Steve Chia Kiah Hong
Singapore
“A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election.”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the m…”
“Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?”
“The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?”
“Active political recruitment has been going on inside and outside the RC and PA s organisation and premises. Although grassroots leaders are under no compulsion to join the PAP and can opt out if they want to, Straits Times' Forum writer, Ms Yee, had correctly pointed out that "joining a grassroots organisation seems to be a sure way for…”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Steve Chia Kiah Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“I have a supplementary question for Question 3, Sir.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Looking at the figures, the average was 5% fee increase a year. That actually is a lot for the HDB heartlanders who are mostly earning below $3,400 (60% earning below $3,400). That is a lot of money. Can the Minister comment whether this constant university fee increase is spiralling out of control, out of reach of our HDB heartlanders? Is this spiralling also due to the universities' heavy dependency on expatriates? Sixty percent of the teaching population are expatriates with their families. Is it because of that, that our costs are escalating out of control?”
“Sir, a point of clarification. Did the Ministry report or complain to the Chinese and Philippine governments about these breaches in their system? Should we not report to them that something is wrong with their system? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think these breaches are known facts. This happens also with other countries. So, it is a matter of tightening up the system. In time, hopefully, with the biometric system, these breaches would be a thing of the past. Column No : 474 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE AND NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (Approved tuition fee increases) 2. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will provide a list of all approved tuition fee increases for the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University since 1990; (b) how much have tuition fees gone up now, compared to the fees payable in 1990; and (c) whether the jump in the tuition fees payable since 1990 has been higher than the annual rate of inflation.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his long and comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. First of all, how can other countries issue new passports to their citizens under a different name for them to come to Singapore? Something must be done, especially with our Asian counterparts, to send the message to them. The other point is, with all these new securities that are being added, with Interpol and biometric scanning, are we going to expect zero case now or minimum? What kind of assurance can we get that there will be no more such breaches in security? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in this age of interglobal travel, cooperation amongst countries is important. So Mr Steve Chia is right in that other countries must also tighten up their system. So really, in this case, it is up to the Filipino and Chinese authorities to recognise that something went amiss and to ensure that the passport issued to a person is the correct person. The other question, I think nobody can give an assurance. But the assurance that I can certainly give is that MHA officers will do their best. That is why I gave a comprehensive answer - to reassure Singaporeans that security is foremost in our minds. And even as we will ensure clearance efficiency - I think that is the point Mr Steve Chia and others have also brought up - nevertheless, with training, proper technology and upgrading of equipment, we will ensure that a proper balance is struck.”
“The Government can help in a big way. I hope that MCYS will review this proposal fast and give a satisfactory reply in the COS debate. In conclusion, Sir, this is a good Budget. Returning money to the people is always good, albeit for the wrong motives. I support this Budget even though it comes with personal political expense. This could be my last Budget debate here in the House if I am not elected at the next coming General Election. I, therefore, hereby wish all colleagues and citizens the best of wishes for the coming year. 1.30 pm”
“Parents no long know what their teenage children are doing, and even if they do know, they no longer have the power to control nor influence them. What we read in the papers of late, and even today, of some parents who do not even know that their children sneak out of the house in the middle of the night, are but the surface cream of more trouble brewing underneath with our teens in our society. Our values are being badly eroded, and our youths grow up lost, disoriented and led by peers with less than proper character. Young parents really need help bringing up their children. And this guidance cannot be coming from childcare centres, maids or schools. It must come from the family - in the person of the parents and the grandparents. The Government urgently needs to provide greater fiscal incentives for grandparents, and even mothers, to consider quitting their outside jobs to spend quality and quantity time with their children and grandchildren, especially in the first seven years of development. If we seriously care for our families and society, 10 to 20 years down the road, we need to act now - immediately. Mothers need to consider giving up their job for their children and family, if necessary. Husbands and fathers need to spend more love and attention on their family, other than chasing the economic dole. Grandmothers must be encouraged, through limited Government subsidies, to provide home-based infant and childcare - something that I had mentioned at the last budget too. To subsidise the cost of childcare through grandparents is a big paradigm shift. It is a shift that we can no longer afford not to take The right and proper family authority and guidance must be established to guide the growing youths from being led astray in our society.”
