S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 66 of 66.
“Sir, I would like to inform the Member for Telok Blangah that as his supplementary question is not directly related to the question of hell- riders, this is a matter which will have to be looked into by my Ministry, and if he is disposed to ask the question at the next sitting of Parliament, my Ministry will be pleased to furnish the answer. AYER RAJAH ESTATE (Improvement of bus services) 5. Encik Abbas Abu Amin asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour if the number and frequency of bus services for the residents of Ayer Rajah Estate (Dover Road) can be increased, particularly during weekends and on public holidays.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member asked two supplementary questions. The first question is whether I am aware of the circumstances he has described, and the answer to that is: Yes, I am aware and so are the Traffic Police. As to his related question on whether an assurance can be given that the Traffic Police will continue to be vigilant, I assure the hon. Member that indeed the Traffic Police will monitor the situation and maintain its vigilance.”
“In closing, let me say that these two observations which I have made do not in any way detract from the strong position of support that I wish to express for the laudable motives behind this amending legislation.”
“But this doubt could have been avoided if the legislation had laid down either in the provisions or in the Explanatory Statement that the purpose was to promote safety, roadworthiness and to prevent pollution. I am glad, however, that the Hon. Minister has, in his speech, brought this out very clearly and, therefore, has left us with no doubt as to the purpose according to which the discretionary powers will be exercised. Perhaps the matter might be dealt with when the rules are being drafted so that what is not explicit in the Act may be made explicit in the rules. The next point I wish to deal with concerns the provision which is proposed on the creation of offences. The proposed new section 41 (D) creates an offence; it attributes the offence to whoever uses a vehicle, any vehicle, without a test certificate, There must have been good reasons for taking this approach in the legislation. But I would like to ask a question of the Minister as to whether it might not have been a better approach to attribute the offence to the registered owner of the car and to make the possession of the test certificate an essential prerequisite for registration of the car, in the same manner that the possession of a valid insurance coverage is a prerequisite for registration of a motor vehicle so that the obligation rests with the person applying for registration of the car and the offence can also be attributed to him. I would like to ask whether that would not have been a better approach. But, as I have said, there must have been good reasons and it will be helpful if the Hon. Minister can enlighten the House on this point.”
“First of all, it will enable the relevant officials in the Ministry to draft the subsidiary legislation, the rules, without any doubt as to the scope of the statute and as to whether the rules that they are drafting come within the ambit and purview of the legislation. Secondly, there would have been better guidance for the public servants and the public companies to whom an agency role has been granted to exercise their discretionary powers under the Act. With the purpose spelt out in the provisions, there would be less ambiguity, less room for misinterpretations, and therefore, hopefully less disputes. Thirdly, when disputes arise, and let us hope that they do not arise, concerning the interpretation of the rules, or disputes arise concerning the exercise of discretionary powers, then the Courts will come into the picture, and in that case what the legislative intent is would become very crucial. Fourthly, it would be helpful also to the citizens concerned if they have no doubt as to the exact purport and intent behind the legislation. It is because of these considerations that I thought I should express this concern. To illustrate my concern, let me give a hypothetical example. Can the examiner or inspector, for instance, refuse to grant a certificate on the ground that the paintwork or upholstery is in an unsatisfactory condition? I would assume that this is not the intention of the legislature. It is not our intention that the discretionary powers should go to that extent because it may not have any relationship to roadworthiness or the prevention of pollution. But if we look at the Bill, the phrase "the prescribed requirements relating to its construction and condition" may be wide enough to cover that element.”
“My first point of concern is that the criterion or purpose according to which the relevant officials will examine the vehicle and make a decision to grant or not to grant a certificate is not mentioned in the provisions. It is also not mentioned in the Explanatory Statement. It is very fortunate that we heard just now the Hon. Minister's statement where he explained that the purpose of the Bill is that of ensuring roadworthiness and of ensuring pollution control. But if I might respectfully suggest, these cardinal elements of the proposed legislation ought to have been included in the provisions of the legislation itself. It would have been desirable to state them in the legislation. Now, this omission may, at first glance, seem minor, but I would like to suggest that it is important. In my view it is important because, on principle, when Parliament enacts legislation, especially legislation which confers discretionary powers on public officials and in this particular case where it even goes so far as to confer discretionary powers on private companies, then we in Parliament must ensure that the scope of the discretionary powers must be defined as clearly as possible, The legislative intent behind the legislation should be as clear as possible. In this case, as we have noted, the legislative intent in giving discretionary power to grant or withhold test certificates is that of road-worthiness, safety factor and pollution control. I think there are at least four good reasons why these cardinal elements should have been included in the legislation that emanates from this Chamber.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. This Bill has two features. I wish to address myself to that feature of the Bill relating to the inspection and examination of motor vehicles and the granting or withholding of a certificate for compliance or non-compliance with the prescribed requirements relating to the construction and condition of the vehicle. I would like to begin by expressing my very strong support for the general principle contained in this part of the Bill. The rationale for the requirement to have vehicles inspected and examined and for vehicles to have test certificates is unquestionable. Our objectives of promoting safety on our roads and of combating air pollution are met not only by ensuring that drivers on our roads drive safely but also by ensuring that the vehicles which are driven on our roads themselves are in a safe and satisfactory condition. A motor vehicle, it goes without saying, which is faulty in construction or has faulty parts, for instance, faulty brakes, can be as lethal and dangerous on our roads as the most reckless and careless driver. This part of the Bill can, therefore, only benefit the national interest in promoting safety on the roads. And in so far as the provisions of the Bill seek to ensure pollution control, it also goes a long way to ensuring the quality of the air which we breathe. Having said that and without detracting from my support for the basic principles, I wish to make one or two observations which the Hon. Minister might wish to take note for later consideration, particularly when the rules are drafted.”
