S. Chandra Das
Singapore
“There is certainly a limit as to what volunteers can do. These organisations can do with additional funding from the Government. With additional funding, I believe the self-help groups can do much more. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the various support and assistance given to the self-help groups in Singapore.”
“Sir, ASEAN has come a long way since its founding. No one can deny that ASEAN as a regional grouping has been a great success. Not only is ASEAN strong in terms of regional grouping, it is also expanding. Vietnam has joined ASEAN in 1995. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar are expected to join ASEAN before the end of the century.”
“The public will be able to know the actual expenditure incurred. The operators on their part must charge realistic fares, and any increase should be reasonable and commensurate with the level of service provided. In this way, the public will be satisfied and will not feel short-changed.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what other measures are being considered by his Ministry. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, other possible measures would include confiscating the handphone, increasing the number of demerit points or, if necessary, making phone driving a specific offence.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VD 1500. Sir, there are many reasons for the success of Singapore as it stands today. The contribution of the Singapore civil service is an area which should not be underestimated.”
“Sir, I hope the media does not dub RAdm Teo as also "Mr No" from tomorrow. On that note, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $518,536,590 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $769,080,900 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
The complete record
Every one of 554 lines we hold for S. Chandra Das, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 12.
“Sir, thank you very much. I will continue with the subject of Reservists.”
“Sir, maybe we take the subject of Reservists separately.”
“I am told in a particular case the private sector was called in at 10.00 am in the morning for a briefing and the fiscal policy change was announced at the 11 o'clock press conference. Sir, I would urge the Government to maintain and further strengthen its consultative process with the private sector. Continued consultation will certainly help both the Government and the private sector.”
“I hope the Finance Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, can look into this suggestion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the third concern relates to the cost of doing business in Singapore. Some of my other colleagues have touched on this and I just want to add that many feel that the costs are creeping up and we seem to have forgotten some of the lessons of the 1985 recession. Most of the cost increases are the direct result of Government action. It is feared that if business costs continue to rise, Singapore would price itself out of the international market. It should be pointed out that Singapore continued to attract high foreign investments despite its high labour costs because of unfortunate events in other NIEs. We remained cost competitive, not because our costs were held down, but rather it was the result of even larger labour cost hikes in other countries. We have to be extremely sensitive to all the components that render us internationally competitive. Apart from wages, we have to keep a close tab on rentals (both office and residential), foreign workers levy, and not to forget our transport costs and other statutory costs. Also, it is worthwhile remembering that whilst Singapore might be competitive compared to other NIEs, the entire group of NIEs might in fact be pricing itself out. Mr Speaker, Sir, the last concern refers to Government consultation. During the 1985 recession, the Economic Committee had the benefit of inputs from the private sector. Members from the private sector served in various committees and sub-committees. Of late, many have expressed the view that there is insufficient consultation or dialogue between the Government and the private sector, especially on fiscal policies that affect them.”
“However, Sir, to alleviate some of the smaller companies' burden as a result of the higher foreign workers' levy, maybe some consideration should be given for double tax relief for the levy paid. Thirdly, Sir, assistance given to SMEs should not be viewed as subsidies, but rather as a form of assistance for the purpose of a longer term investment. Maybe this is where the confusion starts. Every bit of incentives we give, they may feel that we are giving them far too many subsidies. Sir, it is also felt that there are not enough incentives given to some of our SMEs, particularly the larger ones, especially those that are involved in labour intensive sectors, to relocate part of their operations in neighbouring countries where labour costs are much cheaper. This is another area where Government can definitely assist. Many small and medium size industries also feel that they have not fully benefited from the various Government assistance schemes. They attribute this to lack of coordination among various related Government agencies in implementing these schemes. It has been suggested, and I support this view, that to ensure the interests of the SMEs are adequately looked after, maybe a separate agency be set up. Whilst the Economic Development Board is doing its best, I am afraid that it is not the best suited agency for this job. The Economic Development Board, being the statutory board responsible to stimulate the growth of our economy, would inevitably be more concerned with MNCs, since they provide the engine of our growth. A separate agency for SMEs, an agency that can think that "small is beautiful and small can also become big", would free the EDB to concentrate on its major task and, at the same time, lead to better management of the problems of SMEs.”
“Sir, I am the first to concede that it may be necessary to introduce certain measures outside budget time. But these must be exceptions and be far and few, rather than, as is the present practice, of it being the rule. If the present practice is continued, I am afraid the Budget Statement as a whole would lose its significance. I certainly would welcome the Minister's response to this observation. Sir, the second concern that I would like to address relates generally to the position of our small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). In my discussions with them, many are particularly concerned, not about their growth but more about their survival. They feel they are competing at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the larger companies, particularly the MNCs. The present tax incentives - pioneer status, operational headquarters status - benefit MNCs and the larger companies and very little benefit to the SMEs. Sir, for Singapore's survival and growth, it is necessary to give incentives to the MNCs and large local companies. Having said this, I strongly believe the Government ought to pay a little bit more attention to the needs and aspirations of the SMEs. I would like to offer some suggestions for the Government's consideration. Firstly, Sir, SMEs should be given special incentives to enable them to accumulate capital so that they also, like other companies, expand and globalise. One suggestion to help SMEs is to allow their earnings of less than a quarter million dollars to be taxed at a lower rate. Mr Speaker, Sir, the small business enterprises are generally very happy with the announcement made by the Minister for Labour on the foreign workers' policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. Sir, this budget has been described by many names. Some call it a "Pro-Business Budget", the Straits Times calls it "Celebration Budget", some refer to it as a "Painless Budget", while others call it as a "Growth Budget" or "Procreation Budget" and so on. Sir, I feel that one-word cliches would not do justice to this well thought-out Budget Statement. Whilst I support the budget as a whole, I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to a number of concerns, particularly four areas of concerns. Sir, these are not purely my concerns but they have been expressed by quite a few, both in public and in private. The four concerns are: (a) Has the budget become a non-event? (b) Is the Government doing enough for the local companies? (c) Are costs of doing business in Singapore going up? (d) Is there enough consultation with the private sector? Sir, let me take them one at a time. The first concern is that while the Minister introduces "painless budgets" year after year, I am afraid all the blood-letting is done outside the budget. So much so, the budget has virtually become a non-event. Increases in taxes and levies outside the budget, to state a few, CPF increases, foreign workers' levy, foreign maid levy, etc. are disruptive and not conducive for proper business planning. For example, businessmen have difficulty in getting their costings right if changes are made frequently. I would like to suggest to the Minister for Finance that all levies and taxes should be incorporated in the Annual Budget Statement, so that the private sector would be able to take an overall perspective of these changes and how they would affect them in toto.”