“The rich and well-off in our society must help the poor and low income in our society, through the redistribution of wealth by the Government. Everyone who wants to work must get a decent comfortable income from it. Therefore, I beseech the Government to finetune this Workfare programme into a yearly programme, possibly through the use of negative income tax (NIT). In today's term, the cost of living and the wages of the low income workers have not risen proportionately. The cost of utilities, public transport and housing have all risen tremendously by profit-centred businesses whereas the wages of the low-income unskilled workers are artificially depressed by increasing supply of low and semi-skilled migrant workers coming here to compete for jobs. We need to raise the earnings of the non- and semi-skilled Singaporean workers. We need a more sustained effort at improving their lot. As some MPs had also agreed earlier, help must be given on a more consistent and sustainable basis, not just in the run-up to a general election where the one-off cash handouts will be spent in no time. The Government can well afford to spend up to a maximum $500 million every year to generate tax credits for every aged working citizen above 45 years, earning below the minimum income of $1,200 per month. On a tiered basis, it will go a long way to help the really poor in our midst. If the Government is genuinely more caring now, I, like Mdm Halimah, challenge the Government to install this Workfare programme every year, not just at an election year. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Government needs to incentivise help for the young family. Our modern society and family are being attacked by the onslaught of decaying moral values through the mass and digital medium.”
“I feel strongly that the Government should include them in this Progress Package and give them the same recognition as we give our NSmen. They do their national duties by producing babies for our country, sacrifice their career to look after them, and guide them up as proper citizens. We must appreciate them. Therefore, I suggest a one-time bonus of $100 per housewife per child, ie, $200 for housewives with two children, up to a maximum of $400 per housewife with four children or more. This is to give them some ang-pow spending money for doing a different form of non-financial national service. It will cost the Government some money, but, again, not something that the Government cannot afford. Secondly, the whole Workfare package - announced with great fanfare - to help the lowest 20% income earners in our society. Sir, this is a good scheme. I support it, and I praise the Government for it. It only costs the Government $400 million, but it goes a long way to help the estimated 200,000 of low income earners. A small amount to help a big group of people - that is a brilliant policy! This is what I would truly call "peanut expenses" compared to the overall total Government expenditure. Sir, if the Government does not first lead to show care for the poor of our society, nobody can take that initiative to make such a big impact. As one Australian visitor, Richard Tan, expressed in the Straits Times Forum last week: "Has Singapore become so selfish in its quest for economic prosperity that the poor and the aged get discarded along the way?" I hope not. And I believe not. With this new Workfare package, it is a big shift in the Government's policy on welfare. And I want to credit our Prime Minister Lee for his bold step in that direction.”
“The experienced ones are going to Hong Kong and other countries, because of the low pay here, leaving Singapore with all these inexperienced but cheap workers. Looking at total Government receipts, the Government can well afford to be kinder. Lastly, Sir, I now want to touch on the Progress Package announced by the Government. It is good of the Government to return the money back to the people. I do not see it as a problem like some other MPs do. When the Government collects more, then more must be returned to the people. Period. On behalf of the people, I thank the Government for heeding my calls (from past budget debates in 2002 through 2005) to return any budget surplus back to the people, to take greater care of our elderly pioneer generation of workers, and to care for the low income and poor - suffering from the high cost of living in our Singapore society. Thank you, Sir, for heeding our calls. To all our citizens out there, you can see this is what some of the things Opposition MPs can do in Parliament - to press the Government to take greater care of you, the citizen, and not take you for granted. That said, is that all? Can the Government do better? I think so. And I think it should, if it wants greater support from the people. Firstly, a big group of non-salaried workers are being left out of the Workfare package. They are the housewives and homemakers. They work hard 24/7, 365 days to take care of the family (which is the building blocks of our society) and nurture worthy Singaporean citizens with the right values for our society. Their contribution to Singapore is crucial but it is often neglected, because there are no economic indicators to capture their contribution.”
