Wang Kai Yuen
Singapore
“Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public?”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.”
“Once they are disqualified, they might as well close shop. Sir, I am sympathetic to their plight and that it is unfair to apply the demerit points to a single company as a whole, regardless of the number of ongoing construction projects. This could act against big companies with multiple projects.”
“Individuals just make less money when they sell their flats. Hopefully, if they were to buy another flat, they could also pay proportionately less as well. However, when the market is on the way down, like in the last few years, or stagnate like now, the loss would be substantial, as many would be saddled with negative equity.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that since the Singapore law is primarily based on the common law and since the UK Parliament has found it necessary to legislate that glorification of terrorism is a crime, would he agree that there might be a gap in our laws that our current law would not cover where the current UK law would now cover?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister indicated that he would monitor and would plug the hole when the need arises. Would he want to follow the UK example that they would only pass such a law after a terrorist attack in the tube? If a similar event happens in Singapore, would it be a bit too late to plug the gap? Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,025 lines we hold for Wang Kai Yuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 21.
“Sir, I support the Bill. However, I would like to make a request to the Minister. I recall that when the two Universities were merged, more than the Register of Students were transferred to the Singapore University. One of those properties transferred included the collection of art pieces, paintings and museum pieces. If I am not wrong, they are now still the property of Singapore University, now known as NUS. I hope that the Minister would take recognition of this and make certain provision to return these collections to the NTU because these art pieces were donated by well-wishers and supporters of Nanyang University who had the intention that these pieces be housed in the old building. Now that their home is in NUS, I hope the Minister will take my request into consideration. Mr Goh Choon Kang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, history is an on-going evolution. In the process of all these changes, there are always some things which are inevitable. So I believe that our pioneers who founded Nantah would understand this. I remember the motto of our alma mater was "constantly striving to become stronger". This is the basic spirit of Nantah. This maxim that originated from the Yiqing (Book of Changes) encourages us that notwithstanding the changes in history and circumstances, if we can constantly strive to become stronger, we will be able to continuously manifest this spirit of Nantah, in the new circumstances, and to manifest the great tradition of the Chinese civilization. Sir, with the upgrading of Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI) to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and its subsequent decision to use the acronym of Nantah, I think the proposed transfer of the Alumni Register is logical and rational.”
“Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $304,609,460 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $529,817,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D, F, G and Z. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc. Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 39 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to. The Chairman: In respect of the Development Estimates, they are Heads B and F. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc. Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Development Estimates on page 40 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996 stand part of the Development Estimates," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $26,761,608,640 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $16,140,104,770 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the Financial Year 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996," put and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported.”
“Because of this, most cars are imported without the safety devices which are usually the standard features in other countries. I think the LTA should consider exempting tax on these safety devices, such as air-bags, etc, installed in the car for greater road safety. Singaporeans who bought cars have already paid a hefty price for them. The Government should not further tax the safety devices as this results in car owners not able to enjoy safety protection of the devices. If the Government is of the view that these parts cannot be separated from the car itself, then perhaps vehicles with these safety features should be given some tax rebates to protect the safety of the drivers. 5.30 pm”