“I am satisfied that the powers given to the Minister will not enable him to play God, but I believe that his role is that of a policeman, one of maintaining religious harmony. My other point refers to the use of the term "prohibition order". This, in fact, has caused some confusion. It may be worth while for the Minister to consider changing it to "restraining order". The word "prohibition" throws up a number of unnecessary interpretations. In conclusion, let me add that in addition to this legislation, I would strongly recommend to the Government to pay attention to two other areas, as far as religious harmony is concerned. First, which I mentioned earlier, is actually greater emphasis on maintenance of religious harmony when our new programme for moral education is introduced in the school system. This will really be the long-term solution. Secondly, I also believe that there must be frank and frequent exchange of views between the political leadership and the religious leaders on various issues affecting us. This should be done quietly and calmly without media attention and sensitive issues can be nipped in the bud. This approach, I feel, will ensure and guarantee national stability and prosperity. Sir, I welcome and support this Bill. 1.54 pm”
“I hope the Minister will give due consideration and respond to these various concerns and misgivings raised. I would specifically urge the Minister to address the nine concerns which I have raised. Sir, with your permission, I would like to state my own views on this Bill. At the outset, let me say that I accept the Government's rationale for the introduction of this piece of legislation. I strongly believe that in our multi-religious society, it is vital that religious harmony be maintained to ensure our continued survival and prosperity. It is common knowledge that in the recent years there has been a definite increase in religious fervour, missionary zeal and assertiveness among the various religious groups in Singapore. Competition for followers and converts is becoming more intense. More and more Singaporeans are veering towards strongly held exclusive beliefs, rather than the relaxed, tolerant acceptance of and coexistence with other faiths. This trend, as the Minister stated earlier, is not peculiar to Singapore, but part of a world-wide religious revival. If nothing is done now in Singapore, then this trend could increase the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among our religious groups. Sir, I also accept the fact that we cannot assume that religious harmony will persist indefinitely as a matter of course. A conscious effort is needed by all, especially religious leaders and groups to help maintain our present position. This legislation before us, I believe, will go a long way torwards achieving this goal. Sir, I would like to comment on two specific issues. The first relates to the powers to be given to the Miniser, as many have complained that they are excessive and will lead to abuse.”
“It should therefore have the final say on when a prohibition order should be issued. Sir, many felt strongly that the Presidential Council should also be given the authority to raise issues on its own and not act only when directed by the Government. This, they felt, would give the Presidential Council an even greater standing and credibility. Sir, another common concern aired is the lack of recourse to judicial review or appeal against the Minister's decision. In view of the fact that there could be a fair amount of subjectivity in the decision to place a person under a prohibition order, they felt that there must be an avenue for the decision of the Minister to be reviewed. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few felt that the objective behind the Bill is fair but are really uncomfortable with the timing of the introduction of this Bill. There are some misgivings about the intention, especially this Bill coming after the arrest of Vincent Cheng and the Marxist group. Sir, besides legislation, many professionals also felt that in the long term and perhaps a more lasting solution to the issue of preserving religious harmony is really through education. A strong moral education programme in our schools emphasising our multi-religious character will go a long way to achieve religious harmony. Finally, Sir, there were a few who felt strongly that there is no need for this Bill. The reason is that the number of religious incidents that have arisen in the past is rather small and that this Government has been able to handle them with existing legislation. Sir, over the last few minutes I have tried to broadly list out some of the major concerns expressed regarding this Bill before us.”
