Teo Chong Tee
Singapore
“Sir, may I be allowed to express my heartfelt thanks to the Ministers for Communications, especially Dr Yeo Ning Hong and Mr Mah Bow Tan, and all the various transport authorities, for finally agreeing to bring the MRT extension line to Changi Airport after nine long years. [Applause].”
“Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State for Education whether he is aware that there is a growing population in Simei Estate, in particular, and there are a lot of young children who are now in our PCF kindergarten education centres? So we see a need for a primary school to be built within the Simei Housing Estate.”
“Having heard the Minister of State's reply, I have got a supplementary question. Why is the extension line not planned to go beyond the passenger terminals to the airline cargo complexes and engineering complexes where there are several thousand workers who are also dependent on public transport?”
“In view of the above circumstances, may I request the Minister to, firstly, consider reviewing the rules on the forfeiture of the security bond to protect the interest of the Singaporean employers and, secondly, consider allowing Singaporean employers whose maid has run away to employ another maid without delay while they search for the m…”
“Given the emotive element of this issue, it would be helpful if Singaporeans are informed of its progress from time to time and the approximate time-frame for the implementation of the committee's recommendation. Sir, I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider this suggestion.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $51,364,070 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $257,500 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
The complete record
Every one of 408 lines we hold for Teo Chong Tee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Sir, may I be allowed to express my heartfelt thanks to the Ministers for Communications, especially Dr Yeo Ning Hong and Mr Mah Bow Tan, and all the various transport authorities, for finally agreeing to bring the MRT extension line to Changi Airport after nine long years. [Applause]. I want to thank them and give them credit and I am very appreciative, and I think all my constituents and Singaporeans in general will be appreciative, of what is being provided for them in the future. ESTIMATES CONTAINING A VOTE ON ACCOUNT FOR EXPENDITURE FOR PART OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 (Cmd. 18 of 1996) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 12.40 pm”
“Having heard the Minister of State's reply, I have got a supplementary question. Why is the extension line not planned to go beyond the passenger terminals to the airline cargo complexes and engineering complexes where there are several thousand workers who are also dependent on public transport?”
“Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State for Education whether he is aware that there is a growing population in Simei Estate, in particular, and there are a lot of young children who are now in our PCF kindergarten education centres? So we see a need for a primary school to be built within the Simei Housing Estate. May I request the Senior Minister of State to look further into this matter?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $51,364,070 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $257,500 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“In view of the above circumstances, may I request the Minister to, firstly, consider reviewing the rules on the forfeiture of the security bond to protect the interest of the Singaporean employers and, secondly, consider allowing Singaporean employers whose maid has run away to employ another maid without delay while they search for the missing one.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SK 1500. Sir, the existing security bond which ensures the employer's full responsibility is unfair because it penalises the Singaporean employer when he cannot be held totally responsible for the maid's disappearance. As a compulsory requirement, it has placed that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the employer. The underlying assumption is that the domestic maids will not run away if they are not abused or ill-treated and given the $5,000 at stake, Singaporean employers will ensure that their maids are happy staying. Unfortunately, this assumption is not absolute. There have been cases whereby maids have arrived with apprehension or in the course of their stay disquieted by home sickness and they run away even though their passport and work permit are retained with the employer. In other cases, they were wilful and knowing the rules, they play hide-and-seek with the employers. Of course, they may eventually show up but the distress and the inconvenience they have caused to employers is really unbearable. Employers cannot be totally held responsible for the maid running away when both husband and wife are working. It is also wrong for them to confine the maid under lock and key for fear that she will run away. In cases such as these, the right of the Singaporean employers is not protected at all. In fact, they have a lot more to lose if the maid runs away and this is not just limited to the $5,000 only. The frustration and stress of families involved are immense.”
“Sir, currently, the monthly disbursements after 60 years is about $243 per month and I presume this will be revised every now and then to reflect the increased quantum in the Minimum Sum required. But the point is, at $243 a month, it works out to barely $8 a day. This is certainly not adequate in view of our rising cost of living and definitely insufficient in the event of destitution. This amount should be further increased. In addition, the Minister should also make this more transparent by explaining the revision scale for the monthly disbursements vis-a-vis the Minimum Sum and the underlying assumptions of deriving these figures. This will allay the retirees' fear that they will not live long enough to receive all the monthly payments out of their Minimum Sum. Sir, in fact, the intention behind the conception of this scheme is a good one. It helps to safeguard the retirees against poverty in the event that their savings and CPF withdrawal sum are depleted due to unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately, there is a general perception among the population that the Government is trying to keep this sum of money and hoard it for its purposes. In view of this sense of insecurity, can the Minister consider pegging the interest rate for CPF savings in line with the market rate for fixed deposit? This is in order since CPF savings are long term deposits and the people should rightly be compensated the market value for the opportunity cost of putting this money in the CPF account instead of the bank. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider these propositions seriously.”
“Given the emotive element of this issue, it would be helpful if Singaporeans are informed of its progress from time to time and the approximate time-frame for the implementation of the committee's recommendation. Sir, I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider this suggestion.”