“With this new secured source of unlimited water supply from the sea, residents should be charged fair market rate from the provision of such water, and not be imposed such outdated unfair taxes. I hope the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources will expedite their reviews and remove it soon. As for TV and radio licence fees, it is not fair for residents to do national service, and subsidise our national objective of promoting local content developers and providers. That economic objective should be funded by the Government. The Government can afford to subsidise more than the current $5 million given for this fledging industry. Licence fee holders should not be asked to fund this Government objective. This is an outdated tax and should be reviewed and abolished soon. Only England, Ireland and some other Commonwealth states continue to impose this licence fee. Other developed countries, like America, no longer impose such fees to subsidise their national broadcasters. I hope MICA will act on this soon too. The Government should also reduce the foreign domestic worker levy, so that the minimum pay of these migrant workers can be raised. It is incredible that the Government earns more from its levies than the domestic worker herself. This is cruel, and it profits excessively from the undue hardship of migrant workers. With better pay, Singaporeans can expect to recruit more experienced maids to look after their families - and not those fresh young maids coming here with psychological problems, adjustment problems, family problems, and with no experience at all working in high-rise flats, contributing to all the murders, suicides and all the careless things that are happening.”
“These are not small peanut amount of money that the Government collects. The total revenue from these "others" is bigger than the revenue collected from the 5% GST, and I think it is important for these others to be more clearly and transparently reflected. From Appendix 7.1 again, we understand that the Government expects to collect $870 million from stamp duties, $160 million in water conservation tax and $1 billion from "other taxes", although it is not reflected what this "other taxes" is about - that it can amount to actually $1 billion. I wonder also whether the $111 million collected from the radio and TV licences, as reported last week, is reflected in this $1 billion too. The point I am driving is this, Sir: that the Government should scrap (or at least drastically reduce) some of these taxes like water conservation tax, radio and TV licences, and domestic foreign worker levy. They can afford to, and they should. Water is an essential constituent for life. Without it, we all die. Thus the message to conserve is important. We do not deny that. But to impose a "water conservation tax" from the first drop of water coming out from the tap is wrong. The moment you turn on the tap, the first drop, you are taxed. That is not good. People should not be taxed for at least the first 15 cubic metres of water needed for daily necessities and living. Any taxes imposed on the excess water used above that amount will be reasonable, not below it. This is especially so since the technology to produce desalinated water is here, and water is no longer a limited resource, constantly threatened to be cut off by our Malaysian neighbours.”
“As stated earlier, this Government has more than $19 billion in the Consolidated Fund waiting to be transferred to the reserves. Can the Prime Minister and Finance Minister deny this fact? We want the truth, nothing but the whole truth. As Mark Twain ever wrote in his most famous quote, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." No wonder the IMF, and their report last year, said that Singapore's budget balance underestimates the strength of Singapore's fiscal position. Now we know why. Clever statistics have been used. We can only hope the Government can be more transparent in its disclosures henceforth. Sir, in view of our better understanding now of total Government receipts, I believe the Government can be a lot more generous. Generous not only in the element of giving handouts, but also in the aspect of takings. Mr Low Thia Khiang was right when he said that "only the Government is rich, not the people". With 60% of households earning below $3,400 per month and the next best 20% of households making only an average of $5,400 per month, how rich can our Singaporean citizens be? Sir, it is high time to reduce the indirect taxation and fees collected from our people, and allow them to truly grow richer by their efforts - not just from Government dividend handouts. Table 6.2 of the Budget Highlights shows that "other taxes, other fees and charges, and others" account for $4.36 billion in FY 2004, $3.87 billion in FY 2005, and an estimated $3.97 billion for FY 2006. These revenue receipts are higher than total GST collections of $3.6 billion and $3.75 billion respectively for each of the following years. Yet, they are all lumped together as "others" - together with stamp duties, foreign worker levy, etc. Can Government be more specific about these etc. and etc?”
