Wan Soon Bee
Singapore
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer, although I am not satisfied with what he has said because these are standard answers which have been given to us year after year. However, I still beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, since 1992, selected old HDB flats have been undergoing upgrading through the Main Upgrading and the Interim Upgrading programmes. These programmes are highly popular with the residents since they have brought about new facilities and amenities in the precinct as well as an enhancement in the value of the flat in this resale market.”
“Hence, I would like to ask the Minister whether the foods introduced into the Singapore market are safe and for large-scale consumption, and whether tests have been carried out to ensure that these GM foods would not bring ill health or allergy or even trigger long-term side effects as a result of prolonged continuous consumption.”
“Sir, with the Government actively pursuing its policy to attract more foreign talents and workers, I would like to ask the Minister if there are any plans in place to accommodate this influx of foreigners. Will there be a surge in demand for housing that will distort the housing market?”
“Features which may have high aesthetic value but are hardly used when completed are really unnecessary. Such duplication and under usage is not cost effective. Besides they have a serious impact on the long term maintenance cost.”
“This has significant advantage over the options of downgrading to a smaller flat or queuing for a rental flat after selling off the existing flat or buying a studio apartment as all these three options require a re-location. Currently, reverse mortgages exist only for private properties but not for HDB flats.”
The complete record
Every one of 175 lines we hold for Wan Soon Bee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“The working group intends to come up with a technical reference for performance of property managing agents by April this year, and this will be a reference for all management corporations (MCs).”
“Sir, arising from the case of polluted drinking water at Bukit Timah Plaza, I would like to ask the relevant authorities if there are plans to set standards for property management, apart from looking into the issues of the responsibilities of the parties, as spelt out in the Land Titles Strata Act. As buildings age, problems resulting from poor maintenance and management will increase. Although there are statutory regulations that building owners must abide by, there is currently no legislation to ensure that the managers looking after the buildings need minimum professional standards. Just as there are controls on the professionals involved in the construction of a building, there is also a need to ensure that there are controls on professionals who manage buildings. I would therefore urge the relevant authorities to look into the control and regulation of property managers, to whom we entrust the safety and security of our buildings. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, the planning guidelines for industry, warehouse and business park zones have already been relaxed in June 2000 to allow e-businesses and dot-com companies to start offices within these zones. URA is also looking into the feasibility of freeing up the airspace above low-density industries for other land uses. We will take note of Dr Ker's recommendations and see how they could be implemented in further liberalising our guidelines. I am pleased to inform Dr Wan that the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) has formed a working group to develop a code on the roles and responsibilities of managing agents. The working group comprises members from REDAS, the Association of Property and Facility Managers, and a sizeable MC, apart from a managing agent.”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer, although I am not satisfied with what he has said because these are standard answers which have been given to us year after year. However, I still beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, one of the conditions for the purchase of new HDB flats is that the household monthly income must not exceed $8,000. This condition does not apply to the purchase of HDB flats in the resale market. I suggest that HDB review this condition in the light of the changing expectations of the citizens. With rising affluence, Singaporeans are demanding better quality housing and, indeed, HDB has also changed its role from one that provides subsidised housing to the lower income group to one that provides affordable yet high quality housing to Singaporeans in general. The rationale of restricting the purchase of new flats to households with a certain level of income is outdated and needs to be re-examined. Some Singaporeans whose household incomes exceed the ceiling may nevertheless prefer to purchase HDB flat instead of private property. Such Singaporeans should not be penalised by being forced to buy a private property, where prices are prohibitive and the quality may even be inferior to that of an HDB flat. I believe that, generally, Singaporeans who can comfortably afford a good private property would tend to prefer a private property. Therefore, I believe that there is relatively little danger that people with higher incomes would queue to acquire an HDB flat unless they have some good reasons to do so. Further, if we believe that every Singaporean matters, then even though HDB flats are subsidised, we should not discriminate between citizens with different household incomes. If HDB strongly feels that there should still be an income ceiling, then at least it should review it periodically as the profile of household incomes changes over time.”
“All of our elderly have contributed to the success of our nation, let us not discriminate amongst them, but instead ensure that each and every elderly Singaporean can enjoy the benefits of this scheme. Can I proceed to the next cut?”
“Yes, Sir. This condition restricts the mobility of owners and consequently undermines the objective of the HDB elderly housing scheme to encourage elderly Singaporeans to live near their families, while allowing them to maintain a degree of independence. For example, what happens when an elderly couple's children move to a different location? While it would make sense for the elderly couple to sell their present unit and to buy another to be closer to the family, the current HDB condition only allows owners to sell apartments back to the HDB. This will totally deter people from selling and therefore limits the mobility and flexibility of the elderly owners. Allowing the sale of the studio apartments in the resale market will provide an alternative to potential buyers in the queue, similar to the circumstances existing in the general HDB flats resale market. I certainly appreciate that precautionary measures are needed to prevent speculative purchases. But since the scheme is available only to those aged 55 and above, it is highly unlikely that those who apply for these studio apartments are purchasing the flats for profit. Furthermore, there are already other restrictions for purchase, such as non-ownership of private property and a household income ceiling of $8,000 which provide sufficient protection against speculative buying. Given the other HDB restrictions governing eligibility for housing under the scheme and the fact that there is a limited pool of potential buyers, the danger of widespread speculation in these studio apartments is, I believe, highly exaggerated. The studio apartments scheme is an excellent housing scheme for the elderly.”
