Tan Soo Khoon
Singapore
“May I just seek your indulgence and the Ministers for me to raise a little clarification? I raised the point about the absence of a medical officer at Changi Naval Base when the incident at sea happened last year.”
“We all look forward to its people obtaining their legitimate right to democracy and freedom, though I must add here that it should not necessarily be the kind we now see in some other Southeast Asian countries where democracy, unfortunately, has been taken to mean fluctuating between people demonstrating on the streets and the threat of m…”
“The West is unable to accept that it will soon be overtaken by the emergence of Asian powerhouses and fears that it will become irrelevant in an increasingly globalised world it refused to wake up to.”
“They are committed to Singapore and they want to do their National Service, but they just want MINDEF to exercise flexibility when they request for deferments. Mr Speaker, recently, MINDEF granted a deferment of three months to one Mr Stanley Aw to allow him to participate in the Singapore finals of the World Cyber Games.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue of the revenue pooling between the two airlines of Singapore and Malaysia is not a new issue. But can I ask why is it that in this era of competition and trade liberalisation, we are still allowing the two airlines to have this archaic policy of revenue sharing which, in fact, results in higher prices for trave…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister of State believe that it is in the interest oftravellers between the two countries to allow what is essentially a cartel made up of MAS and SIA to exist?”
The complete record
Every one of 656 lines we hold for Tan Soo Khoon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“The record of the Government in this respect is good. It has never incurred a deficit in any year, except possibly, it is going to have one in 2001. In 1998, when we had the $2 billion off-Budget measures to fight the recession, that was when the then Finance Minister estimated that we would run up a deficit of $800 million, the Government ended up with a surplus of $930 million. That is $1.7 billion off its prediction. Even in 1999, when Government estimated a deficit of $5 billion, it walked away with a cool $4.9 billion at the end of that year. That is $10 billion off the mark. In 2001, we had two off-Budget packages, $2.2 billion in July and $11.3 billion in October. We were told that these two packages would result in budget deficits of $4 billion in FY2001 and $1 billion in FY2002. But we see from the revised figures for FY2001 our deficit is estimated at $1.43 billion, far below the high $4 billion anticipated deficit. And as I explained earlier, the actual figure will not be known till another year's time. So maybe there is some hope that it might be a plus, but it is still, at this point of time, off the mark by $2.57 billion. For FY 2002, the estimated deficit of $1 billion that had been forecast when the off-Budget package was announced is now turning out to be a surplus of $900 million. That is before the new giveaways are computed inside, but it is still $1.9 billion off the mark. Sir, I am more than happy if our forecast deficits are reduced, better still, if they turn into surpluses. The Government should therefore not be waving the red flag all the time, otherwise it will end up like the boy who cried wolf, and nobody is going to believe you after a while. The fiscal record of the Government is the envy of many other governments.”
“How do you justify a system that now says the rich, with their big fat salaries, pay less, and they are probably the ones who do not feel the pinch, and the other 70%, who could not afford to do so all along, have to start coughing up? Sure, you can give the goodies, or the offsets, but I want to ask: why do you want to break a man's legs and then give him crutches to wobble on? Is not that adding to the crutch mentality that we were trying so hard to avoid in Singaporeans? My conclusion after seeing all these figures is that the Government has realised what a goldmine the GST is. It is like the COE. When it was first introduced, no one could foresee that the COE would be a billion-dollar money-raking machine for the Government. I am prepared to predict that within a few years, GST collections will exceed the $3 billion mark, and it would not be at the expense of income tax collections because the economic pie will expand. So when we are told that GST must be raised to make up for losses in the collection of income taxes, I must ask what losses is the Government talking about? The Government also puts forth the argument that GST must go up so that we do not run into a structural deficit. I would be the first to query in this House if the Government were to try and run a less than prudent Budget. But let us look at the Government's budgetary record from 1994. Let us look at the second Table. shows the estimated surplus or deficit each year when the Budget is presented to Parliament. shows the revised figure towards the end of each financial year. But it is not the final figure as all data would not have been fully compiled by then. So shows the actual figure which is available only two years after the end of the financial year for which it is reported.”