“Sir, I have been a great admirer of the HDB's achievements and I wish to express the hope that the present problems which we are directing our minds to can be overcome by ingenuity, determination and innovation which is so characteristic of our Government. It is said that institution languish and become complacent when their admirers or lovers are not critical, and when their critics are not appreciative and understanding. I hope that the suggestions that I have made will be regarded as coming from a person who is a loving critic and a critical lover of our housing programme. 4.23 p.m.”
“They are, therefore, amongst the many thousands in the HDB waiting list. Now, if the HDB allows them and accelerates the process of allowing them to purchase the existing rental flats, and imposes the condition that they must give up their applications for new purchase flats, then there would be a reduction in the waiting list. Others who are renting flats will avoid getting on the waiting list if they can purchase the existing flats. The HDB, of course, should always set aside a certain number of rental blocks for resettlement cases. My fourth suggestion concerns the loan repayment period and it is a point which has already been made by the hon. Member for Toa Payoh. Consideration should be given to extending the loan repayment from 20 years to 25 years. This may help to cushion the burden caused by increased prices as the amount of instalments would be reduced, especially for those with smaller CPF contributions. Finally, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for National Development whether costs could in any way be reduced by prefabricated construction. I understand that this was tried before but was not successful. I mention this because the press on 10th June publicized this method and quoted the Head of the HDB's Social and Research Unit as stating that the best hope lies in the prefabricated housing where ready-made components are fitted together. Does this mean that HDB is rethinking this question? If so, it would be helpful for myself and other colleagues if we could be informed of more details and, in particular, whether such method will bring down prices and speed up the construction process.”
“We should allow other members of the family, if they wish to do so, to assist a parent, child, brother or sister, as the case may be, in the purchase by assigning part of their CPF funds even though they are not joint applicants and have no legal interest in the flat. There should, of course, be several safeguards. First, a maximum amount, in terms of percentage, say, 10%, that can be so assigned should be stipulated. Second, this should be limited to cases of genuine difficulties. Third, where a person so assigns a part of his CPF to assist a relative and the relative then sells within a given period, then the portion so assigned should be returned to the assignor's CPF account. I realize that this may be seen to be a radical move but the present problems are acute and may require novel suggestions. Indeed, my suggestion may bring about a feeling of family cohesiveness and self-help and reduce the burden on the HDB applicant who may have to tap his ta ke-home pay at an extraordinary rate. My third suggestion relates to the existing rental blocks. My call here is for flexibility in allowing persons who are living in rental blocks to purchase the units in which they are staying if they wish to do so and if they have the necessary means at their disposal. I understand that the past practice of the H DB is that if a relatively high percentage of the sitting tenants in a given block desire such purchase, then sympathetic consideration would be given. My point is, whether we can encourage and accelerate this trend. There are good reasons why we should allow sitting tenants in rental blocks to purchase their flats. First, many of them residing in rental blocks may already be applicants for other HDB purchase flats.”
“It is true that the income ceiling has been revised periodically. However, notwithstanding the periodic revisions of the income ceiling, the recent price increases can still cause problems. If a person, say, has applied for a 4-room unit but if it can be shown that he is now facing difficulties in meeting the prices and cannot afford the revised cost, then I would request the HDB to be flexible and to allow him to obtain a 3-room unit even if his income ceiling exceeds what is stipulated for that smaller unit. I am particularly thinking of cases where the income ceiling is exceeded marginally. This may require exercise of discretion after examining the circumstances of the applicant. If he is priced out of a 4-room unit and at the same time he is told that his income ceiling is too high for a 3-room unit, then this appears inconsistent. Logically it is also not acceptable because if he has difficulties in meeting the price of a larger unit, it must surely be due to his income, his take-home pay and his CPF account. It is precisely because of this that there should be flexibility to allow him to get a smaller unit. My second suggestion relates to the use of CPF funds, I would respectfully suggest that perhaps the time has come for consideration to be given to allowing a person to assign a limited part of his CPF savings to assist another member of his immediate family who has genuine difficulties in purchasing an HDB flat. Let me explain, In a given family, there may be persons who are already in ownership of accommodation or who otherwise may not have utilized the CPF. Another member of the family who had applied for a HDB flat may, however, face difficulties because of the new prices.”
