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 9 of 14.
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, during the past 25 years no effort has been spared by our Government to make Singapore a clean city. In fact, Sir, our reputation for cleanliness is well-known world-wide. However, it is my opinion that our clean image has been soiled at least in one respect. I refer to the terrible state of affairs in our public toilets. When I speak of public toilets, I refer not just to the toilets in our markets but the toilets in our shopping complexes, cinemas and restaurants as well. You name it, public toilets are dirty. I myself have the terrifying experience when answering nature's call and I find myself staring at messy situations and wondering to myself, "Now what the hell happened here before I came in?" And I am sure, Sir, you too would have found yourself when visiting a public loo and having come across the same messy state of affairs, being faced with making some rather critical decisions, such as to sit or not to sit. Sir, unfortunately I can only relate from first-hand experience what goes on in the men's toilets. But members of the fairer sex have assured me that the situation in their half is equally disastrous. So I think, Sir, it is time that we had a national campaign to keep our toilets clean. This is not the first time such a call has been made. I have come across letters to the press, not just from Singaporeans but also from visitors to our fair and clean island who unfortunately have to leave with the impression that some of our people do not know how to use the toilets correctly. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that we now launch such a campaign. An hon. Member: Ministry of Education.”
“When the value of the Hong Kong dollar dropped in October last year, tourists flocked there, recession or no recession, because prices were cheap. The lesson for us is that we have to find ways and means to continue to make Singapore an inexpensive place for tourists, because if we continue to be expensive the tourists who come here will go back and pass the word to their follow countrymen, and that would have an effect. I would therefore like to appeal to the Hon. Minister to make a real in-depth study of the whole tourist industry. Ad hoc measures to promote tourism would not do. I remember reading last year that the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, as one of the few measures it is undertaking, decided to subsidize advertising expenditures of hotels which offered discounts on room rates. All I can say on that kind of scheme is that it has come about too little and too late. Tourism is one of our important money spinners and unless we do something quickly we might be unwittingly killing the goose that lays the golden egg. 4.26 pm”
“Sir, the other sector which has already been badly affected by the drop in the number of visitors is the retail trade sector. I do not wish to elaborate too much on this sector except to mention that all major departmental stores have reported steep declines in profits or financial losses for the last financial year. And they have all attributed their predicament to two factors: (a) the decline in the number of tourists coming last year and (b) the intense and more competition brought about by the opening of more and more departmental stores. Sir, we have to ask ourselves one very important question if we are to do something to boost the tourist industry. We must ask ourselves: why do tourists come to our country? In fact, better still, Sir, let us ask ourselves: why do we become tourists? Why do we visit other countries? And there are two things which come to my mind when this question is posed. One, we go for sightseeing and we have to ask ourselves how much has Singapore really got to offer. The other point is that we visit a certain place because it is not too expensive to go there. And again we ask ourselves: is it not true that today Singapore has become too expensive a place? It is expensive because our hotels are expensive and because shopping, which in the past has attracted visitors, has also become an expensive affair because our shopping complexes built on very expensive URA land charge high rentals on our shopkeepers. That is why today, Sir, we read in the newspapers that even our shopkeepers want to go on strike and are making representations to developers to reduce rents. Sir, an important lesson we can learn is from Hong Kong.”
“Let me just relate briefly the scenario of what might happen to two important sectors. First, the hotel sector. In 1982 we had a total of slightly over 15,000 hotel rooms. One year ago, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Rochore, the Minister of State for National Development informed the House that from 1983 till 1987, a total of 18,965 more rooms will be added. In other words, by 1987, we can expect to have many more rooms than the number of rooms we already had in 1982. Investments in the hotel industry is substantial. So far it is estimated that $8 billion have been invested in hotels and by 1987, this amount will double with the bulk going to the three major hotel projects currently going on in Raffles City, Marina Centre and the Rahardja Centre. Each of these would cost us at least $1 billion. According to a report which appeared not long ago in the Far Eastern Economic Review, it has been estimated that the high development cost which includes the cost of the land - and may I add very expensive URA land - as well as the cost of construction, the interest payments and on the basis of only 50% occupancy rates, these three major hotels have to charge more than $400 per room per night when they are ready in 1987, just to break even. Now, the question here is, can these hotels find the guests to fill the rooms? Will there be sufficient growth in tourism to sustain the business? One can well imagine the task that our hoteliers have to undertake to fill the rooms not to mention the financial strains they would be placed under. And it is very important here that we ask ourselves now, Sir, what the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board is doing to ensure that there would be a continual increase in the rate of growth of the number of visitors coming to Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I offer my heartiest congratulations to the Hon. Minister for his excellent Budget policy statement. Sir, in his Statement the Minister has said: 'The tourist trade was adversely affected by the 4% drop in the number of tourist arrivals, the first decline in 20 years.' Sir, I remember that in the Budget debate in 1982, two years ago, I gave warnings of bad tidings for the tourist industry. I remember soon after that some friends of mine in the tourist industry laughed at what I said, and I could not blame them at that time because, in fact, in 1982 we had an all-time record high number of visitors, 2.95 million, almost 3 million visitors to Singapore. This represented an increase of 4.5% over the num- ber of visitors in 1981. However, last year, in 1983, the number of visitors dropped by almost 4% to 2.85 million. One cannot ignore the significance of the contribution of tourism to the Singapore economy. In fact, it has been estimated that out of every $10 earned by Singaporeans, $1 is derived from tourism and related sectors, such as hotels and shopping. Sir, some of our neighbouring countries are today placing restrictions on their citizens who travel, owing to their own austerity drive. They have imposed exit taxes and these have seriously affected the arrivals of visitors to our country. A case in point is Indonesia which has imposed an exit tax on its citizens leaving its country. In 1982 the Indonesians were the second largest group of visitors to Singapore. 455,000 Indonesians visited our Island in that year. Last year, only 296,000 Indonesians visited Singapore, representing a decline of 35%. We, therefore, cannot continue to ignore this decline in the number of visitors coming to Singapore. The consequences would be quite drastic for us.”