“Sir, the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of Retirement Age has been specifically tasked to review the implementation of the Retirement Age Act, study the cost implications of extending the retirement age, recommend measures to enable companies to retain older workers and explore how the retirement age can be phased in gradually in line with Government's long-term aim of raising the retirement age to 67. It is imperative that the findings and recommendations are made known soon, because there has been a lot of anxiety and concern among older workers over wages, retrenchment benefits, medical co-payment, CPF and their employability over 60. Currently, the unions are not allowed to negotiate the terms of employment for older workers beyond 60. Most retired workers will have to settle for lower pay and the same job renewable on a year-to-year basis in order to continue working. Yet, companies cannot continue to pay older workers maximum salaries when younger workers can be employed at half the price to do the same job. Sir, there have been some suggestions on the restructuring of the wage system, in particular the need to revamp our seniority based wage system to a base-up approach. Under such a system, the wage gap between the old and the young will be narrowed and everyone would get an annual increment. I am sure the committee will be studying more models. Nevertheless, whichever system is adopted, Singaporeans need to be well prepared in advance for this fundamental change in our wage system. While Singaporean employees and employers have been well apprised of the rationale for Government's long-term plan to raise the retirement age to 67, it is important that they be given ample time to adjust to the new system.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister, when the church made an application for use of this road as part of the church construction, whether the approving authority did take into consideration that there are several hundreds of households in the vicinity of Guan Soon Avenue which need to use the road and if the road was permanently closed subsequently, how would the closure affect the hundreds of residents who have been for several decades making use of this road daily as a right-of-way. In view of the current situation, how does his Ministry propose to improve the flow of vehicular movements in and around Guan Soon Avenue area as the number of people and vehicles using the roads nearby will inevitably increase?”
“I therefore make this request to the Minister to reasonably compensate our National Servicemen as a form of enhanced recognition of their personal contributions and commitment in the defence of Singapore.”
“Sir, I am glad to note that this year's budget has acknowledged the contribution of NSmen in a big way with the generous reliefs for NSmen themselves and their families. These reliefs are helpful to ease the burden of those NSmen who are currently paying taxes. However, for those who are out of the tax bracket and the majority are, they will not be enjoying these benefits at all. We must think of a way to reach out to all without leaving out any. While we should be careful about linking monetary inducements with national defence, we ought to make sure that National Servicemen are adequately compensated and rewarded for observing their duties. Sir, I am proposing that the Government revises the current NSmen allowance as a more comprehensive measure to reach out to all. Currently, the allowance for NSmen which varies according to their rank and vocation is indeed very low, especially at the lower level. For new recruits, they are given as low as $200 a month. Thereafter, depending on their rank, the allowance is further adjusted. I understand that for `N', `O' or `A' level recruits who are likely to finish their NS stint as Lance Corporal or Corporal, or even as Private for some of them, they get about $230 a month as allowance. But for tertiary students who are promising, they get an allowance of about $475 as cadet officer or $630 as a lieutenant. Some NSmen I spoke to have fed back to me that the allowance is indeed very, very low. As our economy is doing well, it is timely for me to request that the allowance be revised upwards so that NSmen, who have to perform their two or 2 1/2 years NS stint, will not be severely deprived of their monetary gains.”
“However, they also call on the Government to revise upwards their monthly NS allowance as a further recognition of their contributions to the nation. Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the Finance Minister.”
“The Budget, through its fiscal policies, should also promote family cohesiveness by providing incentives to encourage families to stay together and for the children to support their elderly parents. Although legislation is already in place to ensure that children do look after their parents, we should explore additional avenues whereby people who have done so are rewarded. Besides revising the existing parents' relief to take into account the cost of living, the Minister should perhaps consider allowing children to claim tax concessions for paying the hospital bills of their parents. Although Medisave currently does allow children to pay for their parents' medical needs through CPF, they are inadequate in the long term in view of the rising healthcare costs and an ageing population. They should then be given the option to pay their parents' medical bills either through the Medisave account or by cash up-front, after which they can claim tax concessions. Through this measure, the Government is extending its support to individuals who are taking care of their elderly parents in the family. In this respect, the Government's pro-family policy will undoubtedly promote family cohesiveness and the retention of the right Asian family values, so vital to us in a multi-racial nation. Finally, Sir, it remains for me to also commend the Minister for doubling the tax reliefs given to NSmen and for extending the scheme to their parents and wives. The NSmen I know and have spoken to have expressed appreciation for the Government's care, concern and generosity shown towards them. The parents and wives of the NSmen, on the other hand, feel a sense of deep gratitude to the Government for finally recognising their role in the total defence of Singapore.”
“While the people can accept paying full cost for the production of electricity plus marginal profit, they find it difficult to understand the rationale for paying rates which will ensure a market average return for a state enterprise. Viewed in this light, one can understand the apprehension of the man-in-the-street in relation to the rebates on utility bills ranging from $100 to $150. Although the Finance Minister has assured that the rebates will far exceed the likely increase in annual utility bills, there is still some uneasiness. People may cry foul, complaining that the Government is taking dollars from their right pockets and putting cents into their left ones. Certainly, this issue would warrant further clarifications by the Minister. Nevertheless, the rebate on utility bills is certainly welcomed by the majority of the households as the family now has more cash for other purposes. Secondly, Sir, the point I want to raise is family as a tax unit. Measures such as rebates on HDB service and conservancy charges and rent and utility bills are particularly welcomed because they benefit the family or household and also reach out to the majority of Singaporeans staying in HDB flats. These household-based measures to redistribute the surpluses should continue to be incorporated in future budgets. If the economy continues to do well, may I request the Minister to also consider giving rebates in household bills such as telecommunications, TV and radio licences, property tax, foreign workers levy, taxi diesel tax and so on. These rebates will relieve the family's burden immediately and free more cash for basic consumption.”
