Raymond Lim Siang Keat
Singapore
“Mr Chairman, Sir, we launched a slew of measures over the past three years to effect a major transformation to our land transport system. These cover not just big projects like our $60 billion investment to double our rail network but also smaller and equally important things like bus route information at every bus stop and parking guidan…”
“I think the better approach to help Singaporeans cope with the cost-of-living pressures is that which has been outlined by the Finance Minister. That is, instead of trying to bring specific costs down, it is better to give help on the income front.”
“From the experiences of these ongoing public education initiatives, CFC is in the midst of developing a set of guidelines on proper cycling behaviour on dedicated cycling paths. Apart from these efforts, TP has been giving customised talks in schools and at community-level events to provide tips on safe cycling.”
“Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. I have four supplementary questions. Since the announcement of the NSE, I have been receiving overwhelming feedback from my residents from three condominium developments.”
“The Member's second question refers to the noise mitigation measures. LTA actually has considerable experience in doing these. This is not the first time that LTA, because of the compact nature of Singapore, has had to build a major road in close proximity to residential areas.”
“Yes, on a weekly basis. The second question is how much have been claimed to date. We started this on 18th December 2010. As at the end of last year 28th December, we have a total of about 169,000 transactions. We have refunded about $46,000. There was $300,000 overcharged and $46,000 refunded.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Raymond Lim Siang Keat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 15.
“Clause 6 amends section 28A(1) to increase the maximum sum which may be collected from a person for compounding an offence under the Act which is prescribed as a compoundable offence. The maximum sum is increased to take into account inflation as this amount has not been amended since its insertion into the Act in 1987. Hence, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 28A of the Act to increase the maximum sum from the existing $200 to $5,000, or half of the maximum prescribed for the offence, whichever is the lower. The latter formula is modelled after section 199A of the Criminal Procedure Code and will cater to less severe offences which do not warrant the maximum composition sum of $5,000. These amendments would enable the SPF to enhance compliance with the security directives by the aircraft operators. To illustrate, an aircraft operator currently has to ensure that its security measures, such as flight pre-checks, access to unattended aircraft, security of boarding passes, security of baggage, catering and cargo, staff training and quality control, are all in place. Any failure to implement those measures constitutes a breach of the security directives issued by the Singapore Police Force and is an offence under the Air Navigation (Aviation Security) Order. Depending on the severity of the breaches, the Police may choose to either compound or prosecute an offender, particularly where it concerns recalcitrant offenders or where there are aggravating circumstances. The proposed increases are reasonable compared to the penalties prescribed in major aviation states for similar offences. Clause 6 also inserts a new subsection (1A) to make it clear that no further proceedings will be taken against the person compounding an offence, on payment of the composition fine.”
“Clause 3 of the Bill also amends section 3 of the Act to empower the Minister to make an Order relating to the investigation of any accident or incident involving air navigation and, in particular, authorising the entry, inspection and examination of any place, structure or aircraft. Such powers of entry and inspection are essential to the effectiveness of an investigation into an aircraft accident or incident occurring in Singapore. This is in line with the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that investigators should, through legislation, have immediate and unrestricted access to all relevant evidence without requiring prior consent from judicial bodies or other authorities. Major aviation states like the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States also provide for similar powers. Clause 4 repeals section 12 which is no longer necessary in the light of the amendment of section 3 by clause 3. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 27A to provide for persons managing a corporate body or office bearers of an unincorporated association to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence committed by the corporate body or unincorporated association if the offence was done with the consent, connivance or attributable to the neglect of the person. This will encourage persons managing corporate bodies or unincorporated associations to adopt responsible practices at a more systematic level and conduct more due diligence checks so as to comply with the safety and security standards and measures stipulated by CAAS and SPF under the Act. These standards are in accordance with the international standards and recommended practices contained in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention.”