“People, except for the minority with extreme tendencies, should still be allowed to continue to practise and profess their faith as before and as guaranteed in the Constitution. Sir, with regard to clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill which spell out the type of behaviour that would merit a prohibition order, many felt that the descriptions of behaviour are too broad and open to interpretation. While they hoped that the Minister will be completely objective in his decision, it may be difficult at times, no matter how objective the Minister is, to draw the line between what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The framework or guidelines for deciding where the limit has been breached should be clearly spelt out in the legislation. Similarly, Sir, many of the professionals felt that it is also difficult to draw the line between politics and religion. They were of the opinion that it may not always be possible for religious leaders not to take a position on political issues, especially on matters of conscience. An often cited example where this may happen is when the nation is under an evil regime, like the Philippines under Marcos or Uganda under Idi Amin. If such a regime were to gain power here, then by this legislation people will be prevented to speak out or act against the government. Hence, it was felt that some safeguards should be put in place to prevent any possible abuse. Mr Speaker, Sir, another nagging concern expressed was that the powers given to the Minister may be a little too excessive. They thought that the role of the Minister and Presidential Council should be reversed. The Presidential Council, being composed of a group of people with good knowledge of various religions, would be in a better position to decide on such matters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very important piece of legislation which we are debating today. I am extremely glad that the Government has obtained and incorporated the views of religious and grassroots leaders before the White Paper, and subsequently this Bill, was introduced in Parliament. What I would like to do in the next few minutes is to inform this House of the many views and suggestions that the Feedback Unit has gathered from a different segment of the population, namely, the professionals and a few other concerned citizens who have written to us. In fact, Sir, I am happy to inform Members that the Minister himself was present at a dialogue session organised by the Unit last week to listen first hand to the views of a group of about 110 professionals. These professionals come from a wide range of professions and practise different religions and faiths. Sir, most of the professionals agree with the objective and rationale behind this Bill. They all recognise that being a multi-religious society, where the world's great religions are present, it is vital that religious harmony must be maintained at all times. They do submit to the fact that excessive religious fervour or behaviour can lead to grave problems for the nation. Sir, no one quarrels with the need to preserve this fundamental principle in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, however, on scrutinising the detailed provisions of the Bill, the professionals have several areas of concerns and misgivings and these worry many of them. I will now attempt to highlight some of these concerns. Firstly, they hope that the introduction of this Bill will not lead to a restriction of the freedom of practice of religion which is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
“People are clamouring for a lessening of what is perceived as "over-regulation", regulations which had served us well in the early years of nation-building, may need to be privatised in the political arena. In the economic field, the Government has reacted to changing circumstances by calling for greater private sector participation. Similarly, some form of privatisation in the political arena may be in order. Sir, if there are few opposition MPs in Parliament, so be it. In my view, Singaporeans might crave for some form of dissent in Parliament, but this craving is unlikely to give way to reckless electoral behaviour. In the final analysis, most Singaporeans would still vote with their heads. For those Singaporeans who are inclined to vote with their hearts are unlikely to be heartless enough as to gamble with their own future or the future of their children. In conclusion, Sir, much as I am not in favour of the Bill, party discipline does not allow me to do anything else but to say "Aye" when the Bill is put to a vote.”
“Very soon, we will have some Singaporeans in this House, if this Bill is passed, who are able to contribute but are not willing to be inconvenienced and not willing to be subject to public scrutiny. Sir, do we need such people in this House? Like the saying goes, "If you cannot take the heat, why stay in the kitchen?" Sir, if talented Singaporeans are at all able to contribute, I believe they should be able to do battle for what they believe in. If they are not prepared to do so, then this House will be better off without them. Alternatively, such talented Singaporeans should stay outside this House and pontificate in their relative safety and security. Mr Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans also believe that the introduction of 6 Nominated MPs is another manifestation which can be described as a "Government overload". Singaporeans, some critics would say, are already under the weight of over-government. Today, what Singaporeans want is less government. To suggest that people want to have "Nominated MPs as a proxy for the opposition" is a little testing the electorate. It is my contention that Singaporeans are mature enough to make rational political choices. With a per capita income of about $20,000, we enjoy the highest standard of living in Asia outside Japan. To suggest that a people living in an international and open economy are unable to choose their own political leaders, I am afraid, is indefensible. Sir, what, if any, are the alternatives to the Government's proposal? I do not profess to know the answer or have the alternatives. Some solutions, in my view, lie possibly in less Government.”
“And I was pleased to listen to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said that this Bill would be committed to a Select Committee and possibly with public hearings. Sir, the views which I stated just now, I stated them in my capacity as Chairman of the Feedback Unit. As for me personally, I am not in favour of introducing Nominated MPs in this House. I believe that the proposal is a major step backwards in the development of our political system in Singapore. After 25 years of independence, I believe we are moving towards appointees in the Legislature. Sir, universal franchise has given every adult Singaporean the constitutional right to elect his or her political representative. Once every five years or even less, Singaporeans decide who should represent them in Parliament. And for most Singaporeans, casting the ballot is about the most concrete and direct form of participation in our democracy. Through the ballot box, each Singaporean decides whether or not he or she wants an Opposition MP. The question is: do we want this change now? One popular and persuasive argument being cited to support the proposal is the "hypothesis" that there are in fact a number of talented Singaporeans who are able to contribute but are unwilling or unable to make the necessary sacrifices. This hypothesis, I am convinced, is dangerous from the point of view of nation-building. Any Singaporean, especially talented Singaporeans who have obviously benefitted from 25 years of PAP rule, should be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. To suggest that a talented Singaporean might want to contribute but not to sacrifice is not acceptable to me.”
“Besides, candidates appointed may not be credible since they were not chosen by the people. They would not have enough political clout to have any significant influence in Parliament. Some also felt that the proposal could be a political tactic on the part of the PAP to perpetuate its dominance in this House; by offering up to six Nominated MPs, the PAP is hoping that the electorates' desire for Opposition MPs will be satisfied. Sir, whether they supported or did not support the proposal, the majority felt and agreed on the importance of having a fair and independent selection process. It is crucial that this Special Parliamentary Select Committee should be seen to be fair when appointing candidates. Given that the PAP is currently the dominant party, Members of the Select Committee will invariably come from the ruling Party and may end up appointing only like-minded people as Nominated MPs. Many felt this could be prevented by having even Opposition MPs in this Committee or allow prominent leaders of professional organisations to be automatically appointed. Many did not object that the Nominated MPs can vote on all motions except those on constitutional amendments and money Bills. They agree that since the Nominated MPs are not elected by the people, they should not enjoy all the privileges that elected MPs enjoy. A minority, however, feel that this would make Nominated MPs toothless tigers or a group of second-class MPs. Sir, since this proposal would be significant and make major changes to our Constitution, many expressed the view that it should be discussed quite widely and preferably committed to a Select Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the proposal for Nominated MP was mooted by the First Deputy Prime Minister in this House in October, there have been many diverse views on the proposal by members of the public. There were people who supported and people who did not support the Bill. Sir, let me elaborate on these varied views. First of all, the ordinary man-in-the-street neither supports nor rejects the proposal. Understandably, they are more concerned with daily living and prefer to leave such sophisticated developments to the Government. The proposal, however, appears to have the enthusiastic support of many professionals and academics. They agree with the rationale for the Bill, which is to provide for a wider cross-section of views to be heard in this House. It will allow people who have the qualities of MPs, who have useful views to contribute, but who do not want to go into politics or sacrifice their personal life style to run a constituency or even town councils, to enter Parliament. It will also enable certain professional groups to be represented in Parliament. The presence of these MPs would thus further enhance the quality of debate in this House. On the other hand, Sir, the more educated non-academics and non-professionals who have an interest in this proposal, have strong reservations about the proposal. Many, amongst them, do not see the need to change our present system. They feel that the present system is working satisfactorily and the Government should not tinker with a system which has worked and served us well for the last 25 years. The objective of having greater representation could still be achieved by other means, for example, by having more Select Committees, or occasionally lifting the Party Whip.”