“On the other side of the story, however, it is equally important to recognize the fact that the steep rise in the price of HDB flats has caused disappointment, anxiety and frustration to many Singaporeans who are on the waiting list. It is also a fact that many of those persons do not consider that they are responsible for the problems faced by the HDB. It is also a fact that we are reaching a point in Singapore where home ownership has been encouraged as a matter of Government policy and to own one's own home is being regarded as an important symbol of security. We are therefore in a peculiar situation. All these years, we have prided ourselves in having solved our housing problem; our experience was looked upon by other countries as a shining model. But now we are in a situation where 20-25% of the applicants may have difficulties in paying for their HDB flats at the revised prices, that even annual increases in prices may be expected, that the era of cheap housing is over. And we are also told that even at high prices, there may not be sufficient units to meet the demand. So the era of cheap housing is over. It will, therefore, be of not much purpose on my part to protest and recount all the reasons why high prices have certain effects on the people. The question, however, to which I wish to address myself is: what can be done, or what measures can be taken, to alleviate the burden for those who are facing the tight squeeze caused by the recent price increases? In this regard, I wish to make a few suggestions: the common denominator of my suggestions being a call for greater flexibility, innovation and exercise of discretion by the relevant authorities. My first suggestion calls for flexibility regarding the income ceiling.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a preface to my remarks, I wish to recall the words of advice made in this Chamber by the late President when he said that Members of Parliament, especially those who are not constrained by ministerial office, have a duty to voice the views of their constituents and that Parliament must mirror the views, the hopes, the doubts and the fears of Singaporeans. He also said that Members would best help the Government to meet this objective by speaking out their views and criticise Government policies, to make Government policies more responsive to the needs, of the people. I must also recall the equally important words of the Leader of the House, the Honourable Minister for Law, who, in welcoming the 18 new Members of Parliament advised us to let our conscience be our guide. It is in this spirit that I join the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment moved by the hon. Member for Punggol. It is not my intention to denigrate the HDB or to unreasonably or unfairly complain about the increase in prices. The reaction to the increase in prices, especially the suddenness, is well known. I realise that I have a duty to be constructive in my criticism. On the one hand, if I have to be constructive, I must of course, recognize and understand the serious difficulties which the HDB faces. It is a fact that they have difficulties such as increased cost of materials, shortage of labour, the unwillingness of contractors to tender for H D B projects. Another fact which, of course, I must not fail to realize is that, even at increased prices, there is a heavy subsidy in the price of HDB flats.”
“those being detained pursuant to a court decision or conviction, particularly those who are serving fixed jail sentences for offences which are not associated with crimes of violence or offences which are not otherwise abhorrent to society. I wonder whether the Hon. Minister would care to comment on that and to indicate whether what we are witnessing now is a step in a series of further reforms in this direction. My second observation is that in a scheme of this nature, it is absolutely important to have safeguards. Here I am not talking about safeguards of the public when detainees are released but safeguards for the detainees. The Minister did point out to us that employers will be assured that the detainees will have to behave themselves. But bearing in mind that these detainees have no pre- determined period of detention and that their detention could be extended, the detainees will be under tremendous pressure and they could be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I am thinking of situations where unscrupulous employers, fearing that they would lose the employment of these detainees, might threaten the detainees with false reports of their work and the detainees might then fear that their period of detention might be lengthened unfairly. I am sure this is a point which the Minister must have considered and he might have some measures in mind. Thirdly, Mr Speaker, a scheme of this nature can work if there is an incentive and detainees must have some indication that if they do their work well there will be some indication of an earlier release. If the Minister could comment on this, I would be very grateful.”
“The second category would be the category of preventive detention detainees, such as the category of detainees referred to by the Minister, and it would also cover the other category of detainees under the Internal Security Act who are also preventive detention detainees. The significance of this category is that they are detained under preventive detention provisions on the rationale that they are a special category and classification by themselves and cannot be subjected to the normal criminal law processes and trial procedures. In the case of detainees under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, I presume the difficulty of getting a conviction under the normal court processes is because witnesses are not willing to come forward to testify for fear of victimization. We have these two broad categories and, of course, there is a third category where drug addicts are sent to drug rehabilitation centres. We are not concerned with them. My comment, Mr Speaker, is that here we are introducing a scheme for release of criminal law detainees for employment purposes but the scheme has not been applied to those detained under the first category, that is to say, persons who are in jail serving a period of jail sentence for a variety of offences for which they have been found guilty. The Hon. Minister has told us that the detainees are supposedly engaged in rather serious activities, i.e. secret society activities and drug-trafficking, both of which are quite abhorrent to our society. Logically, if we want to release them, a case can be made out for considering a similar release scheme for those in the first category, i.e.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, with your permission, to comment on certain general principles of this Bill. I would like to start off by saying that I support the Bill in its general principles. It has a progressive approach in our treatment of criminal detainees but it raises certain interesting implications not only for the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act but also for all those who are detained. When I studied the Bill, I was wondering what aspects of our national interests are being advanced by this amendment, i.e. what particular interests are being promoted. Was it to rehabilitate the detainees? Was it to contribute to alleviating our labour shortage problem? Was it intended to solve some financial problems of the detainees and their families? I think that doubt has been resolved by the Minister's statement that the primary intention of the Bill is to rehabilitate the detainees. My first observation, Sir, is that this scheme for the release of detainees for purposes of employment is limited to criminal law detainees under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Speaking generally, I think it can be said that there are at least three broad categories of persons who are detained in our prisons. The first category would be those who are detained pursuant to a jail sentence imposed by a court of law after a person has been charged for an offence, undergone a trial and duly found guilty by a judge and then sentence is imposed. In that category, of course, there is a fixed duration of jail sentence. He knows exactly when he will be released.”
“To me, it seems there are two possible roles in present-day Singapore. One, of course, is to provide housing for those applicants who do not already have housing and also to provide better housing for those who want to transfer from a two-room flat to a three-room flat, and so on. Secondly, and here I am talking about the vast majority who already have housing, we should not take the position that the problem has been solved for, in view of the many points mentioned about defects, I think the second and important role of the HDB would be to ensure that there is continuing development, maintenance and upgrading of the environment, conditions of living, attending to defects and repairs so that the majority of the 67% of our population are reasonably happy with the living conditions of the HDB. If we do not do so, then I think we will have a very serious sociological and political problem where the majority of Singapore's population feel that the authorities, having provided them with housing, take a position thereafter of not caring for improvement and maintenance. Sir, I hope the Minister for National Development will give his attention to these points for I feel there is a two-fold role of the HDB today - to provide housing for those who do not have it, and to constantly maintain and keep the premises of those who already have housing in reasonably good condition.”