“The proposed amendments to section 3 of the Act increase the maximum penalty which can be imposed under an Order to a fine of $100,000 or five years' imprisonment, or both. This will enable subsequent amendments to be made to Orders to introduce stiffer penalties for aviation safety and aviation security offences, making our penalties for such violations comparable with those of the major aviation States. The intention is to increase the maximum penalty for the most serious safety offences under the Air Navigation Order to $50,000 or two years' imprisonment, or both, for the first offence, and $100,000 or five years' imprisonment, or both, for the second and subsequent offences. Examples of such serious safety violations include: (1) an airline allowing its aircraft to be operated without a valid Certificate of Airworthiness; (2) an airline scheduling a pilot for duty beyond his or her maximum flying duty hours, which may cause fatigue, hence creating the risk of a major aviation accident and possible loss of lives; (3) an aircraft maintenance and repair company failing to service an aircraft to the required safety standards. To enhance aviation security, which is another critical area in support of our overall aviation hub operations and in light of the global threat against civil aviation, we intend to raise the deterrent effect against any breaches of security measures by airlines operating at Changi. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reviewed the penalties for security-related offences and intends to increase the maximum fine for offences under the Air Navigation (Aviation Security) Order from $5,000 to $10,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Introduction Sir, this Bill amends the Air Navigation Act for the following purposes: (a) First, to increase the maximum penalties for offences on aviation safety and aviation security; (b) Second, to provide for the personal liability of persons managing a corporate body or office bearers of an unincorporated association where an offence is committed by a corporate body or an unincorporated association under certain circumstances; (c) Third, to increase the maximum composition fine for offences that have been made compoundable; and (d) Finally, to empower Singapore aircraft accident investigators and their advisors to enter and inspect any place, building or aircraft for the purposes of effectively investigating into an aircraft accident occurring in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go through the clauses of the Bill to elaborate on these amendments. Background Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Act to increase the maximum penalties for non-compliance with Orders made to regulate the safety and security of air navigation. These Orders are made to implement the international safety and security standards and recommended practices contained in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention, to which Singapore is a party. The current maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine or an imprisonment term of one year or both is not commensurate with the possible catastrophic consequences of aviation safety and security violations. As an aviation hub, Singapore must assure the travelling public, other stakeholders and also potential entrants into the aviation system that we are committed to uphold the highest standards of safety and security.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (LTA Act) to enable the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to market its expertise overseas. Let me elaborate on this new function and highlight the key provisions in the Bill for the proposed amendment. Currently, LTA markets its expertise through its subsidiary, MSI Global Private Limited (MSI), set up under the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act (repealed in September 1995 when LTA was formed). There is no provision in the LTA Act that allows LTA to market its expertise overseas. This is because, except for two situations, LTA's functions under the LTA Act are geographically confined to Singapore. Hence, LTA's powers are correspondingly limited. This is in contrast to other statutory boards, such as JTC, which have been expressly empowered by its respective legislation to export its expertise. With the expected growth in demand for land transport infrastructure construction, especially in China and India, the amendments to the LTA Act, namely, clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, will provide LTA with the flexibility to market its expertise overseas as and when such opportunities arise. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Mdm Phua's suggestion is something that we can take up. LTA has an Academy now. A certain division there will look into matters like this in terms of public education. We will take it up. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Lift Upgrading Programme) 10. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development what are the steps being taken to ensure that the residents living in HDB flats which are eligible for the Lift Upgrading Programme but whose costs exceed the allowable budget cap of $30,000 per benefiting unit due to the design of their blocks are not disadvantaged. 11. Ms Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB residents can get an early confirmation if their flats will undergo lift upgrading so that they can plan for their needs accordingly, such as selling away their current flat and getting one that has lifts serving their floor. The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, I would like to take Question Nos. 10 and 11 together.”
“Shared responsibility is what is needed to minimise the occurrence of such unfortunate incidents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government takes a serious view of passenger safety on our rapid transit system. Today, there are various safety measures in place at our MRT and LRT stations. These include signages at the trackside to advise commuters not to stand beyond the yellow line or to go down to the tracks, Emergency Train Stop buttons at all platforms and Passenger Service Centres, and the use of CCTVs to monitor the crowd situation at the platforms. The train operators have also actively promoted and enforced station safety through regular announcements over the public address system, and deploying staff to patrol station platforms and assist commuters. There are also various public education programmes in place to educate commuters about the MRT system and the key safety aspects while travelling on the MRT. Mdm Phua has suggested the use of half-height platform screens to prevent people from falling onto the path of an on-coming train, as has been done in Hong Kong. The LTA will review the existing safety provisions and assess the effectiveness of platform screen doors as well as other available options, with a view to enhancing commuters’ safety. As safety provisions, such as platform screen doors, are costly to install and maintain, we will have to weigh the efficacy of installing more safety measures against the additional cost to public transport provision. While LTA and the train operators are committed to the safety of commuters using the rapid transit system, it is important for commuters to also take personal responsibility for their own safety by observing safety instructions and announcements, such as staying behind the yellow line when waiting for trains at the aboveground stations.”
“It really depends on the details of the actual diversion itself. When I discussed with Datuk Chan Kong Choy last week, he understands that we need sufficient notice. So it is both sides, not just us. On his side also there will be an impact. So he is fully aware of this. He says that he will give us sufficient notice so that we can make the necessary preparations. FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUICIDES IN MRT STATIONS 9. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Transport (a) what steps have been taken to prevent fatal accidents and suicides in MRT stations; and (b) will the Ministry consider erecting 1.4-metre high glass panels at the open platforms as barriers to prevent anyone from falling into the path of on-coming trains, as has been done in Hong Kong train stations.”