“Outside the curriculum, but still taught in the schools.”
“If Religious Knowledge is still left as an examinable subject, I think the Ministry should reconsider this and allow it to be included as a subject for entry into junior college, just as second language is allowed as a subject. The relevance of a second language or Religious Knowledge to the academic studies is about the same. Otherwise, if this is not included, I feel that Malay and Hindu students will be further disadvantaged. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me add that apart from the above observations which I have made, I fully agree with what the Minister has stated about Singapore being a secular state. It is not only a secular state but a multi-racial and multi-religious one. To preserve religious harmony, we have to be extremely sensitive and it is also essential to keep religion and politics totally separate. Sir, the President in his Address at the opening of Parliament this year stated that some ground rules should be spelt out to keep religion religiously separate from politics. I believe it will not be out of place during this debate for me to ask the Government what has happened to this proposal for establishing ground rules. Or does the Government feel that it is not a serious problem and that there is no need for such rules during this period of time?”
“Religion has been a major pillar in such schools and we know for a fact that many of them nurture very good students, including the Minister for Education. To remove religion from their curriculum is like taking away their souls. A number of religious organisations representing these schools even feel that they should be allowed to continue teaching their respective religious studies to the exclusion of even other studies. Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point refers to the withdrawal of religious studies like Hinduism and Islamic studies during curriculum time. Whilst I accept the necessity to withdraw, I think somewhere it is necessary for the Government to provide brick, mortar and even teachers to facilitate the teaching of such subjects for a period of time, possibly on a centralised basis if there is a need. This would allow some form of continuity. However, Sir, I also believe that on a longer term basis, the community itself through organisations like MUIS, the Hindu Advisory Board, Sikh Board and similar institutions, should take the responsibility for the teaching of religious studies. Sir, a major worry and concern among the minority communities is the impact this policy will have on the admission of students from these communities to Junior Colleges and Pre-University Centres. So far, as the Minister indicated, students have been allowed to offer Religious Knowledge as a subject for entry into Junior Colleges and Pre-University Centres. Some of the figures the Minister gave in his statement apparently would deny 13% of Malay students, 15% of Indian students and 14% other races, if Religious Knowledge is not included as a subject. This number is not insignificant, as suggested by the Minister in his statement.”
“Sir, I wish to make a few observations on the question of teaching of Religious Knowledge in our schools. While I accept the Ministry's decision, given the long-term implications the teaching of the subject may have on political stability, racial harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, I am rather concerned about the reaction that certain religious organisations and minority communities will have on this change in policy. Sir, the Ministry of Education is aware of the preference of most religious organisations and a number of minority communities on this subject. The Minister himself has heard these various views both at his own dialogue sessions and dialogue sessions organised by the GPC on Education and the Feedback Unit. They have unanimously held that the teaching of religious studies in a manner that would not compromise the Government's secular stand on religion. They believe that such classes would benefit the students by giving them basically some moral anchor. This is particularly so for some ethnic communities like Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who have found that the teaching of their respective religious studies has helped their children to become more responsible and better citizens, thus alleviating and reducing social problems within their communities. Furthermore, Sir, it is their view that Religious Knowledge was only introduced five years ago and it is still too early for the Government to assess its long-term impact, good or otherwise. To begin, in their own words, another experiment could produce to be unwise. Secondly, Sir, there are also a number of mission schools in Singapore which will be affected by this policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose the motion except that I am a little curious. I would like to seek some clarification from the movers of the motion as to why it is necessary to have this Select Committee, especially after the Minister had a 6-hour marathon session which was publicly aired. And there has been sufficient feedback on the various policies and the Minister is not budging his ground. So I am really wonderingwhat more this Select Committee can do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a number of questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, Sir, in agreeing to host the US facilities in Singapore, has the Government taken into account possible reactions from our neighbours, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia? Secondly, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister how the US presence in Singapore will affect our Five Power Defence Arrangements although he made some references to it. Lastly, Sir, will the Minister keep this House informed of further developments on this subject?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have a couple of supplementary questions for him. Firstly, is there a timeframe or a programme to implement air- conditioning in these special facilities, like staff rooms, principal's room, AVA rooms? Secondly, Sir, has the Ministry identified similar schools like the Jurong Junior College, which the Senior Parliamentary Secretary referred to? Thirdly, if these programmes are to be implemented, what is it likely to cost the Government?”
“Read the first part of the amendment to the motion.”