“Sir, a few years ago, an expatriate by the name of Cedric Serpes, who with his wife has lived in Singapore for eight months, wrote in the Straits Times, and I quote: `We believe sincerely the average Singaporean is blessed with everything good to the point of being spoilt.' Among many other accolades, he says that the Singapore Government is a government that really cares for its people. Sir, now let me move to a few areas of concern. Firstly, the impending higher electricity tariffs. Despite a budget that is generally welcomed by all segments of society, the euphoria is cut short by news of impending high electricity tariffs. The Minister for Trade and Industry has disclosed that the raise would be about 12% to 14% over the next three to four years. This will mean an increase of about $1 to $2.50 more a month on electricity bills for the people. The Ministry has also maintained that the proposed increase is a result of a stringent audit of PUB's profitability and the eventual realisation that it has been posting lower returns by commercial standards. It is unfortunate that the proposed increase is made in the context of the privatisation of Singapore Power. The timing in announcing the proposed increase of Singapore Power tariffs may not have been the most appropriate. And this lends itself to be exploited by those who always like to find faults with the government. It has also led to the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the tariffs are increased to make up for the profitability of Singapore Power and its viability as a privatised institution. Of contention is the emphasis on a reasonable rate of return, ie, 10%. Why 10% return and not 5% or any other quantum?”
“Instead, they will encourage and motivate Singaporeans to strive harder, to ensure that the economy will continue to be robust in future years. And so long as we get the fundamentals right, we will continue to progress and enjoy prosperity for many years to come. Singapore is on the right track and we will progress by leaps and bounds so long as we stay on course under the PAP Government. Sir, the Opposition politicians may tell the people that it is after all an "election budget". Therefore, these goodies are only to sweeten the ground, in other words, to buy hearts or to buy votes - to put it crudely. This assertion cannot be further from the truth. The fact is many of the pro-people schemes to enhance Singaporeans' assets or to reward them for their hard work are not really new. They have already been either planned or implemented. It is most naive for them to suggest that our voters can be bought with budget goodies when there are so many factors which they will invariably take into account in electing a good government. Singaporeans through their hard work deserve the tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement schemes. So intelligent Singaporeans know that the budget is not an election budget although this year may well be an election year. They are fully aware that the Singapore Government never plays to the gallery in order to gain votes, it does not have to do so. And it will never stoop so low as to resort to gimmicks or money politics to please or hoodwink the people for political gains. Singaporeans are too smart to be hoodwinked anyway. The PAP Government is honest and its policies transparent for all to see. Its proud track records speak volumes of its achievements over the last 30 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Finance Minister for presenting to the nation such a glorious budget in which every Singaporean is so generously rewarded for their contribution to the nation's economic growth. Without doubt, the Minister must be again the envy of all his contemporaries in other governments around the globe. Sir, the budget has been extremely well-received by both the public and business sectors, as well as by private individuals. For the majority of Singaporeans, the announcement by our Finance Minister to give away about $2,450 million in the form of tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement schemes is certainly welcomed. In particular, income tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement for the individuals and households amounted to about $1,722 million which is a whopping 70% of the total amount given. In addition, Government agencies will also be streamlined to be more accountable and responsive under Budgeting for Results. Therefore, the people are the biggest beneficiaries in this budget. However, Sir, this has also sparked off, quite unjustifiable, the negative perception of the give-aways as an "election budget". Frankly, I am surprised by such scepticism. The Government has a track record of sharing its budget surpluses through creative measures, such as rebates in HDB service and conservancy charges and rent, Edusave, Medisave grant, Pre-Medisave Top-Up, CPF Top-Up grant and asset enhancement schemes, such as SOTUS. And this is made possible only because the economy has consistently done well and the redistribution of surplus will, in no way, erode the competitiveness of Singapore's economy nor compromise the discipline of its people. These are no free handouts.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister how many of these drivers who were involved in the recent spate of bus accidents were work permit holders? Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I do not have that information available to me.”
“Although this is being addressed to a certain extent in the existing framework of the Area Licensing Scheme, Road Pricing Scheme, Weekend cars and Park and Ride Scheme, more innovative solutions are needed to address this problem. A concerted effort should be made to study the feasibility and implementation of staggered working hours. In the long term, the Government should study this measure in-depth and perhaps use financial incentives to influence companies. The MRT should put in more trains at shorter intervals to meet the morning and evening peak hour demand. Alternatively, it should look into the possibility of increasing the present six coaches in each train to seven or even eight coaches. I endorse the concept to make the public transport system as detailed in the White Paper the main mode of commuting by the people in Singapore. Realising the vision of a world class land transport system is of course no mean feat. It needs the understanding, cooperation and commitment of all parties concerned - the Government, the transport operators and all Singaporeans. Indeed, with the commitment of all parties, we can certainly look forward to better, faster, convenient, affordable and more comfortable commuting.”