“Some of the problems, of course, can take some time in being attended to but there are other problems which I would respectfully suggest have to be attended to very quickly, such as lift breakdowns, which, as pointed out by the Member for Radin Mas, pose a problem for the older folk, women and the children. Lighting in corridors which fails is another urgent problem. When the corridors are dark there is a genuine concern for the security of children and women and old folk, and third, as mentioned by the Member for Alexandra, the rather nauseating problem of seepage and leak of sewerage pipes. This not only poses an unsanitary situation but also an unbearable living condition. I am at a loss to understand what is the problem here. I must immediately qualify my remarks by saying that I do not think the problem is one of lack of dedication or sincerity by the HDB personnel for, in my own experience, I found that the personnel in the HDB Area Offices in my constituency are always dedicated and willing to respond with sincerity. This leads me to a more general point, Sir, and that is, what is the role of the HDB today? The other day the Hon. Minister took us back to the early days where he graphically outlined to us what were the pressing problems. It seems to me that when the HDB was set up, the single objective was to provide public housing on a wide scale to the many who did not have housing. But today we are told that we have 67% of our population in HDB flats. Maybe the percentage has even gone up to more than 67%. Taking the position as of today, perhaps we should rethink the role of the HDB in contemporary Singapore. What should its role be, considering the fact that a large majority are already housed?”
“Sir, may I join in this debate? My concern like many of the others who spoke before me is with the defects, complaints and grievances of the many residents in constituencies which are principally or exclusively made of HDB flats. Before joining the chorus of voices by other hon. Members on this matter, to be fair to the HDB, I must first acknowledge and concede that it must be a monumental task to maintain and attend to problems in the many HDB estates which exist in Singapore. Second, I must concede that defects are bound to happen in public housing of such a great scale and, third, I must admit that the solution to some of the problems in the housing estates must rest with the residents and the civic groups, particularly where the problems concern good neighbourliness, a sense of community spirit and looking after common facilities. But the problem that worries me is not that there will be defects but the response to these defects when complaints are made by residents. As other Members have pointed out, HDB residents are aggrieved at the amount of time which the authorities take to respond to complaints. This makes me wonder whether the problem has been sufficient personnel in the HDB to attend to these matters. I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister could enlighten us on whether that is the problem. Some of the problems may appear mundane to others but, from the viewpoint of the residents in the HDB estates, it is of utmost importance. They are living in the flats and for them that is their immediate and most intimate environment.”
“This also exacerbates the problem and brings about uncertainty. Sir, I beg to support the motion. 4.09 p.m.”
“I respectfully suggest that the Minister for National Development and the HUDC, instead of ad hoc frequent announcements of policies, come out with clearly spelt out criteria and guidelines on all key matters, income ceiling limits, age limit, marital status, and should also spell out the policies concerning queuing up and when, if any, circumstances will queue-jumping be permitted. We heard yesterday the Minister for National Development, with regard to the HDB, stating categorically that there would be no queue-jumping. With regard to the HUDC, however, considerable confusion has arisen by announcement of priorities for certain categories, and I think the sooner this is cleared up, the better. I might also say that it would be desirable to take a more reasonable policy on single person applicants. I can understand that if there is a large percentage of applicants who are single persons, then on the surface there is cause for concern with regard to our objective of promoting close family ties. But does it follow that, because the applicants are singles, they will remain single upon purchasing HUDC flats? Not necessarily. In fact, it is reasonable to assume to the contrary, that because there is a long waiting period a person will wait to get married until he is sure of his allocation of flat. It can be said that it is unreasonable to expect him to get married when he would not know how many years he would have to wait for the allocation of a flat. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would respectfully suggest that the cooperation of the press be also sought. For I have noticed that the press sometimes carry articles of impending changes and impending policy requirements which are not then followed up by confirmation by the Government.”
“Also, if a person sells a property later, rather than sooner, does this convert him from a speculator to an investor? Thirdly, some have even talked about a capital gains tax. But I understand that this can be undermined by under-the-counter deals. Fourthly, I noted in today's papers that certain additional measures are being taken with regard to information that lawyers have to supply to the authorities. Perhaps, in this context, thought should also be given to requiring lawyers and others engaged in sale transactions to supply the Income Tax authorities with names of sellers of property. For, if I am not mistaken, repetitive and frequent buying and selling of property may constitute trading, which is subject to income tax. Of course, this list of measures is not exhaustive. Whatever measures Government wishes to take, if it decides to take action, it is necessary to be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease. That is to say, we must bear in mind the overall economy of our country. Although I am not an expert on economic matters, it seems clear that the building and construction sector has a vital impact on our economy, with subsequent effects in other areas such as supply of goods and materials, banking, professional services, etc. Therefore, any measures which are to be taken should be proportionate to the problem without seriously causing other problems. In the final analysis, whatever measures that are taken, I suspect, it will never be effective unless the Government rapidly builds more flats. I should add that the frequent changes of policies have not helped and have increased the frustrations among those who have applied and are on the waiting list.”
