for each service and goods it provides to the public. Sir, there are many who are keen to know how much does Traffic Police charge for a police report as against the true cost of providing such a service. Some want to know how much is the cost of medicine to our hospitals as against what the particular hospital charges the public. I am confident that such public scrutiny about our Government and quasi-Government bodies' income and expenditure will encourage them to be sensitive as to how they can charge the public. I am concerned as I am convinced that there are several Government departments that may be profiteering in the provision of some public services as against working on a cost recovery basis. I would similarly like to urge the NTUC, as the key provider of many services to the public, to similarly disclose to the public where it is possible on what is the cost of their services and goods they provide to the public and their union members. NTUC FairPrice, for example, can disclose to the public on how much they subsidise the public by disclosing the purchasing and operating costs and the selling price. Perhaps, such public disclosure would allow the public to better appreciate the subsidy or profit being made by our Government department or NTUC in the provision of goods and services. I am confident that this is also an area where CASE can play a useful role in looking into the areas highlighted and work towards reducing the prices of these goods and services. Sir, my hope is that the Government will not only lower costs for businesses but also for all Singaporeans.”
“I am sure there are many other Government departments where there can be greater transparency on what is the real cost and what is being charged. Similarly, many statutory bodies must become more transparent on what they charge and what is their true cost. Can some of the key goods and service providers, like the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Trade and Industry, including the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, become more transparent on their costs and charges so that we can better understand whether the Government departments are recovering cost or whether they are profiteering marginally or grossly? This becomes even more necessary when the goods or services are provided by a monopoly. In fact, Sir, I take on and support the call by the Minister of State who spoke earlier that the Government must provide services and goods for maximum benefit at minimum cost. But somehow that is not the impression among many members of the public. I do hope that many statutory boards and Government autonomous bodies can adopt such accounting disclosures so that the true cost and revenue picture is well understood by the public. It will certainly help to restrain some of these organisations and moderate what they charge the public. I am convinced that some departments charge what the public can pay rather than what is cost recovery or even a reasonable return. Sir, recently, IRAS sounded out getting charitable organisations to disclose their income and expenditure statement of charitable organisations. It will also require disclosure about the top three salaries of their employees. I am very sure that it is a positive move as many donors would like to know how their donations are being used.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The President in his Address highlighted that as we upgrade the economy we must maintain and strengthen our social cohesion. Our income distribution is already stretched out. At the lower end of our society, those without skills have difficulty raising their incomes or even finding jobs. One of the tasks of the Economic Review Committee is to look at how to lower business costs. I think we pay greater attention to business costs because businessmen are a powerful group and they power the economy. I would urge the Government to go further and see whether the overall costs of goods and services can be relooked in Singapore. I would like to urge the Government to set up a committee to see how cost of living in Singapore can be reduced further. Sir, I meet and interact with many residents in Singapore. In my meetings with my constituents, it is clear that they are concerned with managing their lives on a day-to-day basis. For many low income families, the daily challenge is not only about the cost of living, but actually the cost of survival in Singapore. Many are struggling to upkeep themselves and their families. I am confident that there are many areas in the provision of Government goods and services where we can further lower our charges. Sir, there are many areas of expenditure where we can undertake a detailed audit of what is the real cost and what is being charged by the various Government departments. For example, I was pleasantly surprised when the Registry of Companies launched a new fees structure for registration of new companies from a minimum of $1,200 to $300 recently. Similarly, for a business registration, it has come down from $55 per year to $105 for three years.”
“It gives the right dosage of help to Singaporeans. I think it is a very good package. On that note, Sir, I once again welcome the package.”
“Sir, this package, combined with various other assistance schemes made available to our people, will go a long way to show that the Government and the community care for the downtrodden. I am happy that the Government has initiated a novel scheme to grant all Singaporeans a share in our future growth and prosperity, ie, the New Singapore Shares. It is simply a money-in-the-bag scheme designed to ensure that Singaporeans receive the fixed money value and dividend for the shares. This is a welcome scheme as it avoids the pitfall of granting Singaporeans listed-company shares whose prices are volatile in a free market. It also avoids a situation where the Government is blamed for share price downturns. Sir, in short, this scheme is beneficial to everyone who will receive these shares. The additional measures designed to pump-prime the economy, eg, increased infrastructure spending, will certainly create both new business and new jobs. Sir, I am equally happy that the Government will look at the quality of Employment Pass applicants and adjust the minimum wage for Employment Pass holders to $2,500. This will go some way in preventing companies from employing foreigners because they are cheaper than their local employees. This has been a particular ground of complaint from many Singaporean executives who have been retrenched. I hope that this small move will tilt the balance in favour of Singapore executives who have been at times unfairly displaced by foreign Employment Pass holders. Sir, as I listened to the package being unveiled earlier, I was reassured that the Government did not go to the other extreme of putting forward a very lavish package which will give Singaporeans a sense of total reliance on the Government. I think the package is well-balanced.”