“Sir, I realize that the National Health Plan and the Medisave Scheme cannot answer the needs of each and every individual. It is a unique plan. It is a bold plan and it will have far-reaching consequences. It is by far one of the most discussed issues in recent times and it would not be possible for the Minister and his officials in the Health Ministry to come out with a plan encompassing all the different and differing views that have been expressed. But as this is a matter of such importance and urgency, I would suggest to the Minister that not only should he review the National Health Plan periodically but to make it a point to come back to Parliament and report to Parliament on the shortcomings of the Plan so that we can together discuss, analyse and make recommendations. 6.20 p.m.”
“Sir, I quite agree that it is at this age onwards that chronic and catastrophic illnesses start to creep in and prolonged hospitalization becomes necessary. But what happens, Sir? You discover that having set aside a sum of money every month to provide for such contingencies, you find that you cannot use it when the time comes because your illness happens to fall outside the scope of the scheme. Well, there is some consolation. According to the Plan, you should not worry too much because, should you die, Medisave will pay the money to your Estate, free of duty. But this is my main criticism of the scheme, because it fails to realize that certain illnesses do occur through no fault of the individual no matter how much effort you put in to stay fit and to prevent illnesses. Sir, nobody knows when his kidneys or his heart will fail him. Nobody knows when cancer will strike. Medical treatment for chronic diseases is in many instances, in fact, in almost all instances, life-long and can be a heavy burden on the individual and his family. Medisave is therefore inadequate in meeting such needs. The consequences, Sir, can be far-reaching. If individuals cannot use their Medisave account to cover either wholly or partially such expenses, they may delay seeking hospitalization till their health deteriorates or, worse still, they might resort to self-medication. Finally, people may find Medisave a wholly unattractive proposition because there might not be the incentive to put money into the Medisave account if they find that their savings cannot be used when it really matters. Sir, the argument will no doubt be put forward that the 6% contribution will be inadequate to cover chronic illnesses. But let me say that something is better than nothing, at times like this.”
“Sir, now I would like to turn to the Medisave Scheme. I tend to disagree with the Member for Ayer Rajah when he said that the Medisave Scheme was not the heart and soul of the National Health Plan. In fact, when I discussed the National Health Plan with my friends, the typical response from them was typically Singaporean. How much do I have to pay and what do I get in return? The Minister is correct in saying that we must provide this umbrella for a rainy day. But my question here is whether this umbrella is large enough to shield us from all the rain. In a nutshell, Sir, the Medisave Scheme allows you to pay for C class care in a Government hospital or its equivalent in a private hospital only if it is for acute hospitalization, and that is all you get from Medisave. It does not allow you to pay for higher class care even if you can afford it. You cannot use it to pay for outpatient services. You cannot use it to cover hospitalization due to chronic or catastrophic illnesses. Sir, in dollars and cents, Medisave therefore really allows one benefit as opposed to a host of things that you cannot do with it. Let us examine the consequences of this. Paragraph 44 of the National Health Plan tells us that in the last ten years 35% of our population were never hospitalized at all. So of the 65% who can be assumed to be hospitalized at least once in their lifetime, there will still be those who cannot use their Medisave account because the scheme would not cover certain types of illnesses. So quite a large portion of our population will, in fact, not be able to touch their Medisave account. Secondly, paragraph 55 of the National Health Plan states that a major portion of a person's lifetime hospitalization expenses is likely to be incurred after the age of 55.”
“It might have the undesirable effect of deterring many people from seeking essential hospitalization if they find that they have been deprived of low-cost hospitalization by this so-called means test. Furthermore, hospitalization charges will not be the only consideration of the individual when he falls ill. He has to think in terms of his loss of earnings when he is hospitalized, not only his earnings but of those members of his family who have to take time off to see him. He has to think of his travelling expenses to and from hospital. Sir, I was a bit relieved just now to note from the Minister that the quantum of subsidy on Class C beds will not be reduced. But I would urge him to seriously consider that the option of lowest possible cost of hospitalization must be left open to the individual and the individual must not be left with a feeling that he has been deprived of this option by a set of cold statistics. One more point on the National Health Plan which I like to touch on is the concept of community hospitals. The Member for Ayer Rajah has already stated his views. He questions the viability of this concept and I quite agree with him. However, my reasons may be a bit different because I feel that, aside from the question of economies of scale, Singapore is too small to have too many community hospitals. After all, many of our people would surely prefer to go to the general hospitals which are just as close to them as the community hospitals will be. And I do not really think that we can get our private practitioners to run our Government clinics at night or to run the community hospitals, although the Member's reason and mine differ. I think our private practitioners make enough money and they do not have to be encouraged to moonlight.”
“What it amounts to is that Government now intends to transfer the responsibility of payment for such uses from the Government to the users at the point of use. If therefore increasing demand for health services is inevitable, if certain illnesses are unavoidable no matter how fit one wants to be, and if the individual is going to bear the greater brunt of the financial cost of his health care, is it not wrong to assume that the National Health Plan has been motivated by purely financial considerations, and that its more covert purpose is to lighten Government's burden of escalating health care? Sir, looking at the National Health Plan itself and the emphasis on financial considerations, I have the nasty feeling that the Ministry of Finance had quite a hand in it. What has happened to the Government's social responsibility? I believe, Sir, that somewhere along the line we have to strike the proper balance between what is the Government's social responsibility in so far as health care is concerned and the cost of providing it. My argument that the financial considerations have been foremost is reinforced by paragraph 27 of the National Health Plan which states that there will be more Class A beds at the expense of Class C beds in future. We all know that Class A beds are not subsidized by Government. So the Ministry will take away some Class C beds, convert them to Class A beds, sell them at higher prices and therefore increase Government revenue. But what is worrying me, Sir, is the statement in the Plan that in future admission to Class C beds will be restricted by the means test. One can already begin to question the reliability of such a means test.”