“The second reason why it may be necessary for the Government to step in is that there is a serious danger that if the matter gets out of proportion, then the value of the work ethic and all that we have been trying to do concerning correct work attitudes may be undermined. If the Government is to do something about speculation, many different measures have been aired publicly or privately. First, it has been said that the Government should restrict foreign ownership of property, presumably on the premise that most of the big-time speculators are foreigners. To this, the Minister for National Development replied stating that the majority of the buyers are Singaporeans. According to him, statistics as at December 1980 showed that 77.5% of the purchasers of new housing units are Singaporeans. He also added that foreigners could, in any case, buy through Singaporeans. Do such statistics conclusively rebut the argument that foreigners are engaged in speculation? With respect, I think not necessarily. It depends whether further and better figures and statistics can be produced to show whether these Singaporeans subsequently sold the property and whether they sold them to foreigners. The argument that foreigners could always buy through Singaporeans, I respectfully submit, is not persuasive for there are risks involved in buying in someone else's name. Secondly, it has been suggested that the re-sale of property should not be allowed until the sale has been completed and a variation of this proposal is that there should be a time limit before a sale is permitted. The question here is whether it will effectively curb speculation or whether it would hit only the small-time speculators.”
“However, excessive speculation should be discouraged." The question, therefore, is whether speculation has reached such alarming proportions that warrants the Government to step in with one or more measures. Perhaps a detailed answer to this question can best be made by economists and experts. But there does seem to be emerging a strong school of thought that speculation has reached rather disturbing proportions. If the Government is to step in and do something about speculation, we must be clear in our minds as to why it should do so. Is there anything wrong in people wanting to make money fast, especially since they take considerable risks? If there is nothing wrong in people wanting to make money, then why curb speculation? The answer seems to rest on two grounds. First, the speculative activity has made property prices soar to incredible heights. This has hit the middle-income potential home buyers, especially the younger professionals, who find these prices beyond their reach. I have not seen any figures of how many people are involved. Even if the number is not very large, these professionals, let us remind ourselves, are the very persons whom we will have to count on in the Government's efforts to provide "brain services" which is one of the five pillars of growth in the 80's according to the 10-year plan. I have not forgotten that the Minister for National Development has told us that more than 99% of the population qualify under the income ceiling to apply for HDB and HUDC flats. However, for them, this may not be of much consolation for the question is not qualifying but the prospect of having a flat soon, and if the wait is too long, frustration sets in.”
“The second point which I would like to bring up for consideration concerns the bringing about of knowledgeable, educated young Singaporeans. I would suggest that thought be given to how tax policies can further the important objective of bringing about knowledgeable young educated Singaporeans. It is said that Singaporeans hardly read. Our leaders have stressed the need for Singaporeans to be educated persons. How do we promote this? Here again, we must do it with our children. They must be encouraged to read and read widely, beyond their school textbooks. Every parent knows that when children reach a certain age they are voracious readers. If we go to the bookshops, we will find children sitting on floors, in between bookshelves reading. And it is not trash they are reading. We must encourage this. We must encourage parents to purchase books and fill the bookshelves at home. But books are expensive. Some thought should be given to the feasibility or desirability of providing deductions or reliefs for expenses incurred in purchasing books outside the school curriculum. In making these proposals, I hope I have not committed a sacrilege of principles held dear by economists and experts on fiscal policy. Let me now turn to the question of property prices and speculation which is a subject of discussion in Parliament as well as outside Parliament. It seems to be commonly accepted that there is a great deal of speculation in the property market with both big-time speculators as well as small-time speculators. The fundamental question is whether the Government should curb this speculation by one or more measures. The Minister for National Development said in this House on 20th February, 1981, that "some speculative activity in the property market is not harmful.”
“Yesterday, the Member for Henderson made some important points about the need for a cultural ballast and called for a review of taxes which cultural organizations sometimes have to pay. I support his point. As the Minister for Trade and Industry said, "economic growth is not an end in itself, and is the means to forge the kind of society we want." This raises the question: what kind of society do we want? We do not want, surely, a highly materialistic society. There are many who complain of the "rat race." There are many who bemoan the fact that Singapore is inadequate in cultural aspects, interests or opportunities for music, drama, dance and art. I am not sure if they are absolutely correct. But certainly there is room for improvement. Here again, I think the answer must lie in our schools and our school children. We must encourage our children to acquire talent, skills in music, dance and art. But then if we ask the parents, they will tell us that there is enough pressure as it is in school work, and it must be very enterprising parents, and brave children who want to take up music, dance, etc. I should be grateful if the Minister of Education (and in time to come, the Minister for Trade and Industry-designate) can consider the possibility and desirability of allowing parents a deduction or relief for expenses incurred in the instruction of their children in music, dance and art. In this way, Government will be officially giving encouragement to parents to arouse interest among children in art and culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, we in Singapore have inherited the music, drama and art of three Asian cultures and we also have exposure to the West. We must harness this rich potential.”