“Most recently, I again raised this issue with the Malaysian Minister for Transport Datuk Chan Kong Choy just last week on 9th November 2006 when he was in Singapore for the Centre for Asia-Pacific Aviation Conference. He told me he would take up this issue with Malaysian Works Minister Samy Vellu.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, naturally, we are concerned about this development, since any diversion of traffic from the Causeway to the Second Link will have material implications for Singapore. In particular, we have concerns over the possible impact of the proposal on traffic and checkpoint operations at the Second Link and the Causeway as well as the economic costs. However, we would need more details on the proposed diversion in order to assess the full impact on Singapore. We have already requested from the Malaysians further details on the proposed diversion. During the Malaysia-Singapore MOT Games held in Singapore in August this year, officials from both sides discussed this issue. The following month, I also raised Singapore’s operational concerns to my counterpart, the Malaysian Minister for Transport Datuk Chan Kong Choy during my official visit to Kuala Lumpur on 4th September 2006. He gave me the assurance that such a diversion would be temporary. On both occasions, we were informed by our Malaysian counterparts that the Malaysian Works Ministry was still working out the details of the temporary diversion. They also assured us that Singapore would be informed once these details had been sorted out. Since these meetings, we have followed up on our request for more details of the proposal by writing formally to the Malaysian Ministry of Transport. We also reiterated the point on the need for prior consultations before any proposed diversion is effected. Such prior consultations are essential. Amongst other things, they will enable the two countries to take the necessary actions and preparations required to minimise the disruption any such diversion will cause.”
“" - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM EMPRESS PLACE (Removal of parking lots) 15. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Transport why were the car park lots around the bend of Empress Place removed.”
“But I would like to assure Members that even when we bring in and employ overseas research personnel or foreign researchers, we will ensure that those that we bring in are, to use Prof. Ong's words, "whales" but they will be bona fide "whales", and not sharks in disguise. We will ensure that this is really the case. All R&D proposals will be evaluated on the basis of merit and not nationality. What about talent generation? A*STAR's plan for 2006-2010 is to encourage locals to do PhDs in the area of R&D, and make R&D a career. They hope to encourage at least 220 new PhDs and graduates, and the majority will be locals. On penalties, both Dr Tan and Prof. Ong felt that they might be too lenient, not tough enough. Let us have a sense of perspective here. For false disclosure, the proposed fine of $5,000 is consistent with the penalty levels in other Acts. In serious cases, the offender can be charged under the Penal Code. As for clause 14 regarding disclosure of trade secrets, the penalty is appropriate, as patentees and other confidential right owners are not precluded from suing the individuals concerned for much larger sums, if they can prove a breach of confidentiality. Sir, these are some of the key issues that they have brought up and I have tried to address them. As I said, there were many suggestions and comments made, which I will pass to the relevant agencies to study them. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.”
“I agree with Dr Magad, Prof. Ong and Dr Tan that it is very important. I would like to assure them that we are doing our best to encourage R&D in our SMEs. We do not discriminate against the SMEs. What is really important is the size of the idea, not the size of the company, and we will be guided by that. SPRING, for instance, has now allocated some funds to SMEs for this. Members might be familiar with the Enterprise Technology Fund. This is to encourage SMEs to innovate and to use technology. The various things that they would do here are: technology advisory and matching services for the SMEs, support R&D innovation by the SMEs and secondment of research experts from our public and research institutes, to help the SMEs. Dr Tan was concerned that overseas Singaporeans doing research should not be left out. Prof. Ong was worried about the possible abuse by overseas researchers - I presume overseas Singaporeans included. The NRF Bill does not limit the location of the research, as she has pointed out. However, to ensure that Singapore benefits from the research, it is likely that most of the research would have to be done locally. We will, however, not preclude the NRF from funding projects where a portion of the research is undertaken abroad if it can be shown how the value created can benefit Singapore. On the wider issue of foreign researchers' overseas projects, I agree that we need to develop our local talent, but I think all three speakers will agree with me that we just cannot rely on local talent alone to drive our R&D efforts. In fact, we need to attract the best talent, local and foreign, into Singapore if we really want to build a truly world-class research environment in Singapore.”