“But sometimes it is regrettable that the authority only swings into action after a serious or fatal accident. Especially when obviously dangerous stretches of road were brought to the attention of the authority by the RCs, sometimes nothing was done until a serious accident had happened and lives were lost. I know that it is not the guiding principle of the LTA in this matter but, in many cases, it seems like a serious accident is the price for greater safety in future. In this respect, Sir, I suggest that LTA should build roads and other public transportation systems with safety as the primary consideration. Where there is public feedback on a potentially hazardous situation, LTA should take remedial action. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, road safety is a matter of great concern for everybody. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Land Transport Authority has set any special standard for road safety in respect of public buses. In the design of new buses, for example, the super-long buses, are they suitable for the roads in Singapore? Can they fit into our bus stops and interchanges? Because they are "super-long", there will be more pressure on the drivers. Can the Public Transport Council ensure that the drivers are not over-fatigued? In order to save cost, bus drivers are expected to work longer hours. As a result, they suffer from very severe fatigue. In respect of the MRT, I would like to ask whether the Land Transport Authority has any measures to set standards for safety of its operation. In the case of private vehicles, can the LTA consider exempting car safety devices from import tax? As it is, all cars are subjected to a hefty tax amounting to some 195% of its declared value upon import. This includes all their accessories and safety devices.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 1500. Sir, the recent spate of SBS bus accidents has generated unfavourable publicity on the safety of public transportation system. These are unfortunate since the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System places great emphasis on the role of the public transportation system in serving our needs. Sir, it is in the nature of things that accident happens. Nonetheless, the public must be satisfied that the public transportation system should be designed and operated with safety uppermost in mind, let it be MRT, LRT or the bus system. Safety must be an inherent feature of the public transportation system. In this respect, I am reassured by the Minister's earlier comment that safety cannot be compromised. Since buses also use the road, then the road system should be made as safely as possible and when accident happens, maybe measures should be taken to reduce the severity of the accident. In a recent accident where an SBS bus rammed head-on into a tree, I was perturbed that many people were injured in that accident. My question is whether casualty could be minimised by having safety measures like collision protection guardrails in front of trees along those stretches of road. I am sure the Government is looking into improving road safety as a result of past accidents. For instance, I recall that after a vehicle rammed into a bus stop and killed a woman, the LTA installed bollards in front of every bus stop in Singapore. I also note the programme by LTA to raise the crash barrier of many viaducts. This says volumes of the safety consciousness of the LTA officials.”
“Nonetheless, the Committee to Discourage Double Transfers is still in the process of analysing the voluminous data collected, such as the successful COE price premiums as well as the key indicators of our economy, such as the Straits Times Industrial Index. Without full-time paid staff on the Committee, the work is taking slightly longer. I believe the work shall be completed by late April or early May. Nonetheless, a preliminary analysis shows that the non-transferability has minimum impact on the quota premiums. This is illustrated by the behaviour of the control group, namely, the Open Category. Its quota premiums have stayed in tandem with those in Category 1 to Category 4 as though they are freely transferable. In fact, the strike price of the Open Category is often times lower than the strike price of the luxury car category in the same tender exercise. Sir, in any event, the non-transferability of COEs has by and large been accepted by the public. Its implementation has also been carried out smoothly without any inconvenience to the public. Hence, notwithstanding the outcome of the analysis to the contrary, I can say that the GPC for Communications will recommend to the Ministry to maintain its status quo and make non-transferability a permanent feature of the COE system. May I have the Minister's views on this matter?”
“Sir, two major communication Bills were passed by this House recently, namely, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Bill and the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill. Most of the issues on land transportation were raised in the debate of the LTA Bill. Therefore, with the table cleared, it is understandable that the number of cuts submitted by the GPC for Communications this year is on the low side. Still there is one outstanding test that the GPC for Communications would like to address and I am referring to the one-year trial of the non-transferable COEs. Sir, the Committee to Discourage Double Transfers, chaired by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, Chairman, GPC for Communications, submitted its recommendations to the Minister in February 1995. The Ministry accepted the GPC's recommendations with minor modifications and implemented a one-year trial. Starting 1st March 1995, the transferability of COEs in Category 1 to Category 4 was restricted, in fact, they were prohibited for the first three months. As a control group, the Open Category COEs remain freely transferable. This being a trial, the work of the Committee is not yet over. The remaining task of the Committee is to determine whether there is any relationship or correlation between the price of COEs and its transferability. The trial period ended on 29th February 1996. This passed without any public fanfare. Instead most people have forgotten that there is a trial going on. This lack of reaction is an indication that this topic is no longer of public interest.”
“Yes. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I think the reply does not address my point about the fixed fee. The fixed fee should be based on the number of persons in the household and not based on the number of appliances which you have already paid for when you built the house or when there was a levy on property tax and so on. So I thought the fixed fee formula should be changed.”