“Not inclusive of the 2001 transfers, FY2002 and FY2003 surplus receipts not previously reported - because I cannot find any figures of that from the highlights - a simple calculation tells me that there is actually an obscene total of at least more than $19 billion still sitting in our Consolidated Fund waiting to be transferred to the national reserves when this current term of government ends in the next four months. That, Sir, is a lot of money. More importantly, that money has not been reflected in the Budget. And it gives a misleading picture of our Government's fiscal position. Although MOF had defended its 'more stringent definition' of avoiding these 'lumpy uncertain capital receipts', the figures from Appendix 7.1 clearly show that these lumpy amounts of $3-$5 billion have been appearing in quite certain regularity every year, and these should be clearly reflected in our Budget. I believe everyone here and all accounting experts will agree that all revenues going into the Government's Consolidated Fund must be clearly reflected. There should be no exception unless mandated by the Constitution. Not reflecting such big Government capital receipts in the Budget is certainly more misleading to the public than reflecting it, more misleading than what the MOF spokesperson said on a query by the Today paper last Saturday, and I quote: "... otherwise Singaporeans could be misled about how much revenue is available for expenditure." Sir, I had been misled. The public had been misled. Everyone had been misled to think that the Government budget had been very tight these last four years, and we will enter FY2006 with a huge deficit. But, Sir, that is not true at all. Not reflecting capital receipts is indeed even more misleading than the whole truth.”
“8 billion respectively. For FY2006, it is estimated at $40.69 billion. This means that all expected money to be collected by the Government going into the Consolidated Fund is actually $40.7 billion. Sir, this is $11.7 billion more than what the Government said it will collect as operating revenue. The Government is collecting more money than it dares to declare. So, after deducting all the special transfers and deficits, the Government is, in actual fact, still holding on to $8.8 billion of surplus revenue receipts. Given that only 50% of Net Investment Income, as required by the Constitution, amounting to $3.7 billion cannot be touched and must go into the national reserves, the Government will still expect to have an operating surplus of $5.1 billion for FY2006. This $5.1 billion comprises $4.1 billion of capital receipts - mainly from land sales and other capital receipts - and an additional $1 billion of investment income, allowed but also not reflected in this Budget. Apparently, the Government decides to use only 33% of projected NII returns for this term of government. Why it did not use up all the 50% allowed, to show a smaller budget deficit of only $1.86 billion, is something beyond my understanding. I hope the Prime Minister can explain. Sir, the figures presented by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister do not reflect the overall fiscal position of the Government. After deducting the total expenditure of the Government for FY2004 ($28.96 billion) and FY2005 ($28.85 billion), the Government is actually still holding on to surplus cash receipts of $8.74 billion and $9.95 billion respectively.”
“Unless there is a big change in the electoral boundaries, Singaporeans should expect to see less constituencies being contested than in 2001. Their right to vote is being eroded by a monopolistic anti-competitive PAP Government. As the Straits Times headlines on Sunday put it, "Lack of political choice is harmful to our Singapore society." I hope the PAP Government will not continue to play this political advantage, at the expense of causing greater harm to our Singapore society. Therefore, if the Prime Minister takes the coming GE as seriously as this Budget, I hope he will also play it more fairly. Play fair to spur more interest for concerned citizens to participate in this GE - whether as independents or Opposition Party members. The Prime Minister can easily do it by reducing the size of the GRCs back to the 1998 proposal of three-men team each, and that will immediately quadruple the number of SMCs to around 42. Singaporeans will immediately see more contest, and 50% of our citizens will immediately be able to exercise their right to vote in this GE. Society will be better off and richer for this experience. Sir, please do not hide behind a big GRC any longer. Now, let me come back to the analysis of the Budget in detail, Sir. The headline figures project operating revenue of $28.96 billion, and a total expenditure of $30.62 billion. Factoring in special transfers and NII contributions, we are told that the Government will make an operating deficit of $2.86 billion. Can this be true? A look at Appendix 7.1 (page 35) of the Budget Highlights tells us that this is not an accurate picture painted by the Government. According to this Appendix given out by the Government, the Government's actual total receipts for FY2004 and FY2005 are $37.7 billion and $38.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I will comment on the electioneering behind this Budget first, before making a thorough analysis of this Budget, and will close with a few important ideas for the MOF and other Ministry officials to take note and look into. As several MPs before me had rightly pointed out yesterday and today, this is indeed an Election Budget. It is a Budget used to sweeten the ground support for the PAP Government in the run up to the election. The Budget is used to reduce the anger and frustration of the lower income, the poor and the aged workers against the rising income/wealth divide between the rich and the poor, at least temporarily. And I can place my bet very firmly that the GE will be called within 30 days from 1st May 2006, after the people had collected the money. Sir, I believe the Government had succeeded in this political objective. The poor, the aged, and the lower income are definitely thankful and appreciative of such a helping hand. This appreciation, by the lowest 30% of income earners and small-size HDB flat owners, will translate into appreciative votes for the PAP Government come polling day. We, especially the new faces and non-incumbent Members of the Opposition contesting this coming General Election, will be wiped out. How then can we still get people to be interested in contesting in the elections, especially when they cannot create much impact individually in a single-member constituency? As I told some Ministers and MPs in the Members' Room yesterday, we, in NSP under the SDA, may not be able to even field a team to contest the five-person Jalan Besar GRC, for short of candidates.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for clarifying that the MOE did not give out any scholarship for any student other than to Singaporeans. GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES AND AGENCIES (Use of carpets in buildings) 7. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Health whether Government Ministries and agencies will use less carpets in their buildings as carpets may be less healthy than other materials such as linoleum in our tropical climate.”
