Tang See Chim
Singapore
“In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another. Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime?”
“Sir, maybe it was a misplaced metaphor. Maybe I should say a skunk smells just as evil by any other name. This is exactly the position. There is no point your telling us that conditions have now returned to normal when manufacturers are asked to pay a higher rental. They have to compete.”
“Sir, the Minister said that he has not increased rent but he just revalued the value of the land. This is exactly the same as increasing rent. I mean you call a rose a rose. You increase the rent whether you call it the rent or call it the base value of the property. To the manufacturer, it is still the same.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the rent demanded by the JTC is comparable to that for private premises outside. But I think the JTC has almost a monopoly on industrial property. I just do not see how the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could make such a comparison.”
“Sir, the difference is that once they get the entry visa, they will be allowed permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Whereas here, we may allow them to enter for two weeks and after that we will turf them out. Also, may I just take up this further point.”
“Sir, I just want to take up with the Minister on the regulations he read out from the booklet. Indeed, if all those conditions are met, the person will be given an entry clearance and then he will be able to enter the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 698 lines we hold for Tang See Chim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 14.
“Of course not! If that is the case, why does the Member for Anson not take the Housing and Development Board to court? Because every notice to quit is made pursuant to a reason. There must be a reason. If there is no reason, you cannot get the tenant out. I think that is the usual habit of the Member for Anson, that is, he is telling half-truths. Even in a notice to quit by a private landowner to a tenant, all you need do is to say that you are served with notice to quit and could you please quit the place within a month, or some period like that, after the service of this notice. The reason is that he has breached a condition. Without a reason, you cannot get the tenant out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a notice to quit simply gives the tenant notice to quit. But what the Member for Anson is alleging is that the Housing and Development Board can give a notice to quit without reason.”
“Is the Member for Anson seriously saying that the Housing and Development Board can give a notice to quit without reason? If that is so, why does he not take the Housing and Development Board to court?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have seen a notice to quit from the Housing and Development Board.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to reject the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. I think his amendment is really inconsistent with the preamble of the motion as moved by the Member for Chong Boon. The preamble very clearly shows that the Housing and Development Board has achieved a very substantial degree of public housing for the people of Singapore, and yet in his amendment the Member for Anson asked for a commission of inquiry. The Member for Anson also acknowledges the achievements of the Housing and Development Board, and yet what does he want? At the drop of a pin, indeed even without the drop of a pin, he is asking for a commission of inquiry. What is the purpose of a commission of inquiry?”
“You have to have skill to catch the wind.”
“Yes, Sir. Arising out of the Minister's answer that Government has got to consider the priorities, would the Minister appreciate that surely the CPF member himself would know his priorities better than the Government as to how to put his money to better use?”
“Sir, this supplementary question is directly related to the education of the CPF members' children, and I think it is a proper question to be put to the Minister and the Minister should really answer it.”
“Sir, is the Minister going to look into it right away, or just saying this and forgetting about it afterwards?”
“Sir, if the CPF holder is now allowed to buy a second property with his CPF, why can he not use his CPF for the education of his children? And what better protection for old age than a well educated child who is prepared to look after the parents in their old age!”
“Sir, is he not aware that with this anxiety hanging over the heads of taxi drivers it is really not fair for him to take his own sweet time?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Minister is aware of the anxiety of the taxi drivers over the diesel tax, what is he going to do about it?”
“They cannot have the cake and eat it. They cannot, on the one hand, oppose Government policy and, on the other hand, complain that the Government is not generous enough in helping them to oppose Government policy.”