“As a percentage, income tax has always contributed to around 50-plus to 60-plus percent of all taxes collected by Government. By FY2000, it already contributed to 65.6%, more or less the same portion as in 1993, in spite of the reduction in corporate and income tax rates. shows the revenue that has been collected from GST. In the first year that GST was implemented, ie, in 1994, Government collected $1.52 billion, much more than the $921 million that was estimated. There was certainly no shortfall of the $183 million that Dr Hu had anticipated. GST collection has increased steadily over the years, except for two years, 1998 and 2002, when recession resulted in less consumption spending. But every year, GST collection far exceeded what Government gave away. By FY2000 it had already exceeded the $2 billion mark, double the amount it had originally anticipated it would collect. And this year, Government expects to take in another $2 billion in GST. All this is based on the present GST rate of 3%. So income tax rates were reduced, GST was implemented, there were a lot of giveaways, but the position was not revenue neutral. Far from it, the Government collected more income taxes and more GST. Any more GST will just increase the burden on the people, especially the poor. The Government may disagree with me but GST is regressive. That is why the underlying principle of the income tax collection system is called "progressive". It means the more you earn the more you pay in taxes. The rich who have made the most from all of society pay more to Government so that money can be used to help those who are less well off.”
“] Sir, there are two tables here, but let us take a look first at Table No 1. in Table 1 shows the amount of corporate and income taxes collected from FY93 - the year before we introduced GST, when the corporate tax rate and the top personal income tax rate were 27% and 30%, respectively. And it shows through the years when we progressively reduced the rates to 24.5% and 26%, respectively. shows the income tax as a percentage of all taxes, which includes your estate duties, property taxes, stamp duties, lotteries and betting duties, and the GST collected by IRAS. shows the amount collected from GST. When the then Finance Minister Dr Richard Hu introduced the concept of GST in his House in his Budget Speech in 1993, he told us that GST collection per year would be $921 million per annum. The total revenue loss to the Government as a result of the reduction in income taxes, property rebates, more public assistance, more subsidy for health and education, S&C offsets, plus the transitional measures, (which were the rebates for S&C, rental rebates and grants to the CCCs, and these would only be for five years) would be $1.1 billion. This would mean a loss of revenue to the Government of $183 million per year, for at least the first 5 years, after which he said the position would then be revenue neutral. Well, it all sounded very well-packaged. Now, let us take a look at again. It shows that over the years since income tax rates were reduced, income tax collection actually grew from $7.31 billion that year, the year before we lowered the rates, to $12.35 billion in FY2000. I must say that there are some missing spaces because these are the years 2001 and 2002-end. We have not got the Annual Report of the IRAS yet. Let us take a look at .”
“The DPM has lamented that companies and foreigners are not coming to Singapore because the first thing they want to know is what is your tax rate. Is it not too high? How much one has to pay in taxes in a country is a consideration, but that is not the starting point. I do not intend to dwell on why people find Singapore unattractive, but as Mr Inderjit Singh has said yesterday, there is a slew of other indirect taxes and levies that one has to pay in Singapore. Therefore, while we can appreciate the lowering of income taxes, it has been pointed out that that is not the raison d'etre for going into business. If that was so, many Singaporeans, including myself, would not have gone into business when the corporate tax was 40% for a long time. We would not have become the nation of shopkeepers, merchants and manufacturers that we are today. People go into business because there is business to be done and profits to be made. Likewise too with foreigners who come here, or with Singaporeans who venture abroad. They go to where there is business to be done and where there is money to be made. Why do businessmen queue up to go to China even though China has high taxes? Because goods can be produced cheaply there and because there is a potential market of 1.2 billion people. Conversely, tax havens would be places of bustling business and economic activity but you do not find people making a beeline to the likes of Brunei, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands or Liechtenstein. But while everyone is happy with lower taxes does it necessarily mean Government ends up collecting less if the tax rates are lowered? I will now ask the Clerk to distribute two tables to Members. [Copies of Tables distributed to hon. Members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the advantages of speaking on the second day of a debate like this is that you get the chance to go home after the first day to make changes to the text so as to avoid repetition. I know it is hard for you to believe this, but I found that the deletions I had to make were all the nice things I wanted to say about the Government and the Budget. So I am left with the parts which are, well, not so nice. Sir, the jury is still out as to whether there will be economic recovery this year. The signals from the United States for the first quarter are mixed and it is still early days as to whether our economy would turn around. MTI is optimistic, revising its prediction of economic growth for Singapore from between 1% and 3% to between 2% and 4%. But then MTI has been wrong before, predicting growth when there was recession. Government has always maintained that at 3%, our GST rate is one of the lowest in the world and we lag behind the GST rates of other countries. Sir, this is one race where I do not think we are in a hurry to be number one. It is therefore a bitter pill for Singaporeans to swallow when they heard that the Goods and Services Tax would be increased from 3% to 5%, coming as it was just two weeks after the Deputy Prime Minister had assured the House that the GST would only be raised when the economy is on a firmer footing. To put it in another perspective, it is just not two little percentage points more that we are talking about. What it means is that for every $100 that you spend, where you now pay $3 in GST, you will in future be paying $5, and that is a 66% increase in your tax bill. The Government argues that it needs to lower income taxes in order that we can attract investments and business.”