“In taking a holistic approach, we should have such a comprehensive plan, and it should not be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Communications and Information but should also be the responsibility of other relevant Government Ministries such as MTI and so on. If there is a co-ordinated and comprehensive plan, then there would not be such dissatisfactions as are now taking place. When talking about measures to tackle traffic problems, at the moment there are two approaches. One is about the curbing of the use of roads and the other the restriction on the ownership of vehicles. I have just been saying that if the total number of cars had been more than 350,000 then the congestion on the roads would be very severe. I would like to ask the Ministry of Communications and Information what the long term policy on the restriction of car ownership is. I feel that measures of important thing is that we should provide a comprehensive and effective package of public transport systems for the people. Earlier the Chairman of the GPC on Communications and Information suggested improvement of the services of the MRT. I wholly support such a suggestion. If the eastern line of the MRT is operational, then the transport problem of the people living in the eastern part of Singapore would be alleviated. Similarly, if some basic facilities of the MRT could be improved, more people could be encouraged to use its services. We should also not forget another component of the public transport system-the buses. The bus service should complement the MRT system in providing our residents with an effective system of public transport. Thank you.”
“If the number increases to 350,000 cars, then not only will the central business district will be affected but also those fringe areas and the new towns. Calculated on the assumption of an increase in our car population of 10,000 per year, in the very short time of 10 years there will be a situation where cars may not be able to move freely on the roads. Therefore, the problem of traffic congestion should be regarded as a problem that every citizen should face up to. At present, the recent measures have caused certain dissatisfaction. This is due to the following reasons. One is over the increase in parking fees particularly for season parking in HDB car parks. This measure appears to be contrary to the idea of curbing the use of cars on the roads and has caused certain misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. The second reason is that motorcyclists will also have to pay $1 to enter the CBD. This has caused unhappiness to the motorcyclists who are mainly of the lower income group. The third reason is that CBD businessmen and residents feel that if the evening area licensing scheme were to be implemented, it would adversely affect their business and livelihood. From these murmurings of dissatisfaction, we can see that the problem of traffic congestion in the CBD cannot be resolved by any measure in isolation. Consideration must also be given to the livelihood of the people. At present, the authorities are making a survey of the number of vehicles entering the CBD to assess the effects of the new measures. I would urge the authorities concerned to assess the effects not just in terms of traffic conditions but also in terms of the business and the livelihood of the businessmen and residents before modifying the measures.”
“Although our MRT system is one of the best and most comfortable in the world, it only serves those living along or in the vicinity of the MRT routes. The Ministry does not consider taxis as part of the public transport system. If we want to encourage the people to give up their cars and make use of public transport, our public transport system must be further improved and made as efficient as possible so that car users will be attracted to switch from cars to public transport. Besides improving the public transport system, I would also urge the Government to examine other measures such as building two-tier carriageways in congested areas, reviewing traffic flow in our roads to reduce bottlenecks, and also building more car parks near MRT stations, which the Minister will disagree, or at least provide bicycle parking lots near the MRT stations. Sir, car ownership is a very personal and emotional issue. We must broach this subject rationally and objectively to come up with measures which, even though not totally acceptable to all people, would at least be understood by the people. Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent announcement of certain measures by the Ministry of Communications and Information was aimed at curbing the use of roads. I support the principles underlying these measures. There are two principles involved. One is to ensure that there is free flow of traffic on the roads. The second principle is that those who cause traffic congestion on the roads should pay a price for it. Our land transport conditions are unique. Space is so limited. A survey points out that at the moment, we have 250,000 cars.”
“For example, an HDB car owner wishing to switch to MRT and to use his car only during the weekends, finds that he still has to bear a high cost of leaving his car at home. The increase is also seen as being too drastic and too sudden. Not enough time is given for people to adjust to the increase. This applies also to all the other increases. Many people feel that sufficient notice should have been given to enable them to make adjustments to their budget to meet these increases. Maybe the Ministry of Communications can take a leaf from the Ministry of Labour when it announced its CPF limits. People know what the CPF limits are 20% employer, 20% employee. This is the target, and everybody can make the necessary adjustments. A similar scheme can be announced for HDB car parks with periodic adjustments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare say that if such an approach is taken by the Ministry of National Development, these increases can be made more palatable to the people. All in all, the package of measures appears to favour generally the higher income group who can afford these increases. It is still not equitable as it should be. In the long term, the electronic road pricing system would be the solution. Maybe the Minister can brief this House on what further progress has been made to set up this system as quickly as possible. Sir, I would like to add that while the Government has introduced this series of measures and is contemplating other measures to further restrict car ownership, it should also provide the people with a practical and suitable alternative to car usage. This has been touched on at some length by the Chairman of GPC, Dr Hong Hai. This is especially so when the car is at present the best form of transport. I am referring to our public transport system.”