“Increase in demand for health services is therefore inherent in a society that progresses and continually strives to better the quality of life of its citizens. The Government's concern over the increasing demand for our health services is reflected in paragraph 2 of the National Health Plan which informs us of a four-fold increase in the Ministry's budget between FY 71 and FY 81. But have these figures been adjusted for inflation? In other words, what is the actual increase in real expenditure between FY 71 and FY 81? At the same time, Sir, we must not forget that Government revenue has also gone up too. I think the Member for Rochore has expressed this quite eloquently. To put it in another way, Sir, is not this increase in demand on our health services and the increase in expenditure a consequence and a reflection of our economic growth, of inflation and of our population increase? The other objective of the National Health Plan which I would like to raise some thought is its aim of building up individual financial resources through the Medisave Scheme to pay for health care when one falls sick. Medisave will therefore encourage Singaporeans to stay well and reward those who do so as their money will remain in the CPF account and earn interest. Sir, I must again question the assumption here. The Medisave Scheme assumes that each of us has the ability to avoid illnesses. Those who fail to do so will be penalized. Those who have the remarkable talent for doing so shall be well rewarded. What is even more discomforting to me is that the Government aims to reduce demand for health services by using the stick approach.”
“Sir, after listening to the Member for Rochore I am afraid I have to tell the Member for Ayer Rajah that I might be the second person to disappoint him today. Sir, I have read the National Health Plan. I have gone through it not with the skilful eye of a doctor but I look at it from the point of a layman - how the National Health Plan would affect the common Singaporean. None of us would quarrel with the basic objectives of the Plan, and that is, "to build a healthy, vigorous, active and physically fit population" on the basis that prevention is better than cure. But on reading the Plan in great detail, I have found some points where it is difficult to reconcile myself with. The Plan starts off by expressing the Government's concern over the increasing demand for our health service. In reading this I could not help but detect that our Government is highly suspicious of our people in that it believes that there is this increasing demand because it is highly subsidized and therefore people tend to abuse the system. Members will recall that some years ago this same argument was used to put forward the case for an increase in charges at the A & E Departments in our hospitals. Let me start by questioning some of the basic assumptions of the National Health Plan. Why is there an increasing demand on our health services? This is due to an increase in population, including a foreign worker population. It is also due to the fact that our population ages and is becoming more health-conscious, But, Sir, it is certainly not due to people who go to hospitals for the sake of going to hospitals. None of us want to go to hospitals. In fact, you are admitted to hospital only when the doctor refers you to one.”
“Sir, I am satisfied with the reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Augustine H.H Tan - (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, about a year ago, pork merchants got together to dictate price increases. Last year, this matter was raised in the House and the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry informed us that steps would be taken to introduce legislation to prevent such repetition. Recently, again we read in the newspapers of traders attempting to fix retail prices of merchandise that they supply to department stores. Sir, price fixing as we know is a practice that operates against the consumers' interest in that retailers maintain artificially high prices. Furthermore, price fixing inhibits competition and works against our principle of a free economy. Sir, legislation would protect consumers against profiteering that comes about as a result of artificially high prices and allow free market forces to determine prices I would like to ask the Hon. Minister when legislation can be introduced to prevent the formation of cartels. My next question, Sir, refers to recent press reports regarding the introduction of a small claims court and my question again is when such a court can be instituted?”
“Could the PWD look into the feasibility of using vertically adjustable manhole cover-and-frame system as is done in some countries? This system allows quick and easy vertical adjustment to the road surface in connection with road construction and repairs. Sir, the HDB has introduced a financing scheme for its contractors to enable them to upgrade and mechanize their operations. I wonder whether the Ministry has a similar scheme for the PWD and its contractors to upgrade and modernize road construction projects. It appears that the equipment used at present is obsolete. Even the equipment used for road marking is obsolete and some of the operations are done manually. As a result, painting of directional signs and lane markings takes too long and is causing unnecessary obstruction. Furthermore, due to the carelessness of some workers, paint is spilled onto the road, like the recent one at Paterson Road junction. I would urge the Minister to look into the matters raised and hope that he will help ease congestion on our roads and also minimize traffic accidents.”
“To ease congestion on our roads, the Ministry should look into the possibility of encouraging private entrepreneurs to build private car parks or lorry parks. The second point I wish to raise is the haphazard manner in which road and directional signs are sited. It is not surprising to observe a multitude of such signs erected at road junctions, some of which are not only unsightly but also obstruct the motorist's view of traffic lights. Could not these signs be mounted on a single metal post? For instance, in Toa Payoh, directional signboards are tastefully mounted on a single metal frame. The PWD should also consider resiting some of the road signs at intersections and slip roads. Quite often, road signs are put beyond a slip road or on the road divider at intersections. These do not provide a clear and an advance indication to drivers, resulting in abrupt stops and turns at times. I would suggest that the PWD introduce a new system of road signs along major roads and expressways. For example, two road-name signs could be displayed on one single metal post. The road-name on top will indicate the first-approaching side road and the other at the bottom will indicate the second-approaching side road. Such road-name signs should also show the approximate distances in kilometres. In this way, we can improve the flow of vehicular traffic and also minimize the incidence of vehicles colliding into the rear of other vehicles. The last point I would like to raise is this. During the construction of new roads or repairs to old roads, sometimes manhole covers are raised above or lowered below the road level. This poses a danger to unsuspecting motor cyclists and motorists.”
