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 4 of 14.
“A supplementary question, Sir. Is the First Deputy Prime Minister aware that in the farewell interview Dr Winsemius said that, accepting the premise as set out by the First Deputy Prime Minister, the implementation is premature?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am interested in the Minister saying that there was a re-enactment of the accidents. I just wonder whether he would let us know how that was conducted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister comment whether this split-up of the vehicle is in fact a safety feature designed, during an accident, on impact, to release the occupants so as to save them from fatal injuries, like a fighter aircraft ejecting its pilot in the event of an accident?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that in two separate accidents recently, two cars split into two? Does this mean that those makes of cars meet with the required safety standards?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what about the question of pollution control?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in this case, who bears the cost of remedying this seepage problem? The Minister has now come to the bridge, Would he let us know how he is going to cross it?”
“Sir, I was going to ask precisely why we were not given more details and why was it not listed under the head of the Ministry of National Development. However, in order to save time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NB-01 Project 8502 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I am moving this amendment just to request information because, again, under this item Ex-gratia payments an amount of $30 million is listed. What are these exgratia payments?”
“Sir, I was just going to suggest that perhaps the Estimates Committee should take up this point really. As you suggested, Sir, in order to save time, I would just withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, in respect of a particular development project, I thought that there is already a contingency sum of 10%. But here we are, in fact, asking for another 15% over the total development projects. That means there will be a 25% contingency. Is this really necessary?”
“Sir, this means that we are asked to write a blank cheque. Would it not, in fact, be better to encourage the civil servants to exercise more efficient budgetting if we have the projects listed under the various heads rather than asking Parliament to write a blank cheque at the beginning of the year? Also, even if we do not do that, when the occasion arises they can always come back to Parliament and ask for the money, rather than asking us now, at the beginning of the year, to give them a blank cheque.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NB-01 Project 8501 of the Development Estimates. Sir, under this item there are listed New Projects totalling $350 million. However, there is not a single detail on what these new projects are. I therefore would like to ask the Minister what are these projects which are costing the national purse a huge sum of $350 million.”
“But is it not inconsistent with Government policy to give enhanced relief for the third child when the Government encourages people to stop at two? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, apart from these two points, I support the Budget. 6.22 p.m.”
“On a person's death all his assets are frozen and until an executor or an administrator is appointed by the court to administer the estate, his assets cannot be touched. Yet under the Estate Duty Act, duty is payable from the date of death and interest on the amount of duty payable is charged at 3% from the date of death to the date of payment, although on the date of death nobody knows how much duty is payable, not even the Estate Duty Commissioner, and yet interest is chargeable on the duty that is subsequently assessed to be payable. Is this not absurd? So I would urge the Minister to do away with the provision to charge interest on estate duty payable from the date of death, even if he were not prepared to do away with estate duty altogether. If interest is payable at all, it should be from the date of the grant of probate or letter of administration. I now want to say a few words about child relief for specially qualified married women. I agree with my colleagues who say that if enhanced child relief is payable at all it should be payable to all working women. Why specially qualified women? I wonder whether the Minister has figures to show how effective the earlier enhanced child relief is and how many more specially qualified women, with the new provision, would be encouraged to come out to work? I personally believe that the effect is marginal. Married women work because they either need the money or because they want to work, and if they are specially qualified they will work whether or not you give them any enhanced child relief over and above the other married women. I am not begrudging my specially qualified married working sisters. Good luck to them for the bonus which the Government is now handing out.”