“The extension of the utilities rebates, reduction of electricity tariffs and extension of the HDB rental assistance scheme will certainly be much appreciated by this group of Singaporeans who need Government's help most. At a time when people are worried about jobs and retrenchment, the Government's decision to give a 10% rebate for C and B2 hospital charges for all citizens is timely. The added 40% assistance on hospital charges will certainly be a big help for families of citizens who have been retrenched. Sir, the setting up of the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme for Singaporeans is certainly a very welcomed effort. The provision of $200 per month for three months is very helpful for families where the breadwinner has been retrenched or cannot find employment. Sir, the Member for Hougang said that $200 does not go any way in helping families because the amount is too small. What he fails to understand is that this is one of the many programmes that are made available to Singaporeans who are in difficulties. He himself highlighted that in his constituency there are schemes also. For example, in Jurong constituency, we have a CCC fund, a Jurong Needy Residents' Fund and, on top of that, we have various other schemes under our CDC. So it is not a case of the $200 being an isolated assistance package for residents. There are various other programmes and various other NGOs out there which are all coming together to offer assistance to Singaporeans. This is a formula which has worked in Singapore, and we should stick to this successful formula because we want to encourage this spirit where every Singaporean feels that he has a part to help each other in overcoming any crisis.”
“The present economic crisis has a different impact on different sectors of society. The measures have been expected for some time and I am glad that the Government has chosen to introduce these measures immediately. I am happy that the measures that have been announced today have something for everybody. It is both substantial and far reaching. Sir, businessmen I have met have clamoured for tax rebates, lower property taxes and increased access for Government funds, bank loans and other assistance. Sir, I am indeed glad that the Government has chosen to give help to businesses in the various areas. This will certainly help companies to retain or raise new working capital. There was some good news for the property sector, like the suspension of the land sales programme, deferment of sale of industrial land, the removal of capital gains tax for properties which have been held for three years, or less, and the lifting of the restriction of Singapore dollar loans to foreigners for property purchases. Sir, I am equally pleased that the Government has acted prudently in not removing the 80% cap on housing loans. There is a sizeable number of Singaporeans who feel that property prices still remain high and the removal of this 80% cap will lead to another speculative property boom cycle. Sir, I am very happy that the Government has decided to retain this 80% cap on housing loans. Sir, let me now move on to the programmes offered for the lower income and the unemployed. Sir, I am thankful that the Government has shown its usual concern for the lower income and the unemployed.”