“Clarification, Sir. The newspaper carried a report that the China student, Zhang Wei, was offered a MOE scholarship, not a GLC scholarship.”
“Sir, in the case of a newspaper report of a China student, Zhang Wei, who was offered by MOE to come to Singapore to study computer science and then he subsequently failed and hanged around in the campus - to cut the story short - why was he offered a scholarship by MOE to study computer science in Singapore, since there is no scholarship given?”
“Is it actually safe for swimming? The Ministry should do a thorough research into the gradient of the lagoons to ensure that it is safe for swimming.”
“Sir, the Minister has actually not answered my question on whether it is safe for swimming, because if it is safe for swimming, there would not have been so many drownings in such a short time. Experts have said - it was reported in the newspapers - that the gradient and the coral reef actually sink in at the roped in area, and it becomes a danger zone for the beach-goers. Parents of young boys know that it is not a safe place for swimming.”
“Mr Speaker, a point of clarification. In my original submission of the Question, I asked about the Minister making a comment during his public press conference over TV that the Government accepts responsibility for the NKF issue. My question was to clarify what does it mean by "accepting responsibility". Does it also entail the Government issuing a public apology to the people? What does it mean by "accepting responsibility"?”
“Sir, can any citizen, who declares that he does not watch free-to-air television channels, ie, he just has a TV and he watches only DVDs or whatever, request not to pay these licence fees?”
“Sir, of the amount of licence fees collected, what is the percentage that is actually used for purchase of movies versus the percentage that is used for development of local programmes? The other question is, for houseowners who are on cable and subscribing to Cable Vision, can they request to waive these licence fees because they are already paying through Cable Vision?”
“Licensees have one month's grace period until 31st January to pay their licence fee of $110. Payments can be made by cheque, via GIRO or on-line (electronic) means and cash/NETs payment at any of the 63 SingPost offices island wide. There are thus multiple convenient payment channels and ample grace period provided for licensees to pay their licence fee. Currently, about 92% of the licensees pay their TV licence fees before onset of the late payment period. The late payment fee of $25 is about 23% of the TV licence fee. This late payment fee essentially serves as a deterrent for late payment which may result in the issue of a writ of summons as well as warrant of arrest against licensees. Based on past records, about 8% of licensees are served with a late payment notice and 50% of those served responded before a writ of summons is issued. I would like to point out that even at the summons stage, composition payment is offered for compounding the offence. This means that the offender can pay up the licence fee and late payment charges due as full settlement of the arrears. Sir, our assessment is that the amount of late payment fee levied has served the intended purpose of ensuring the majority of the licensees pay their TV licence fees on time. In administering the late payment fee, due consideration is also given to licensees who may have inadvertently forgotten to pay their licence fees by the due date. Such requests for waiver of the late fees are assessed on a case-by-case basis, especially if they have been prompt in past payments. Similarly, licensees who faced financial difficulties may be offered instalment payments and even waiver of the penalty fees.”