“Many people support it, except those resident in the CBD but working outside the CBD. These car owners find it absurd having to pay to return home during CBD hours or to stay in their office until after 7.00 pm. Many will probably choose the latter option and this might affect the pattern of their family life. Sir, another change in the ALS which puzzles people is the reduction in the ALS fees from $5 to $3, and the inclusion of car pooling in the scheme. This new measure allows those who can afford the ALS fees and who have been paying so far to pay less, while those who cannot afford and have to car-pool to enter CBD now have to pay to enter the CBD. Sir, there is merit in considering exemption for car pools when Government has been encouraging people to form car pools. People have responded and this has become a way of life, a pattern for them. And now car pools have to pay. There is some inconsistency. Maybe the Minister can reconsider this. Sir, it is also strongly felt that motorcyclists should not be included in the ALS scheme. It is debatable as to what extent motorcycles contribute to traffic congestion. The Government to-date has not made a strong case to convince most of us. Again, like the car pools, I would urge the Government to reconsider the inclusion of motorcycles in the ALS. Sir, the 100% increase in the HDB residential season parking fees from $25 to $50 has, in fact, angered many HDB car owners. Although the Ministry of National Development has explained that the revision is to move towards full recovery of the economic cost associated with providing parking facilities, many residents view this measure as contradictory to the Government's objective of reducing traffic congestion through curbing car usage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the package of measures introduced by the Government to ease traffic congestion, I believe, is a step in the right direction in our aim to tackle the problem of traffic congestion in Singapore. There is a distinct shift from measures restricting car ownership to measures curbing car usage. I dwelt on this subject at some length during the debate on the President's Address earlier this year. As Singapore progresses and as our society becomes more affluent, our people more educated, car ownership becomes more of a need than a luxury. People who are successful in their careers would naturally aspire to own a car. Hence, Sir, it would not be desirable, in the long term, for the Government to continue imposing measures restraining car ownership to frustrate the people's aspiration to own a car. Besides, recent events have shown that car ownership measures tend to benefit existing car owners and encourage those thinking of getting a car to buy one before it is too late, speculating on Government's possible increase in taxes. In fact, car ownership has become an investment in Singapore. I know of no other country in the world where ordinary car owners, other than car dealers, can profit from owning a car. Sir, Singaporeans fully agree that there is a need to prevent traffic congestion from reaching crisis proportions. Many of us who have travelled to places like Bangkok, Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong and other major cities will understand and appreciate the Government's concern about traffic congestion. However, there are certain aspects of the measures introduced that have caused unhappiness amongst the people. Allow me to elaborate. Firstly, as some Members have already spoken, the extension of the ALS to evening hours from 4.30 pm to 7.00 pm is a good idea.”
“There may be difficulties especially with reservists who are sole proprietors, particularly if the order is transmitted during office hours. These reservists typically spend most of their time away from their offices. The use of pagers may help but this is an area that requires closer examination. The objectives of the two amendment Bills are sound. However, I would urge the Minister to closely examine the practical problems that I have outlined in the implementation of the new system.”
“During emergencies, about 3,500 vehicles will be rounded up for the use of the various Government agencies. Sir, having achieved good results, credit must be given to Mindef for not resting on its laurels. The proposed Enlistment (Amendment) Bill and the Requisition of Resources (Amendment) Bill aim at cutting down response time for open mobilization from 12 hours to 6 hours. The method of notification has also been refined. Mindef must now set new challenging standards in order to continue making improvements. Therefore, I would consider this introduction as a very timely initiative by the Minister. Quicker mobilization is a logical improvement over the current system. I envisage the new system will take a few years to take root. It will require patient and sustained education of family members, employers and employees alike. Meanwhile, potential areas of difficulty in implementation must be recognized. The proposed provision under clause 29 (2) allows for the Minister to issue an order by transmitting it to a member of a household, employer and employee who apparently is above the age of 16. I believe this could give rise to a number of practical difficulties. First, there could be genuine mistakes in judging the age of a young recipient if the order. The amendment Bill does not stipulate the consequences if the recipient fails to convey the message to the reservist. Secondly, it is questionable whether an employer or employee will accept responsibility to convey the order to the reservists. Sir, the Bill again does not stipulate the consequences if an employer or an employee wilfully or otherwise fails to pass the message to the reservists.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill and also the subsequent Bill which the Minister will be moving the Requisition of Resources (Amendment) Bill. Sir, the Armed Forces are extremely vital to us and we have, I am told, about 55,000 active personnel, of which 35,000 are national servicemen. On the other hand, we also have a reserve strength of well over 200,000. Therefore, for every active serviceman, we have more than 3(r) reser- vists. Thus, the reservists form the backbone of our Armed Forces. In an emergency, they will form the bulk of our front-line troops. Sir, 22 years since the enactment of the Enlistment Act, national service has trained many of our citizens to be good soldiers as well as good citizens. Many reservists have found that the skills they have acquired in their national service days to be useful in their civilian careers. Over the years, national service has already been accepted as a duty to the country. The acceptance is in no small measure due to Mindef's promotional efforts. We must also give credit to Mindef for the improvements made over the years to improve the effectiveness in mobilizing our reservists and civilian resources. The Second Minister for Defence, on a visit to the Singapore Artillery Battalion, said that in the open mobilization on 15th April a record of 98.6% was achieved. This excellent performance can be attributed to the civic consciousness of the reservists. It can also be attributed to the success of Mindef's efforts to inculcate a sense of urgency and understanding that the defence of Singapore is important amongst our reservists. Mobilization of civilian resources to support the mission of the Singapore Armed Forces is another logical step taken to maximize the use of our limited resources.”
“I hope the Minister for Finance, Minister for Communications and Information and the Minister for Foreign Affairs can assure this House that this "half-tank" measure will not generally affect the good relations between Singapore and Malaysia. These relations have been built at all levels from the Prime Minister, Ministers and civil servants downwards, and this should not be nullified by a simple half-tank measure.”