“So again, you have got to come up with outcome indicators that make sense and are relevant. On the overall approach, when we come to KPIs, we will consider all proposals, but we will subject them to vigorous evaluation on their merits before funding is approved, and we will be guided by experts who will be sitting in our panel and members of the RIEC, not just scientists, but CEOs and CTOs, people who understand the business of R&D and who will help us assess and evaluate the R&D on how best to allocate these funds. All three Members - Dr Ahmad Magad, Prof. Ong and Dr Tan - brought up the issue of commercialisation of our R&D. I agree that it is important. At the end of the day, we are spending all this money in R&D because we expect some economic pay-off. Again, as Prof. Ong said, we must be prepared to invest in the whole continuum, not just in the downstream application, but the whole continuum. Yes, in the past, we focused very much on the downstream application but, increasingly, we need to spread it out, including upstream. When we go upstream, we want to do it in a more focused approach, so as to increase the chance of having a better commercial outcome. Dr Ahmad Magad asked whether the NRF would fund the commercial exploitation of R&D. He says that it is very important. Clause 5(2)(b) of the Bill allows the funding for the commercial exploitation of R&D. So it does not preclude. Prof. Ong suggested an R&D value chain. I think it is a sensible approach that we should have collaboration to link up with the research institutes, the polytechnics, the universities, together with industry, and encourage private and public sector collaboration. This is what MTI has been doing, and will continue to do. On SMEs, again, all three speakers brought it up.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who spoke, in particular, Assoc. Prof. Ong, because she was conscious that the hour is somewhat late, so she went at an extraordinary pace without any discernible taking of breath. It is worthy of a research project in itself. I would like to thank all three Members for going through the Bill, taking time and giving us their comments and suggestions. I would just address the key issues and as for the rest of their suggestions, I will forward them to the relevant agencies. First, on the issue of governance. Dr Ahmad Magad and Assoc. Prof. Ong have raised this very relevant issue, as we need to have a proper governance framework because of the huge amounts of moneys involved here. I agree. What we would do is that for every major commitment of funds, we will require the approval of the full NRF Board. Also, in line with the rest of the Government, the NRF will submit an annual report and also their expenditure in the Budget Book every year. The NRF will also submit regular reports to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at least twice a year. We will review whether we need to do this more frequently but, as a start, it will be done twice a year. Related to governance is also the issue of key performance indicators. Assoc. Prof. Ong is right that this is quite challenging. She said that there is a whole diversity of them and you cannot just have one particular shoe size and say it fits all, as we might need different combinations. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the NRF will be actively studying this to come up with good indicators, including outcome indicators where they are appropriate. We need, however, to bear in mind that in R&D, the gestation period is very long.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the key thing to address, first of all, is the point that the Member brought up, and it is an important point: what is the impact on Singapore-Thai relations given the current developments? As I have said, our relationship with Thailand is a strong and durable one and I am confident that the relationship will remain strong. I believe that Thai leaders and government officials understand that the relationship is mutually beneficial. It would be a disservice to present and future generations of Thais and Singaporeans to allow recent events to impact negatively on Singapore-Thailand bilateral relations. The Singapore Government will continue to work with the Thai government to strengthen bilateral relations for the benefit of our two countries and people. HAND, FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (Update) 3. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health whether he will give an update on the hand, foot and mouth disease outbreak and what measures are being taken to prevent infection among children in schools, kindergartens and childcare centres. 4. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health how dangerous is the resurgence of the hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) enterovirus-71 strain and what are the steps taken by the Ministry to prevent death from this HFMD virus. 5. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) have been reported over the last six months; (b) if there is any evidence or cause for worry that we may be affected by the enterovirus-71 strain; (c) what precautions has his Ministry, together with other relevant Ministries, taken to prevent the spread of HFMD; and (d) what advice will the Ministry give to parents of young children regarding the HFMD.”
“All sorts of allegations were made against Singapore and our relations with Thailand. These allegations are without basis. Where necessary, the Singapore Government will set the record straight and address gross misrepresentations. Singapore is a friend of Thailand. A prosperous and peaceful Thailand is important for Singapore and ASEAN. The Singapore Government has worked hard with the various Thai governments over the years to establish a mutually-beneficial relationship. In particular, we have encouraged our companies, including our GLCs, to seriously consider Thailand as one of its key investment options. And the Thais themselves have encouraged Singapore to invest in Thailand. This is also why Temasek went ahead with the purchase of Shin Corporation, which is a purely commercial deal. We hope the Thai people will resolve their differences peacefully. This would be good for Thailand as well as for the region as a whole. I note that elections have just taken place in Thailand yesterday. We hope the elections will help in the resolution of the current situation in Thailand.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore-Thailand relations are excellent. The relationship is longstanding and multi-faceted. The close friendship between the two countries was forged in the 1980s when Singapore stood with Thailand over the Cambodian issue. This friendship continued, stretching over decades of cooperation with successive Thai Governments. Political links are excellent at the highest level. In January 2005, President S R Nathan made the first ever State Visit to Thailand by a Singapore Head of State. President Nathan was received most graciously by the Royal Family, the Thai Government and the people of Thailand. Singapore and Thailand have strong economic ties. In 2005, bilateral trade between Singapore and Thailand amounted to S$28.2 billion, an increase of almost 16% over 2004. Thailand was Singapore's 8th largest trading partner in 2005, while Singapore was Thailand's 5th largest trading partner in 2004. Singapore is also one of the top five investors in Thailand from 2003-2004. Mr Speaker, Sir, institutional links between the civil services are well established under the Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP), which was mooted by then PM Goh Chok Tong and then Thai PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh in 1997. Educational ties are also growing, with extensive teacher and student exchanges. Our cooperation at the people-to-people level is also strong. This is evident in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami disaster where Thais extended a helping hand to distressed Singaporeans. On our part, Singapore also responded swiftly in the tsunami relief efforts. Against the backdrop of such excellent bilateral relations, it is unfortunate that there have been attempts by some groups in Thailand to drag Singapore into that country's internal politics.”