“Today, thanks to the successful housing programme by this Government, the situation is completely different. People prefer more toilets in their homes for the convenience and not to squeeze in more people. So I think the current formula penalises people who opt for more convenience. I know the fee of $3 per toilet per month is not a large amount. Even in the largest home with four or five toilets, we are talking about no more than $15 per month. But the basic principle seems out of place. This formula reminds me of the formula used by Singapore Telecom when they charged for every extension phone in the house. Today, Singapore Telecom has moved on to the time-based system where the charge is based on usage and it no longer charges for an extension line. Sir, I suggest that the MOE follow the same principle and scrap the sanitary appliance fee. Perhaps, an entirely usage-based water borne fee could be implemented and this new structure can go a long way also to control the amount of waste generated as well.”
“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 MD 1500. Sir, there are two items on our monthly utility bills relating to the handling of household sewerage. Both items are collected by PUB on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment. The first is the water-borne fee at 10 cents per unit and the second is the sanitary appliance fee at $3 per toilet per month. I am not complaining about the charges, Sir. I think they are very reasonable. In fact, those charges have not been changed for several years. I suspect that the amount collected does not even go towards recovering the cost of operation or the treatment. However, what I would like to address is the basis for these charges. I find the basis for the first fee reasonable but that for the second is not in tune with the time. Because Singaporeans have become more affluent and more and more of us are staying in homes with more than one toilet. In fact, all HDB flats, from 3-room flat upwards, have two toilets and the number of toilets would increase in the case of condominiums and private homes. However, the number of people living in a house does not automatically go up when the house gets bigger. In fact, often times, the smaller the housing unit, the higher the number of occupants. As the amount of waste produced is actually dependent on the number of persons and not on the number of toilets per household, I think the current formula for charging sanitary fees needs a review. This formula might be appropriate in the old days when housing was in short supply and people lived in crowded quarters. In those days, the higher the number of toilets, the higher the number of occupants and therefore the higher the amount of waste.”
“Perhaps the Minister should be cautious in implementing the new control to minimise its impact on the development of Singapore as an Internet hub site.”
“Sir, the framework proposed by MITA to police the Internet is causing some concern in the IT industry. This is probably the first time in the world where Internet services are regulated in this manner. Major Internet service providers, most of them are foreign ones, are unfamiliar with restriction on their businesses. Furthermore, we are just studying how the Singapore regulation would affect industrial practices, the impact of which is still unclear. Many Internet operators are just providing the hardware and software environment to other information providers who in turn put the content into the service. To-date, these Web site operators are not legally responsible for the content of those information. They may exercise restraint and issue guidelines, but these are voluntary measures. The current regulation proposed by the Ministry seems to place the onus of policing the Web site on the operator. It requires the operator to monitor and control the content of the service provided. As I have said earlier, often times the contents are controlled by independent service providers. Furthermore, even if the operator wants to do so, it might be unrealistic because some of the services provided include access to library, archives, involving mind-boggling volumes of data, most of which are not offensive. I understand that several potential Web site operators, foreign ones, who have been planning to set up shop in Singapore are having second thoughts. If this is so, then the MITA initiatives seem to defeat our efforts to position Singapore as a communication and information hub. This new control on Internet is indeed a two-edged sword.”
“Sir, with the establishment of the National Science and Technology Board, all Government funding for research and development (R&D) flows through the Board. The FY96 budget provides $197 million for R&D. It is not an insignificant sum by any measure. Much of the money are appropriated to Government R&D institutes and the balance to the industry. As our wages escalate and our industry moves to a higher technological level, home-grown innovation from local R&D will become more important if Singapore were to continue to be successful. However, as a nation, we face competition in R&D as well. On the leading edge, the advanced countries have better traditions, infrastructure and larger budget to break new ground. Going lower down the technological ladder the competition comes from lower cost countries, like India and China which have very good traditions in high-tech education. Hence, picking the right area to do R&D where we have some inherent advantage is crucial to our success. So at this juncture, I would like the Minister to give his evaluation of the effectiveness of the R&D programme funded by NSTB. Money spent in the wrong area is not only money wasted but time is wasted as well, and time lost is even a greater loss since some opportunities might be lost forever.”