“You may have to sell your house indeed! If you own assets outside Singapore, there is no estate duty payable. It therefore encourages outflow of funds from Singapore. While Singapore aspires to be a financial centre and trying its best to attract funds into Singapore, estate duty is doing just the opposite - encouraging funds to flow out of Singapore. Furthermore, estate duty is inequitable in that the really wealthy can always escape estate duty by proper planning. It is only the middle-class who are not too poor nor too rich and who work all their.life to build up a little nest-egg who will find that when they die the Government takes a big chunk away. The amount of estate duty collected compared to the total collection of the Inland Revenue Department, that is to say, excluding import duty and excise duty, is insignificant. According to the Report of the Inland Revenue Department, in 1981, for example, estate duty collected was $47,585,000 compared to a total collection of $3,920,109,000, that is to say, estate duty forms only 1.2% of the total revenue collected by the Inland Revenue Department. Again, for the first half of 1982, January to June 1982, the amount of estate duty collected was $21,539,000 whereas the total revenue collected was $2,227,774,000, that is to say, 0.96%. The figures for 1980 and 1979 are: 1980, 0.82% ; 1979, 1.7%. This percentage of the estate duty, compared to total revenue collected, will further reduce because of the exemption of one dwelling house from estate duty. It is not that the Government needs the money. Then why create all this ill-will for such an insignificant sum? I would therefore urge the Government to abolish estate duty. The administration of estate duty also creates certain anomalies.”
“I rise in support of the Minister for Trade and Industry on his balanced and painless budget presented to Parliament on the 4th March. This is especially commendable in view of the world-wide depressed economic conditions. I think credit should also go to the Government for having taken some tough measures in the past which make it possible today to have a painless budget. There are just two matters to which I would invite the Minister's attention. The first is the question of Estate Duty, and the second is enhanced relief for the third child. Estate duty is not compatible with Government's philosophy of encouraging people to work hard and to save. The people toil and save, and build up their assets. But what happens at the end of the day when they die? The Government takes away a big chunk of what they have worked so hard to save. Is it not better to spend it during your lifetime than letting the Government take it away on your death? Are we not encouraging consumption? Estate duty discourages saving. It is also an anomaly. Your liability to pay estate duty depends upon what assets you own on your death. If you own a house worth, say, $10 million, it is estate duty-free. On the other hand, if you own shares worth $10 million, estate duty takes away 60%. Should you die when the prices of shares are high and if you have to pay duty later at a time when the prices of shares are low, all the proceeds from the sale of shares may not be enough to pay estate duty. An hon. Member: You have a house.”
“Would the Minister of State at least relate the compensation rate to the main house?”
“Sir, does this policy not run counter to the Government's declared policy of encouraging our citizens to upgrade themselves?”
“Is there a minimum number of pigs which a farm must have before it qualifies for the subsidy?”
“The only thing I agree with the Minister of State is that there is a communication gap between us. Therefore, I would rather put this matter to the vote, because I do not think he has answered my question satisfactorily. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 4.15 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking the Government to give every farmer a piece of land. What I am asking is that they be given special consideration. Let me give an example. Perhaps this will make the matter clear. If I were a farmer and I am doing intensive farming on two acres of land at the moment, I can never hope to meet the requirement of farming five acres unless the Government is prepared to give me special consideration for three more acres. These three more acres can be given on this basis. "Okay, we fix it at the commercial rate. We give you first right of refusal. It is $10,000 an acre a year. If you can match this, do it. If you cannot, too bad." This is what I am asking, instead of having to come back and apply with the others and without special consideration being given. I hope the Minister will now understand what I am driving at. I am not asking for special allocation. I am simply asking for priority, as indeed squatters who are resettled because of a public housing scheme get priority. That is all I am asking.”
“Sir, I think the Minister of State misunderstood me. I did not say that he misled the House. I said that his comparison was misleading. There is a world of difference between the two. Indeed, his comparison is very misleading, Sir, because resettled squatters for a public housing scheme are given priority; resettled farmers here are not given priority at all. In fact, a resettled farmer is not even given special consideration, and that is all I am appealing to the Minister - to give special consideration to those farmers who are able to meet the new requirements of the Ministry, on matters like payment of commercial rent, pollution control, area. But, of course, as regards area, you have to give them the area. Unless you give them the area, they cannot farm. I mean, at the moment they are farming on one acre of land, they cannot expand. They must acquire more land. And I am asking that special consideration be given to them so that they could upgrade themselves, meet the requirements of the Ministry and continue to be farmers.”
“" Here, what we are doing is something that affects the livelihood of the people, and therefore special consideration should be given to them.”