“As I mentioned just now, I am not at liberty to disclose the details of the negotiations because Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi have agreed to keep this off the media. But, with regard to the Member's point whether this point on the balance of benefits has been put across and registered with the Malaysian side, in fact, when SM Goh met with PM Abdullah Badawi in their earlier meetings on how to proceed with bilateral issues, they have agreed on two principles. One, on the existing issues, including the bridge, they should be done with a balance of benefits that both sides should have mutual benefits. Second, we should not allow these old issues to hold back future cooperation. These are the two underlying principles. BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND THAILAND 2. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assessment of the bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand in view of the current developments in Thailand.”
“Similarly, we have reminded Malaysia that any decision to demolish the Causeway has to comply with the principles enunciated in the ITLOS Order and must also be fully consistent with the requirements of international law. Singapore has stated its position clearly and consistently and hope that Malaysia will understand Singapore's concerns and position. As I have mentioned, Singapore has asked Malaysia to clarify its position officially with regard to the half-bridge. In the meantime, Singapore will continue negotiating with Malaysia on a possible full bridge to replace the Causeway based on balance of benefits.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this House may be aware of reports in the Malaysian media regarding comments by Malaysian leaders, including DPM Najib, which Dr Amy Khor alluded to just now, on the continued construction of the half-bridge within Malaysia's territory. Recent public comments by various Malaysian quarters reaffirm Malaysia's intention to proceed with the construction of the half-bridge and thereafter to demolish its half of the Causeway unilaterally and Malaysia claims that it has the sovereign right to do so. On 18th March 2006, the NST reported DPM Najib as saying, "This is our right. Nobody can question or deny us this right as a sovereign nation. The Government is committed to building the bridge." Singapore does not accept that Malaysia has the right to demolish its side of the Causeway unilaterally and replace it with a half-bridge. This position has been repeatedly conveyed to Malaysia, through diplomatic channels, on a number of occasions. We have taken this position not lightly but after seeking expert legal advice. Any major work related to the Causeway on which also are sited the pipelines supplying water to Singapore will affect both Singapore and Malaysia in a variety of areas of vital importance to both countries. This is why Singapore cannot accept that Malaysia has the right to unilaterally replace its side of the Causeway with a half bridge. Members will recall that in 2003 Malaysia had applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to stop Singapore from undertaking reclamation works within Singapore's sovereign territory. Malaysia's action was guided by the principle that any major work in the Johor Straits, even if done within the sovereign territory of Singapore, could affect Malaysia.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. SUPPLY BILL Order for Second and Third Readings read. 4.30 pm”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head Z of the Estimates be increased by $3,540,000,000. The increase is for the Special Transfers announced in the Budget Statement on 17th February 2006. Of the increase, a sum of $2.64 billion is for the surplus sharing schemes under the Progress Package initiative: $1.43 billion for distribution of Growth Dividends to all adult citizens; $500 million for top-up to the CPF Special or Retirement and Medisave Accounts of older Singaporeans; $400 million for distribution to older, lower-income workers under the Workfare Bonus Scheme; $200 million for distribution to National Servicemen to mark the 40th Anniversary of National Service; $60 million for utilities rebates to HDB households under the Utilities-Save Scheme; and $50 million for setting up Opportunity Funds to provide education and enrichment opportunities for students from lower-income families. Another $500 million is to be transferred to the R&D Trust Fund to be administered by the National Research Foundation. The balance of $400 million is for the Community Care Endowment Fund, ElderCare Endowment Fund, Medical Endowment Fund and LifeLong Learning Endowment Fund. Each fund will receive a transfer of $100 million. That the total sum to be allocated to Head Z of the Estimates be increased by $3,540,000,000. That the increased sum of $6,587,994,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Column No : 615 Head C - Auditor-General's Office Value for Money Audit”
“On Dr Loo's question, he is right. That is what we do. We work very closely with the Economic Development Board because we are talking of tax incentives. They go through it carefully, as I mentioned to Dr Ahmad Magad just now. How do we award the HQ incentive scheme, for instance? They go through certain indicators. They look at the fixed asset investment. They look at total business spending. The Member is right. They look at jobs - how many jobs are created. That is something that is being done. In answer to Mr Leow, as I said, we have a transparent and rigorous evaluation process. And I will be very surprised if it is a Government contract of a particular agency and that particular agency decides on its subsidiary's tender. It does not happen that way. As I have explained, we actually have an evaluation tender committee and a committee that actually does the award. We separate the two things. But if the Member has specific information, he should let me know, and we will look into it.