“I suggest we use the market forces equivalent. As a basis, maybe we can use the starting pay of an office worker. Today, one cannot hire an office worker for less than, say, $1,000 a month. If we take that figure, then each National Serviceman will get $400 into their CPF per month, or $9,600 for two years, or $12,000 for 2 1/2 years' service. This would give the young men a headstart when they finish their National Service. My proposal will roughly cost the nation about $200 million a year. This is not a large sum but it will go a long way towards helping our National Servicemen. I believe they deserve it.”
“Sir, full-time National Servicemen are not paid salaries. We all understand the Government policy of not paying full-time National Servicemen their salary. They receive instead an allowance ranging from $200 for servicemen to $400 for officers. Since the payment is an allowance, it does not attract CPF contribution. However, Sir, as the role of the CPF has evolved over the years, it is no longer just a savings meant for old age. CPF now is a vehicle to buy one's home. More importantly, with the corporatisation of hospitals, the Government has transferred the responsibility of medical care to the individual. Citizens now must save enough money in the Medisave to pay for their hospitalisation. Thus, the CPF Medisave account is now an integral part of the nation's medical care payment system. Moreover, Medisave account is used not only for the person's own hospitalisation, it is also used for the parent's hospitalisation. While I believe it is still right for the nation to ask a NSman to serve without pay, during these 2-2 1/2 years of their service, they have missed an important opportunity to save for the future, both for their home and also for their Medisave. Without Medisave, not only they cannot take care of themselves during hospitalisation, they also cannot help their families in case of severe illnesses of their parents and relatives. Sir, the circumstances surrounding the whole concept of CPF today are quite different from the day when NS was first implemented. Therefore, I propose that Mindef consider paying full-time National Servicemen CPF, both the employer's and the employee's contributions, in other words, 40% of their equivalent pay as National Servicemen. And what is the equivalent pay a National Serviceman would have earned?”
“I would like to know what has been achieved so far and what are the problems faced by the Government and how such issues have been overcome or resolved. I would like to know what further measures the Government is thinking of in future. I feel that the issue of water is significant towards the livelihood of Singapore, especially in terms of the economic aspect. I believe our competent Government will always try to fulfil the aspirations of the people. Sir, I support this budget which has been tabled by the Minister for Finance.”
“As for individuals who have lost their parents and will have to take care of their own siblings who are schooling, consideration should be given in tax reliefs or concessions which will relieve them of their responsibility and indirectly it will nurture in them to be responsible individuals within the society and not dependent on the Government. I hope the Finance Minister will consider my proposal in future so that our Budget will always have a bigger surplus. I believe the Finance Minister will always work towards a budget surplus and I am proud to be one of the members of the present Government. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister for Finance regarding the distinction between a Singapore citizen and a permanent resident. If $200 is credited to a Medisave account, $150 for the payment of PUB bills and a 10% rebate on income tax is given to both Singapore citizens and permanent residents, I think there is no distinction between a Singapore citizen who voted for us and a permanent resident who did not vote for us. I feel that the interests of Singapore citizens who have voted for the Government should be given preference to the non-citizens. In this way, I hope the Minister for Finance will consider seriously the interests of Singapore citizens as compared to the permanent residents. Mr Deputy Speaker, last year, during the debate for the financial year 1995/96, the Minister for Trade and Industry has explained in detail measures which will be taken by the Government in respect of the use of water sources. I would like to raise the same matter again so that the Government will be able to explain all the measures which the Government has taken to overcome the water supply for Singapore.”
“Ghani (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): A responsible Government and sensitive towards the people's welfare will always endeavour to work hard to fulfil all the responsibilities that have been put to the Government. It has been proven that the PAP Government has been able to perform its duties excellently not only economically but also in all the other areas. I believe Singaporeans are comfortable if the present Government continues to lead our nation. We are grateful to have an efficient Government and with the support of the people the Government has been able to table a very good Budget this year. The Budget statement by Dr Richard Hu has not caused any unhappiness. Instead, he has brought about happiness to many people, as there are many handouts given to the individuals, the family and the corporations. I hope that this will continue to be good. I hope the Minister for Finance will give out more to those people who will have to look after their unemployed parents, those who do not have any CPF accounts, and more so for those without personal savings. It is most heartening that many are still looking after their aged parents without passing the burden over to the Government. I hope the Government will not set up more homes for the aged and indirectly the people will be nurtured with the responsibility to look after their parents. It is different from what has been asked by the Opposition Member, ie, to ask the Government to set up more homes for the aged.”