“They should know that, as Opposition Members, they cannot, on the one hand, attack Government policies and, on the other hand, expect the Government to appoint them to organizations which are set up by the Government so that they could dismantle these organizations. My point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that the Opposition Members cannot have the cake and eat it. They cannot, on the one hand, oppose Government policy and yet, on the other hand, complain that -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a very short point. I had no intention originally of speaking but after listening to the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir, I think I should clear some of the misconceptions that they have created. They seem to think, especially the Member for Potong Pasir, that they should be appointed to the position of Advisers of grassroots organizations like the CCC, CCMC and RC, as of right, simply because they are MPs of these constituencies. They are wrong. They should know better. As lawyers, they should know that there is no constitutional or legal duty on the Government to appoint them as Advisers to these grassroots organizations. Indeed this point was very clearly spelt out by the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law. The CCCs and RCs are registered societies. The CCMCs are established and run by the People's Association which is a statutory body. The objectives of these grassroots organizations are to help the Government in implementing programmes for social cohesion, social integration and social betterment. Unless the two Opposition Members can really prove that they can contribute to the objects of these grassroots organizations, they cannot be expected to be appointed to the position of Advisers of these organizations. Of course, there is nothing to prevent them from running their own activities in the constituencies so long as these activities are legal. But they cannot be expected to be appointed to existing organizations set up by the Government.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is it not true that children who could not afford to pay for textbooks could apply to the .Education Ministry and they would get free textbooks?”
“I just want to know what is the definite clear-cut policy on pig farming.”
“Exactly, nothing happened. We do not know what the policy is. He simply says, "Pig farms will be phased out in a few years." What I am asking is: where do the farmers stand? If you are phasing them out, what is the time-frame allowed? What are you going to do with them? What sort of compensation will you pay them? How about those old farmers who cannot change trade? What about their livelihood? You must announce all these plans. In fact, my colleague, the Member for Punggol, and I have always been complaining that the Government has got no clear-cut policy on pig farming. They have got very good policy on industry but not on pig farming.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that his Ministry had. a clear-cut policy on pig farming. I still have not heard it. All he said was, "Yes, pig farms will be phased out in a few years." How few is few? Three years? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Indeed, as the Member for Punggol has pointed out, some years ago the Government issued leases for pig farming for 30 years. Now, what happened? [interruption] Well, that may be an easier way of doing it. An hon. Member: Nothing happened?”
“I am not asking for long-term. I am asking for the transition period.”
“Sir, in the debate on resettlement, I have touched on the question of expeditious payment of compensation as well as requesting the Minister to reinstate the previous policy of giving a 3-room flat free to farmers who hold farm licences. I would repeat this request on behalf of my farmers in Chua Chu Kang, and indeed on behalf of all farmers who are being resettled.”
“Sir, there are still some 600 pig farms in my constituency. These farmers would like to know what is the Government policy with regard to pig farming. Although there have been vague pronouncements, especially one or two by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, there has been no clear-cut Government policy on the subject. This is not fair to the farmers. They want to know where they stand and what is the Government's policy on pig farming. Sir, I had a meeting with representatives of the pig farmers in my constituency on the 11th of this month. The farmers are prepared to be resettled. They know that pig farming is a pollutive industry. They appreciate that it will have to be phased out. But they just want to know when and for how long they can carry on pig farming. Sir, in connection with resettlement which they know they have to undergo, they want a period of at least one year between the announcement and the final moving out so that they have sufficient time in which to phase down their operations. During the transitional period, they also want the Ministry to monitor very closely the position so that farmers who are under resettlement will not be exploited by the middlemen. For example, they want the Ministry to monitor very closely the import of live pigs so that there would not be a glut in the market whereby they may not be able to wind down their business in an orderly manner. Furthermore, the Government should look into the possibility of how to provide an alternative means of livelihood to those farmers of advanced years and without children to support them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Member for Punggol has touched on pig farming, and as I have two amendments on Subheads MF-01 and M F-02, may I have your permission to speak?”