“For example, one can imagine the situation of an elderly couple that has lived with their children in private property. They themselves are not rich. Such a couple may be forced to look for alternative accommodation as a result of problems within the family or relocation of the children overseas, whether for work or through immigration. The HDB studio apartment could be the only financially feasible option for the couple - but the existing HDB regulation makes them ineligible. Or an elderly couple may need to downgrade to a smaller, more economical property as a result of a change in its financial situation. Let us also not forget that the elderly generally require more amenities - amenities which the studio apartments are especially designed to cater for. Finally, living among other elderly persons can enhance the quality of life for many elderly citizens. I want to emphasise again that an important objective of the scheme is to provide housing for all elderly Singaporeans, and not just elderly HDB lessees. For all the reasons I mentioned above, elderly Singaporeans who are not existing HDB lessees should not be excluded from the scheme. I therefore strongly urge the HDB to reconsider the condition that makes only existing HDB lessees who have lived in their flats for at least 10 years eligible for this scheme. All elderly Singaporeans should be eligible. My second suggestion to improve the scheme relates to the conditions that the owner is prohibited from selling the studio apartment in the resale market. I am recommending that this condition be reviewed for the following reasons:”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UA 1200. Sir, I believe that the HDB studio apartments are built for all elderly Singaporeans, and not just for elderly HDB lessees. I have two suggestions which will make this housing scheme more accessible and more equitable for all elderly Singaporeans. Removal of some of the conditions will also help HDB to improve the success of the scheme which I understand has not been great. With an ageing population, the HDB's studio apartment scheme is an appropriate measure to alleviate the need of the elderly for suitable housing. However, some of HDB's existing rules and regulations are, in my opinion, too restrictive and unfair, and therefore defeat the desired objectives of the scheme. In my mind, the two objectives of the scheme should be as follows: First, to build appropriate housing with special amenities for the elderly. Second, to enable the elderly to live independently while remaining in close proximity to other family members. With these objectives in mind, the HDB should reconsider the condition of sale that only existing HDB lessees who have lived in their flats for at least 10 years are eligible for studio apartments under the scheme. This regulation assumes that all elderly Singaporeans, who are not currently HDB lessees, will always have the financial means to afford non-governmental housing. This is incorrect. Circumstances can change for anyone. Even if the issue of finances is discounted, let us not forget that some elderly persons may choose to live among other elderly persons. I know of many elderly Singaporeans who, because of changing circumstances, are in need of more economical housing.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Mr Chiam.”
“Hence, I would like to ask the Minister whether the foods introduced into the Singapore market are safe and for large-scale consumption, and whether tests have been carried out to ensure that these GM foods would not bring ill health or allergy or even trigger long-term side effects as a result of prolonged continuous consumption. I would also like to know whether there is an appropriate national regulatory framework established to ensure that strict bio-safety procedures and measures are observed. The Minister for the Environment in his reply had said that the assessment had got to be rational. I agree with him. But if we do not have facts about GM foods nor its long-term effects, how can we be rational in our assessment? Under the circumstances, I think it is better to err on the side of caution. Perhaps, I still believe labelling might not be such a bad idea and costs should not be the main concern.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UF 2100. Sir, the question of GM foods has been raised by Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay. I would like to raise it again because I think it is a very important issue. Fortunately, or unfortunately, GM food is here to stay. GM foods, as far as we have gathered and known, will certainly bring many benefits to the world. However, there is the important issue that concerns our safety and the safety of our future generations. In the longer term, who knows what will become of us after consuming these GM foods? Sir, since the emergence of genetically modified foods, many including scientists have raised concern regarding safety of consuming such foods. They are also concerned about the long-term side effects of GM foods on the future generations and the environment. There have been cases of GM food gone wrong. Most of the scientists' concerns are that these GM foods could cause unexpected adverse effects that could result in serious damage to health and the environment. Some of the damaging effects on health caused by GM foods are food allergy, antibiotic resistance and introduction of new toxins in the food. In many cases, the problems are only discovered after people get sick. The new toxins and allergens in these non-food sources could cause serious damage to us and our children. These are real concerns that we need to seriously consider, especially in view of the introduction and the influx of these foods into Singapore consumer market.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, with the Government actively pursuing its policy to attract more foreign talents and workers, I would like to ask the Minister if there are any plans in place to accommodate this influx of foreigners. Will there be a surge in demand for housing that will distort the housing market?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UE 2100. Sir, given our limited land and the projected increase in population, the only way to optimise our land resource is to have higher density and taller buildings. In the private housing market, I would like to suggest that the Government reduces the land set aside for landed housing and allow for higher density condominiums. While I fully support the Government's long-term plan to provide a greater variety of housing types and allow more people to own private housing, I believe this can be better achieved through more innovative designs for high rise, high density housing rather than landed housing with smaller land areas and more storeys. The typical new landed property is so crammed and has so many storeys that it is like a mini high-rise building. When you sit in your living room of your landed house and can only look out to a concrete jungle outside, then I believe we are better off with high-rise, high density housing. The Singaporean family may still aspire to own a landed property but this preference may change in the future. Sir, may I take the next cut?”