“However, when I look at the contents of these books, I think that even more can be done by giving more substantial grounding and knowledge of our country and our people. In this way, our children will grow up having a sense of pride in our country and maybe the future generations of workforce in Singapore will have a better motivation to keep the system going. As regards taxation policy, Mr Speaker, I am no expert on tax policies, but it is clear that our taxation policy is becoming more and more sophisticated and imaginative. Taxation is not regarded as an end in itself but is used as a vehicle to advance our societal interests and promote certain values. As the Minister has pointed out, the objective is: 'to encourage, not to smother, individual drive and enterprise . . Singaporeans must be encouraged to aspire to higher incomes, through acquisition of higher skills and more knowledge.' Apart from the objective of encouraging the urge to improve and excel, our tax policy promotes the value of filial piety in the reliefs for dependent parents, grandparents, etc. It promotes the value of concern for handicapped brothers and sisters. The increase in relief for handicapped persons, announced by the Minister, not only promotes recognition of the problems of the disabled but also encourages them to actively participate in our working population. And sometime ago, to promote the objective of the greening of Singapore, reliefs were given for the upkeep of gardens. In this vein, I hope that the Government will consider whether there are other ways, other possibilities, where tax policies can encourage and further other important societal goals. I have in mind two broad areas. The first is the promotion of culture and art.”
“If we approach the concept of manpower development in terms of getting the requisite number of people for the job, to train them, to endow them with skills and the necessary training, it may not be sufficient. We may have the best university, we may give the best training and we may provide adequate wages and incentives. But will that ensure that our working population will effectively join hands with the Government in forging ahead with our economic objectives? When we talk of higher productivity in our manufacturing and industrial sectors, when we talk of correct work attitudes from pilots right down to factory workers, when we urge employees not to job-hop, how can we achieve this? It seems to me that everything boils down to one important ingredient, that is, commitment to the country, pride in the nation and loyalty. This is very important. Whatever number of persons we train, whatever wages and tax concessions we may provide, we may not generate the correct work attitude unless a worker feels that deep sense of commitment. In order to bring this about, I think we must look far ahead and look to the children in our schools. Our school children must from an early age have the basic facts about Singapore: how is it that we became independent, where are we, how is it that despite our smallness of size and population, we have succeeded; the problems that the founding fathers faced [and, here, I am not referring to Stamford Raffles but the founding fathers of modern independent Singapore]; why we cannot take the future for granted. Our children must be inculcated in these key points. I commend the Ministry of Education for having made a start in this direction in the books put out for primary school children.”
“It is the moons which enables us to forge the kind of society we want.' The third reason why I would like to congratulate him is that he has announced his intention to hold consultations on economic policies with the private sector. This is the second time in the past few weeks that the Government has decided on systematic consultations (the earlier instance being the consultation through the vehicle of the Schools Council). This measure is laudable and will ensure that the Government has proper feedback. As regards public reaction to the Budget Speech, I think the consensus is that the public reaction has been good. However, the public reaction seems to focus on the short term tax concessions and tax reliefs. This worries me to some extent for I fear that certain important aspects of the Budget Speech did not get proportionate attention, I refer to the less attractive points, the warning notes spelt out by the Minister of the difficult times ahead. The Minister pointed out that in 1980 the prospects for the world economy were not good, but that in 1981 it will be a difficult year, and in 1982 it will be even more so. In the last paragraph of his Budget Speech, he pointed out that "we face difficult times. It is an uncertain world." Mr Speaker, Sir, these sombre, serious notes deserve some repetition because in our euphoria over the tax concessions and tax reliefs we may forget that rough waters lie ahead. I noted that the Minister in his Budget speech has rightly pointed out that the key to the long-term success of our economic restructuring is not high wages or fiscal incentives but manpower development. But the phrase "manpower development" is attractive, yet deceptive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I make this statement with some trepidation and reluctance as I know there are, in this House, many other colleagues who have expertise, knowledge and acumen on economic and financial matters. Like other colleagues who have preceded me in the Budget debate, I too want to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health for his statement. But why do I congratulate him? Is it for what the Straits Times of 7th March called, in bold headlines, "Chok Tong's goodies"? No. Let me not be misunderstood. Like others I also welcome the package of tax reliefs, incentives and concessions. In my view, congratulations are due to the Minister for three reasons. First, for presenting a clear and coherent statement of the economic issues as seen by the Government of the problems that lie ahead, of our targets and of the strategies to achieve the targets. Appendix I to his speech, "Highlights of Singapore's Economic Development Plan for the Eighties" is an extremely important document outlining the scenarios for the decade, setting out the internal and external factors which will shape our destiny. I have noted the five broad targets and the five bold strategies to achieve the targets. We are told that there will be five pillars of growth in the 80's (manufacturing, trade, tourism, transport and communications, and, brain services), although I think the term "brain services" is not the most apt of terms to describe what we have in mind. The second reason to congratulate the Minister is that his Budget Statement on economic and financial matters has not been in isolation but has been linked to the overall vision of the future of Singapore. And as he pointed out, 'Economic growth, desirable as it is, is not an end in itself.”