“I would like to point out to the Member that out of the total number of hawkers licensed by my Ministry, more than 80% of them are above 40 years of age, 31% are above 60 years of age. There have been cases where licences were issued to applicants who are actually over 60 years of age. I must point out that these applicants are usually physically fit and healthy individuals who are able to run the stalls themselves and they meet our Ministry's hardship criteria for the allocation of stalls. On the question of whether resettled farmers who find life in the housing estate rather boring and sedentary should be allowed to grow vegetables where lbvely lawns now occupy the space between the blocks, perhaps the hon. Member would like to direct it to the Minister in charge of Housing and Development Board for his earnest consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, last year I did raise precisely the same point made by the hon. Member for Chong Boon. The then Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into the matter. I wonder whether the present Parliamentary Secretary could report the result? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information and the Minister for the Environment (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I answer to the points on behalf of my Minister. First, the Member for Hong Kah spoke about the high rate of building development, in particular, by HDB, and resettlement of hawkers who suddenly find themselves being moved away from their traditional hawking sites, and now have a home which is quite far away. In a small country like Singapore, with scarcity of land, reseftlement of people is quite inevitable. As a general policy, Sir, my Ministry does not allow mutual exchange of stalls by hawkers. We do not want to create a situation for hawkers to trade their stalls underthe guise of mutual exchange. But in genuine cases, Sir, my Ministry will definitely consider the appeals of the hawkers, appeals on the basis that their home is now very far away from their hawking site. We will consider each of this case on its own merit, and those that are deserving we will certainly approve the transfer. In 1984, Sir, permission was granted to 60% of 184 applications by both HDB and MOE hawker stall holders for change of stall allocations. Sir, next I will touch on the hon. Member for Bukit Batok's comment. The Member spoke on the question of not giving a hawker licence to those above 60 years of age. He touched on the plight of the old who have no access to this simple economic activity.”
“I have spoken on them all, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would not be moving the other three amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the hon. Member for Nee Soon withdraws his amendment, may I be allowed to speak on it because I have four amendments* standing in my name on the Order Paper Supplement, two on resettlement and two on Housing Board. Hon. Members have ranged very widely over all the subject matters covered by the Ministry of National Development.”
“You are assuming every household is a single person household, Mr Minister.”
“Sir, you must pardon me if I pursue this line of argument. This amendment Bill was first published on 24th August and we are now having another amendment Bill which would again be debated. I am sure the Minister has got simple explanations. The explanation is convenience of his technical staff. But how about the convenience of Members of Parliament? I also appreciate that the Minister cannot incorporate all the amendments at one go but the time difference between two amendment Bills is really far too short. He is asking us to swallow this, saying "it is not possible." The time difference is too short. Today is the 19th October and the first amendment Bill was introduced on 24th August. Let us have some sense of urgency or proportion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I also heard the Minister say just now that this was to implement the schemes announced at the Budget meeting. The Budget meeting was sometime in March and now it is October, i.e. seven months ago. Surely, all these amendments could have been incorporated into one amendment Bill so that we could discuss them together rather than coming to Parliament in bits and pieces. Personally, if for no other reason, the Minister should really ask his technical staff to get on with the work or wait until we have got everything together and then come here for a debate rather than coming o Parliament in bits and pieces and ask us to approve this Bill now and then the second amendment Bill at the next sitting which could be any time seven days after the second Bill is published. I just do not see why Parliament should be asked to sit at different sittings debating amendments to the same Act. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the answer is very simple. Times change and we must change with it. Taxation Bills are difficult Bills and while my officials have done their best in order to try and incorporate all the changes that are necessary, I am afraid that I cannot assure the Member that it will ever be possible for me to put forward a perfect Bill which will incorporate all the amendments that we wish to introduce. Indeed I think it will be inadvisable to do so because it will mean that we have reached a stage of stagnation and that my Ministry at least would have no new ideas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek an expla- nation from the Minister on this Bill. He says that the Bill is to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act and to implement two new tax incentive schemes and also to make certain technical amendments. I just want to know why is it necessary that we should proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill when at the commencement of business the Minister had just introduced a second amendment Bill to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act. Why could not the second amendment Bill be incorporated into this first amendment Bill, or why could not this first amendment Bill wait until the provisions of the second amendment Bill are ready and we debate the whole thing together? Can I please have an explanation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask the Minister what is the rationale for calling these new electoral divisions by these names. We are mandarinizing, in fact, some of the existing names of constituencies. For example, my constituency is known as Choa Chu Kang. It is gazetted as Choa Chu Kang. In some Government Ministry communications, it is now known by its mandarinized name as Caicuogang. Indeed the spelling is such that I am not quite used to it. It could be known as Kay Kuo Gang! I see that at least two of the names here, Hong Kah and Teck Ghee, are definitely not hanyu pinyin names. They are, in fact, dialect names. I wonder whether or not we should not take the opportunity now to use Hanyu Pinyin for these names so that Hong Kah will be known as Fongqiao, or whatever. I leave that to the hanyu pinyin experts. But this is the point that I want to raise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, are we allowed to ask questions?”