“Sir, thirdly, many Singaporeans also felt that this measure is another attempt to restrict movements of Singaporeans and they are quite unhappy. One person even went on to say that this measure is being introduced out of envy of Singaporeans having a good time in Johor Baru. Many Singaporeans go to Johor for seafood, shopping, recreation because of the exchange difference and not merely for the sake of buying petrol. This requirement of "half-tank" is viewed by some Singaporeans as Government interference in their free movement. Sir, the fourth and last reason is that this measure will affect our relations with Malaysia, and in particular with Johor. In this respect, I also share my own concern on this area. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether this is a good neighbourly act. I concede on the arguments about leakage and revenue loss, especially when the Minister for Communications and Information had indicated in this House that further hike on petrol prices is imminent. Is this leakage really such a big drain on our coffers? Sir, our relations with Malaysia are at the best possible level at this point of time, and I fear that mischief makers will exploit this "half-tank" measure to disrupt this level of relationship. Do we want this to happen? Why are we creating an opportunity for such mischief makers? Sir, this action of ours shows us as being rather petty and that we always want to be on top. Once we are at a disadvantage, we tend to over-react. In a way this reminds me of the Malaysia Singapore Airlines/Mercury Singapore Airlines episode. Sir, in conclusion, let me say that we have good grounds to go ahead with this measure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this Bill, my objective is really to reflect some of the views that have been gathered from grassroots leaders, businessmen, executives, housewives, taxi-drivers and hawkers. Sir, most of the people I talked with felt that this "half-tank" measure is really not necessary and they gave many reasons to support their view. Before I go into the reasons, I would like to make one comment, in that this Bill was widely discussed after the First Reading without the benefit of a full explanation which normally comes through at the Second Reading, which we just heard from the Minister. The single statement from the Government was obviously not sufficient. In fact, the explanation was ineffective. Sir, now let us look at the reasons as to what causes unhappiness with some of the Singaporeans we talked to. Firstly, many believe that checking of the cars at the Causeway, however minimal, would cause traffic jams and hence inconvenience. Without these checks, the time taken to cross the Causeway during weekends and public holidays is already bad enough. These new checks, however random it may be, will only add to the existing jam. Secondly, Sir, as a control measure on car usage, this new measure will not be a totally effective mechanism. Singaporeans can still enter Johor with a half tank and fill it up to a full tank before returning to Singapore. As a measure, this is only a "half measure" and many Singaporeans find it very difficult to understand why Singapore Government has now gone for half-measures. Sir, why not insist on a three-quarter tank or better still, a full tank. And I am glad to note that the Minister is prepared to consider if the need arises.”
“But, as I understand it, this is only apparent, because I believe all these foreign business people who have got offshore loan agreements have already got into their agreements the jurisdiction which is not based in Singapore. They probably agree among themselves, if there is any dispute, to have their dispute resolved in courts in England or elsewhere. Sir, I think this is going to be a retrogressive step because it has not been properly worked out. And if the Minister can say that after 30 years, our judicial system has reached a stage where we have to stand on our own two feet and not, as Members have said, our judicial system still tied to the apron strings of the Privy Council, and if we are able to stand on our own two feet, and let us work out a proper system, a new judicial system, then I will agree with it. But with this ad hoc amendment, I do not think it will serve the interest of the public of Singapore.”
“So I think it is worthwhile to read part of that judgment and probably you will know why the Government is very angry. This is what their Lordships said in their judgment: 'Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships' order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore. But because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which theappellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.' Sir, this judgment really points to only one direction and that is, we must not, in fact, at this juncture take away the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Our courts have erred not once, not twice, but a series (according to the judgment here), a series of injustices. Sir, if we are saying that we are promoting justice in order to take away appeal to the Privy Council, I will support all for it. But according to this judgment, it does not appear so. Sir, Mr Shanmugam has spoken of probably an escape route by allowing litigants to appeal to the Privy Council if they consent, because to promote investors' confidence.”
“Don't change unnecessarily. Change when it is necessary. Mr Chiam See Tong: It is necessary to them, politically I would say. When something has happened and it annoyed or embarrassed the Government, and then it quickly changed the law. We have seen it. We have seen how this Government changed the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act just because the Government thinks that Mr Jeyaretnam was talking too strongly in this House. Then we had amendment to the Legal Profession Act just because the lawyers were giving their opinions and challenged the Government on certain new legislation. And when the foreign reporters were reporting on Singapore which displeased the Government, the Newspaper (Printing Presses) Act was accordingly amended, allegedly to stop interference in local politics. And then, more recently, we have seen the two amendments to the Judicial Committee Act where ISA cases are involved. So those detainees no longer have a chance to have their matters heard in the Privy Council, and also in regard to lawyers when they were subject to professional discipline. As I have said, this amendment really has got no compelling reason. The most compelling reason I can think of, from the point of view of the Government, has already been mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. Probably, the Government is angry with the Privy Council's judgment in relation to Jeyaretnam's appeal which was allowed in regard to his disbarment from practice as a lawyer. You will remember that the judgment of the Privy Council was, in fact, a scathing attack on the political/legal system here. In that appeal, their Lordships looked behind, just the appeal, and looked into the original four convictions of not only Mr Jeyaretnam but also Wong Hong Toy.”
“We thank you for rumour-mongering. RETIREES' INCOME (Tax concessions) 10. Mr Yeo Toon Chia asked the Minister for Finance, in respect of retirees, whether he will consider (i) allowing interest earned from their savings tax-free, subject to a maximum to be fixed by his Ministry and (ii) allowing tax deduction for their medical expenses.”
“The gretest tragedy that could befall a nation is the lack of able successors to its political leadership, to serve Singapore. Whether Singapore will continue to prosper and to advance will depend on how we could solve the problem of attracting talented people to succeed the political leadership, to avoid the tragedy, to overcome the mishap of able successors not forth coming. Thank you.”
“In the case of a nation, after it hasbeen founded, to keep it going, to ensure its prosperity, to maintain and continue the development that we have established, and to govern the nation well, is a more complicated and difficult task. So, we have to attach much importance to this matter, to keep on attracting talented people to contribute to the development of our nation. Of course, the talented people, as the first Deputy Prime Minister said just now, also need to make a living. They will have to make some sacrifices when they go into politics. However, the sacrifices they have to make must not be too great. Otherwise, it will be difficult to attract them. The adjustment to the salaries of the Ministers, Political Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries has to be approved by Parliament before it could come into effect. Some people say, "Wouldn't it be embarrasing to ask for a pay rise for yourselves?" But, this is the procedure we have to adopt to adjust the salaries. The PAP Government has, all along, been open and aboveboard in all its dealings. No cover-up, no hypocrisy. We want to have an adjustment, we deal with it openly. The First Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear. The adjustment is made for the purpose of attracting the talented people, and not for the older generation. Our Prime Minister has been in politics for more than 30 years. He has never utter a word of complaint about his personal income. I believe, it is the same for many of the older generation leaders. The First Deputy Prime minister joined politics in 1976. He has made a great sacrifice. Yet, not a word of complaint from him. However, what we are looking after, is the future of Singapore. We are concerned with the question of succession in political leadership.”