“(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I would like to raise a few points with regard to the planning of the overall road transportation network and improvements to existing road. The first point I would like to touch on is the widening of existing roads. To facilitate a smoother flow of vehicular traffic, many existing roads have been widened to increase the number of carriage-ways. As considerable sums of money have been spent on such projects, the roads that have been widened should not be allowed to be obstructed by indiscriminate roadside parking. 7.45 p.m. For example, the stretch of Balestier Road between Thomson Road and Moulmein Road was widened on both sides several years ago to take in three lanes of vehicular traffic on each side. Presently, one lane on each side is being used as an unauthorized car park during the greater part of the day, thus impeding a smooth flow of traffic, especially during peak hours. Recently, the other stretch of Balestier Road, between Moulmein and Serangoon Roads, has been widened. The same problem of unauthorized roadside parking is evident. Such obstructions can cause serious accidents. Furthermore, as soon as new roads are completed, they are frequently turned into unauthorized parking lots for trailers and other heavy vehicles. The PWD in their overall planning should take into consideration the parking facilities for vehicles, for instance, construction of more public car parks.”
“Sir, it was very heartening for me to hear from the Hon. Minister that it is Government policy to ensure that there is no violent upsurge in property prices. But on the other hand we have the HUDC putting up its prices by 143%. If 143% is not a violent upsurge, I just wonder what is. Of course, Sir, Government must always change its policies and you will agree with me that I am one of those who have often raised this point - that a good government must always be alive to the changing needs and to amend its policies accordingly. But how can you justify the changes, in this case the changes of the policies of the HUDC? How do you justify them when these are intended to deprive people of housing? How can you justify these changes when they are meant to cause anguish and frustration to people on the waiting list? Sir, I think the Hon. Minister still does not see the point as to why people apply for HUDC housing. I just want to point out that it is not the liberal policies, as he puts it, that have encouraged people to apply for HUDC housing, particularly during the years of the property boom. It is because that they could not qualify for HDB housing and at the same time they could not afford the higher prices in the private property market. 7.30 p.m. We are not talking of the Government taking over the role of the private developer. We are talking of the Government providing a very basic need for people who are caught in such a situation, i.e. they cannot get HDB housing, neither can they afford anything on the private market. The Minister is entitled to his views, but on this matter of HUDC it will be quite a long time before we share the same view, and I see no further need to prolong this debate and, very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw.”
“Much has been bandied inside and outside this House about ensuring that our people have a stake in the country by allowing them to have their own homes. I feel that the latest policies of the HUDC run contrary to this thinking.”
“Sir, nobody quarrels really with the idea that there should be a good social mix in our housing estates. But then, Sir, how do you explain that within the same estate, an HUDC flat will cost so much more than a HDB 5-room or executive flat? And if HUDC flats are not subsidized, then why should the Government levy a 30% fee on the resale of a flat? Furthermore, if the Government does not want to create so-called exclusive social enclaves, why are flats in Pine Grove, Gillman Heights and Cairnhill being reserved for civil servants? If we are talking about eliminating class distinction and we say that our policy makers and policy implementers must set the example, and that they should know more about the community they serve by living within the community itself, then why are they being allotted houses in these exclusive areas? I am not against Government providing housing for its employees. But this is wholesale queue-jumping. Why can the Government not have its own separate housing programme for civil servants? It has been done before. Is it not aware that there are so many condominiums coming on the market? There will probably be a surplus, and if the need is so urgent, why can the Government not provide for its own employees by buying these condominiums instead of depriving long-waiting applicants on the HUDC waiting list? What is even more disturbing, Sir, is to read that while public applicants are being deprived as such, civil servants who jump the queue will get their flats at 17 1/2% discount. The way I see it, the whole exercise is designed to frustrate and discourage applicants on the HUDC list. One just wonders when the next series of changes will come about to make more people withdraw from the list.”
“But as we all know, this did not deter those desperately in need of housing, and only 931 out of a total of 6,456 applicants at that time withdrew their applications. So quite obviously, the HUDC had to come out with another scheme to get lid of more people on the waiting list so as to make up for its own inadequacy. Hence, the latest conditions, increase the prices again and levy 30% on any resale of flats. In other words, the HUDC makes it so unattractive that anyone would think twice before going ahead with purchasing an HUDC apartment. Sir, there seems to be a misconception in Government that HUDC applicants desire to live in exclusive estates and are social snobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many, if not all, of the applicants are caught in a situation where they cannot qualify for subsidized HDB housing and they cannot buy anything on the private property market because prices there are beyond their reach. With the new prices of HUDC apartments shooting sky-high, most applicants will again find it difficult financially to pay for the new apartments. The Government is known for taking the lead in setting property prices. The latest price increase has had the effect of pushing up prices on the private property market so that even if an applicant, frustrated by the new prices and conditions, wanted to switch to private property, he would find that the prices of private properties have been pushed further beyond his reach. So applicants have suffered through no fault of their own, and an HUDC applicant is not told when he will get his flat, where he will get his flat, and how much he has to pay for his flat. He has to blindly fork out $18,000 and wait for the HUDC and its take-it-or-leave-it attitude.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, recently the HDB announced certain changes regarding its policies on HDB middle-income public housing. It was the latest in a series of changes which have been made to middle-income public housing policies since the early days of the HUDC, changes that have frustrated the many applicants on the waiting list. The most damaging of these latest changes is the new prices. Prices of new HUDC flats have been raised by as much as 148%. Next, a 30% levy is now imposed on any resale of these new HUDC flats. Thirdly, certain so-called exclusive estates are to be reserved for civil servants. Sir, there are also a few other changes which have been announced but, for the purpose of today's discussion, I shall restrict myself to these three changes. It seems to me that the HUDC is bent on reducing the number of applicants or, in fact, eliminating applicants on its waiting list to make up for its shortcoming and failure to provide housing for middle-income people. This deliberate long-term strategy to deprive the people of middle-income housing started about two years ago when the HUDC first announced sudden changes to its policies. At that time, it made the announcement that applicants need only wait two and a half years for their flats. This was a very much welcome announcement. But then it showed us the magic formula by which this feat could be achieved: (1) discriminate against single persons by telling them that they would have to wait till the age of 40 years before getting their flat; (2) requiring applicants to deposit $18,000 without paying any interest, thereby getting rid of those who could not afford the deposit.”