“Sir, why is the PUB dumping water into the sea? Is there not a way where we could channel this excess water into some other reservoirs directly to save the water?”
“No. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Consumers will make their own decision whether they want to collect points, or whether they want to take lower upfront prices. But let us say that Mr Tan is right that these five outlets offer prices which are much lower than the other retail outlets, then consumers will vote with their wheels, which means that when new sites are available for tendering, SPC will be able to offer higher prices for these sites because they are much more competitive. In other words, the market should be able to resolve this problem, if there is a problem. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): The Minister tries to justify that there is no price fixing among the oil companies. So he tries to use the crude oil price in relation to the premium petrol price. If you really look at the drastic increase and fluctuations of the crude oil price as compared with the relatively moderate fluctuation of the premium petrol price from the chart, I would like to ask the Minister does he arrive at the conclusion that, at the moment, in fact, the oil companies are making lesser profit as a result of the adjustment of the pump price. That is the first question. The second question is that the chart does not reflect the profit level of the oil companies. I think what people are actually unhappy about is the high petrol price and that has resulted in high profits by the petroleum companies. So if you look at the international petroleum spot price, I would like the Minister to comment whether I am right or not on this particular matter. The international petroleum spot price for 98 RON petrol ---”
“$1.234 less 10%. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Do they offer the same points?”
“One last question, Sir. Would it not be more logical to suggest that the larger oil companies, and quite naturally, will enjoy larger economies of scale than the smallest oil company and they are in a better position to follow the price set by the smallest company which is, I presume, still making good profits? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not familiar with the prices offered by these five SPC outlets. I do not know whether they have the same loyalty programme, whether they offer the same free gifts and points ---”
“Sir, if that is the case, why is it that the smallest petroleum company in Singapore, which is the Singapore Petroleum Company, with only five or six outlets in Singapore has managed to keep its price low and has not increased price and, in fact, is offering a discount? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know, but I can guess that its position in the market is too small for it to cause sufficient reaction from the other players. Oil companies compete in different ways, some offer free tissue paper, some offer loyalty programmes. So there are different ways to compete and to hold on to your customers. The question is: should MTI intervene in the market? We should intervene if it is clear that there is abuse of dominant position, or if there is price fixing. As I said, if you look at the chart which I have distributed and if I may draw Members' attention to it, we have two indices, one is crude oil prices which fluctuate quite a lot and are going up again because of tension in the Middle East. Then we have fluctuating with a time lag, in a much more sticky way, variations in the price of premium petrol. I can understand why as consumers we get very upset when we see pump prices going up. When pump prices go down, it attracts less attention. This is natural as consumers. These indices reflect nominal prices. If you look at the price in January this year and compare it to, say, January 1993, nominal prices have not changed very much. But I do not think that on the basis of prices we can draw an automatic conclusion that oil companies are deliberately fixing oil prices at high levels.”
“And that, Sir, is what I hope to see in this House. Sir, William Lenthall's words have become a kind of creed for Speakers of the Commonwealth. These are words that we recall whenever Speakers meet. I hope, Sir, that the principle which he has established will also guide you in the conduct of the proceedings here. During the course of time, as I have experienced, you will no doubt get many requests from Members. You will also get advice from both sides of the House, some are well-intended; some perhaps with agenda of their own. But I am hopeful, Sir, knowing you so well, as you were my Deputy for some years, that you will be able to be fair in your judgement and be very balanced in the way you conduct the proceedings of the House. Sir, I am sure that, if you do so, you too will earn the respect of all of us here and of Singaporeans in general. And I am hopeful that when the time comes when you have to leave the Chair, you too will be able to leave with your head held up high and, of course, still firmly fixed on your shoulders. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause.]”