“Sir, I thought that the whole premise of the Minister's statement that the future of pig farming was bleak was that the land had not been put to its optimum use. Does the Minister now agree that pig farming is, in fact, putting the land to its optimum use?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not recall that at the last Budget debate, he said that the Government was subsidizing pig farmers as a result of which he thought that the future of pig farming was very bleak because the land on which pig farms were being used had not been put to its optimum use. Dr Goh Keng Swee: I did say that, but I did not say that they would be acquired in the next year or two. Farmers will have to be patient. Singapore will develop. The Member for Chua Chu Kang need not worry that between now and the next general elections this will be a major problem in his constituency.”
“Sir, does the Minister not think that the land would be better used if the Government allowed the farmers to opt for earlier resettlement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in respect of farmers whose lands have not been served with notices of clearance, would the Government give them an option to elect for earlier resettlement?”
“I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $403,536,070 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $4,738,942,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head K - The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Sir, but the Parliamentary Secretary has just declared the Hawker Department's policy. He said that priority will be given to those road-side hawkers first. What I am saying is that the policy should be changed. Is he prepared to consider that? Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Sir, I duly support the view -”
“Sir, it is a question of bad stomach versus empty stomach. It is either the bad stomach of the customers of these road-side hawkers or the empty stomach of the hawkers whose customers have all been resettled. Where bad stomachs are concerned, at least the customers have a choice whether or not to patronise road-side hawkers, whereas hawkers with empty stomachs serving resettled areas have no choice. My question is, why not resettle those hawkers who are now serving areas which have been resettled?”
“Sir, I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the rationale for giving priority to street hawkers who have yet to be resettled against those hawkers who, having served an area which is resettled, are now left without any customers. Their customers are all resettled to another area and this is through no fault of their own. So surely from the point of view of justice, these hawkers in Chua Chu Kang should be given priority over the hawkers who are still hawking in the streets at the moment, and who are still having plenty of customers.”
“So I would urge the Minister to reconsider the whole policy on hawkers so as to be in tune with the changing economic conditions of Singapore. Not only that, it would also help the people who are displaced as a result of resettlement. 3.00pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just before the Moment of Interruption yesterday I was urging the Minister for the Environment to direct his Hawkers Department to coordinate with the Resettlement Department so that when an area is to be resettled the hawkers serving that area should be resettled together with the residents so as not to leave the hawker centre or the market as a ghost centre or market. I was also telling the Minister that, in respect of farmers in their advanced years who have always been farmers and who know of no other trade, the Hawkers Department should take their plight into consideration when processing their applications for hawkerstalls. I would now urge the Minister to take a very sympathetic view of these farmers who have been displaced and who have applied for hawker stalls. He should be sympathetic and consider allocating them hawker stalls. In my experience in the Meet-the-People sessions, Sir, most of these displaced farmers who have applied for hawker stalls do receive very polite replies, but invariably the reply is that they do not qualify for a hawker stall. And in the rare instances where they do qualify, the offer is for a market produce stall rather than for a cooked food stall. Sir, surely this is an indication that there is a demand for cooked food stalls. I think this is indicated by the general economic condition of society, especially when the Government is urging housewives to go out to work. This would, in fact, be one way of inducing housewives to go out to work so that when they come home there is a market stall ready to serve them with cooked food. This is certainly better than to insist that the displaced farmers accept market produce stalls. Then the housewives would still have to do the cooking themselves.”
“Most of the farmers who have been resettled are in their late 40's, early 5O's, and some in their 60's. They have been farmers all their life. They know of no trade other than farming. But when they are resettled into a Housing Board flat, they lose their livelihood. When they are farmers, they can eke out a living although the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Education said that the consumers were subsidizing them. But, be that as it may, they have a means of livelihood. They can eke out a living. They live on the land. They do not have to pay maintenance charges for the Housing Board flats. They can get water from the well. They do not have to pay so much for public utilities. However, once they are resettled into a Housing Board flat, not only are they deprived of their livelihood, they also have to incur a large amount of expenses. There is the maintenance fee to pay, the public utilities and so many other expenses connected with resettlement apart from the inconvenience. 8.00 pm.”