“Sir, the Minister of State made the comparison with resettling squatters for a public housing scheme. Here, I wish the Ministry would give to the farmers the same sort of consideration for the resettlement of squatters, because here in resettling a farmer we do not provide him with, or give him the priority of getting, another farm. Whereas in the resettlement of a squatter, the squatter is given priority for public housing. So the comparison made by the Minister of State is really very misleading, All I am asking here is that the existing farmers be given priority just as priority is given to existing squatters who are being resettled. Also, I am appealing to the Minister to give the existing farmers a chance to upgrade themselves so that they really need not have to move out, and even if they have to move out because of the comprehensive development, they should be given special consideration, because that is their livelihood and a lot of farmers cannot do anything else other than farming. They should be given the chance to either group together and given priority to come back, or they should not be moved out at all, if possible, so that they could remain on land and upgrade themselves. It is not their fault they do not get five acres of land because it has been Government's policy to give small plots of land to farmers to cultivate. We understand the position because land is scarce in Singapore. But all I want is for the Minister to ensure that this development is properly undertaken. From the bureaucrats' point of view, it is always much easier to just move out everybody and then bring the bulldozers in and develop the land. Then say, "Okay, anybody who is eligible may come back and apply.”
“However, these existing farmers are prepared to join up with other neighbouring farmers to acquire more land from the Ministry so that they could meet the area requirement. I think they deserve special consideration. I would invite the Minister's attention to this matter and appeal to him to give special consideration to these existing farmers on the land.”
“Sir, with regard to Rural Development Services, Project 8102 refers to the development of farming lands at Loyang, Sungei Tengah and Murai. Project 8401 refers to land acquisition for intensive farming. With regard to land acquisition for the development of farming lands, I think the Minister should give consideration to existing farmers who are doing the same type of farming. In my constituency, there are two areas which are now being developed by the Ministry of National Development for intensive farming. This is in the Murai and Sungei Tengah areas. These areas are to be developed into commercial farms. However, in these areas presently there are farmers who are doing the same type of farming. As such, I would appeal to the Minister on their behalf to give them special consideration. If the intensity and type of farming that they are doing now conform to the requirements of the Ministry, they should not be asked to move out of the area. If they have to move out, then when the area is developed, they will have to apply to come back into the area. As of now, the policy appears to be that in order to develop the area for commercial farming, everybody in the area must move out. And when the area is developed, the existing farmers, together with all the other applicants, must then apply to come back and do farming on a commercial scale. No special consideration or preference is given to existing farmers. This is, in fact, not very fair because the existing farmers were already in the area doing the same type of farming on an intensive scale, albeit on land that is not as big as stipulated by the Ministry.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-04 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I have also two other amendments, amendments (15) and (16)* on the Order Paper Supplement. These are, in fact, related matters and may I have your permission to range my remarks over these two amendments so that I do not have to move them later on?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is good news for those affected by resettlement albeit, of course, resettlement itself is difficult enough. At least, the Government is doing something to see that it will ease their difficulties somewhat. On behalf of my constituents who are affected by resettlement, and may I be so bold as to include all those in Singapore who are affected by resettlement, I want to thank the Minister for his sympathetic attitude towards this very difficult problem. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I really do not see why it should mean that. It could simply mean that there are more resettlement cases.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-02 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, this subhead includes the question of assessment of rates of compensation for resettlement. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the rates of compensation for resettlement do not seem to keep up with inflation. Resettlement itself is difficult enough, Sir. You uproot the whole family and they have got to begin a new life in a new area. If you do not give them adequate compensation to begin their life anew, we are in fact compounding the difficulties faced by the resettlers. While appreciating that the rates of compensation cannot really be revised every month, perhaps what the Minister could do is to consider pegging the rates to our cost of living index. Let me just give an example. Previously a farmer who was resettled could either opt for a 3-room flat or for $11,800, that was the cost of a 3-room flat. However, that choice was done away with in 1979. Instead of that, he is now given $19,500. I think my figures are right. However, in the meantime, the price of a 3-room flat has gone up to $26,700. That is the figure given to us by the Minister yesterday to show how heavily we subsidize a 3-room flat. But that just goes to show that, while the rates have been increased to $19,000-odd, the price of a 3-room flat has gone well beyond that. We are really compounding the difficulties faced by the resettlers. May I appeal to the Minister on behalf of all those who are affected by resettlement that we should really devise a formula so as to ensure that the hardship faced by those who are affected by resettlement can be, as far as we can, lessened.