“But we must be very careful and always have the long picture or the long path ahead of us in mind whenever we consider measures. It reminds me of a classic case which is highlighted in many management studies where a person is flying on a plane across a desert, the plane crashes and the person survives with a bottle of water. The choice that he has is that when he is thirsty, he can take several gulps and continue the uncertain journey without any water in the bottle, or he can take sips along the way, or even forgo the water for the time being and hope that he will reach an oasis, or a town, or some other resourceful place, very soon. If everybody were to take the choice that has been offered by the hon. Member for Hougang, whereby everybody takes the immediate gulp and finishes the water immediately, then I think what we will have is a lot of dead Singaporeans in a very short period of time. Singaporeans are very thoughtful. They are aware that this Government cares for them, but it cares with great prudence that we have to conserve our resources for the long run because the path ahead is uncertain. Everybody thought that the 1997 crisis was the last crisis. But, here, we have another crisis. In the last four days, some people have become optimistic and they said that things have turned around. But the FBI has just issued another warning that terrorist attacks can be expected and we may have a further economic crisis. So we need all these resources and we must dispense them prudently and judiciously. While the call of the hon. Member for Hougang looks very attractive and very easy, I think that is not the slippery path that we, as a country, should take. Sir, let me move on to the package.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Government's announcement of this package. It costs $11.3 billion, and it is a lot of money. In fact, I was very happy at the size of the package that was announced. And I was even happier that I am going to explain to my constituents how helpful the Government was until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Hougang. His basic point was that the Government was not doing enough. He highlighted the instance of the $200 financial assistance package and that the Government could do more. What I wanted to hear from him, perhaps later on, is whether he will clarify how much the Government should help each individual Singaporean. Perhaps, he has the figure in mind. Similarly, the hon. Member for Potong Pasir said that the utility charges should be as cheap as possible. Perhaps, he could tell us how cheap should the utility charges be. If it is a possibility, then he should go on and set up a utilities company and offer these cheap services. I am quite sure the relevant Minister can consider the cheapest utilities service for all Singaporeans. But, Sir, what is frightening is this tendency to highlight that we must try to give as much to Singaporeans as possible. Sir, my interaction with Singaporeans shows that Singaporeans are people with dignity. And at times, they feel very shy even to approach the relevant agencies for assistance. This sense of dignity is something important and it is something that the Government has worked very hard to ensure that everybody keeps it and every Singaporean walks with his shoulders raised. Sir, it is very easy to call upon the Government to spend the reserves because we have built up a sizeable reserve.”
“professional partnerships or sole proprietorships, eg, lawyers, accountants and doctors, can also become members of the SBF; and 3. SBF will allow for individual members, as some existing chambers allow for individual membership from certain categories, eg, lawyers, IT professionals, etc. Sir, these are my main concerns. Despite all these comments, I am confident that, with strong support from the business community and the broad spectrum of support from all larger companies, the SBF will grow to become a dynamic organisation. I am also confident, as the Minister highlighted, that the SBF will develop into a strong and united private-sector umbrella organisation. Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.”
“This is a model that the Minister could perhaps consider for the SBF. Otherwise, it will be seen by some members that the clause impinges on the right of choice of SBF members. Sir, let me now move on to the exemption powers of the Minister. Clause 5(2)(c) gives the Minister the power to exempt companies from becoming members of the SBF. I would like to ask the Minister for clarification on the type of companies which will be exempted from membership. A matter of concern among some companies relates to holding companies that have several single-purpose companies, eg, shipping companies and property companies. These are done primarily to protect the parent company and other sister companies in the group from legal liabilities. In the case of property companies, it is a requirement that a separate company be set up for each property development project. Will exemption be granted to such companies? Sir, let me now move on to subscription monies. Clause 12(3) caps the maximum amount of subscription fee at $1,500 per year. I would like to ask the Minister the exact subscription that will be collected from all companies which qualify to be members as of today. I think the figure the Minister highlighted is $6 million. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider a lower subscription amount as there are many companies which are going through a difficult phase now because of the economic climate. Sir, I now move on to the last topic. I am happy that companies with a lower paid-up capital can become members of SBF, as many may find a benefit in joining SBF because of the many activities and programmes that it may offer. But I would also like to ask the Minister whether: 1. partnerships and sole proprietorships can also become members of SBF, besides companies; 2.”
“I am puzzled as to why the Council is given the power when the qualifying criteria should be laid down in the Constitution of the SBF itself, together with other qualifying criteria, eg, the person should not be a bankrupt or have criminal records. In addition, it would be a better idea if the tests of fit and proper persons are clearly stated, ie, what are the criteria when we mean "a fit and proper person", so that everybody knows whether he falls within these criteria. If the individual is not a fit and proper person, then he should be disqualified from standing for the elections to the Council right at the beginning. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister why the Board of Trustees must approve the appointment of the members to the Council after they are properly elected by the members of the SBF in an election within the SBF. This unnecessarily curbs the freedom of the members of the SBF from electing members who they feel will represent their interests. The instances, of when the Board of Trustees should not approve these Council members who are duly elected, are also not spelt out clearly anywhere in the Bill, unless it is going to be provided for in the Constitution of the SBF. I would suggest that this clause be deleted as it curbs the right of the SBF members to decide who represents them. Perhaps the Minister can share with us the experiences of some of the countries where there are similar organisations on how elections of their council members are done. Sir, if the concern of the Government is that the Government view should be voiced in the Council, perhaps the model of the Law Society Council is one that could be considered. The Law Society has a Council where three Government appointees are appointed to represent certain viewpoints.”
“Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely as it will see the birth of a new and powerful organisation which can represent the interest of all businesses. It will also help look after the interest of the business community within Singapore and represent Singapore's business interest overseas. I am happy to note that the SBF will provide mandatory representation on its Council for the three ethnic chambers of commerce. This has been a matter of serious concern to the three chambers concerned. Sir, on this note, I would like to ask the Minister what is going to happen to the other two organisations, ie, the Singapore Confederation of Industries (SCI) and the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI). I would also like to ask whether there will be any mandatory provisions to provide for these organisations to be represented on the SBF Council or whether there will be special provisions made in the Constitution of the SBF to provide for the membership of these two organisations on the Council itself. Sir, it is also unclear as to what exactly is the full scope of activities of the SBF, as the Constitution of the SBF has not been disclosed to-date. Perhaps the Minister can highlight the principal areas SBF will be concerned with. This is a matter of significance as some of the existing chambers rely on certain activities like issuing certificates of origin and bar coding as a source of income, and any competition from SBF in these areas will affect the income of these chambers. Sir, let me move on to the appointment powers. Clause 6(1) of the Bill gives the Minister the power to appoint the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, in turn, is given the power to ensure that Council members are persons who are fit and proper to hold the position.”
“In supporting the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister for three clarifications in this area: Firstly, what is the position if an election survey is done and the results of the survey are put up on a website before the issue of the writ of elections? Is the person in charge of the website obliged to remove the details of the survey during the election period? Secondly, will political parties, candidates and the media be allowed to conduct opinion polls using their website during the election period which is not disseminated to the public, and whether, in the political list which is to be put up for political parties and candidates to observe, they will be allowed to conduct opinion polls for their own use or which they may want to use after the election is over, and this includes the media? Thirdly, Sir, what action will be taken against foreign parties who conduct opinion polls and publish the same overseas during an election period, as criminal laws are territorial in nature, and whether this law has any extraterritorial implications? Perhaps the Minister can comment.”
“Sir, the existing law is a clear manifestation of recognition of ground reality by Parliament in its collective wisdom that the voter needs a period before the completion of the poll, during which he should not be disturbed in the process of weighing the merits and demerits of political parties and contesting candidates in the electoral fray, so that he can absorb what he has heard or witnessed during the election period in a tranquil and balanced frame of mind. Sir, viewed in the light of the above statutory restrictions, allowing results of opinion polls and exit polls to be published on the eve of polls or during the polling process would be a deleterious intrusion into the mind of the voter, which is already prohibited by law during the aforesaid period of 24 hours. Sir, in a worldwide study by Nils Rohme on the Freedom To Publish Opinion Polls in 1997, which was highlighted in the Minister's speech, it was reported that 30 of the 78 countries covered in the survey applied legal restrictions on the publication of public opinion surveys, mostly comprising an embargo prior to general elections. It extends anywhere from one day in some and up to six weeks in the case of South Africa. It is also clear from the survey that many countries in the world were not covered in the survey because they do not have regulations governing opinion polls because opinion polls do not exist or are very new in these countries. Sir, I am comforted by the fact that in introducing this piece of legislation we are in the company of many progressive countries in the western world who have recognised the weaknesses and abuse of opinion polls in the democratic process and have placed controls on them.”
“It is common fact that many of the polls are motivated and are not impartial, because of the known leanings or prejudices of some of the organisations conducting such polls, towards or against certain political parties and/or their leaders. Sir, I have carefully looked into the existing legislation covering the subject in many countries. I observe that in many states, eg, Canada, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, etc, restrictions in one way or another are placed on the conduct of opinion polls and exit polls. For example, the Canadian Elections Act peremptorily prohibits the publication of any results of any opinion poll two days before the voting begins. Similarly, the Italian Decree Law of 18th November 1995, entitled "Urgent Provisions for Equal Access to the Media during Electoral and Referendum Period" provides that: "Starting from the 20th day before the elections till the closing date of voting, it is forbidden to publish or circulate the results of exit polls, even if such surveys were carried out before the above mentioned period." Sir, in this context, the provisions of our Parliamentary Elections Act, namely, sections 80 and 81, deserve to be specially noted. Section 80 prohibits canvassing in any manner on polling day. Section 81 prohibits anyone from dissuading any person from voting at an election from the day of nomination and polling day.”