“One area for consideration of incentives is to grant certain forms of concession in road tax or diesel tax in future for taxi operators who can be inspired to project a good image of their professionalism in their delivery of friendly, helpful and courteous service both to local and foreign commuters. Sir, another area of contention between the commuters and public transport operators is the question of increases in fares. More often than not the increase in fares is based on profitability alone. People do not understand why fares have to be increased just because the operators are not making enough profits. The perception of what is enough is in itself a contentious issue and often causes dissatisfaction among the people. The general public cannot be blamed for being unhappy if fares are increased solely because the transport providers are not making enough profit, the service they provide must also be raised accordingly. If this is the case, more people will be willing to pay a little higher fare for better service, and fewer commuters will be upset and fewer commuters will blame the Government for being responsible for the rise in their travelling expenses. On the other hand, the proposal to develop the space around the MRT stations and the introduction of light rail transit is to be welcome. This proposal not only optimises the use of precious land but also makes travelling, working and shopping that much more convenient for the people who make use of the public transport. However, the perennial problem remains that of the peak hour demand when Singaporeans all rush to work or come back from work all at the same time.”
“Sir, I am also gratified to learn of the new financing formula offered by the Government to co-pay the replacement costs of operating assets for the Mass Rapid Transit. This generous gesture on the part of the Government will not only expedite the construction of MRT extension, for example, the North-East line, but also hopefully serve to maintain MRT fares at an affordable level for the average commuter. Sir, I also hope that the MRT extension to Changi Airport could even materialise sooner. Sir, I am also supportive of the long term aim of getting 75% of Singaporeans to ultimately travel by public transport, be it the MRT, bus or taxi. In land-scarce Singapore, there is really no other way. Again, we have to find ways to sell this concept to all Singaporeans. However, up to now there have been limited efforts on the part of taxi operators, for example, to address commuter grouses of frustrating attempts to get a taxi on the road or by phone, and long waiting time especially during peak hours or during festive seasons. Complaints on taxi shortage are still common as often we can see long queues of commuters lining up at taxi stands as well as outside shopping centres. There is apparently a lack of initiative on the part of public transport providers at this juncture to also improve their services in terms of courtesy and professionalism. Therefore, there is a need for the Government to set some basic service standards to spur the transport operators to be more responsive and accountable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the White Paper which contains a bold, farsighted, comprehensive and pragmatic proposal of a world class land transport system in Singapore. The report on land transport is the most detailed and in-depth study ever undertaken in Singapore since its independence. With one bold stroke, their recommendations, when implemented, will no doubt give Singapore one of the most modern and efficient land transport systems in the world. Sir, I am happy to note that the off-shore islands of Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong in my constituency will also be included in this system. Given the Government's proven track records in its single-mindedness in successfully making our Changi Airport, seaport and the public housing programme the best in the world, I have every confidence that given time our land transport system will be another feather in its cap. What we need to do now is to convince the people of Singapore of the necessity of implementing the total transport package as elaborated in the White Paper to solve our future land transport problems today. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.07 pm In order to have the people behind us, we must convince them that only a long term and comprehensive approach as bold as that proposed in the White Paper will prevent our roads becoming as chaotic and impassable in future as those found in many major cities in the world today. Of course, there will be inconvenience, even sacrifice to make. But to be timid, to resort to piecemeal solutions, is to postpone the problem; to shift our responsibility to the next generation, making the problem more difficult to solve, if at all soluble.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether, as an immediate measure, certain prominent pre-warning signs like "Stop", "Look", "Walk", could be installed at the zebra crossings as a guide to pedestrians using these crossings? Mr Goh Chee Wee: We will certainly take into consideration the suggestion by the Member to help the pedestrians. I think we have to keep on educating the pedestrians on the proper use of zebra crossings. AUDITORIUMS IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES (Use by students for study at examination times) 5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Information and the Arts whether he will consider allowing facilities, such as auditoriums at branch libraries, to be used by students who wish to study outside the home, for two months before and during the General Certificate of Education examinations. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, facilities in public libraries are for members of the public to consult library materials and for holding library activities and programmes. The libraries organise many outreach programmes like talks, library visits for schools, and workshops for members of the public on a regular basis using the auditoriums in the libraries. If we allow only students to use the auditoriums for study at examination times, the libraries would not be able to hold outreach programmes for members of the public during those months. This would deprive library users of such services. Most community centres provide facilities for students to study. The National Library Board compiles a list of such facilities available near the public libraries and these are given out to students who need a place to study.”
“Sir, despite the Ministry of the Environment's ample public education programmes warning the people of the danger of dengue fever as well as measures taken to wipe out the Aedes mosquitoes, the number of cases of dengue fever reported has not declined. On the contrary, it has been on the increase. In 1993, there were 946 reported cases. In 1994, the figure climbed to 1,239. This is indeed cause for concern. Sir, dengue-prone areas have been identified and curative and preventive measures taken to rid the plague, yet the Environment Ministry seems to be fighting a losing battle. Why so? Why do we seem to be fighting a losing battle? The question, in my mind, is: Have we done enough? Or maybe our approach is found wanting. I would like therefore to call for a concerted effort by all, to get down to the root of the problem, and find a means to eradicate this deadly disease once and for all, if it is humanly possible. 1.00 pm In my opinion, resorting to a once-off clean up of infected areas is not the ultimate solution. Apart from stepping up the inspections of dengue-prone areas like construction sites and drains by Environment officers, and taking deterrent measures against irresponsible people contributing to the spread of the disease, I feel that a more comprehensive approach may be the answer. For example, the grassroots organisations, the town councils, the HDB and even the civic organisations should all be lending a hand to eradicate this deadly disease. The schools too should participate in this important task. Maybe talks on the danger of dengue fever can be given at school assemblies.”