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44) resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied with effect from 1st April 2006 by deleting the figures $2,588,200", $1,055,800" and "$8,000" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$2,733,200", "$1,108,500" and "$92,800" respectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to. CIVIL LIST (Motion) The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44) resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied with effect from 1st April 2006 by deleting the figures $2,588,200", $1,055,800" and "$8,000" in the second column and substituting for them the figures "$2,733,200", "$1,108,500" and "$92,800" respectively. I propose that a provision of $2,733,200 be supported for Class II expenditure. This is an increase of $145,000 over the FY05 Class II expenditure and reflects normal salary increments and other personnel-related expenses for staff in the President's Office. For Class III expenditure, I propose a provision of $1,108,500. This is an increase of $52,700 over the FY05 Class III expenditure and is due to IT and security related initiatives. For Class IV expenditure, I propose a provision of $92,800. This is an increase of $84,800 from the FY05 Class IV expenditure for FY06 and reflects an increase of expenses for the replacement of PCs, Notebooks and new IT development projects. It is therefore necessary to vary the provisions in the Schedule to the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44) with effect from 1st April 2006 to reflect the budgeted FY06 provisions, as indicated in the Motion before the House. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“I agree that the difference would cause a certain bias in investment choices. I accept that. The issue is how do we balance it. This is something that we review constantly and we will take note of the point that the Member made. I think he had made the point before. We have taken note of that. And in my Ministry, we constantly look at these things. What is important is that even if we start to equalise it, we want to ensure that the amount of revenue we get is not severely impacted, and to review holistically within the whole tax system, how best to get the sums right. MEDISAVE (Withdrawal limits) 13. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) whether, with advances in medical science resulting in shorter hospital stays and more day surgeries, the higher Medisave daily withdrawal limits will translate into patients paying a smaller proportion of hospital charges out of their own pockets; (b) whether the Ministry will consider having a higher limit for the first few days of hospital stay; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the limits for surgical procedures, which are based on the Table of Surgical Procedures (TOSP) which has largely been unchanged since its launch more than 10 years ago.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been simplifying the estate duty process over the past few years to make it easier for those who have to pay estate duty. Few are actually affected, since 80% of deaths each year do not go through the probate or estate duty process and, for the 20% which go through the probate process, the majority are non-dutiable and take between two and six months to complete the probate process. Only 3% of deaths actually pay estate duty. A person can invest in a few residential properties up to the aggregate $9 million exemption limit for residential properties, but his rental income could eventually still form part of his other assets, which are subject to the $600,000 limit. Mr Png alludes to the point that the $9 million limit is perhaps too high, while the $600,000 exemption limit is relatively low, and this biases investment choices. We will take note of his concern, but it is also not a simple matter to equalise the two since we must look for a solution that is equitable and does not drastically impact revenues at the same time. The Public Trustee has been administering the estates of deceased persons not exceeding $50,000 in value, as provided for under the Probate and Administration Act for a number of years. The Ministry of Law, which supervises the Public Trustee's office, is currently reviewing the ceiling of $50,000 to assess if the sum of $50,000 is still a relevant sum in today's context or whether it should be raised to a higher sum.”
“I do not think issues like this get escalated to my level. I think this is something which IRAS deals with. But I agree that, as a matter of principle, when there is a mistake, we should notify, so that everybody who uses the statistics knows that there is an error and there is a correction. I agree with that. ESTATE DUTY 12. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the cost to taxpayers in terms of time and money of complying with the estate duty filing requirements; (b) whether his Ministry will raise the $50,000 limit on estates that can be managed by the Public Trustee; (c) whether estate duty can legally be avoided by investing in bungalows worth less than $9 million and renting them out for income; and (d) whether his Ministry is working towards equalising the exemptions for residential property with other assets.”
“I agree that they should have done so. The reason why it was not notified was that it was an error of judgment on the part of the officer. He thought that, by just adjusting the figure, the financial year figure would be correct. That is the reason why he did not make the announcement. He thought that that was what he was supposed to do with the yearly figure. I agree that, if there is a mistake, we should notify it, because our national statistics are important and we should ensure that they are as accurate as possible. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, was the Minister informed by the officer of such an adjustment, and did the Minister actually make the decision not to inform the press about it beforehand?”
“No. As I said, what the officer did was simply to correct the March 2005 figure, without realising that it is important that both monthly figures should be corrected and dutifully announced. He did not do that.”
“Miss Penny Low asked the Senior Minister (a) whether there is any plan to grow the retirement wealth management market in Singapore; (b) if so, what specific instruments or policies will need to be changed or introduced; (c) whether his Ministry sees a need to improve the perception and returns on annuity plans for retirees, in view of the fact that annuity plans remain unpopular due to the poor understanding and returns of such plans. 10. Miss Penny Low asked the Senior Minister (a) if he will provide a status update on the MoneySENSE programme and how many people have benefited from general half-day seminars and in an indepth manner like courses; (b) how will his Ministry rate the success of the programme; and (c) how much funds will be allocated in the next phase and what will be the areas of focus.”