“Can the monitoring be done without intruding into the privacy of individuals? Fifthly, Sir, are bulletin boards, chat rooms and other websites that discuss political matters permissible during the election period? Let me now move on to the topic of election polls and exit polls. Sir, it is common in many countries, prior to the closing of voting, for opinion polls to be conducted by different organisations. The results of such opinion polls are published in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, and sometimes telecast or broadcast on the electronic media. The dissemination of such results of opinion polls receives wide publicity and coverage in the print and electronic media, and such dissemination, particularly on the eve of polls, has the potential to influence the electors when they are in the process of making up their minds to vote or not to vote for a certain political party or candidate. Sir, the methodology followed by different organisations conducting such opinion polls varies from organisation to organisation or the agencies conducting such polls. Similarly, the sample size of the electorate covered by such polls and geographic spread of the survey also differs substantially in each case. Sir, apart from opinion polls, exit polls are also conducted by some organisations on the days of polls. Many would agree that opinion polls, the way the same are conducted, are not scientific. There is considerable bias, in the size and nature of the sample drawn, to make such an opinion poll and they tend to influence the voters in an unbecoming manner.”
“This raises the interesting question how overseas websites which engage in local political activity during election periods will be monitored and censured. Sir, if I recall, very recently, when an election took place in a neighbouring country, a lot of foreign websites were sited overseas and a lot of political discussions involving this particular country's politics were all discussed in these overseas websites. So this certainly poses a challenge to the proposed amendments, and I wonder how the Minister would tackle this issue. Sir, I appreciate that not doing anything is also something no responsible government can afford to do. I would like to ask the Minister for some clarification on the use of the Internet by political parties, candidates and agents during the election period. Firstly, Sir, would the positive list allow mass emails by these political parties' candidates or agents to those who have registered themselves with these political parties and are willing to receive them, ie, those who are willingly submitting their emails to these political parties and candidates and are willing to receive these emails? Will they be subject to these regulations? Secondly, can these individuals send these emails containing political information or advertisements to friends, and will they end up in breach of these regulations? Thirdly, the proposed section 78B seems only to allow the sending of email by individuals to other individuals of his own political views. If one endorses the written viewpoint of candidates or a political party and states that it is also his viewpoint, will it also be in breach of the proposed regulations? Fourthly, Sir, how are individual emails going to be monitored if there are thousands, if not millions, of emails being sent around?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet, albeit with certain ground rules. This should certainly allay the fear of some that the Government would ban the use of Internet for political campaigns. Whilst we recognise the Internet as an easy medium to reach many people and for many people to access information easily, we must also concede that the Internet will be abused by some. Rumours, gossips and unsubstantiated stories can also be relayed instantaneously, which may cause irreparable damage. The proposed section 78A empowers the Minister to make regulations governing non-printed election advertising in an election period and election advertising on the Internet in an election period by political parties, candidates or persons. It states that the Minister would regulate the Internet advertising by prescribing the features that must or must not appear in any election advertising. Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister, in his speech, has chosen to use the "positive list" approach in making these regulations as it would provide clear guidelines to those involved on what is permissible for election political campaigning. It would also help set clear markers to other non-political web masters on what is legal and illegal under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Sir, at first glance, it appears to be a rational move in the light of the fact that the use of the Internet for political purpose is something new here and also in many other countries. Some skeptics, however, claim that it is an uphill battle to try to control the use of the Internet during election periods because of the sheer multitude of users and also by the cross-border nature of Internet traffic.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister of State, in the light of the fact that many of these fires and unsafe incidents happened at illegal workers' quarters, whether the Ministry could work with the Ministry of Manpower to get the addresses, especially where these workers are housed, and see whether they are housed in proper quarters and whether they are housed in vacant land, so that the Ministry will have an idea where these workers are actually staying, and it will enhance enforcement action?”
“Sir, could I ask the Minister of State to reveal the number of actions that has been taken against employers who have provided unsafe and unhygienic accommodation over the last one year?”
“Apparently, there are instances where some of these businessmen are selling directly to consumers. Perhaps the Ministry could step up supervision over these businessmen who are doing this business by selling directly to consumers and also see whether they are in this process evading some of the laws of Singapore.”