“After all, this raise will only bring in about $1 million more to help defray partially the costs of running these centres. So why can the Government not absorb this amount and help to reduce the burden on the people? Sir, in addition, the Government is progressively selling hawker stalls back to the operators. I understand that four hawker centres and wet markets have already been sold. What is the situation now? May I also ask the Minister whether his Ministry is monitoring the price increases in these hawker centres?”
“Sir, with effect from 1st April, the rental and service and conservancy charges for hawker and market stalls under Environment, HDB and JTC will be increased. The quantum of the increase for rental of cooked food stalls will be $40 whereas for market stalls, the increase will be $20 more. Service and conservancy charges will also be increased by a quantum of $5 to $17. About 20,000 stalls will be affected. The reason given by the Ministry was that the costs of maintaining these centres have increased. The Ministry further added that even with this increase, the rental and service and conservancy charges are still very much below market rates. Sir, my concern is that this announcement will lead to further price increase by the hawkers. If one out of five hawker stalls can increase prices during GST period, using GST as an excuse, I do not see what is stopping them to use this raise in rental and S&C charges to increase their prices further. For those who have withheld the temptation to increase their prices during the GST period, this may be their last straw. I have no doubt that this raise will provide hawkers with a ready excuse to increase their prices by an even bigger quantum. This increase will be passed on to the majority of Singaporeans who shop at the wet markets and lunch or dine out at the hawker centres. There will be repercussions affecting the Singaporean households, working population and, worse, the retirees. For a long time, our wet markets and hawker centres have provided low cost food, cooked or uncooked, to Singaporeans. They have helped to keep our expenses on food low. Therefore, why can the Government not continue to subsidise the rental and S&C charges for hawker and market stalls?”
“With these preventive measures in place, and together with the continued vigilance of the Environment officials, I am sure we can continue to enjoy clean and quality food in Singapore.”
“So much for food outlets in hotels. As we know, good and tasty food can also be found in many food centres, snack shops, market places and kopi tiam outlets which are sprouting in many housing estates. Parallel to the growth of such outlets, I understand that between 1989 and 1993, cases of food poisoning from these outlets were the highest at 43%. Many Singaporeans and their families are eating out nowadays. It is said to be one of our national pastime activities, and for most Singaporeans, eating out has become a necessity due to dual income family. The food sold at our hawker centres is of reasonably good quality and standard. However, we must not compromise these qualities at the expense of good food hygiene. I have noticed an increasing number of food outlets selling raw seafood. The enterprising ones have included yusheng in their menu during the Chinese New Year period. Raw food can get contaminated easily. The level of food hygiene for preparing such food is even more demanding than the cooked ones. In view of the large number of local people patronising these food outlets, it is extremely important, therefore, that the food served is prepared under strict hygiene standards. The utensils used for cooking and food preparation must be properly cleaned. All food handlers should be educated or screened routinely to make sure that the food they prepare is safe for public consumption. May I ask the Minister whether regular inspections are being carried out on the food outlets and whether a continuous public campaign could be launched to impress food handlers and consumers on the essentials of food hygiene and food preparation.”
“Sir, there is an area of common interest which urgently needs to be addressed by the Environment Ministry, that is, the standard of food hygiene practised by food outlets in Singapore. I am concerned with the increased number of food poisoning cases involving large groups of people as reported last year. The Environment Ministry recorded 409 such cases in 1994. The cases of food poisoning in hotels had more than tripled. There were only 35 cases of food poisoning involving hotel outlets in 1993. In 1994, this shot up to 127 cases. This occurred despite the continued surveillance and enforcement by Environment officers. I wonder whether the present demerit point system is adequate to ensure that food establishments in hotels and other big food outlets take food hygiene seriously. I was told that in most instances, hotels only appoint officers to review its food preparation process or set standards for food hygiene after cases of food poisoning were reported. By then, it is too late as the outbreak of food poisoning has already occurred. However, at best, these are only remedial and not preventive measures. Singapore has been promoted as a food paradise for tourists and locals alike. Surely we do not need to want our 'clean' city reputation to be tarnished by unhygienic food handling practices. Basic food hygiene is essential and must be taken seriously. Food outlets in hotels serve many people and tourists at any one time. Therefore, is it not sensible for the Environment Ministry to stipulate compulsory preventive measures requiring hotels and other bigger food establishments to appoint food hygiene officers to ensure that a high standard of food hygiene is maintained at all times? I need only to refresh the House on the adage that "prevention is better than cure".”