“Local programmes are costly to make but are needed to keep Singaporeans informed about issues of relevance to our society, promote better appreciation of social issues and strengthen community bonding. Some examples of Public Service Broadcast programmes supported in the past year include: "40 on 40", a documentary series which traces the significant trends and developments in Singapore over the last 40 years; "First Mums", a drama series on first-time mothers; and "Manam", a drama on the plight of those suffering from mental illness. Public Service Broadcast funds are also used for National and community interest programmes, such as National Day Rally and National Day Message broadcasts, to communicate critical national messages to Singaporeans. Movies shown on mass entertainment channels, such as Channels 5 and 8, are not supported with Public Service Broadcast funds, as these are generally commercially viable. However, from time to time, MDA does support foreign dramas, including movies, on the minority-language channels, such as Suria and Vasantham Central. Approximately 8% of Public Service Broadcast funding goes towards supporting foreign movies and dramas. These programmes are usually not commercially viable but are enjoyed by a significant number of viewers. They complement local programmes shown on these channels. Sir, on the penalty fee, the TV licences for households are valid from January to December, and renewable annually by 31st January of the following year. Before the TV Licence expires, licencees would receive a combined Property Tax and TV Licence fee bill from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) or a TV Licence Payment Advice from the MDA in December annually.”
“MediaCorp clearly understands its obligations as a recipient of Public Service Broadcast funds and also the competition coming from cable TV offerings. It is well aware that, if it cannot offer viewers acceptable programming, it will lose market share. This is the law of the market. Sir, the overall viewership of MediaCorp TV channels has remained largely unchanged following the merger of MediaCorp and MediaWorks. Compared to 2004 pre-merger viewership, Channel 5's average ratings fell minimally by about 0.1%, ie, about 4,000 viewers, in 2005. Channel NewsAsia, Central and Suria maintained their viewership. Channel U's average ratings dipped by 0.5%, ie, about 18,000 viewers, from 2.1% in 2004 to 1.6% in 2005. Average ratings for Channel 8, on the other hand, grew by 0.4%, ie, about 16,000 viewers, from 4% to 4.4% during the same period. The decline in Channel U's viewership could be attributed to MediaCorp's re-positioning of the channel from a mass channel to a niche channel. Under SPH, Channel U competed directly with Channel 8 for the same mass audience. After the merger, the channel was repositioned to complement Channel 8 by targeting bilingual young adults aged 15 to 35 who are cosmopolitan in outlook. Sir, the total collection of TV and radio licence fees was about $111 million in FY04/05. The licence fees funded more than 3,000 hours of public service programmes on TV and ensured that our local audiences have access to a significant amount of quality programmes in the four official languages. These include current affairs, information, arts and culture, local sports, local drama, children, and minority language programmes in Malay and Tamil. The bulk of Public Service Broadcast funding is channelled towards the production of local programmes in various genres.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what are the reasons for repeat telecasts of old movies and other TV programmes on our free-to-air TV channels lately, especially during the recent public holidays; (b) if there has been a decrease in viewership of TV programmes telecast by MediaCorp since its merger with MediaWorks; (c) how much television licence fees are collected from households annually and whether the money collected is used to buy new movies; and (d) why is the penalty fee for late payment for TV licences disproportionately high in relation to the licence fee charged. The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, commercial entertainment TV stations regularly carry repeat programmes in their schedules as no station has the resources to run unlimited fresh programming. MediaCorp, as a commercial broadcaster, is no different. When MediaCorp acquires its programmes, it usually does so with the licence to broadcast these programmes more than once. This enables MediaCorp to run repeats off the prime-time, which is usually in the mornings, afternoons or late at night. Repeats are also broadcasted at a later date or during public holidays and festive periods, such as Christmas and Chinese New Year. MediaCorp's repeat programmes during public holidays and festive occasions usually include perennial favourites, which is again a common practice. Sir, the Media Development Authority does not impose any repeat restrictions on MediaCorp's programming. However, MediaCorp has to comply with public service broadcast requirements which require them to carry more than 6,500 hours of first-run Mandatory and Additional Public Service Broadcast funded programmes every year.”
“Sir, if the members of the CAC have this power to recommend the granting of citizenship, what kind of checks are in place to ensure that there is no potential abuse of this power or that there is corruption? What new measures are being instituted since the case involving the professor from the Nanyang Technological University? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first of all, let me reiterate that whilst the CAC plays a meaningful role, in fact, its role is limited in the sense that only those applications which the Registrar of Citizens is going to reject will go to the CAC. If the CAC feels that a case is deserving for approval before it goes to the Minister, it can make the recommendation to the Minister. The Committee also works as a group of three, not just one person, not even as the Chairman. So, all, ie, the three members will discuss and then everybody has to sign the recommendation. Like I have said, the system has worked well. In fact, the Ministry of Home Affairs has many such committees, and every person who gets on to these committees is carefully selected. Many of them, in fact, have very strong credentials. So, we should not jump the gun. Yes, there is a case pending in the court. But let us not overhaul the system. The system has worked well, and we should continue to work it. FREE-TO-AIR TV CHANNELS (Telecasts of old movies and TV programmes) 3.”