“I think the Member has articulated basically the position of companies and, I think, the senior banker that he referred to was taking the company's point of view. As I said, in this particular matter, you need to balance off the cost to the company of doing this against the investors' interest in ensuring that they have timely disclosure, especially in a situation today where you have rapidly evolving markets and going for a disclosure-based regime where more information is needed. But having said that, in response to his point of whether there will be a review, in 2003 the Minister for Finance said that there would be an assessment and review this year on whether we should extend quarterly reporting to the smaller listed companies. My Ministry has asked the Council of Corporate Disclosure and Governance (CCDG) to do so. Specifically, the CCDG has been asked to review the recent international trends and experiences on quarterly reporting, to assess the benefits and disbenefits to date on quarterly reporting, as experienced by our listed companies, to recommend appropriate changes, if any, and to look at the desirability and feasibility of extending quarterly reporting to the smaller companies. I have asked them also to consult the public before they make the recommendations, and they will take into account inputs such as his. WEALTH MANAGEMENT AND MONEYSENSE PROGRAMME 9.”
“What we have done in the amendment is to create another option which will help small companies. Basically, the option allows a small company, where all the shareholders agree, they can go ahead and provide the financial assistance. You do not have to go to court or to get a special resolution. Like Mr Inderjit has said, this is the first step. We will continue to monitor this and review it. And as Members know, we have regular reviews of the Companies Act. We will see how, in terms of business efficacy, this latest set of amendments will help. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM WARD AND HOSPITAL CHARGES 24. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the percentage of patients, whose income is more than $6,000, who have opted to stay in Class A wards in the last three years; (b) what is the average hospital bill, excluding ward charges, of these patients; and (c) how many of these patients are suffering from chronic illnesses.”
“I would like to thank Mr Inderjit Singh for his comments and also for the work of the ACE's Action Crucible for Financing. They have made recommendations to the Committee, and quite a number of their recommendations have been accepted. I also agree that we need some flexibility in section 76 and that is why we have introduced this in the current Bill. Mr Inderjit said that he wished that we could have got rid of section 76 completely. Let me explain why we did not do so. Here, the issue is not just the interest of the acquiring company, for speed, like he has said. But you need to take into the account the interests of two other parties, ie, the shareholders of the acquired company and the creditors of that acquired company. You need to balance this off. What section 76 has done is to seek some form of balance here. This is also reflected in other jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand and also the United Kingdom. They have that. What we have done, in terms of flexibility, is when it comes to less than 10% of the capital, you need a majority decision at the board. Mr Inderjit Singh said that the recommendations put forward should be a majority decision, and we still need an unanimous decision. I just want to clarify that we do not need that anymore. With the amendment now, with a majority decision, you can provide the financial assistance, provided that you have a solvency statement, which you must have. But if it goes beyond 10%, as I have said, there are other interests involved here, ie, the shareholders of the acquired company and the creditors. In this case, Mr Inderjit is quite right that one avenue, which is provided in the existing Act, is to have a special resolution and then court approval.”
“As I said, the fundamental thing is whether we want to interfere once we have awarded a Government contract to an SME and, in turn, when an SME wants to subcontract it out, whether we want to interfere in that particular decision. I am not in favour of that. In terms of expanding opportunities, there are various ways that we have done so, and we will continue to explore new ways to try to help SMEs expand their market opportunities. I think that is the preferred approach rather than to handcuff one party in order to benefit the other. CLUB MEMBERSHIPS (Regulation on sale) 23. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Senior Minister whether his Ministry will take steps to regulate the sale of club memberships, as is done in Australia and Malaysia, so that sellers provide buyers with full information about the number of memberships, transfer fees, facilities, proprietor's financial resources and commitments, and other factors that will affect the value of such memberships and the ability of buyers to re-sell their memberships.”
“We are in sympathy to ensure that our SMEs have opportunities. But I am not sure that the way he suggests is the right way to go. Because the fundamental question he has to ask himself is whether the Government should mandate how commercial entities that have secured a Government contract or a corporatised entity that has substantial Government ownership procure their supplies. This is really a business decision that we should leave to them. You take an SME, for instance. An SME, if we use his argument, goes through GeBIZ and secures a Government contract. Should we, in turn, ask the SME now that, in order to fulfil the contract, it can only decide its subcontractors through the GeBIZ? I do not think that is the way to go. The way we should try to help the SMEs is to upgrade their capabilities, marketing skills and competence so that their goods and services are more attractive in the marketplace rather than to take a prescriptive approach.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. BETTING AND SWEEPSTAKE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2005 TO 31ST MARCH, 2006 (Paper Cmd. 2 of 2005) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head N - Ministry of Foreign Affairs -”
“We have the discretion. We have the discretion not to take the full amount. But, in practice, and he saw the chart which we showed, in recent years, without the NII, we would have run into a deficit. And the NII is what pushes it up. So, we have been using the full 50%.”
“The short answer to that is that we are tapping the full 50%. So whatever is declared for that year, the dividends and the income on a net basis, we take 50% of that. So, in a particular year, if there is a special dividend, it comes into the NII and we would take 50% of that.”
“Dr Teo might want to raise this specific point under the Manpower Ministry, Head O. But it is being phased in right now - in July, and then in January - to take into account this sort of transitional arrangement. I just want to come to Dr Loo's point, because he mentioned the tsunami case. What we did in the tsunami case was that we granted exemption from this 80/20 rule. The difficulty here of making it across the board is whether we are comfortable that we source money domestically - Singaporeans' money - and then after that, it is like a conduit, we send it overseas for all sorts of causes. In the tsunami case, it was clear cut - this is something we would support. But as he knows, causes on an international basis are quite diverse and widespread, and not all are worthy of support. So that is the policy decision that we have to make.”