“All schools used to require their pupils to do some manual work like cleaning the classrooms, keeping the school compound tidy, etc, in the 60s and 70s. Most Chinese schools in the earlier years in fact did not even have servants to sweep the classrooms or even clean the toilets. Such chores used to be performed by pupils on rotation basis. Weekly or monthly competitions were held to select the cleanest classrooms. Every teacher when teaching a class would award marks for cleanliness and orderliness of the classroom he was using. The marks given by all teachers teaching the class would then be totalled up at the end of the competition period, and the position of the class arrived at. Plaques with wordings like "The Best Kept Classroom of the Month" could be seen displayed on the walls if one were to visit the schools then. Sir, I am certain such practice will have a positive effect on the pupils later on in their adult life. If such school practices had been continued, maybe today we need not have to organise campaigns like the "Cleanest HDB Block" competitions. Virtues like keeping the environment clean, and caring for public properties have to be ingrained in the minds of the people while they are young. In summary, I would like to call upon the Environment Ministry and all others concerned with stamping out the despicable litterbugs to seriously ponder over this persistent problem, so that a long-term solution could be found. And this will help bring us one step closer to the gracious society we all aspire to bring about, hopefully, in the not so distant future.”
“Or the laws against them are not biting hard enough? Or should we begin from the very beginning, and ask ourselves, why a person litters in the first place? Maybe the sociologists, educators and psychologists can shed some light here. But as a layman, I would like to suggest the following measures: 4.45 pm First, I would like to start on the premise that a litterbug is someone who is either: (a) an ill-bred, inconsiderate and selfish person who shows no respect or consideration for his fellow citizens; (b) an anti-social who has a grudge against the establishment; (c) an insensitive, unthinking, shameless creature with no self-esteem or self-respect; (d) a naivete who does not know that littering is wrong. Or he may be a combination of more than one of what I have just mentioned. To each of the categories of litterbugs I have enumerated, the most effective measure to hit them is still where it hurts most, ie, their pockets. But I also believe in CWOs, and they should continue as a deterrent measure. However, Sir, fines and CWOs have their limitations, and can only serve as a stop-gap measure. For a long-term solution to the littering problem, I feel that we have to begin with the very young. We have to begin instilling in the minds of the young during their formative years that littering, just like any other anti-social behaviour, is wrong. This has to begin while the children are in kindergartens and primary schools. Of course, home education is equally important, if not more so. All this, of course, takes time. Ultimately, the test of a person's true character is what he would do if he knew he would not be found out. I remember we used to have what was known as "Use Your Hands" campaigns in schools. What has happened to them now?”
“Sir, despite 30 years of campaigns and enforcement actions against them, the weather-beaten litterbugs have not been stamped out at all. In fact, they appear to be thriving very well in clean and green Singapore. In places like the beaches, public parks and HDB estates, their number has quite obviously multiplied! The presence of their "droppings" everywhere is testimony to my assertion. The presence of the obnoxious litterbugs in our otherwise spick and span, almost clinically clean, Singapore is indeed an eyesore, a public nuisance. More than that, they can be likened to a malignant growth doing great harm to the body of the host in which it is residing. If chemotherapy does not help, maybe the surgeon's knife should be applied. Sir, all sane and proud citizens will agree that the litterbugs are doing great harm to our country. Besides being a social nuisance, they waste the nation's financial resources, and tarnish the good name of Singapore, bringing disgrace to all other law-abiding Singaporeans. They make a mockery of our 30 years of progress and prosperity. They are a real misfit in a country striving to become a Switzerland of the East in the next century, which is no more than four or five years away. Therefore, no effort should be spared to get rid of them. The question I would like to pose here is: why despite all the campaigns and enforcement actions against the ugly litterbugs, they are still thriving so well in our society? Why, after 30 years of relentless public education programmes and campaigns, there still exist among us a sizeable number of incorrigible, recalcitrant litterbugs, who seem to be untouched by all the efforts to eradicate them? Can it be that we are not doing enough? Not adopting the right approach?”
“May I also add for the consideration of the MRTC whether the latest much-talked about Light Rail Trains (LRT) system can be eventually implemented as a branch-off service to other parts of the airport such as the Air Cargo Complex and the airlines engineering areas which also house a very significant number of airport workers.”
“Sir, I have brought up the issue of extending the MRT line to Changi Airport for umpteen times and I must admit that I have lost count of it, but for sure, Sir, I know that Changi Airport has won the "Best Airport in the World" title for seven consecutive years. This remarkable achievement has been made possible because of the continued improvements in the airport infrastructure and facilities and, more importantly, the people working in the airport. It is my conviction and belief that if we want to retain the Number One title for many years to come, there is an urgent need to recognise the efforts of the hardworking and dedicated airport workers by rewarding them with one of the most convenient transportation links between Changi Airport and other parts of Singapore. Hence, the MRT extension line to Changi Airport is the best proposition to meet the transportation needs of the airport workers who, together with many other potential users of the line, will ensure its operational viability. The current expansion of Passenger Terminal Two as well as the planned expansion of Passenger Terminal One, and the future construction of the Third Passenger Terminal will further add to this demand. The linkage of the airport with the existing MRT lines will definitely be a booster for many existing and potential workers of Changi Airport. Sir, I understand that studies have already been carried out by the MRTC to determine the feasibility of the extension line to the airport. I hope that all these studies will eventually lead to a positive conclusion. May I know from the Minister whether the studies have been completed and what is the time frame the MRTC is looking at for the construction of the extension line?”