“Sir, since 1992, selected old HDB flats have been undergoing upgrading through the Main Upgrading and the Interim Upgrading programmes. These programmes are highly popular with the residents since they have brought about new facilities and amenities in the precinct as well as an enhancement in the value of the flat in this resale market. The benefits to the residents are immense. Covered linkways provide shelter; communal places allow residents to interact with one another; and, the upgraded lift lobbies and common areas make the place look more attractive. I therefore would like to congratulate the HDB and the Town Councils for doing a wonderful job in creating a higher quality living environment for our HDB residents. With the financial crisis behind us, may I urge the Ministry to accelerate the upgrading programmes. Besides benefiting the residents, these upgrading projects will also provide opportunities for the construction sector to speed up its recovery.”
“Sir, it is an undeniable fact that the HDB has a successful public housing programme, which is the envy of many countries. More than 85% of the population live in HDB flats and about 90% own their own homes. I applaud the HDB in the effort to keep prices of new HDB flats affordable. However, as the structure of the economy and society changes, and at an increasing rate, with the power of information technology, I would like the authority to constantly monitor the equation between price and affordability. I fully agree with Mr Sinnakaruppan that the current principle of keeping the cost of housing at 40% of the household income may need to be reviewed. The household income might be the same but, as Mr Sinnakaruppan has said, the needs of each family can be quite different. The 40% of the household income is a very blunt instrument to determine affordability of the HDB flats. Especially in a knowledge-based economy, there will be some families who will lose out because of their inability to cope. As a result, their income level may fall below that of the average household and the gap between the different household income groups could increase. Similarly, while the typical household size is likely to decrease in the future, there will still be families who cannot afford but to live together. Households with low incomes and more members will therefore find it very difficult to own their home. Would the Minister look into the needs of such families who are facing difficulties in owning their HDB flats?”
“Sir, in view of the answer, I have no other choice but to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $345,406,400 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $20,451,671,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UL 3100. Sir, Singapore is a garden city. Despite its small size, parks and gardens are provided amongst the urban developments. These green lungs are an important part of the infrastructure, so that Singaporeans as urban dwellers have somewhere to go to enjoy nature. The popularity of most of the public parks is testimony to the satisfaction of such a need. However, I have observed that the Chinese and Japanese Gardens are largely under-utilised. I believe this has to do with the entrance charges of $4.50 for adults and $2 for children. For residents in the western part of Singapore, these gardens are one of the few which they can enjoy, but having to pay an entrance fee to enjoy the parks is surely prohibitive. Can Members imagine if the East Coast Park and Pasir Ris Park also start to charge an entrance fee? I would therefore like to suggest to the relevant authority to look into transferring the privately-run Chinese and Japanese Gardens to the National Parks Board, rather than having large and beautiful gardens open only to the paying few. Why not make it into a public park where everyone can enjoy? As it is, we are a small island state with little natural resources. A park that is under-utilised is surely a waste of limited resources.”
“This has significant advantage over the options of downgrading to a smaller flat or queuing for a rental flat after selling off the existing flat or buying a studio apartment as all these three options require a re-location. Currently, reverse mortgages exist only for private properties but not for HDB flats. Can the Minister explain the reasons for not allowing reverse mortgages on HDB flats, and would the Minister review the situation, given the plight of this group of older persons?”
“Allowing the sale of the studio apartment in the resale market will also provide an alternative to potential buyers in the queue, similar to the circumstances existing in the HDB resale market. Given the Government's move to encourage individual responsibility or retirement plans, the purchase of a studio apartment should also be considered as an investment rather than a payment for old age accommodation. If the studio apartment is a concept purely to satisfy old age accommodation, it might lead to the deepening of the connotation that the studio apartment is an old-age home. In this light, studio apartments might eventually become slums for the old. We must not allow the studio apartments to become another form of old-age home. If the argument is to control speculation, although I do not think that this will happen given the short tenure, then perhaps the condition could be amended to restrict the sale in the open market for the first three years of ownership. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, with increasing nuclearisation of families in Singapore, the trend of older persons living by themselves will rise in tandem. Within this group, over time, a possibly significant subset could be households which are reduced to a widowed older person living alone, and who may not be able to get support from family members. In circumstances where this older person is unemployed, he, or more frequently she, may end up with a physical home but cash-strapped. By definition, she does not qualify for public assistance. A feasible resolution to generating cash to meet living expenses could be in the form of a reverse mortgage on her existing flat.”
“Sir, the proposal for studio apartments by the HDB is a timely solution towards elderly housing. I would like to make two suggestions to improve the proposed scheme. First, I would like to suggest that HDB reconsider the conditions of sale that the studio apartment is only open to the HDB lessees who have lived in their flats for at least 10 years. If the proposed scheme is to provide housing for the elderly, it should not be restrictive to the potential applicants. An elderly couple who have lived with their children in private property may due to changing circumstances need accommodation of their own. If they so choose to apply for a studio apartment, why should they be denied just because they have not lived in a HDB flat before? As the scheme is available to those aged 55 and above, it is unlikely that those who need to apply for the studio apartment are still drawing a large income, whether or not they have lived in a HDB flat before. With little or no steady income, it would be unfair to deny such applicants who have a real need. I suggest we open up to anyone above the age of 55. Secondly, I refer to the condition that the owner will not be able to sell the studio apartment in the resale market. I am recommending that this condition be reviewed for the following reasons: This condition will restrict the mobility of the owner. Suppose that the owner's family has moved to another estate, it would make sense for him to sell his present unit and buy another one to be closer to his family. The current condition entails that the owner can only sell it back to the HDB which will curtail the mobility of the owner.”