“The Speaker has also become known as the guardian and the protector of the privileges of the Members of the House. In this respect, Sir, I would like to recall again another event in English history which has a bearing on how Speakers conduct themselves everywhere. Sir, this took place in the year 1642. The King of the day was Charles I. The Speaker of the English Parliament was a gentleman by the name of William Lenthall. Charles I had more than his fair share of bad days with Parliament. And the occasion came when he decided to teach Parliament a lesson. He wanted to arrest himself five parliamentary leaders. So he marched to Parliament and he demanded the identification of the five members that he wanted. Of course, in those days, they had no photographs. So he asked everyone, and he was met with stony silence. Then turning to William Lenthall, he asked the Speaker to identify the five Members. And this was Lenthall's reply: "May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, except as the House, whose servant I am directs of me, and I beg Your Majesty's pardon that I have no other answer to give except this to what Your Majesty demands of me". Sir, in those few well chosen but historic words, William Lenthall expressed unequivocally where his first duty and obligation as Speaker lay. He told everyone, and he established the principle, that his allegiance was to the cause of parliamentary liberty. And with parliamentary liberty lies the privilege for all of us in the House to make our speeches, to express freely our views and our opinions, subject to the rules of the Standing Orders and to the unwritten rules that govern our conduct as honourable gentlemen and honourable ladies.”
“The Speakership is as old as the history of Parliament. In England where it all started, the first designated Speaker was in the year 1377, although long before that there were others who held the position but they went by other titles. The Speaker in those early days had a different role to play. He was not the arbiter of proceedings as we know him to be now. The Speaker in those days, his primary duty, was to convey to the King the resolutions of the commons. And you can well imagine that during those times, when the ruler was the absolute monarch of the land, he was usually not too pleased to receive news from the Speaker, especially when what the Speaker had to convey impinged on the rights and privileges of the King, particularly his royal purse. Quite often, the King would know how to show his displeasure, and it was recorded in history that his displeasure was often manifested through a very simple act - the beheading of the Speaker. And between the 15th and 16th century, as many as up to 10 Speakers lost their poor heads because they delivered news that the ruler did not want to hear. The situation got so bad that in the year 1510, two Speakers lost their heads on the same day! Hence, today, in the English Parliament, we have this faint reluctance on the part of the aspirant to the post of Speaker. Because they are afraid of what will happen to them. But, Sir, today, times have changed. We do not have kings and queens, not in the other countries of the Commonwealth, but in their place we have a government, duly elected by the people. The role of the Speaker has also changed. He is now the one who conducts the proceedings of the House and he ensures its orderly conduct.”
“May I join the other Members in congratulating you on your election as Speaker of the House. Sir, I have known you for a long time and I am confident that you will carry out the duties of Speaker with distinction and bring honour to the Chair. Sir, I have been the Speaker for the past 13 years and it has been a privilege and an honour to serve. Sir, this is your election, the moment is rightly yours. And although I have expected some words of thanks, I did not foresee the kind of tributes that Members have paid to me a while ago and I am indeed very humbled by what they have said. I think that I would not have been able to carry out my duties as Speaker for the past 13 years the way I had done if I had not enjoyed the confidence and their trust. It is the Members of this House who have made my job easy by upholding the finest traditions of Parliamentary practices, by upholding decorum and by respecting the rules of the House and the authority of the Chair. For that, I am really grateful. Sir, I am the first Speaker in our Parliament to return to the Backbench, but this is not new in other Parliaments. And I hope that in the years ahead, I will be able to humbly demonstrate that there is life after Speakership in this House. I would therefore like to assure the Leader of the House, and most certainly the Frontbench, that I, with your kind permission, Sir, will be around to make more than a few speeches and certainly to ask more than a few questions. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may just take a few more moments to say something about the Speakership, particularly for the benefit of the newer Members of the House. The Speakership is unique in every country. It is found in all Parliaments in the Commonwealth that have adopted the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy.”
“Sir, have there been any known cases of illegal dumping of toxic waste in Singapore in recent years?”
“Sir, when can we expect the changes to be made to the Employment Act to facilitate the part-time employment of married women?”
“Sir, can the Minister assure the House that, if there is zero growth in the car population, he would not try to resort to other measures, like increasing the import duties on cars or increasing the additional registration fees or the PARF?”
“The problem has been there for the last 10 to 20 years and it has still not been solved.”
“If the Ministry would install it in more lifts in Singapore, and I believe the problem is prevalent, would it not allow the Ministry to bring down the cost per unit?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has said that it is costly; so he does know the cost.”