“I can see the reluctance in approaching younger lawyers because under the scheme in our Constitution there is security of tenure and, once appointed, judges cannot be removed except by very complicated procedures. But the Consti- tution was amended recently to provide for the office of Judicial Commissioner. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government and the Hon. Prime Minister to think in terms of using the device of Judicial Commissioner to enable short-term appointments of the younger able practitioners so that they would not have to completely abandon their careers but, at the same time, they could have a taste of the judicial function and would also enable the Senior Judges and the Chief Justice to appraise the judicial performance of the Judicial Commissioner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Hon. Prime Minister indicating that if in a few years' time he is unable to persuade potential candidates from Singapore to take up the office of judgeship he will exercise his right of advising the President to appoint judges from abroad. I hope that statement will persuade those who were approached but declined, to reconsider and to accept judgeship as a contribution to the administration of justice in Singapore for if, as pointed out, several of the Cabinet Ministers have taken rather steep cuts in their salaries to contribute to the nation in the Legislature, it may not be unreasonable to ask persons in the legal profession to do likewise in contributing to the Judiciary. But I think it must be a measure of last resort because, Mr Speaker, while I can see that an expatriate judge can perform ably in deciding cases in most categories, I wonder whether an expatriate judge would have that sense of appreciation of the policy underpinnings of certain laws which he might have to administer in cases appearing before him. I am thinking particularly of cases like Constitutional Law cases where this may impinge on important national interests and the judge ought to have an awareness of the social and political underpinnings of the laws. Having said that, may I ask a question of the Hon. Prime Minister and, that is, whether some of the problems we are encountering could be solved in the long run by focusing on the younger practising lawyers. Traditionally, it seems that we have focused on lawyers from Government legal service who are in their fifties.”
“If tough policies and tough decisions have to be taken, then they must be taken. The Government has taken an approach all these years where the fundamental bedrock of all policies and decisions is the national interest of the country. We have never hesitated to take policies or decisions where our national interest requires them. I am not suggesting that we depart and, indeed, we should not depart from that approach. However, the Government can take these policies and decisions and exercise its full authority but with fairness and circumspection. If we do this, we can be more assured that the substance as well as the implementation of Government policies will have even greater support of the people in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Motion. 4.00 p.m.”
“Finally, where their applications have been through an MP, the problems are compounded. Even the MP does not know the reasons, since in most cases all he gets is a copy of the reply sent to the citizen. It is very difficult for him to advise the citizen. His credibility is affected. Indeed, the credibility of the Government may be affected in the long run. Mr Speaker, Sir, I owe an explanation for having dwelt on this point at length. There are two reasons why I attach importance to this. First, I would anticipate that in the years ahead, there will be increasing regulatory law in different facets of our society - commerce, banking, finance, immigration, employment, and so on. We only have to look at the different Addenda to find examples of the proposed new legislation. This is inevitable if in our society we want to bring about discipline, have control over vital sectors of our economy and other aspects of our society. On the other hand, this will lead to even greater discretionary powers being conferred on public servants as a result of enabling legislation or enabling subsidiary legislation. The second reason why I attach importance is that our voters are becoming more educated, and with greater education, our people in the years ahead will become more conscious and assertive of their rights. In view of these two factors, it is my respectful suggestion that the way in which policies and decisions are implemented and explained, the way in which discretionary powers are exercised will become increasingly important for Government and the relationship between the Government and the people. In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked myself whether my views mean that I am advocating the Government to go soft. The answer is "no." The Government can be firm and still fair.”
“My appeal here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is for negative decisions to be communicated wherever possible in a way in which the citizen or individual will understand the criteria and the reasons. In particular, I would appeal to the departments to avoid sending replies which are outstanding for their brevity, curt or merely inform the applicant that it is regretted that his application or appeal is rejected without saying anything else. Of course, I am excluding those cases where considerations of security or public order or of privilege may not allow disclosure of reasons. Where the interest of an individual is perceived by him to be very important to him or his family and provided no conceivable threat to the public interest as a whole arises, my appeal is for Government departments to be more open in giving reasons or criteria for their decisions. It may be that from the point of view of the civil servant, the less it is said the more expedient it may be. But from my limited experience such replies produce bewilderment, frustration and unhappiness on the part of the people. First of all, if no reasons are given, the individual will not know whether he failed in his application or appeal because he did not have the requisite qualifications or whether there were other better applicants. Secondly, if no reasons are given, it may cause the citizen to feel that the decision indeed was taken without any reasons. Thirdly, and worse still, it may generate an apprehension that the decisions are taken arbitrarily. Fourthly, when no reasons are given, it leads to a situation where applicants keep on repeatedly applying, hoping for "pot-luck" in a Russian-roulette fashion, hoping that on their fifth, eighth or tenth application they will succeed. Clearly this is undesirable.”
“This prompts me to respectfully suggest to the Ministries, Government departments and statutory boards to be mindful of the way in which policies and decisions are explained and communicated. I have in mind both types of decisions, those which are policies enunciated by the Cabinet or promulgated in the form of law as well as specific decisions taken with regard to a request, application or appeal by an individual. Let me take the question of policies first. Wherever possible, I would suggest that we try to give an adequate period of notice before new important policies are introduced. Policies may be sound and sensible but the methods of implementation can produce unhappiness and negative reactions. We should, wherever possible, give advance notice of the introduction of new policies so that our people can adjust. Of course, I am aware that in some cases and in certain areas, because of urgency this may not be possible. However, a longer period of notice will not only enable people to adjust but the Government as well as individual departments can assess the reactions of the people, to attend to unforeseen snags, to clarify doubts and to give reassurances. A greater period of notice will also allow the Ministry to explain its policies and to promote discussions in different forums. I would like to commend the Ministry of Education for the public explanations it brought about over television on the PSLE system. Leaving aside whether one agrees or disagrees with the explanations, there is no doubt that this is a step in the right direction. We should go further and attempt to have such discussions before, and not after, the fact. Let me now turn to decisions taken on specific cases.”