“Features which may have high aesthetic value but are hardly used when completed are really unnecessary. Such duplication and under usage is not cost effective. Besides they have a serious impact on the long term maintenance cost. Perhaps the HDB could ensure greater coordination amongst the precincts undergoing upgrading so that the improvement works carried out are well chosen and cost effective. If we could cut down on some of these duplications and unnecessary improvement works, the savings could be redistributed to more precincts and more residents could benefit from the upgrading.”
“Sir, since 1992, selected old HDB flats have been undergoing upgrading through the Main Upgrading and the Interim Upgrading Programmes. These programmes are highly popular with the residents since they have brought about new facilities and amenities in the precinct as well as an enhancement in the value of the flat in the resale market. The recent announcement on the cutback of the upgrading programmes as a result of the economic recession has to some extent put a brake on these upgrading projects and perhaps given us an opportunity to review the programmes. I would like to suggest two areas for such a review. First, in the selection of precincts for upgrading, HDB should consult the MP concerned in the identification and demarcation of the precincts. This is necessary because over time, neighbourhoods would have evolved and established their own identities through activities organised by the grassroots organisations. When a precinct is selected for upgrading, it would be more meaningful if residents can identify with that precinct. Currently, the lack of consultation has led to a selected precinct that straddles two RC zones, as happened in my constituency. The improvement works which are being planned may have to be duplicated because of the need to serve the activities of two different Residents' Committees. This brings me to my second issue. While there is no doubt that the upgrading programmes have helped to improve the living environment of the old HDB estates, I am concerned that some of the features and projects being introduced in some precincts are repetitive and not fully utilised. For example, it is a waste to have covered linkways all over the precinct just to satisfy every single resident.”
“Sir, I listened with great interest what my GPC Chairman has said. I totally disagree with him. Between 1992 and 1996, property prices increased by well over 300%. This had brought about a lot of undesirable effects. Owning a private residential property for most Singaporeans, became an impossible dream. Our business costs also escalated and we became uncompetitive. Our efforts to attract foreign talents to Singapore were also hampered, because the cost of housing had become a very serious stumbling block. After the introduction of the anti-speculation measures in May 1996, coupled with the severe regional economic crisis, prices had declined. But the prices are still relatively high compared to other countries. The property market has a tremendous impact on the economic performance of the country. It has to be properly managed. Therefore, I would like to urge the Government to closely monitor the sale of land. As we know, the supply of property is inelastic, given the gestation period necessary to bring the supply to the market. I am concerned that if the freeze in Government land sale is continued for too long, it might result in a shortfall when demand picks up. This can lead to a repeat of the boom and bust cycle that is economically unproductive. I therefore urge the Government not to delay the sale of land for too long, in order to maintain greater stability in the property market.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $338,337,800 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $598,708,900 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head J -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 2100. Sir, the issue I am going to raise is of public interest. Singapore is a city-state and is densely populated. I am therefore very concerned with the dangers posed especially on the storage and disposal of hazardous chemicals and industrial waste. When there is any industrial accident or mishap, it can lead to very serious damage to life, property and the environment. In view of the recent fire in Chem-Solv Technologies Pte Ltd, I would like to know whether the regulations on the storage and disposal of these hazardous substances are adequate. We are very fortunate that in the Chem-Solv fire, no lives were lost. But I am very worried about the long term impact on our environment. Having all the rules and regulations may not be sufficient. We need to have a good monitoring system. We must have an effective control system to ensure that the operators abide strictly by the rules and regulations and that there is no abuse.”
“Sir, I strongly believe that a flat or a house is a home and not a commodity for people to trade. This is particularly true for public housing. That is why I am fully supportive of the measures to curb this unhealthy trend. However, the current across-the-board resale levy, irrespective of the length of stay, is inequitable. This indirectly encourages the people to treat the house as a commodity for personal gain. So to make it more equitable for those who upgrade their flats after 15, 20 or even 25 years, they should not pay the same levy as those who upgrade after every five years. Take, for example, in 1980, HDB's selling price for one 4-room flat was only slightly above $20,000. How much could the subsidy be in 1980? $5,000? $10,000 or $20,000? Today, with the new resale levy, he has to pay more than $70,000. In 1991, the HDB's selling price of a 4-room flat was about $140,000. Obviously, the subsidy was much more. When he sells the flat, he still pays a levy of about $70,000. In these two examples, the subsidies are very different but they pay more or less the same levy. I would like to ask the Minister to consider revising the levy for owners who stay beyond their 10th year in the first flat. This levy, applicable from 10 years onwards, should be on a reducing scale, perhaps 1% reduction per year, so that for those who have stayed beyond 20 years, they do not have to pay the levy.”
“But I would like also to suggest that these studio apartments provide facilities like clinics, catering and laundry services and a common room or clubhouse to allow for social interaction. I think this is worth looking at and I urge the Minister to consider this.”