“Sir, before I proceed with my speech, may I first declare my interest on this matter?”
“(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $1O in respect of Subhead IE-O1 of the Main Estimates.”
“(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.”
“(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QI-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, the Hon. Minister has missed one of my questions. Would he ask the Traffic Police to pay special attention to errant drivers of heavy vehicles?”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether our road safety campaign is not reaching our older folks at all. Sir, the other category, that of the motor-cyclists, 85 out of the 126 who died belong to the age group 29 years old and below. Last year, we were told that the Registry of Vehicles had a plan to test all holders of motorcycle provisional driver's licence and the aim was eventually to phase out all PDL holders. I would like to ask how this programme is getting on and whether or not there is some cause for concern in view of the figures which I have just stated. Sir, another alarming figure concerns the number of accidents involving heavy vehicles, namely, buses, lorries, pick-ups and vans. Last year, there was a total of over 1,000 such accidents involving heavy vehicles. My opinion is that the might-is-right mentality of drivers of such vehicles is still very persistent. I myself had the frightening experience of seeing containers tearing past me and of seeing buses coming out of bus bays quite oblivious to the flow of oncoming traffic. May I know what action can be taken against such drivers?”
“Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to highlight again the problem of road safety in Singapore. Last year, 308 persons died on our roads. For the last four years the death rate has been increasing and for the first time last year the death rate broke the 300 mark. The last time when we had over 300 persons dying on our roads in year was in 1973. That means that almost one person died per day on our roads. I also have with me the figures of death rates on the roads for the first two month of the year. Fifty-seven people died in the first 59 days, and this again means one death per day. Sir, the greatest number of fatalities has always been our pedestrians and motor-cyclists. Motor-cyclists in this case are taken to mean the scooterists as well as pillion riders. Sir, I am wondering what has actually happened to our road safety campaigns that we talked so much about year after year. It seems to me that last year during the Budget debate the Minister told us that there would be a national road safety campaign sometime towards the end of 1982. But apparently none was held. While I would be the first to agree with him that road safety is something which cannot be done on an ad hoc or piece-meal basis and that we have to have an overall strategy, looking at these figures, I am wondering whether we have an overall strategy at all. If there is, it must be in disarray. I am afraid that we may be coming back year after year wringing our hands in despair. 4.15 p.m. I am particularly concerned with the accident figures concerning the two groups I mentioned earlier. As far as pedestrians are concerned, of the 97 who died on our roads last year, 48 of them belong to the age group 60 years and above.”
“We have to iron out the irritations that rightly or wrongly irk some of our people, and these irritations are widespread. People have to continue to perceive us as a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Only in this way can we ensure that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy the benefits of not just good government, but better government. 2.56 p.m.”
“If the Medisave scheme eventually achieves its objectives, and I have no doubt it will, we must attribute this not only to the soundness of the whole plan but also to what I feel has been one of the most carefully thought-out public relations exercise by any Government Ministry in recent years. From MPs to community leaders, to the ordinary man-in-the-street, no stone has been left unturned to clear nagging doubts about something that will affect the lives of each and every Singaporean. Multiply this effort across the whole spectrum of Government, one can see how a lot of misunderstanding can be removed. And misunderstanding there has been aplenty judging by the number of letters written to the press as well as the type of letters written, i.e. mostly complaints. Good public relations is what is needed in most departments and ministries. We cannot expect counter clerks to explain adequately all aspects of Government policies. They are not trained to do so, neither have they the time. To blame them would therefore not be fair. But suitably-trained persons can make the difference. As our electorate becomes an increasingly sophisticated one, it demands clearer explanations, not mere enunciations. What the Government can do is to capitalize on the goodwill that could be generated through the implementation of its policies. The answer to all this is salesmanship. It is often said that a good product without a good salesman will not sell, but a good salesman can sell almost anything, even if it is a shoddy product as the Member for Toa Payoh will bear me out. Fortunately, this Government has got good products: its policies are sound, but good salesmanship is what is needed to bring closer the bond between the people and the Government.”
“For them, their everlasting impression of their Govern- ment has been that moment of contact with the civil servant on the front line and it would have left them dejected and demoralized. In the end, it would be the political leadership that suffers because having been in power for more than two decades the political leadership and the civil service have become so closely intertwined. And do not forget, Sir, civil servants have a way of becoming Ministers. Today, there is a fair amount of resentment in Singapore, not so much against Government policies at large because people have over the course of 24 years grown to trust the wisdom of this Government, but more because of a lack of understanding of the rationale behind certain policies. How else can we explain the results of a recent survey that showed that while almost everyone in Singapore has heard of productivity most have missed the message behind the whole campaign? How is it that 75% of those surveyed felt that the whole campaign was more for the benefit of companies and employers than for workers? What is significant to note is that these cynical feelings were equally strong amongst the better educated as well as the less educated. Something must be seriously wrong if in spite of exhortations by Ministers, M P's, trade unionists, people still fail to see the point. I hope we can go back to the drawing board and study why in this case even Teamy has failed to pack in the sting it is supposed to. Sir, I for one believe in giving credit where credit is due. I would like to illustrate an example of how careful explanation of Government policies can clear a lot of misunderstanding.”