“Sir, can we know how much this urine detector cost?”
“Have Police investigations to-date revealed any connection between touts and secret societies?”
“Sir, from the figures given by the Minister, does it not appear that Police action and the fines which have been imposed by the courts up till now have proved to be inadequate in dealing with the problem?”
“If the foreign spouse does not have the right to live in Singapore, how then can the married couple live together? That is my question.”
“Sir, is the Minister suggesting that married couples under such circumstances should live apart?”
“Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister for Communications and Information. In view of the fact that a publication like the Asian Wall Street Journal no doubt enjoys the controversy that has been created, and I am of the opinion that they believe that the ensuing publicity would benefit their circulation when the problem is finally resolved and when restrictions are removed, would the Minister consider a suggestion that if and when the problem is resolved and when he decides to lift the present restrictions, would he confine its circulation to a figure not greater than what it was when the restrictions were first imposed?”
“Will he renew the permit of such a foreign correspondent?”
“Does the Minister intend to withdraw the privilege of a foreign correspondent who has consistently been writing unbalanced reports about us?”
“I am sorry, Sir. Does the Minister not agree that it would have been more prudent to advise the public to wash the vegetables, in August rather than to do it six months' later?”
“Sir, I agree. But why is it that his Ministry did not warn the public in August to wash the vegetables thoroughly, when this high level of pesticides was first discovered?”
“I am at a loss with all these chemical terms. But from the Minister's answer I gather that the level of pesticides since August was strong enough to be carcinogenic when the vegetables were heated. So my question is: why is it that his Ministry allowed Singaporeans to consume cancer-causing vegetables for six months before taking any action? That is my question.”
“Sir, given the intensity and efficiency of the checks conducted by the Ministry of the Environment, could the Minister explain why when the high levels of pesticides were found on vegetables imported from Malaysia in August, the public was not informed at that time and they found out about it only in late February?”
“Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not agree that there is a lopsided difference between the number of licences and the number of taxis on the road? And does he not agree that something should be done to narrow this difference?”
“Sir, I think the Minister has missed my point. What I meant was an interest rate which is very low and very special, lower than what the prime rate will ever fall.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, interest rates as we know fluctuate, and while it is low, I think nobody will complain. But interest rates can go up to 8%, 9%, 10%, even double digit figures. Would the Minister not consider lessening the burden on the students by fixing the interest rate at a special low rate, instead of pegging it to the commercial interest rate? I am sure he will agree with me that Government's objective is not to make more money out of the money that it lends to its students. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, it is because interest rates fluctuate that we are fixing the interest rate on the loan to the prime rate. We have seen the consequences of having fixed rates and the complications that always arise, whether it is for housing loan or for any type of loan. You are in a no-win situation. Whatever rate you fix, if the commercial rate goes up, then of course the students are quite happy but then the rate will rapidly go out of line. If the commercial rate is lower than your fixed rate, then there would be a tremendous clamour and great accusations of unfairness to the Government. I think, Sir, that we have paid a very heavy price to learn this and we have changed the various rates for Government loans to fluctuation rate tied to the prime rate. I believe that this is very fair and, in fact, it is unusual for anybody to be able to get a small loan from a bank, as the Member will know, at prime rate. Fixing the interest rate on the loans at the average of the prime rates charged by the Big Four local banks is already, in my view, a very large concession from the Minister for Finance.”
“Sir, would his Ministry consider placing in the hawker centres large disposable bins such as the type found in fast food restaurants, so as to allow customers to throw away the disposable crockery?”
“Does he not think that the solution would be to provide more facilities in popular areas?”
“Does he not think that the solution would be to provide more facilities in popular areas rather than to send people to areas where there is no business at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if his Ministry has been very helpful to illegal hawkers, how come only two accepted his offer last year? And how come the number of cases is on the increase?”
“Sir, in view of the fact that his Ministry has not eradicated the problem, would his Ministry consider taking some other form of action, such as being more liberal in the granting of licences for legal hawking?”
“Can the Minister of State explain what is the difference in the social consequences between the Government running the mini-turf clubs and giving a licence for a casino?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered this part of my question. Would the Minister make provisions to protect the interest of the remisiers? In other words, can the deposits which the remisiers are required to place with their firms be put on a trust account? Dr Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an issue which is currently under discussion to see how remisiers' interests can be better protected than they are at present.”