“Sir, public housing is very important because that is what most Singaporeans can afford. Public housing is also the biggest headache in most countries. But in Singapore, our home ownership programme has been very successful. In fact, the standard of our public housing is among the best in the world and we are the envy of many countries. Over the years, the Ministry had introduced many measures in public housing policies to cater to the different needs of the majority of our citizens, from the lower-income group to the middle-income group, the young professionals and even the prospective young couples. However, there is a group of people whose needs need to be taken care of. They are the couples who are in their late 40s and early 50s and whose children are married and have set up their own homes. Then there are also those senior citizens who are unmarried singles and do not have any next-of-kin or relatives. While it is good to encourage family nucleus to stay together, nowadays, there are many parents who just wish to stay on their own and yet be near to their children. Space constraints and family problems could be factors for these parents to want to stay on their own. And for the unmarried singles, they have worked hard and have some savings but cannot afford the private apartments. They also want a decent place like a small, affordable apartment to stay when they are old. I would like to suggest to the Minister to seriously consider building studio apartments in different housing estates where these groups of parents or senior singles can buy or rent. These studio apartments can be small but must be of certain quality. I am not proposing building old age homes or a retirement village.”
“Sir, we all know that the health services have been highly subsidised. But in spite of the high subsidies, there is the general perception that health care cost is very high, especially hospitalisation cost. On the other hand, most people also agree that C class ward is affordable. The trouble is that the general consensus among the people whom I have spoken to is that the conditions of the C class wards are not very conducive. There is also the notion that patients do not get the necessary medical care and attention in the C class ward. I think this is partly due to the high expectations of Singaporeans and because of their perception that the environment is not conducive in C class ward, and B2 class seems to become the standard that they are expecting. Perhaps the MOH should review and improve the conditions of C class wards. The MOH should also dispel the misconception that C class ward patients are not getting the necessary medical care.”
“In the interest of the public, the Government must be more proactive in speeding up the implementation of the good recommendations proposed in the Report, especially on the control of Chinese medicinal materials and Chinese proprietary medicine. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry of Health's stand with regard to the Chinese physicians coming here from China on social visit passes, practising in various housing estates and receiving hongbaos in return.”
“Sir, many of us believe that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has a role to play in Singapore. And I am glad that steps have been taken to upgrade the practice of TCM. But I would like to reiterate once again my concern on this issue. The recent release of the Report prepared by the Committee of TCM has been informative and useful. And I would like to congratulate the Committee for a job well done. The recommendation that we adopt a phased approach, ie, self-regulation by the TCM community initially, followed at a later stage by statutory regulation, is good. However, the process should not take too long to complete. Currently, there is no proper control on the qualification and practices of these TCM practitioners. Our population should not be allowed to be exposed to unnecessary risks. It is true the Ministry lacks the expertise and knowledge to effectively regulate the TCM profession. The various TCM organisations may not have the experience and knowledge to set their own standards. They also need time, money and efforts to organise themselves more effectively to serve the public safely. In addition, there are so many different organisations and I think it might not be easy to get consensus. This will inevitably prolong the restructuring of the TCM profession. I feel that there is a need for some sort of MOH intervention. The Government can also assist by inviting qualified TCM practitioners from reputable overseas centres to give the necessary guidance and expertise to these TCM organisations. In the meantime, every year we should allow a certain number of suitably qualified TCM doctors from China, Taiwan or any other country to practise in Singapore. I think this will help to raise the standard of TCM.”
“Small enterprises whose sizes are too small often encounter the problems of not satisfying certain criteria or not knowing how to make themselves eligible. We need to provide more assistance to these small enterprises and I would suggest we should be more liberal with them. For all the housing schemes, I would like to suggest that we give the small enterprises the maximum rebates to motivate them to make better use of them.”
“Sir, the SMEs are here to stay and I think they are also very important to our economy. But with the rapid development and transformation of our economy they need a lot of assistance in order to survive. I think we are all aware that there is a whole range of financial assistance and training schemes offered to help our local SMEs to develop. In fact, there is also a book on all the existing schemes available for their references, but many of them are still not aware of what assistance they can get from the Government. I think this is inertia on the part of these SMEs. But I think we can do more by reaching out to them to offer them help more directly. 5.45 pm The concern also lies not in the lack of this wide array of different methods or schemes that local businesses can benefit and grow, rather the confusion and misunderstanding that often arise which inevitably discourage the usage of these schemes. There are so many schemes and they are normally quite complicated. In order to be effective, I think the schemes should be made simple and user-friendly. Very often, the businessmen and entrepreneurs are led from one place to another whilst seeking information on the various schemes available. I would like therefore to suggest that we have an agency to coordinate all the schemes, provide a one-stop consultation and assistance to these small and medium sized enterprises. A single agency to handle all the schemes would make it more convenient for those who need assistance. One of the shortcomings of the wide array of the funding mechanism lies also in the lack of flexibility on its criteria for eligibility for various schemes.”
“Sir, the topic on cost of doing business has been raised many, many times by many MPs all these years, but it is an undeniable fact that doing business in Singapore nowadays is getting costlier every year. The continual rising labour, transport and rental costs coupled with our strong Singapore dollar have an adverse impact on the competitiveness of our industries. With the high charges levied by the statutory boards and other Government agencies, along with labour shortages and a very strict control on foreign workers, local industries especially are feeling the toils of coping and the pressure of survival under these harsh conditions. Of course, the increase in business costs could be explained that this is due to the natural consequences of our strong economic growth. However, it is still the key concern of all industries and businessmen alike. And if nothing is done, we might be pricing ourselves out of the market. In view of the strong economic growth and acute labour shortages, I would like to suggest that the Government relax the control on foreign workers, especially for the SMEs. I would also like the Minister to inform the House what his Ministry can do to ensure that all these price increases can be moderated to help our industries survive and stay competitive in the global market.”