“Maybe as a result of negligence, worried about his performance bonus, and as a result he is charged in court, fined over $5,000, and loses his parliamentary seat. This is very costly. You lose a very good man. This has not happened so far. Touch wood, we are very grateful for this. But do we want something like this to happen first before we change? Or do we change now for the better? Sir, like my other colleagues, I am also not in favour of the performance bonus, apart from driving cars. I think performance bonus for civil servants is an excellent idea. But performance, bonus for Ministers should be dropped. On this note, Sir, I support the salary increases announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to adjust the salaries of Ministers, other political leaders above the grade of Political Secretaries. I only wish to say a few words in supplement. There is a saying in Chinese, "When a nation breaks down, the homes will perish". That is to say, the nation is more important than the home. There is another Chinese saying: "Of the three categories of unfilial sons, the worst is the one who leaves no descendant". Since the question of succession is so important in terms of the homes, what about the succession in the more important role of governing the nation? Just now, Dr Ow Chin Hock mentioned that founding a nation is not an easy task. Yet, not all the revolutionalists who founded the nations can build the nation. Therefore, the role of nation building is even more difficult. We all know, it is difficult to establish a career, even more so to maintain the career.”
“Sir, I like to stress two other points which I also made during the Budget debate and I hope the Frontbench will give this some consideration, although the First Deputy Prime Minister dismissed it in his Ministerial Statement. I must say that I am not totally comfortable that paying one salary alone would be sufficient. The salary and terms of service conditions are so closely linked to the civil service. Some of my colleagues earlier had mentioned that this may not be desirable. I accept that there must be some relativity between the civil service and the political service. But what we have now is really an identical service. Maybe too many of our Frontbench Members are from the civil service, therefore they feel relatively safe. My contention is that the political appointee and a civil servant are two different animals and they should be treated separately when you consider salary benefits and other benefits. Sir, I also spoke about a remuneration package rather than a straight salary for political appointees. We do not have to go overboard on this, as mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister that it happens in other countries. Right now, it is a regular spectacle in Singapore to see our First Deputy Prime Minister, Second Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers driving their SOs around in their cars. This may have been the right thing to do in the 60s and in the 70s. But I would like to question its relevance in the 1980s. I would strongly urge that the Ministers cannot be given houses, at least consider a car and a driver instead. Let me paint a scenario to you where a Senior Minister gets involved in a serious road accident.”
“However, Sir, I am confident that the majority of Singaporeans will understand and accept why we need to pay a fair market wage to attract the best to manage this country properly and honestly. I must say that I cannot foresee in the horizon any Lim Kim Sans or E.W. Barkers. And this is a reality and the sooner the political leadership faces the better it is for Singapore. Sir, the other alternative is to pay political appointees a low salary; in fact, so low a salary that when they leave office or run out of office, they literally leave with billions of dollars in numbered accounts in Switzerland. We have witnessed sufficient examples of this in other countries and it is not necessary for us to repeat this in Singapore. Sir, I am told that the proposed increases will cost the Government about $9 million. This sum is actually peanuts compared to the amount that we can lose if we do not have the right people managing the country. A wrong man in charge of the Finance Ministry can cost us billions of dollars. After all, this sum of $9 million is a small sum. In fact, it is a good insurance and I think it is necessary for all Singaporeans to understand this. Mr Speaker, Sir, with these increases in salary, I hope it will go some way to help attract talent to come and serve Singapore, although I personally believe that many of these unwilling brides merely give money as an excuse to stay out of the political arena. Nevertheless, I feel that this will be an additional weapon in the hands of the First Deputy Prime Minister and enhance his persuasive capabilities and on this I wish him well.”
“Some in the lower income group will feel that Ministers are already well paid. Mr Chiam See Tong rose --”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in joining in this debate, I would like to say what I said during the debate on the Budget statement, ie, I welcome and support the pay increases for all political appointees as well as members of the Judiciary as stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement. At the outset, it must be pointed out that these increases will not have 100% support and it is easy to understand why this would be so. For a start, both Mr Chiam See Tong and Dr Lee Siew-Choh will and must oppose this on political grounds, largely to score political points.”
“Mr Chairman, I must thank the Minister of State for his very quick answers. Just for his information, the GPC on Foreign Affairs has already submitted a list of potential roving ambassadors sometime ago to the Minister. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $60,496,300 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $16,290,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O to be reduced by $10 in respect of Code OA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I have three questions for the Minister. Firstly, recognizing the manpower needs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be unique, does the Ministry have any special plans to administer a special scholarship scheme in order to develop Career Foreign Service Officers, something like the SAF Scholarships Scheme? Secondly, Sir, I think knowledge of a foreign language is necessary for members of the Foreign Service. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has a formal programme to promote the learning of foreign languages: if so, how many officers have benefited so far? And also, does the Ministry pay officers a language proficiency allowance as an incentive for them to take up an additional language? Lastly, Sir, on the question of training, could the Minister enlighten us whether the on-the-job training programme administered for Foreign Service Officers will also include attachments to private sector companies. Right now, I am told that the on-the-job training is limited to statutory boards and government-owned companies.”