“I will take the Member's first question on NII. He was comparing figures for last year and this year and he asked why there was a drop. Last year, there was a special dividend from Temasek. But, on the whole, the average figure is about 1.2%, which is the figure we see in the Budget Statement.”
“The other point that I wish to make is that now that the advancement of sports is regarded as a charitable purpose, I hope that more attention be given to the developing and nurturing of sports individuals rather than associations. In many cases, we may want to support a Tiger Woods or an Andrea Agassi or whoever it is, to give Singaporeans sporting heroes rather than just Singapore Idols, although somebody told me that moving one's mouth is also a physical assertion and therefore should be regarded as a sport, as is the shuffling of cards. At the end of the day, I think all of us want to see Singapore doing well in sports, both internally as well as internationally. I do think that this addition of a fifth head of charitable purposes would indeed add to our sporting improvement in both fields. With that, we fully support it, but we would like to know how exactly this charitable purpose would work. Institution of Public Character Code”
“More donors will now put money into sports, and many sporting associations will no doubt benefit from this. But, at the same time, one wonders whether from the fifth charitable purpose it will become the most popular charitable purpose. The reasons are obvious. With naming opportunities and extensive media coverage of sports, many corporations may find that donating to sports is an excellent way of getting publicity where they have not advertised before. So, the question that we need to ask is whether this would have an adverse effect on donations to other charities when funds now move to sports rather than other charitable purposes. In this respect, I want to ask the Minister a few questions. The first is this: what is the scope of this charitable purpose of advancement of sports? If we talk simply about healthy lifestyle, it could easily have been included under the other head of "purposes beneficial to community", which has been defined to include advancement of health. Putting a separate purpose, ie, advancement of sports, as a separate head of charity seems to suggest something else. Is it suggesting that we want to encourage charitable support for competitive sports? I think that many want to see Singapore do well in international competitions and so on and, if that is the case, what sort of sponsorship are we looking at? What sort of sports are we looking at? How do we decide which sports to support, and how should we allow corporations to donate to sports? Do we, for example, allow naming rights? Do we allow them, in other words, to advertise and, at the same time, get charitable relief? If so, as I said earlier, sports will definitely be the most popular charitable purpose, and this might divert funds from other charitable purposes.”
“That is not quite right. Whether it is a casino or a biomedical hub or promoting Singapore as an education centre, why we are doing this is to generate economic growth, so that there are economic benefits for all Singaporeans. When we do this, it is not in order to raise our tax revenue. In fact, the way we are proceeding with the casino is to ensure that we have a competitive tax structure, not to maximise the amount of revenue we want to get, but really to maximise economic growth for Singapore by taking initiatives like these. Sports as Charitable Purpose Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, one of the most heart-warming parts of the Budget speech to many, I think, without a doubt, is the part on promoting community development and philanthropy. Almost to a man and woman that I have asked have welcomed the approach taken by the Government, particularly in relation to recognising sports as a fifth charitable purpose. Many say, "It is about time", "It is an excellent move", and "Well done, Minister for Finance." Much has been talked about sports before and how difficult it is to find money to fund sporting activities. Efforts from some of us, who have been advisers to football clubs, have failed and we have not been able to induce Mr Roman Abramovich to come to Singapore to fund certain clubs. We all know that the salary of one Chelsea player can fund the whole team in Singapore easily, maybe a couple of teams, depending on which teams we are talking about. So, one can only have praise for the move to recognise the advancement of sports as a fifth charitable purpose. It is a bold and novel move, and it may very well work this time when none has worked so well before.”
“I think we need to put this in context. If we have a casino, it is not a magic bullet, that once we have that, it is a quick-fix and the economy will then start going on a sustainable growth path. If we do have a casino, it is but one of many initiatives that we are introducing to enhance economic growth. So, it contributes to it. The second point that the hon. Member brought up, whether we will give an undertaking if, due to the casino, there is this huge surge in our tax revenue and whether, because of that, we will start to cut all the other taxes. Firstly, it is unlikely to happen, because it is just one particular element of many things that have to be done. Secondly, we already seek to keep all taxes as low as possible. This is the overall policy. In terms of whether or not and how much revenue we are going to get from the casino, right now it is premature, because we have just got the concept proposals in, so we do not have the numbers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. TRUST COMPANIES BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Yes, that is why we cap it at the capital contribution. He is quite right that this is a possible tax avoidance issue, and the way we have tried to address that is to put a capital contribution cap on that. But this is something that we will monitor, because this is a new Bill, and we will look at developments and, if we need to, we would tighten it. From the revenue perspective, I am reluctant to facilitate tax avoidance schemes. So if this is the case, we will tighten it up. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”