“Sir, I have repeatedly requested for a bus service between Simei estate and Changi Airport and to my disappointment, my requests are still falling on deaf ears. May I request the Minister to review the matter as Simei estate has a growing population and quite a sizeable number of residents are working in Changi Airport. I suggest the SBS consider re-routing one of the existing bus services via Simei estate. Bus services No. 24 and 27 are the ideal ones for consideration. This will greatly help to reduce the travelling time and maybe transport expenses of the airport workers staying in Simei estate. May the Minister, through his good office, help to influence the SBS to seriously consider my request for the benefit of my Changi residents.”
“Most of these hotels belong to the five star category. I wonder whether the Minister will consider those hotel rooms for budget travellers in view of the rising number of such people into Singapore.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he would make a decision for a change of name if another request is asked some other time?”
“A few hundred dollars to a rich man means hardly anything, and certainly he does not need it. Whereas the same amount means a great deal to a person earning only a few hundred dollars a month. Therefore, Sir, would the Hon. Minister consider fine-tuning the present CPF and CPF SOTUS? Maybe a cap on income could be used to decide the eligibility of the recipients of the top-up. Granted, this method may be cumbersome and tedious in practice, because of the sheer numbers involved. I have, of course, no intention to question the rationale behind the Government's good intention in returning some of its accumulated savings to the people. I am only suggesting that maybe the money to be given back to the citizens could be more fairly distributed. Sir, with these comments, I support the financial policy of the Government as presented by the Finance Minister.”
“Sir, the Government's $200 contribution to the ordinary CPF accounts of all Singaporeans aged 21 and above, and the $300 to CPF SOTUS do not seem to mean very much to these people. Firstly, it is not ready cash which they can spend straightaway. Secondly, the amounts do not mean much to each individual although it translates to the tune of $360 million and $380 million respectively on the part of the Government. Some even question the rationale of imposing the age limit of 21 to qualify for the CPF top-up. They think it could be because only those who are 21 and above are eligible to vote in an election; so 1995 must be the General Election year! Although in the main I am happy with the Budget, I would still like to tinker with a few ideas for the Minister to ponder, maybe for the next Budget, if adjustments cannot be made this year. First, when our economy is doing exceptionally well, whether the Minister would consider giving retirees, especially those who retired many years ago, and whose pension is very small and has been badly eaten into over the years by inflation, a one-off payment. Call it a bonus, or whatever suitable name. After all, former MPs who retired some years ago have recently petitioned to the Prime Minister for a revision in their pension. Second, whether the Minister would make some changes to the CPF top-up scheme. As it stands now, only those who are economically active are entitled to the benefit. Those who are not, for example, housewives, are being left out. But is not bringing up children and doing household chores considered important activities? Mr Speaker, Sir, surely they are. Also, a blanket payment to all and sundry who are considered economically active, thus contributing to our economic growth, does not seem very logical.”
“Some people have aptly described the budget allocation to how a wise farmer divides his income derived from a bumper harvest, into three parts. The first part he spends giving all those who have contributed to the success of the bumper harvest a feast; the next part he stacks away for a rainy day; and the third part he invests in more advanced farming equipment, as well as sending some of his farmhands for training. All this is done to ensure more good years. However, Sir, despite the fact that Budget 1995 is a painless and generous one, it seems that we still have quite a bit of explanation to do before we can convince all Singaporeans that the PAP Government is doing the right thing. And this explanation must be done in simple layman's terms, not couched in technical jargon, so that all Singaporeans can understand and think long term rather than just to have more money in their pockets now. We must not forget that at the moment, almost 50% of our workforce have not had the opportunity to receive education beyond the primary stage. Sir, I mention this because some citizens have commented that with so much surplus in the kitty, the Government should be more generous. Some argue that there should have been a reduction in their personal income tax. Others say that there should be a cut in corporate tax. It may sound rather far-fetched, some even think that the Government should declare a tax holiday for all wage earners, regardless of their income for FY95 to reward them for their contribution in the economic growth. Some, though disappointed, are accepting the budget philosophically that something is better than nothing.”