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his explanation, but may I request the Minister to look into this matter and see whether the standard plan can be further revised to take account of the climatic conditions in Singapore? In view of his explanation, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I think the Minister of State has missed my point. I agree that these are regulations but I am questioning the rationale for these regulations. Why must eaves be exactly 0.9 metre? Why cannot they be two metres? In the tropics, you have the tropical sun and you have torrential rain. The rain beats down upon the house, and if you have got only 0.9 metre of eaves, the rain will splash into the house. So in order to shade the house, they extend the eaves. And because of the extension, the BCD says that this is illegal and not according to requirements. I am not saying that the regulation is not to be followed. I am asking: why is it 0.9 metre? Why cannot it be 1.5 metres, or 1.9 metres, or two metres? Sir, is this the leftover of the regulations that we inherited but which we have not really gone into to see whether it suits our conditions? That is the point, Sir.”
“Because from the hygienic point of view, from the convenience point of view, and even from the aesthetic point of view, they all point to the fact that the toilets should be left outside the building because, in the rural areas, these are more convenient and also more hygienic.”
“They look beautiful and, as far as I can see, they really also do not endanger the structure of the building. So perhaps the Minister could consider this and allow the present buildings that have got these extended eaves to remain. The second point is the R2 lavatory system. Because of the catchment area in Chua Chu Kang, and I think the R2 system also applies to the other rural areas, the Ministry requires the residents in rural areas to install this particular sewerage system. So these toilets are built and passed the inspection of the Ministry of the Environment. However, a lot of these toilets are built outside the house and, so far as the toilets are concerned, the Environment Ministry passed them. But the Ministry of National Development (Building Control Division) seems to think that these lavatories must be installed inside the building and cannot be outside the building. Sir, these farming people want their lavatories to be outside their houses so that, after working in the farm, they can come back, have a bath, wash themselves before getting into the house. 3.15 p.m. But again, for reasons that escape me, the Building Control Division wants them to install these lavatories inside the building itself. This leads to a lot of argument without any solution, and yet the Building Control Division insists upon enforcing the regulations and demolishing these lavatories and requiring them to be rebuilt inside the house. While this may be regulations, I think this House wants to know what are the reasons for this requirement.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the purpose of my moving this amendment is to draw the Minister's attention to two rather frequent and recurring complaints in the rural areas. These are the demolition of eaves that do not conform to building control requirements, and the demolition of R2 toilets built to the specification of the Ministry of the Environment. For some reason they do not seem to comply with the building control requirements. According to the present regulation of the Building Control Division, eaves must be of a certain width. However, this width does not seem to take account of the tropical sun and the tropical rain. Invariably, in the rural areas the rural folk would extend the eaves to a width that is consistent with what they think would shield them from the rain and the sun. I do not really know and perhaps the Minister could enlighten us: why is it that the width of the eaves should be so narrow that it does not shade the house from the rain and the sun? I was told sometime ago that our building regulations previously required roofs of houses to be at 450, and the explanation for this requirement was, so that the snow would not accumulate. I do not know whether it is really for this reason because in temperate countries the people like the sun and also there is not really too much torrential rain. Is it because of that that we require the eaves to be of a certain width? So far as the rural areas are concerned, these eaves are really not suitable for our climatic conditions. In any case the eaves of the houses which the Ministry seeks to demolish do not offend against aesthetics.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just intervene? If the argument of the Minister of Defence is taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that parents must pay the Ministry of Defence to ensure that their sons will be taken into national service. I think this really sounds a bit absurd. I wonder whether the Minister would consider paying at least a living rate, especially for somebody who has a job, who receives good pay and gets drafted into national service. He has to make a sacrifice, and I think the least that the Ministry of Defence can do is to ensure that he is paid something equitable.”