“Sir, the Government has played a major role in encouraging local companies to regionalise their operations these past years. I think we all agree that this is important. It is the key strategy to continue sustaining Singapore's economic expansion. But to venture overseas and be able to successfully globalise its operations, local companies require a lot of concerted assistance from the Government bodies in areas of finance, information, manpower and technical knowledge. Chances of encountering pitfalls and failures in overseas ventures are inevitably high and, in many cases, very costly. There are many common problems faced by the companies investing overseas. The Government is certainly in a good position to look into these common problems and provide comprehensive guidelines and the necessary leverages and protection to our local companies, especially those with investment projects that are risky and pay-offs uncertain to help alleviate the losses. I understand the Trade Development Board is actively updating its resource library in collating all relevant information on overseas market conditions, tax policies, business regulations and practices in the various countries. May I suggest that the Ministry set up a market intelligence consultation centre where new and prospective companies targeting to invest overseas can easily access the relevant information and tap the experience of this consultation centre. It would also be beneficial if more dialogue sessions and interactions are organised among the EDB, TDB and Singapore overseas enterprises and businessmen where experiences could be shared. Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister how we have fared so far and are we achieving our goals after all these years.”
“Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PA 1500. The rising cost of medical treatment continues to be a big concern for Singaporeans and high-tech medicine has been identified as one of the contributing factors. Although we all recognise that high-tech medicine is necessary and has been effective in treating many illnesses indiscriminate use of high-tech medicine will definitely cause the cost of medical treatment to escalate. I would like to ask the Minister whether the control of the use of high-tech medicine and equipment in our hospitals has been effective.”
“If they cannot get redress from their children, they must get redress from the State. I do not think there is any other choice. I thank Members once again for their contributions and I ask that they consider carefully before they cast their vote on this Bill. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."”
“I believe that young Singaporeans are responsible and mature, but there will always be a certain minority who will not listen no matter what, who must be compelled by the force of law. It is not an indictment of our youth, nor an indictment of our society, that we should have such a law. If we pass the law and nobody uses it, we can pat ourselves on the back and say, "Things are all right. We are OK." If we pass the law and we do find that a lot of people are using it, then we should really ask ourselves, "Have we been blind to what is really going on? We have been living in a fool's paradise." Either way, I think we lose nothing by passing the law. We lose nothing. Once again, let me just say to Members, the choice before us now is between doing something that might help and doing nothing and saying, "Everything is all right." Perhaps I am being pessimistic. Perhaps people are going to be filial and going to be moral without the need for laws. But the experience of other countries, the experience of our own society does not leave us very much room for this kind of assumption. There will always be a certain number of people who will need to be - I would hardly use the word "coerced" - but will certainly need the pressure of law before they will comply with their moral obligations. Remember that at this reading, we are only discussing the principle of the Bill. If you agree that filial piety is something that is worth preserving, if you believe that there should be some pressure, apart from the force of morality to ensure that the recalcitrants comply, then I ask you to vote for this Bill. And for those who have doubts, I beg you to reconsider very carefully. Remember there are people in our society who are neglected. What do we do for them?”
“If you look at Israel and if you look at Taiwan, the fact that there are very few court cases does not mean that the legislation is useless. It probably means that it is not necessary to push it to the point where you actually need a public trial. I would urge Members not to accept the notion that just because you do not have any cases means that the law is no use. We have many laws that are very seldom invoked because it is not necessary that they should be invoked. But in case, in that odd case, where it is necessary, we should have that back-up. Let me just conclude by asking Members: what is it that we are afraid of here? Some Members feel that there is no problem now. The sun is shining. The sky is blue. People are filial. We can live happily ever after. But have they not heard people in Singapore say that children did not ask to be born and therefore parents should not expect anything from their children? Have they not heard people say in Singapore that it is a matter of personal choice, a matter of personal freedom, whether or not they should support their parents and it is no business of the Government to interfere with this matter of personal choice? Have they not heard people say that it is not the job of the individual, it is the job of the Government? People pay taxes and therefore the Government should look after the aged, the infirm, the unemployed, the people who do not want to work. Have they not heard these arguments? Are they so sure that these arguments will not seduce future generations? It is not a question of lack of faith in our youth. It is a question of being realistic.”