“So, I believe, Sir, if this can be looked into, the market can further develop with more intensive competition. Sir, another question about remisiers. Remisiers are required to place deposits with the broking firms they work with. Recently it was reported that some stockbroking firms have gone bust and their remisiers could not claim back the deposits which have been left with their firms. Sir, perhaps provision should now be made for the remisiers' deposits to be placed on trust so that in case the firms go bust they still have the money. Sir, I have two other questions to ask the Minister. Sir, in order to inject more professionalism into the industry, recently the Big Four banks were allowed to participate and become brokers. Sir, my question is, why are the Big Four banks allowed to send out letters to members of the public to solicit business. I understand that the Stock Exchange does not permit brokers to advertise their services. So I would like to know why the new brokers are allowed to solicit business by writing to members of the public or has a new set of rules been set for these new entrants. Lastly, Sir, I feel that this Bill is of great importance not just to the stockbroking community, but to the investing public as well. It also will help us in our efforts to promote ourselves as a centre of financial standing. In view of the significance of this Bill, Sir, I think that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Minister has already just said that a lot of members of the stockbroking community would be prepared to give their comments and that MAS will always be prepared to hear the views of those affected by its own laws and regulations. I therefore feel that it is only appropriate that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.”
“There is a need for us to encourage more competition amongst the stockbroking community. But the main stumbling block towards this is that the whole industry is a closed shop. In other words, if you want to become a stockbroker, you have to pay a rather high fee in order to gain admission to the Stock Exchange. There are, of course, merits to this. But, at the same time, remisiers and dealers who act on behalf of the stockbroking firms in their dealings are also required to pay excessive transfer fees when they decide to move from one firm to another. For instance, if a remisier who works in firm A wants to join firm B, he will have to pay a few thousand dollars. And when he moves from firm B to firm C, the transfer fee is double what he paid previously. This, of course, prevents remisiers and dealers from hopping from firm to firm. But the adverse effect of this is that the remisiers are stuck with the firms they work for and the firms in turn see no necessity to take steps to keep the remisiers knowing that they would not run away. Now, what are these steps to keep remisiers? I believe remisiers could do with a lot of back-up services like research from the firms. Such research, of course, can then be passed on to their clients. In other words, Sir, we could see the presence of a more professional service from the firms and their remisiers. But what do we have today? We have remisiers who are merely acting as commission agents, buying and selling for their clients. Most of the investing public know that remisiers' or dealers' knowledge is limited to telling their clients to buy stocks when the prices are going up and to sell when the prices are going down. Quite often such information is always a bit too late for clients to act upon.”
“They did not see what some of the greedy operators were doing and they also failed to see that many of the stockbroking firms were in fact borrowing many times beyond what their capital base permitted. It therefore could only mean that the MAS for so long failed to see the implications of what was going on in the Stock Exchange, although many of the goings-on were already happening for a long time. This brings me, Sir, to my next point, ie, the Bill which we are about to pass and become an Act will be as good only as the people who are administering it. We have in the MAS officials who are more familiar with the banking industry. Or at least they think they know about the banking industry. I say this because the MAS has tremendous powers under the Banking Act to administer the banking industry. But what has caused unhappiness in banking circles is not so much the Act itself but it is the way the Act has been interpreted and the powers exercised by officials of the MAS. What it means, Sir, is that when an Act like this is administered, it must be done with circumspection. And it can only be done with care and caution only if the people administering the Act are experienced people. It is my opinion that stockbroking and banking are as different from one another as black is different from white. Sir, in order to ensure the success of the implementation of this Act and in order to ensure that there is close rapport between the stockbroking community and the MAS, experienced persons from the securities industry must be engaged to implement this Act. I am sure the MAS could look into the question of employing retired brokers, senior members of the stockbroking industry, to help in this. Sir, may I now move on to a few other comments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill moved by the Minister. Sir, this Bill seeks to control the securities industry and to give the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) wide-ranging powers to administer the new Act. The Stock Exchange, as we all know, is a place where prices of shares of publicly listed companies can be manipulated by those who are greedy to the detriment of many small investors. And I therefore welcome this move which will serve to regulate the activities of the Stock Exchange and those who are involved in it. In the light of the recent crisis on the Stock Exchange and the failure of companies like Pan-Electric, this Bill is most welcome. And much as I am tempted to say that this appears to be a case of bolting the stables after the horses have run off, I think it is also better late than never. Sir, the Minister has told us that this Bill was originally circulated to stockbrokers and because of heavy criticism and adverse comments from stockbrokers, the Bill was not proceeded with and not presented to the House. I find this rather disturbing. I would not expect the stockbrokers at any rate to respond favourably to a Bill which seeks to regulate or to curtail their activities. But I feel that we should not have allowed this to happen in view of our overall efforts to promote Singapore as a financial centre. What all that boils down to is that if there had been no Pan-Electric, there might not have been this Bill before the House today. We have also been told by the Minister in a recent sitting that the MAS, in fact, knew about the existence of forward contracts. And yet the MAS or the Ministry of Finance did not do anything about it.”