“All this woe is brought about mainly by its populist fiscal policy, and the popular philosophy of a people who believe in enjoying life today rather than worrying about tomorrow. Three-fifths of its annual budget are spent on entitlements, in other words, on lavish subsidies for its citizens. This means the future generations will have to pay for what the present generation is enjoying. But is this morally and politically right? To us Singaporeans, I must say, it is very irresponsible behaviour on the part of the present generation. And it must never be allowed to take root in Singapore. Sir, I am saying all these because there are already unhealthy signs that complacency has begun to rear its ugly head in Singapore, especially among many of the younger Singaporeans who are used to many years of continued prosperity. Our fiscal policy must therefore be able to arrest this trend, lest we fall into the same trap that many Western economies are in today. We must also constantly remind ourselves that it is a persistent feature of the history of migrant people that the immigrant drive seldom survives into the second or third generation. Can Singaporeans be different? Can we prove history wrong? Well, Sir, it all depends on us. But for survival and continued prosperity in a more and more competitive global economy, we Singaporeans, living in a tiny island state without any natural resources to speak of, have really got no choice but be made of sterner stuff. No thinking and rational citizens can deny that the Budget presented in this House on 1st March is a generous, balanced, fair and forward-looking one, which will help take Singapore into the next era without hiccups.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, undoubtedly, Budget 1995 must be one of the most generous, yet prudent and farsighted one in the world. Indeed, how many governments today, whether in the developed or developing world, are able to present such a healthy and sound budget? Certainly, Finance Minister Dr Richard Hu must be the envy of his contemporaries in other countries. Today, it is becoming increasingly harder, if not rare, for finance ministers the world over to present a balanced budget, not to mention one with a huge surplus. So Singapore must be doing something very right - accolades and kudos to the Finance Minister. Sir, enjoying a healthy economic growth which in turn generates a budget surplus is one thing. How the surplus is spent is another. It will be ruinous to just give away the surplus in the form of ready cash for the people to spend as they like, or to give them over generous subsidies. It is human nature that a people used to free handouts will always ask for more. Once their appetite for free handouts has been whetted, it will be insatiable. Sooner or later, the government will find itself unable to cope with the demand of the people. This is when the trouble begins. Even a rich and powerful nation can go downhill once its people's psyche is cast in a spendthrift mould. Sir, take the United States, for example. From a recent BBC broadcast entitled "Letter from America" by Alistair Cook, it was said that the USA, though being the richest nation in the world, is estimated that it may go bankrupt in the year 2010. Its current budget deficit is US$200 billion a year. And its world debt stands at US$800 billion. The yearly interest it pays to its creditors amounts to more than the nation's annual expenditure on defence.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he has figures to show the number of children from Changi, in particular, from Simei Estate, who have registered for primary schools in the neighbouring Tampines Estate for 1995.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, just one question for the Acting Minister. Since the GST is coming into effect from 1st April 1994, could the Minister consider revising the PA rates earlier, instead of waiting for next year to do the revision?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JD 1500. (In Mandarin): Sir, with regard to a small group of the poor and destitute under the Public Assistance Scheme, the Minister for Finance seems to have omitted to provide reliefs to them. Some of the price increases such as coffeeshop beverages, hawker food and bread are going to eat into the allowances of these poor and destitute who are now under the Public Assistance Scheme. Like most Singaporeans, they too have to take their meals at hawker centres and coffeeshops every now and then. Currently, a single individual gets only $150 a month in public assistance. In other words, they will have to battle with these price increases every day with only this very meagre allowance. Although GST is only 3%, plus the various price increases and adjustments, it will certainly be too much of a burden on our poor public assistance recipients. It will certainly make life even more miserable for them. I earnestly hope that the Minister will consider revising the rates of Public Assistance as soon as possible to help these unfortunate individuals and poor families to cope with this additional burden brought about by GST. Once again, I plead with the Minister to seriously consider the request to revise the rates of Public Assistance. I strongly believe this will make the public assistance recipients feel that the society is full of care and compassion for them.”
“For example, in my constituency, particularly in Simei Estate, I have the parking problem because of shortage of car parking lots. Therefore, I urge the Minister to look into my suggestion which is for the benefit of car owners living in HDB estates.”
“Sir, HDB charges different rates for HDB car parks in the city and the residential areas. This is rightly so. Car parking in busy city areas should cost more than car parking in the residential areas. However, in the HDB residential areas, hourly parking fee in open air car park lots and in the multi-storey car park lots is the same, that is, 90 cents per hour. The open air car park lots are often fully utilised whereas the multi-storey car parks are often under-utilised. Despite the shade and shelter offered by HDB multi-storey car parks, they are not popular. The reasons for this are simple. Firstly, car owners are usually fearful that their vehicles will be vandalised in multi-storey car parks; secondly, people find it troublesome to climb the steps to fetch their cars; thirdly, people prefer to park their cars nearer their own flats or the place they wish to visit; and, fourthly, the season parking fee of $75 is too expensive. But open air car park lots are usually insufficient. Sir, to encourage more people to use the multi-storey car parks, the HDB should consider reducing the rates of season car park fee in multi-storey car parks, which currently is $75 a month against $55 a month for open air car park lots. Sir, the top level parking lots of the multi-storey car parks are uncovered. They are also open air car parks. Therefore, these parking lots should be treated as open air car park lots and the monthly season car park fees of $55 should apply. It is not fair to charge $75 for these car park lots which are uncovered. Sir, with my proposed downward revision in the season car park fee, I am sure the parking problem in most HDB estates will be eased.”
“The Government can provide them with outdoor recreational facilities, like fitness park, jogging tracks, children's play equipment and landscaping work. After all, they do not contribute less to the nation as citizens just because they live in private estates. Some of them also query the reason for not allowing them to carry out certain structural alterations or improvements to their houses if they can fulfil and conform to stipulated requirements laid down by the relevant authorities. A case in point is Toh Estate in my constituency. Applications from some bungalow house owners to convert their houses into semi-detached houses were turned down. This is despite the fact that in other estates, the same requests have been granted. As long as existing rules and regulations are adhered to, I feel that there is no reason why house owners in private estates should not be given some leeway or option to carry out alteration or reconstruction to their houses so as to create more space and rooms for their expanded family and to enhance the value of their property as it is being done for the HDB flats.”