“But it is not an argument for not legislating the obligation. Finally, parents may not be prepared to institute proceedings against their own children due to a desire to preserve family harmony and fear of alienating their children. I think this is a valid point. As I said before, very few people would want to take the matter to court and fight it to the bitter end. And that is why the suggestions that have been made in this House to streamline the procedure, to set up a special tribunal to take out, if possible, the adversarial component, should be looked at very seriously. But let me say to Members: the value of legislation like this is not that it forces people into court. The value is that it will keep people out of court, if possible. Let me try and explain this again. At present, if the child refuses to maintain his father, what can you threaten him with? Tell the child we will expose him in the Chinese press, go camp outside his parents' house and embarrass him? Is that the best you can do? If you have a law, the Community Development Ministry's conciliators, clan elders or family members can go to the errant child and say, "Look, we don't want to sue you. Your father doesn't want to sue you. But he has no choice. If you make him desperate, he will take you to court." Under those circumstances, I find it very hard to envisage that someone would be so stubborn and thick-skinned that he will say, "Sue and be damned. Take me to court." The law is there. The law can be used as a bargaining chip. Right now, a conciliator who tries to conciliate knows that when it comes to the crunch, there is nothing he can threaten the recalcitrant child with. So it is not only a question of how many people actually go to court. There are these subtle below-the-surface effects.”
“Second objection in the Jayakumar Report: "legislation could at most compel children to make cash payments which may be complied with grudgingly". My reaction to this is: so what? It is better than nothing because the alternative is go to the State and let the State support. Is this what hon. Members want? That the State should support when a child is unfilial. Is this the signal that we want to send? That if you ignore your duty, the State will pick up the tab and there will be no adverse consequences on you. "Legislation would affect only an errant minority." I do not see this as an objection. I see this as a plus. It is not going to affect everybody. It is only that errant minority. Should we waste sympathy on the errant minority and say that their human rights have been invaded, that their freedom has been invaded, that they should have a choice whether or not to support their parents? So I do not think that is a good reason, with all respect to Prof. Jayakumar. Then it said, "there will be practical difficulties in collecting payments from children who choose to evade their responsibilities". Two responses to that. Yes, there will be practical difficulties, but does that mean we should give up the attempt? Or should we attempt to make the collection procedure better? If we say we give up the attempt because the difficulties are too much for us, where would we be and what kind of signal will we be sending to other people? You know the difficulties are there and we are not even going to try to do it because we are afraid of the difficulties. This is an argument for tightening up enforcement, it is an argument for streamlining enforcement not only for maintenance of parents but also maintenance of children, maintenance of wives.”
“Many of us, in fact most of us, I would say, are fortunate to live in happy families, in families where there is love and affection between parent and child. But I do not think we should assume that everyone is so fortunate as us. And should we deny to those who, in their unfortunate circumstances, do not enjoy this kind of healthy relationship? Should we deny to them the opportunity of getting some sort of redress? As I said, it does not have to be in a formal court of law. If we can set up an alternative tribunal, that would be fine. But let us not deny them the opportunity to get this kind of redress. Dr Tan also quoted from the Jayakumar Report in 1989. If I may just take Members through that passage he quoted on page 24 on "Difficulties in Implementation". The Report says: "Even if legislation is introduced, there would be difficulties in implementation. This is because filial piety is a sentiment of the heart which cannot be legislated." As I have been at pains to point out, and as many other hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill has nothing to do with filial piety and we are not trying to legislate filial piety. Just because you cannot make children love their parents does not necessarily mean that you should not enforce the obligation on a child to maintain his parents. The two are separate. Are you saying just because you cannot make him love his parents, he should not pay money to support his parents, and the State should do this? Because that is the alternative, is it not? If a child will not support, who will support? Either you let the parents starve or the State steps in, and that is the choice before us. Is it the State's job or is it the individual's job?”
“If it pleases this House to go further than that and to create a special tribunal, a court with no adversarial relationship, conciliation, and if it pleases this House to recommend this thing, I would be very happy to go along with that. And I ask the Minister for Community Development to consider this and the Minister for Finance look at it with some indulgence. But I myself cannot promise this. All I can ask hon. Members is that you should not kill the Bill at this stage. You should let it go to a Select Committee and let the fine-tuning and the improvement be made there. As I said, when I introduced the Bill, we need the collective wisdom of the House on something as important as this. Dr Tan Cheng Bock, when he made his speech, said that 96% of Singaporeans think that children should support their parents without compulsion of law. I do not think he deliberately means to mislead the House. Because, in that same survey that he quoted, the Chinese press asked a specific question, and the question was: Should the Bill be passed and legislated by the Government? Agreed, 52%, disagreed, 46%. 52%, I think by any definition, is a majority. I do not think these two sentiments are incompatible. Yes, a vast majority of Singaporeans say it would be far better if people would support their parents without being compelled by law. But it looks like we have got a very small majority in favour of saying, "Yes, okay. For those who cannot be trusted, we do need the law." Let me emphasise it does not affect people's behaviour. If you are already doing the right thing, it does not require behavioural modification in the least. You do not have to modify your behaviour at all.”
“It does not have to be a court. Let me say this. But there has to be some way where if persuasion fails, if moral suasion fails, if education fails, if morality and the threat of divine punishment fail, there must be something we can do in this world to help those who are neglected by their children. And I do not think we can see this as antagonistic to the principle of filial piety. It is complementary just like in the case of maintenance of children. In the case of maintenance of children, there is a biological urge to maintain your children, to look after your children. But still we need laws. You cannot just leave it to morality. I would say by the same token, although by far the majority of Singaporeans know where their duty lies and by far the majority of Singaporeans support their parents and love their parents because love is more than just support in money terms, there will still always be that refractory minority about whom nothing can be done without the pressure of law. And if you do not have the law, as I said, there is no sanction. They can ignore their duties lightly, nothing happens to them. And will this not give encouragement to others who feel also that moral obligation is not enforced in this world? Many Members have made very good suggestions about improving the Bill, about creating other tribunals, about procedure. May I say to hon. Members that I agree with many of them. But my problem, as a private Member, is I can promise nothing. I cannot commit the Minister for Community Development to do anything. I cannot commit the Minister for Finance to bankroll all these schemes, and that is why I have confined myself in the Bill to what is achievable within the framework of what we already have.”