“Sir, in rising to speak, I just wish to draw the Minister for the Environment's attention to certain policies within his Ministry's purview, particularly the hawker policy. The hawker policy that I am going to speak on is connected, to a large extent, with resettlement. A lot of places, especially the old areas in my constituency, are going to be resettled, and especially after the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education's announced policy in the House yesterday during Question Time, a large number of pig farmers will be resettled. Take the example in my constituency. In the Lim Chu Kang area the pig farms will be resettled. However, in the same area there is a market and hawker centre. When the farmers are resettled, those hawkers will unfortunately not be resettled together with the residents and the farmers in the same area; this will result in poor business for the hawkers. However, the Hawkers Department has no policy to resettle hawkers together with the residents whom they serve in the same area. In the Lim Chu Kang area, most of the farmers and residents affected by resetlement are being resettled in Jurong East or Jurong West. When the hawkers in the Lim Chu Kang market and hawker centre asked to be resettled together with the people whom they served, they were told that they could not do so because the market in the Jurong area had been reserved for hawkers who were going to be resettled from the Jurong area. Now, this is causing a large amount of unhappiness and unless something is done about it, I believe that the livelihood of those people will be very much affected. I would appeal to the Minister on their behalf to give consideration to the application of these hawkers for resettlement. There is a further problem, Sir.”
“In the meantime, interest is supposed to be payable. The court cannot grant probate or letters of administration until a certificate from the Commissioner of Estate Duty certifying that estate duty has been paid or that it has been postponed. Therefore, irrespective of the rate of estate duty, so long as there is estate duty, all these tedium, annoyance and frustration will remain. If, therefore, there was a case last year for the abolition of estate duty, as the Minister admitted there was, I would submit that the case is so much more cogent this year. So why do we not do away with estate duty altogether? On the question of enhanced child allowance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics to show that enhanced child allowance does encourage married women to come out to work. Personally I think it would be a much better inducement if a nurse maid was offered for every qualified married woman who continues to work. Offer her a nurse maid to look after the child. Apart from these two points, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Minister's financial statement. 7.28 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to meet your five-minute requirement. I just want to offer one small comment on the Finance Minister's Budget Statement. This is on estate duty. I feel that the Minister has not gone far enough. In simplifying the estate duty structure, the Minister has gone a long way in meeting the criticism that estate duty encourages consumption and discourages savings, but he has left unanswered the other areas of criticism against estate duty. The loss of revenue as a result of the simplified structure of estate duty was estimated by the Minister at $22 million. The estimated revenue from estate duty for the financial year 1984-85 is $26 million. This is against an estimated revenue collection from direct taxes of $4,598 million. The estimated collection of estate duty works out to 0.55% of revenue from direct taxes. For this small percentage, the Government has to maintain the whole implement of estate duty collectors. Furthermore, all the annoyances and frustrations connected with estate duty still remain. Estate duty is charged from the date of death, and on death interest at 3% is chargeable. This gradually goes up but it is 3% from the date of death. Yet at that date, the Commissioner of Estate Duty does not know what is the duty he is going to charge. Nor is there anyone who has the power to pay the estate duty even if the Commissioner of Estate Duty knows how much he wants because the deceased's estate is frozen on his death and nobody can touch that estate until the court grants probate or letters of administration. Furthermore, the whole process of tedious examination of the assets of the deceased in order to arrive at the estate duty payable will have to be gone through and t.hat takes time.”
“Accepting that premise as set out by the First Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Winsemius said that it was too premature because we have got universal education only in 1968 or in 1970 and therefore that generation -”
“This is a clarification, Sir. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that Dr Winsemius had said that if he (Dr Winsemius) were a highly educated woman, the incentive would not encourage him (or her) to get married. But in another passage, Dr Winsemius did say that -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the First Deputy Prime Minister and I were reading different passages of Dr Winsemius' interview. In an interview given-”