“It is not my purpose to do as such but I think in this respect it must bear part of the blame. Towards the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s we inherited a civil service from the British colonial government. Over the course of many years we have been able to develop and build our own civil service, one that is to its credit able to identify with the aspirations of the nation and which is also known for its ruthless efficiency. I use the word 'ruthless' for exactly what it means, for how else can you describe a civil service that is well known for telling you the answer is no as its starting point. I can think of some instances. No new hawker licences are issued because existing empty stalls are reserved for resettlement of street hawkers. No new applications for taxi drivers' vocational licences are considered because the Registry of Vehicles still has a backlog of applications to process. An applicant for public housing has to follow the first-come-first-served system because, to be fair to all, there cannot be queue-jumping. As I stated earlier I for one, and I am sure most of us here, do not quarrel with these policies and we know that properly explained, people can be made to understand the rationale behind such policies. Yet you will find that in such instances the advice often dished out by Government departments is "Go and see your MP, he can get it for you." Of course, all of us in this House know what an MP can do; quite often, nothing. But the MP can help salvage the situation, neutralize the resentment by explaining to his disgruntled constituent why he cannot get his taxi driver's licence, his hawker stall or his HDB flat. But what about the many hundreds, or thousands, who do not see their MP?”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Trade and Industry. Since the debate started in the House yesterday, we have heard about economic growth, economic recession, protectionism, productivity, GNP, etc. I propose to depart from these traditional points while keeping within the general framework of this debate, and discuss a problem which I feel is of concern to many of us. Singaporeans have had good government for close to 24 years now. There is no doubt that Government policies over the past two decades or so have contributed to Singapore the success it has achieved, unpopular though some of these policies might have been. It is recognised that the best of policies, no matter how carefully formulated, cannot please all the people all the time. Indeed it is one of the fundamental tenets of policy formulating that the interest of the majority must come first, even if a minority are left unhappy. It is this concept of Government without fear or favour that has been the hallmark of PAP policies for so long. What I wish to question today is not so much policies themselves but the implementation and explanation of policies which, I feel, leaves much to be desired. I venture as far as to say that failure to explain policies properly or to implement them correctly can result in unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Our Ministers, as we all know, take great pains to explain policies but even the best of intentions can be suspect if at the grassroot level they are not properly explained or wrongly implemented. I know it is always very convenient for politicians to make the administrative arm of Government, i.e. the civil service, the whipping boy.”
“Well, our workers are a disciplined lot and we are all proud of them for being so, and they know they have jobs while the rest of the world is wrapped in unemployment. In case he still does not know, there are three million unemployed in Britain, two million in West Germany, 2.2 million in France, half a million in Australia, and we have full employment in Singapore today. Sir, the Member for Anson claims to speak for the destiny of workers in Singapore. One thing I learnt after listening to his speech is that his destiny will not be to lead our workers. 5.15 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a trade unionist and it was not my intention to speak on this Bill. But after listening to the speech by the Member for Anson which is all a lot about nothing, I feel compelled to make a few comments in order to dispel the false notions that the hon. Member has tried to propagate by his speech. Speeches like the one he has just made and which insult the intelligence of workers in Singapore are not new to all of us. We heard them before - that there are no real trade unions in Singapore, that our workers have no right, etc. People like him belong to a different age, an archaic age of the past that preaches the course of collision to get matters done. But we know how different things are in Singapore. Sir, he displays a complete ignorance of the way industrial relations are conducted in Singapore. He ignores the fact that the basis of good industrial relations in Singapore has been the tripartite partnership between Government, management and workers. We said it time and again before, Sir, that this partnership, more than anything else, has ensured the success of our economy and assured for our workers the fruits of their labour. We had trouble-free industrial relations for many long years, and I say, let us keep it that way. Sir, the Member for Anson advocates the rights of workers. When you speak of rights, you must also talk of responsibilities, and I say our workers have their rights and they know their responsibilities, responsibilities to themselves, their families and their country. Perhaps he confuses these rights of workers with the free-for-all situation in other countries.”
“These are just some of the areas where irresponsible developers can willingly or unwillingly cause their buildings to deteriorate. If a developer is interested only in making quick money through the sale of the units in his development, he will not pay attention to its maintenance. Then the general condition of the building deteriorates and, in the end, purchasers suffer from poor maintenance and consequently the values of their properties are not enhanced. Not all the blame falls on developers. Sometimes purchasers or occupiers refuse to pay maintenance fees. Very often they refuse to pay on the ground that the developer is not doing his job properly. This Bill therefore makes it an offence for any occupier refusing to pay maintenance fees. It is a fair principle. Purchasers must pay the charges and developers must get the job done. Failure on the part of either party to carry out his obligations under the Act is an offence. No one can quarrel with the rationale underlying this Bill. We all want a clean Singapore and we do not want our buildings to degenerate into modern slums. One final point, Sir. In Singapore today there are many buildings where Temporary Occupation Licences have been issued, and there are many examples of such buildings where the state of maintenance is at a poor level. What I would like to ask the Minister is whether he would, as provided for under clause 4 of the Bill, by way of Gazette notification bring such buildings under the ambit of the Act and thereby require the developers to meet the obligations as provided and, if so, when he intends to do so.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Speaking on this Bill, I can claim to speak with some experience on this subject as I work in a building in which the occupiers have to sort out numerous problems with the developer regarding its maintenance. This Bill could not have come at a better time. With so many new buildings being built all over Singapore, it is only fitting that we enact legislation to ensure that buildings in the private sector are properly maintained. The problems of building maintenance normally arise as a result of, firstly, when the developer of the building fails to manage and maintain the development satisfactorily and, secondly, when tenants and subsidiary proprietors of units in the building fail to pay their maintenance fees for some reason or other. This Bill will therefore require a developer to set up a maintenance fund with all maintenance charges collected from purchasers of units-in the development, and it also makes it an offence for any purchaser who refuses to pay his share of the charges. What is interesting about this Bill today is that the duties and responsibilities of the developer with regard to the maintenance of the building are now clearly defined. Clause 4 of the Bill states very clearly what the maintenance funds collected must be utilized for. Sir, developers are known to neglect their responsibilities by: (1) failing to maintain the common property in the development in good condition; (2) failing to provide a satisfactory standard of cleaning and security services; (3) failing to repair damages occurring in structural fixtures and fittings; (4) failing to provide adequate insurance to cover the development against damage.”