“What I mean is: do they need to pay the $100 if they want to go in?”
“Sir, I would like to clarify that it is foreign domestic workers, not domestic home-makers.”
“I would like to clarify with the Minister. Singaporean PRs are not allowed to go into the casino unless they pay $100, but foreign workers and domestic home-makers are allowed to go into the casino without paying $100. Is that the case? Because maids are allowed to go into the casino without paying the $100.”
“Sir, are these "poor performers" economically-viable companies or are these poor performing companies of strategic importance or consideration for Singapore? Secondly, are these "poor performers", at least for the last few years, home-grown Singapore companies or foreigner purchases?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State how much profit should these public transport operators, whether as an individual unit or as a collective group, continue to make before their demands for any kind of fare increase become unjustifiable? That is, will there be a ceiling for their profits where continued requests from them for fare increase become unreasonable? And if there is such a ceiling for their profit, what is that level?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my private and public interest on this Question. My pending court case has brought to my understanding that many charged defendants of minor offences had chosen to plead guilty and pay the court fines rather than to claim trial and incur high legal cost to prove their innocence. Question No. 17, Sir.”
“Sir, does it mean that the students are supposed to expect that there will be more such small increases in the next few years?”
“Clarification from the Minister, Sir. Since the Government thinks that the EIP is very important, why are the private residential developments, ie, private condominiums, not subject to the EIP? Does the Government not worry that there could be a racial congregation in such private developments too?”
“Sir, can we expect an increase in the number of constituencies considering that the population of Singapore has increased significantly since the last General Election? Can we also expect to have smaller Group Representation Constituency size of three and four, implying that there will be more single-Member constituencies at the next General Election?”
“Sir, if the public stops donating to the NKF and the NKF reserves become completely depleted, will the Government come up with emergency funds for the NKF to help it sustain its operations until it meets its new objective?”
“When will that process be completed, so that residents can be assured that they do not live in a fire hazard environment?”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Minister of State? The equipment at these 73 playgrounds currently sited at void decks are actually flammable and it could be a potential hazard to the residents staying above if people set fire to it. Should not something be done more effectively to actually remove it away or make it into non-flammable material?”
“Sir, I am asking for the figure. What is the percentage of successful recovery? Do we have a lot of people who manage to pay up after they have gone to court? Or are there a lot of people who still cannot pay after being charged in court? This means that they really have a problem paying their S&CC arrears because they do not have the money. Do we have a high percentage of people who can pay but do not want to pay? Or do we have a high percentage of the 10,000 who actually cannot afford to pay?”
“Why did the Government have to get such a big hoo-ha and outcry from the people and the Internet community, especially this Melvyn Tan's high profile case, to act and tighten this loophole? I hope the Ministry and the people in MINDEF can be more on the ball and forward-looking to ensure that any loophole in the law should be immediately tightened once they have identified a case, and not wait until a big hoo-ha comes out at our national conscious level, a lot of debate and argument before the Ministry takes action to address such an injustice. Sir, at this time, I also like to take the opportunity to request that the RECORD IV Committee propose a higher compensation allowance for our conscripted boys serving their National Service for fulfilling their duties to our nation and thus missing out on their personal development opportunities too.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, I just want to speak for the record that I support the proposals as laid out by the Minister for Defence. I disagree with Dr Tan and Dr Wang's comments to be gentle to the defaulting Singaporean talents that are overseas. As what the Minister said, NS must be universal for all young male Singaporean citizens. It must also be equitable to all - past, present and future enlistees. We must not favour the defaulting talents overseas, just because they are talents, at the expense of our local talents who stay behind to fulfil their duties, as Mr Iswaran had rightly pointed out. They must not be favoured. Nobody must be able to exploit the loopholes to escape National Service. The law must be clear and consistent for all. If the defaulting citizens want to come back, they can come back after they have finished whatever they are studying and they can come back within the timeframe when they have not expired their service age. But if they have the intention to come back, they should have done that. Otherwise, they would not want to come back in the first place at all. As such, I support the Minister's decision to press for the maximum jail sentence of three years for all draft dodgers who have passed that service age. But if they have not passed that service age, then the fine for those who are still liable to serve National Service will suffice. Sir, I am only wondering why did it take such a high profile Mr Melvyn Tan's case for this debate and for MINDEF to review the enlistment policy. According to the Minister's message earlier, there had been 13 other convicted defaulters who were fined but not subsequently drafted in the past.”
“Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani asked the Minister for National Development in view of the rule that third-time HDB buyers must borrow from banks, from January 2004 to September 2005 (a) how many requests did the Ministry or HDB receive from such buyers to borrow from the HDB; (b) how many of the above were undischarged bankrupts and whether the Ministry knows how many buyers were unable to borrow from banks for other reasons; (c) how many of such buyers intended to buy smaller flats; and (d) what happened to those whose requests were turned down by the HDB.”
“Sir, I agree with him that the issue is having more manpower. So I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how much more manpower does the ICA need to resolve this congestion problem once and for all, and when will that be resolved. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am not sure we can expect once-and-for-all solution because, as I said, traffic volume has built up. So we will solve the situation that has arisen. We will engage more manpower. Currently, I am told that because of the measures we have taken arising from the big jams on the 17th and 18th December period, ICA has, for example, gotten more of their personnel who are off duty to perform extra duties. Some have been asked to stay back to do longer hours. So, in terms of bodies of people, about 130 bodies have been added. They are monitoring this. From there, they will assess how many more new people they will need to engage. But, of course, it takes time also to engage and to train them. The point is that currently we have done what is necessary and, I think, those of you who follow the media will know the situation has indeed improved. Column No : 1980 PURCHASE OF HDB FLATS USING BANK LOANS (Profile of buyers) 12. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is an increasing trend of flat owners purchasing their flats using bank loans; (b) what is their profile; (c) how many of them had previously been given concessionary loans and are now refinancing their loans with the banks; and (d) with rising bank interest rates, whether there is cause for concern that many will not be able to service their loans. 13.”
“Sir, another clarification as I am getting confused. Since we are not drinking NEWater, why is the Government bottling NEWater and distributing it for people to drink? Why are we pumping NEWater into the reservoirs if we are not drinking NEWater? Why are we doing this?”
“A point of clarification, Sir. I am a bit confused. In the first place, the Government says that we have four National Taps and that water is no longer a limited resource. On the other hand, we are told that it is still a limited and scarce resource because we are still not fully sufficient. Are we or are we not fully sufficient since we have the ability to recycle used water into NEWater and we can convert sea water into drinking water? Should we not remove this conservation tax and impose market price for water according to how much we charge? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, to the best of my knowledge, no Member of this Government has ever said that water is no longer a limited resource. We have always said that water is a limited resource, and we must use it wisely. Secondly, NEWater is not used for drinking. So we cannot assume that we now have NEWater and therefore we can do away with the water conservation tax. We have always benchmarked this against desalination because that is the next available drinking water. And as I mentioned in my reply, we are not standing still. We will continue to review the situation to see whether there is a case to be made to review the prices. Sir, at the end of the day, the message to Singaporeans is that we now have the four National Taps. We are able to provide diversified sources of water, but it does not mean that we can now take a liberal approach and use water without any regard for conservation. I think it is important to remind Singaporeans that water is a scarce resource and we must use it wisely. But I agree with the Member that we should review the situation and see whether we can do away with the water conservation tax, and that is what my Ministry will continue to do.”
“Sir, on behalf of workers, like the low-wage workers, I would like to ask: can they expect to take home more cash soon from the work? Are they expected to have more take-home cash?”
“Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.- [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes to Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM COMPLETION OF BUILDING WORKS (Legislation) 17. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development if he will (a) introduce legislation to govern the completion of building works within a reasonable time to ensure that minimum nuisance is caused to the neighbouring units; (b) review the definition of 'completion' to ensure that the building is fit for occupation with the issuance of the temporary occupation permit from the Commissioner of Building Control.”