“The law is not meant to get rid of all the problems. It is not a panacea. It is a last resort. In England, when England was a Christian country, maintenance of parents was enforced by the ecclesiastical courts. I thank Encik Yatiman and Encik Maidin for telling us the Malay/Muslim community's view of this because in countries which keep to the Syariah law, this kind of thing would have been enforced in the Syariah Courts. But you still need secular enforcement of divine law. So you cannot just say that this is a moral principle and it is self-enforcing because we know that there are many people, who left to themselves, would ignore morality. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that we have a perfect Confucian society where all parents will be looked after in their old age by their children without any back-up. 88%-90%, this is a very good figure. It bodes well for the future. But it does not mean that there will be 100% compliance. And the problem is: what do you do with that small minority of parents who are neglected? Do you say to them, "I am sorry, there is nothing we can do for you. The law is silent. It is a question of education. You did not bring up your children properly. So tough luck. Go to Community Development, get a public handout." Is that the kind of signal that we want to send out? At present, there is no sanction if a person chooses to be unfilial. There is no sanction. You can tell him, "It is your moral obligation." But if he says, "Nuts, I don't care two hoots for moral obligation. I am not going to support my parents. What sanction is there?" Nothing. There is no sanction. And this is the signal that we send. You make it easy for people to ignore their obligation if you do not have the backing of a secular civil court.”
“All I need is for Government to provide the infrastructure and the framework, the tribunal, the forum, and I will take up the case myself. If I am neglected, a neglected parent, I do not want Government to go and take up the case on my behalf and pursue my children. Give me the tools, I will do it myself. I think there is nothing inconsistent with asking the Government to put into place the basic framework. So the person who wants to fight his own battles can fight his own battles. At present, there is no forum. There is no tribunal. The person who is neglected must go to Government and say, "Help me out, give me a handout." This is the present position because he has no other way to help himself. So Mr Lew, and for those others who misunderstand my position, I hope this is clear. I do not think there is anything inconsistent between what I am doing now and what I have said before. But this is a distraction, nothing to do with the Bill at hand. I am gratified to see that we have basic agreement on one point, and that is, that children have an obligation to maintain parents. I do not think anyone in this House has voiced the view that children have no such obligation, that they are free to decide for themselves whether or not to maintain their parents. So it is with this basic agreement that we should start. Children should maintain their parents. The question is how to do it. Do we do it by law? Or do we do it by education? May I say, hon. Members, that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I do not think that anyone who supports the Bill thinks that the law is a replacement for proper moral education and for society that maintains and preserves these values that we cherish. The law is not a replacement. The law is meant to complement education.”
“So, if we want to find a permanent solution, we have to make a nation-wide effort to cultivate the spirit of filial piety through education. Education will be to teach the children of their duty and obligation to repay their parents for what they have done for them. Education is a form of intangible and invisible force to motivate the children to love and care for their parents spontaneously, on their own accord. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.20 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL Debate resumed. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, may I thank the hon. Members who have spoken on the Bill, both those for and those against, because it is only with this kind of debate that we can clarify the issues at stake. Before I try and summarise the debate and try to persuade some of the doubters to support the Bill, could I just clear away one distraction? Mr Lew Syn Pau, earlier in his speech, quoted extensively from a previous speech that I made. Let me make my position clear, if I may. I believe that the Government's touch should be light and, as far as possible, people should be responsible for their lives and that Government's job is to create the framework within which people can live their lives in an orderly fashion, not to live life for the people, or to make decisions for the people. As Winston Churchill said in another House, at another time, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." If I have a problem with a tradesman, a shopkeeper cheats me, I do not want Government to take up the case on my behalf and pursue the man.”
“If there are indeed many unfortunate parents who are being neglected by their children, we may consider asking the Justices of Peace appointed by the Ministry of Community Development to act as mediators or peacemakers. Try to understand the relationship between the parents and the children, and their problems, through the Justices of Peace, and then refer these unfortunate parents who need help to the Ministry of Community Development for assistance. I feel that the introduction of this Bill by Prof. Walter Woon has already achieved one very important objective, that is, it has attracted the attention of people from all stations of life in our society to the need to maintain the parents. From the debate in Parliament, and from the newspaper reports prior to that, we can see that Singapore is still very fortunate because the vast majority of our children have been and are still looking after their parents. So to me, it is too early now to have such a legislation. As Mr Lew Syn Pau said a while ago, if we were to legislate on every petty little matter, then we may have to come to Parliament every day to consider legislating for this matter and that matter. There will be no end to it. Now, we talk about legislating to provide for children to maintain their parents. One day, some children may come forward and demand that we introduce a "Maintenance of Children Bill" to compel the parents to look after their children. I feel that we should continue to maintain our existing social cohesiveness, our social tradition. We should look into the root of the matter, and not just the temporary measures. Legislation can only provide stop-gap measures, but it cannot get into the root of the matter and effect a permanent solution to the problem.”