“Sir, I am glad that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary recognizes that in moving this amendment I have no further vested interest in the matter. I am appreciative of his brief and concise reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Lest I be mistaken, it is not my intention to suggest that the Registry of Marriages be turned into a circus or carnival but certainly it is an occasion more than merely paying $14, getting a receipt for it and told to come back 21 days later. Sir, couples even say that they are embarrassed when they go to the Registry because when you tell them you are there to get married, the first question they ask you is: "Have both of you ever been married?" Sir, I cannot say more about the clerk who is seated at an old table in one corner who hands to all applicants an invitation to attend family planning talks except that I feel it is not very appropriate an occasion to remind a couple of such a thing. Surely we have enough of that already and there is no need to resort to what looks like a last minute attempt by the Family Planning Board to get the message through. Sir, this only reminds me of the trailers in the cinema that are inserted just before the main feature commences. The sober classical music that is played over the loud-speakers at the Registry belies the fact that it is a happy occasion and not one of grief. Perhaps for some who are being hauled quite reluctantly to the altar by their spouses, that may be so. But I am sure for many it is a happy occasion and the Registry of Civil Marriages should strive to make it a memorable one. Perhaps a smile here and there on the part of the staff could help to defrost the chilly atmosphere that is prevailing there. Sir, I am glad to read that a new building is being put up and I hope the Hon. Minister can take this opportunity to supply us with more details, and I hope that in the new building things would be quite different.”
“In recent times, there have been reports in the newspapers of cases of couples going through the customary marriage first before the civil marriage, or of couples coming to the Registry of Marriages and wanting to have the marriage solemnized before the 21 -day period is up. There are good reasons for this and I hope the Hon. Minister could take this occasion to explain once again for the benefit of the many people who would be getting married. Hon. Members will certainly agree with me when I say that getting married is a serious affair. However, Sir, there are not many Members in this House who could recount from first-hand experience. But I am a bit confused about the atmosphere at the present Registry of Civil Marriages, whether it is intended to be a serious thing or whether it is intended to be comical. For one thing, the Registry of Civil Marriages has for many years been located in a ram- shackle building. It is a tumbledown house with rickety staircases and squeaky floor-boards. It is, to say the least, a place which is not very conducive to solemnizing a marriage. Some have even called the place a joke. Sir, I think it is a shame. Perhaps the staff there also contribute to the grim atmosphere of the place. Sir, one is treated with the same officiousness at the Registry of Civil Marriages as that accorded in some other Government departments like applying for HDB flat or applying for a passport or applying for a dog licence. Sir, the Registry or the Ministry must take cognizance of the fact that the seriousness of solemnizing a marriage must be counter-balanced at least to some extent by the fact that this is a couple's happiest occasion, if not the most important occasion in life for man and woman.”
“The couple was also told that the marriage could only be put on record for administrative purposes. The couple complained that there would not be any proof of their marriage if the marriage is just to be put on record for administrative purposes. For example, if they wanted to apply for a flat or to register their child in school, they will not be able to prove that their marriage is legal. Sir, there are two points here. (1) Why were the couple misled in the first place as to the intention of the Registrar of Marriages? They had gone there for a legitimate purpose but were led up the garden path by officials of the Registry. Quite unwittingly, they did things which only serve to confirm that the registration of their marriage could not be proceeded with. (2) Technically, they did not commit any offence as they were both domiciled in another country. It was only when the man became a Singapore citizen that he sought to put things right, at least in the eyes of the law of the country of which he is now a citizen. In such an instance, if the marriage cannot be registered, can the Registry of Marriages not furnish the couple with a statement to the effect that the marriage would be recognized by the Government, at least for administrative purposes? The next matter on the Registry of Marriages that I want to raise concerns the notice that the couple must give in order to have the marriage solemnized at the Registry. Under the law, a 21 -day period is required. Another aspect of the law is that a civil marriage must take place before a customary marriage.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VB-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, allow me, first of all, to highlight the case of a couple who had contracted a customary marriage in Malaysia and wanted to register their marriage in Singapore. At the time of their customary marriage, the couple were Malaysian citizens and were domiciled in Malaysia. The marriage was not registered in Malaysia. Subsequently, the man became a Singapore citizen. He approached the Commissioner for Employment to approve the marriage, and it was approved. The couple then called at the Registry of Civil Marriages to register their marriage. They were asked whether they had gone through a customary marriage and the answer was yes. They were then asked to make a statutory declaration stating that they had gone through a customary marriage. The officer at the Registry even helped them to fill in the statutory declaration and they were asked to supply photographs showing evidence of their customary marriage. This they did in good faith. They were all along led to believe that their marriage would be registered eventually. Everything went on fine until they received a letter from the Registrar informing them that there was no provision in the law to register a marriage after the parties concerned had gone through the customary marriage. This has disappointed the couple. 7.00 p.m. If they were not allowed to register their marriage, in the first place they should be told right from the beginning. Instead they were told to do all the necessary formalities leading them to believe that the registration of their marriage would be in order.”
“I shall not go into details as these have been reviewed all too often, except to say that many times it has been pointed out that our censorship rules are out of touch with reality in some aspects. Again, Sir, before the Hon. Minister jumps to the wrong conclusion about my likes and dislikes, as he did last year, let me point out that while many of us here are in favour of some liberalization of the present rigid rules, I am sure he will agree with me when I say that this has to be done within a proper framework of an acceptable level of morality, and that whatever changes we make will not result in the erosion of our traditional Asian values. My question is when can this report be made public, whether the Hon. Minister is prepared to give us some preliminary details today? Not only are we keen to know what will be revealed in the report but we will also be interested to know what can be made more revealing for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to be able to stand up once again in this House to say a few words of praise for the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. Indeed, Sir, those who had reservations about whether out Radio and TV service would do well after its incorporation as a statutory board will no doubt agree that it has certainly done well. The improvements that have been made are all too evident and even more so in the last one year. The revamping of our Radio service is just one such example. All in all, progress has been made in making SBC a more interesting and lively station. Sir, I was interested to read not long ago that SBC is now building up a pool of local talent. Apparently it is the aim of SBC to be able to produce our own TV serials comparable to what we have been getting from Hong Kong. We also read of plans to produce a series based on life in our army, something along the lines of the popular American series, M.A.S.H. Sir, in line with this aim, SBC recently started recruiting Singaporeans to train them to become film stars. I would like to know how successful this hunt for acting talent has been; what progress has been made in the training of our local talent, and how soon can we begin to see our own home-grown stars on our TV screens. Mr Speaker, my next question concerns the report on censorship rules which, we have read in the press recently, has already been submitted to the Hon. Minister by the Film and Publication Review Board. As hon. Members are aware, this Board was set up last year to draw up a new set of censorship guidelines for various media, like films, video tapes, books and magazines. Sir, censorship has been a hot topic in this House for many years.”