“(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SB-01 of the Main Estimates. (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SB-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is prepared to accept my invitation to accompany me to go and have a look at the road himself?”
“Sir, would the Minister of State accept my invitation to come down and have a look at the road because Lim Chu Kang Road, in fact, connects Neo Tiew Road which connects Woodlands Road. It is because of Woodlands New Town and the Jurong Industrial Estate that Lim Chu Kang Road is now being used as the main trunk road. I am sorry he is not aware of this. Maybe the officials of the Public Works Department were just concerned with the junction of Lim Chu Kang Road and Jalan Bahar which, of course, is a pretty wide road. But is he aware that this road is, in fact, now part of the system which connects Jurong Industrial Estate to Woodlands New Town?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, was the Minister of State for National Development in this Chamber when both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State of Defence answered Questions Nos. 3 and 10 respectively? Both Ministers told this House that Neo Tiew Road is heavily used and yet the Minister of State for National Development is now telling the House that the traffic is really not heavy enough. I also wonder whether the Minister of State is aware of the physical size of the road, i.e. the narrowness of Lim Chu Kang Road. The road is so narrow that two buses cannot pass each other without one having to edge off the road, thereby causing damage to the road, as was pointed out by the Minister of State of Defence.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, once resettlement is announced, surely the HDB must have a sufficient number of flats to allocate to those who are affected. Would the Minister of State give an assurance that the HDB would not announce a resettlement unless they have a sufficient number of flats to allocate to those people affected? It is really not fair to announce a resettlement and then take a long time to allocate flats. Most of the people who are affected are allocated flats at a certain price while the remainder are allocated flats at a different price. As the hon. Member for Kaki Bukit has pointed out, after all, it is not on their own volition that they want to buy HDB flats.”
“In which case, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the Minister prepared to index the compensation for the structure to the increase in prices of HDB flats?”
“Sir, can the Minister give the reasons why the answer is "No"?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister be prepared to peg it in percentage terms to the increase in prices of HDB flats, like an index?”
“I am quite happy with the answer, Sir. CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION IN HDB LIFTS (Effectiveness of) 11. Mr Liew Kok Pun asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the preliminary findings of the pilot project of installing closed circuit television (CCTV) in Housing and Development Board lifts which is intended to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing the crime rate and urinating in HDB lifts: and (b) if it is effective, whether the H D B has any plan to install CCTV in all its lifts and what would be the total cost involved.”
“Sir, is the Minister prepared to join me in requesting the PWD to upgrade the road and to maintain it, because at the moment it is not being maintained?”
“To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Government has any plans for the establishment of large modern pig farms with pollution control equipment in the Chua Chu Kang constituency and, if so, when those plans will be implemented and where the farms will be located.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir,I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $750,769.890 shall he supplied to the Government under the head' of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1972, to 31st March. 1973, contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1972."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Development Loan Act, 1967 (Chapter 66), authorises a sum of $1,000 million to be raised by way of loan for the purposes of the Development Fund. To-date, a total of $963 million has been raised under the provisions of the Act, leaving a balance of $37 million of the prescribed maximum. Members are no doubt aware that besides external sources such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the international money markets, Singapore will have to continue to mobilise resources from the domestic sector to finance its development programme. For this purpose, it is envisaged that the loans raised for the Development Fund will amount to about $2,000 million over the next five years. The Bill, which is now before the House, is necessary since the previous legislation, which I mentioned earlier, cannot be suitably amended to increase the amount of loan that can be raised. The Bill follows closely the provisions of the Development Loan Act, l967 (Chapter 66), with one difference. This is that the maximum amount of loan which can be raised under the Bill is $2,000 million, as compared to $1,000 million authorised by the 1967 Act. A new feature is that the proposed Development Loan Act will be administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore instead of the Treasury. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tang See Chim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY BOARD BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.51 p.m.”