“I think this is very wrong and I would urge that the Traffic Police mount a campaign to educate motorists to give early warning signals as to their intentions. The third cause of accidents which I want to highlight today is the fact that many vehicles stop indiscriminately on our roads, particularly on the right hand side of the roads, which is the side for fast moving traffic. Vehicles stop on the right hand side for a variety of reasons, chiefly to let passengers off or to pick up passengers. It is quite common to see a lot of vehicles including taxis doing such a thing. Motorists also stop their vehicles suddenly on the right hand side because they want to post a letter and because the postbox happens to be located on the right hand side of the road. Or because there is a newspaper seller on the right hand side of the road. There are many examples of such poor location of postboxes, of newspaper sellers and even of telephone booths. I think part of this may be due to the fact that in the old days many of our roads were two-way streets. When these roads were converted into one-way streets, what used to be the left hand side became the right hand side. The mailboxes and the telephone booths were not removed. And motorists continue to stop indiscriminately and when they do so, vehicles from behind - some people have the habit of driving very close to the vehicle in front - just knock into them. Sir, I hope the Minister will be able to look into these points.”
“Last year, when I brought up this subject of heavy vehicles, the Minister informed the House that he felt that existing penalties were inadequate and that he was looking into the possibility of amending the laws to have heavier penalties for accidents involving heavy vehicles. May I know what progress has been made in that direction? As we all know, there are many causes of road accidents and many of the PAP Backbenchers have raised these over the last many years. For today, I would just like to point out three causes which I feel should be looked into to see whether the situation can be improved. First of all, the problem of people crossing roads. I am talking more about people crossing our expressways. Sir, again it is very amazing to see that there are many pedestrians crossing from one side of the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) to the other side. Quite a few stretches of the PIE have got no barriers of any kind in the middle. Naturally, people are tempted to cross the PIE. Where there are barriers dividing the PIE in the middle, there will still be people who find it convenient to climb over the barriers in order to get to the other side. Sir, another cause of road accidents, I feel, is the failure of motorists to give early signals as to their intentions on the roads. For instance, we see a lot of motorists changing lanes without indicating the signals of their vehicles. We see a lot of vehicles turning right or turning left without indicating their signals beforehand. There are many motorists who presume that just because they happen to be on the lane that allows them to turn right or on the left that allows them to turn left, they need not give early warning signals.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on both my amendments. In fact, the first amendment on the Marine Police is exactly what the Member for Serangoon Gardens has just raised. It amazes me how pirates could have the audacity to come to our shores to raid the People's Association's Holiday Camp along the East Coast Parkway. Sir, I have met some people living around that area and they have expressed their concern over their own safety. Singapore is not a mere coastal village for pirates to come aboard and plunder. This is a modern city state. And it amazes me again how the pirates could have escaped the attention of our Marine Police who are supposed to patrol the coastal areas. Sir, the next point I want to raise concerns the problem of road safety. For the last few years, we have seen with horror the statistics that showed that road deaths were increasing year after year. In 1985, fortunately, the number of road accidents involving injuries fell to 7,061. We have been told by the Minister for Home Affairs that this is the lowest figure in 25 years. Again, in 1985, there were only 265 deaths on our roads. Unfortunate, but heartening again to note that this figure is the lowest in five years. Sir, there are two categories of road users who are most vulnerable to accidents and deaths on the roads. These are our pedestrians and our motorcyclists. I would like to find out from the Minister what plans there are to continue in our efforts to improve the situation. Sir, another cause of accidents on our roads must involve that category of heavy vehicles. I have had the experience of seeing heavy vehicles, like containers, tearing down our roads as if they were racing tracks. I have seen bus drivers changing lanes, coming out of bus bays, oblivious to other road users.”