“It illustrates that the Government is not taking a self-satisfied, complacent or smug approach even though it has been returned to power in all constituencies. The President's speech in this regard clearly illustrates that the Government is aware of the trust placed in it by the people and the heavy responsibilities which consequently rest upon Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would submit that it is not only the content or the substance of policies which should be commented on in this House. The implementation of policies and decisions should also be equally scrutinized and debated. The way in which decisions of the Government, policies and legislation are implemented, the way in which they are conveyed and explained to our people, can be as important as the substance of the decisions and policies. Indeed, the most sound policy and the most sensible law can be undermined by poor implementation. It is on this point that I wish to develop further comments. Like my other 17 colleagues who are new Members of Parlia- ment, I have been a Member of Parliament close to two months. This is indeed a short period. It may not be sufficiently long to enable one to undertake a comprehensive or detailed analysis and appraisal of the Government. Nonetheless, the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tanglin, has asked the 18 new Members of Parliament to let our conscience be our guide. And so I have asked myself: what important impressions have I gathered during this limited period, and what has pricked my conscience on the basis of this limited experience? One of the important impressions I have concerns the method of the implementation of decisions.”
“On this question of rehabilitation of drug addicts, I wish to inform the House that I have come across cases of drug addicts who have been released, after they have kicked the habit, from detention in rehabilitation centres and several of them have experienced considerable difficulty in resuming their employment because potential employers or their former employers will not take them in or in the case of seamen because they are not re-registered as seamen. This prompts me to observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the objective of rehabilitation is not achieved only because the addict has kicked the habit and can be released from the centre. He must be made to get back into the mainstream of our society and be a useful citizen with the rest of us. He must be given a second chance to contribute, otherwise there is a high probability of his resuming the drug habit. My comment here may not, of course, be directly within the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, but I do hope that the departments concerned will not fail to take this into account and try to persuade employers, both in the private and public sectors to change their attitudes. Mr Speaker, Sir, turning to the third point that I have in mind, the Address by the President emphasized the need for thorough, critical and open debate. Acceptance by, and co-operation with, a knowledgeable people of the policies of the Government is said to be the objective of the Government. In this regard, Members were asked to help by speaking out their views, to criticize Government policies, to make them more responsive to the needs of the people. I warmly applaud this. I think it is a significant call.”
“The idea of a Schools Council may, therefore, be appropriate and is commendable, and I hope that this brings about the objective of a better understanding of the educational policies of the Government by those in charge of our schools. Having said that, I am prompted to observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the problem of communicating with the principals in the schools may be one problem, but it may not be the only problem. An equally important problem is that of communication with parents of our school children. We have already heard in this House of the pressures, anxieties and worries of parents over the implications of new educational policies of the Government. Can the Schools Council play a role here? For instance, in schools where there are responsible parent-teacher associations, should not representatives of these associations be invited to sit as observers in the Schools Council, or even as participants? In this way, another objective of reaching out to the parents of our children may be accomplished at the same time. I hope that the Ministry of Education will give due consideration to this after the Schools Council has been launched and the Ministry has an opportunity to appraise its role and effectiveness. Turning to the Addendum relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs, this Addendum refers, inter alia, to the question of combating drug abuse which is, as we all know, a serious matter. No sympathy can be shown to the drug trafficker. For the drug addict, our objective is to rehabilitate him. I am glad to note from the Addendum that according to the Ministry the drug abuse situation is under control and that the Ministry will use this opportunity to rehabilitate more drug addicts.”
“Sir, it may not be out of place for me to quote from the Proclamation of Singapore dated 9th August, 1965, in which the Prime Minister proclaimed, and I quote: '. . on behalf of the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.' In my humble view, it is necessary to bear this in mind, for it can be said that all policies of subsequent Parliaments and of the different ministries must be viewed as preserving and always enhancing this fundamental goal containing these elements of a sovereign democratic independent notion, founded on the elements of liberty and justice, seeking to promote the welfare and happiness of our people in a more just and equal society. It is with this broad frame of reference, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have read and considered the Address by our President and the Addendu m to the Address. I will briefly touch on the Addenda relating to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and then proceed to touch at somewhat greater length on one aspect of the Address proper. In the Addendum relating to the Ministry of Education, we are informed of the plan to set up a Schools Council. We have been informed that there is a need to improve the channel of communication between the headquarters and the school principals. We are told that the policy-thinking in the Ministry is not thoroughly understood by the principals and teachers in the schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten expressing the thanks of this House to the President for his Address delivered here on 3rd February, 1981. Mr Speaker, Sir, in preparing for this debate I had to remind myself as to what a Presidential Address represents. What does it seek to convey? I have answered that question by regarding the Presidential Address as the presentation of the basic philosophy, the basic approach of the Government and the basic outline of legislative program me for the coming years. But this is not in a strict sense an entirely new Government, for the People's Action Party has been in charge of governing Singapore's affairs since self-government. With the help of the Librarian, a check of the Hansard shows that, in fact, there were eight Addresses to the Parliament of independent Singapore by the President and by the then Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. These sight Presidential Addresses, Mr Speaker, Sir, taken collectively represent the stage by stage progression of the policies of our Government in advancing the basic fundamental goal of our society. This led me to ask myself another question, i.e. what is the fundamental goal of our society? In which document can we find the basic goal of our society set out? Do we have any documents akin or nearly equivalent to, say, the American Declaration of Independence? The answer to that, I told myself, lies in our basic constitutional documents: the Constitution of Singapore, the Separation Agreement and the Proclamation of Singapore dated 9th August, 1965. The Separation Agreement is probably a unique agreement in the history of Singapore in that it was signed by the Prime Minister and nine of his Cabinet colleagues.”