“Sir, I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer to my query, so can I beg your indulgence, please. On this question of 'No Entry' sign, the problem is that, within one month after the anonymous letter was written, the PWD took immediate action. But now 10 months after the community leaders have raised this problem to reinstate the sign, the answer that the Minister has given me is exactly the same as that which the PWD has given all the time, and that is, they want to monitor the traffic situation. The PWD was so quick in removing the sign and yet they are still procrastinating when they are asked to put it back, ignoring all the old reasons for having the sign there in the first place. If this is not dragging the feet, what is it? And surely the safety of the residents is of pal-amount importance and the community leaders are the ones who know best what is good for the people there.”
“If nothing is done soon, it will give an opportunity to self-interested people to spread rumours. Some have even said that the HDB is waiting for the next price increase in order to make a profit. Would the Minister clarify this matter? The Minister should say whether or not this is true. Why is the Ministry causing unnecessary delay? There is also another problem. The residents in this area are people from the middle income group. They own motorcars but they have no place to park their cars near their homes. They have complained about this matter and the HDB should look into it.”
“We have often talked of the insensitivity and mindless bureaucracy on the part of the Civil Service. I can think of no better example than this of a Government department choosing to ignore local feelings - the sentiments of the community leaders and quite a number of the residents over their safety. I suspect that the PWD, having acted foolishly on the basis of an anonymous letter, has realized its bungling, but it has chosen not to accede to the present request to have the sign reinstalled because it would be an admission of its blunder, something which quite obviously they are not prepared to do. I, therefore, urge the Minister to take action to remedy the situation in the interests of the residents and to ask the PWD to stop dragging its feet on what is obviously a feeble attempt on their part to salvage its lost pride. Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas)( In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of National Development has to speed up its activities, otherwise the unnecessary delays will cause suffering to the people. I wish to bring up one or two issues to the attention of the Minister in this House. There are some blocks of rented flats in my constituency. The tenants have long ago expressed their wish to purchase the flats. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister and he promised to look into it. He said that the flats would be sold if the tenants complied with the HDB regulations. Members of my Residents' Committees, Citizens' Consultative Committee and I have explained this to the residents. They were pleased. But up to today no decision has been conveyed to them. In my opinion there is an unnecessary delay and as a result they are disheartened. I do not know the reason for this delay.”
“Traffic began to flow two ways again, and the pedestrians once again face the difficulty of crossing that particular stretch of road. The Citizens' Consultative Committee and the Residents' Committee immediately made a representation to the proper authorities, through the HDB area office, expressing the unhappiness of this action and requested for the re-installation of the No entry sign. Further inquiries finally revealed that the culprit was the Public Works Department which had authorized the removal of the sign because it believed that it was causing inconvenience to motorists. It was claimed that the No entry sign meant that motorists at the Tanglin Halt Road intersection with Commonwealth Drive, in wanting to get to certain blocks of flats at the end of Commonwealth Drive, had to make a long detour to get there. And what was the basis of this reasoning? It was an anonymous letter, unsigned, from someone who was obviously inconvenienced by the long distance he had to drive to get home. The action taken was quite mysterious. First, before removing the No entry sign, the Department concerned failed to consult the community leaders of the constituency. It failed to take into consideration the rationale for putting up the sign in the first place. Secondly, it acted solely on the basis of an anonymous letter. This is a very strange procedure because I have never known it to be a policy of the Singapore Government to act on the basis of anonymous letters without proper investigations. Thirdly, in spite of representations made by the community leaders and in spite of letters written to the press by members of the public, the PWD chose to ignore the sentiments of the people living there and stubbornly clung to its decision to remove the sign.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I want to raise the problem of low water pressure in my constituency. It is a problem that is very evident on the upper floors of HDB blocks. I believe it is not a problem peculiar to my constituency but it happens throughout Singapore, particularly in the older housing estates. Some of my constituents have spent their own money to improve the situation by changing the pipes in the flats. But water still flows out of their taps in slow trickles. Sir, I understand that there is an on-going programme now on an island-wide basis to improve the water pressure in HDB flats. Would the Hon. Minister give us more details of this plan, in particular when it will be implemented in my constituency? There is another problem which is also peculiar to my constituency. There used to be a No entry sign at the junction of Commonwealth Drive and Tanglin Halt Road, prohibiting the entry of vehicles, with the exception of buses, into Commonwealth Drive and leading into a block of flats. Sometime in May last year, this sign was removed so that the whole stretch of the road became a two-way street. There are historical reasons why the No entry sign was installed. It was installed at the request of my predecessor, Dr Wong Lin Ken, as a result of complaints from residents. There have been traffic accidents occurring along that particular stretch of Commonwealth Drive which is in the shape of a bend. The residents crossing the road could not see traffic coming round the bend. An effective way to reduce this hazard was to prohibit the entry of vehicles into Commonwealth Drive from its intersection with Tanglin Halt Road. For many years the problem was solved in this manner. Then suddenly out of the blue, the No entry sign was removed.”