“One of my constituents has upgraded from a HDB flat to a landed property and, by all measures, she should be very happy. Instead, she found herself having left the first world and moved to a third world, figuratively speaking. She found that she has to endure more mosquitoes, broken drain with ponding water, broken pavement, and non-existing public transportation, living in a so-called "rich man's" area. Finally, she also does not have the friendly town council to bring her problem to. So I have only one favour to ask the Minister in this Budget. Rather than asking the various Government departments to repair the infrastructure piecemeal, I urge the Government to appropriate a portion of the budget surplus to implement a new scheme. Let us call it a Landed Property Infrastructure Upgrading Programme (LIUP) to rejuvenate the crumbling infrastructure in landed housing estates. A nation-wide upgrading scheme with an integrated approach would yield a far better result than doing it piecemeal. I think it is about time that those who live in landed estates could participate in our Prime Minister's new vision: Make Singapore the best home. Sir, as I said earlier, everyone I spoke to is happy with the Budget. This Government has met its promise to share the wealth of the economic growth with our people. Let us hope that this philosophy is maintained in future. I believe this will remain so under the leadership of our Prime Minister as he leads our nation into the 21st century. I urge all Singaporeans to support him in his vision and make Singapore the best home for Singaporeans. Encik Harun bin A.”
“At this juncture, I would again quote from the Minister's speech. He said: `Our target is to run a modest budget surplus over the long run so that the public sector does not drain resources from the economy.' What does he mean by a "modest budget surplus"? I would like the Minister to enlighten this House whether a 4% GDP budget surplus is consistent with his statement? Or would a 2% GDP budget surplus be more relevant? If the latter is true, then the conclusion is that our existing tax structure is still high despite all the tax cuts announced and there is still plenty of room to move in that direction. The question is, of course, whether to tax and then share the tax collected with all the people or to tax lightly and leave more money in the pocket of the people, to begin with. This budget continues to be progressive in placing the major tax burden on the wealthy and giving rebates to the poor and less wealthy. I use the words "less wealthy" because I find it difficult to describe people living in 5-room HDB flats as poor. On top of that, this budget continues to provide a significant portion, close to $450 million of the HDB Development Budget, to HDB upgrading programmes like the IUP and the MUP. As a result of these upgrading programmes over the past few years, many older HDB estates today are newer, cleaner and have better facilities than many landed residential estates. For instance, in my constituency, children from the landed residential estates go to the HDB estate in Clementi to make use of the fun equipment in the children's playground. Many of the landed residential estates in Bukit Timah are now 20-30 years old. Their common infrastructure such as drains and pavements are crumbling.”
“The Minister in his speech also referred to non-tax measures like COEs and foreign workers levy developing into significant revenue sources. Can he provide greater details, please? How much does salary escalation or asset appreciation play in the revenue increase? If salary escalation and asset appreciation play a significant role, then tax revenue increases would be almost like an automatic result of what I would call "bracket creep". "Bracket creep" means that the taxable incomes are pushed into higher tax brackets over the years. If that is the case, perhaps tax rates could be cut further to achieve a reasonable budget surplus, which brings me to the topic of what is a reasonable budget surplus. The estimated FY96 surplus is 4.9% of GDP. The revised FY95 budget surplus is 4.0% of GDP. The Minister in his speech mentioned that the average budget surplus is 4.4% of GDP. Is this a coincidence or is the Minister paving the ground for a new and higher budget surplus target? Prior to FY95, we seem to be quite happy with 2% GDP budget surpluses. Sir, we should bear in mind that we are actually at this point talking about percentage of GDP. Even at a constant 2% GDP, as our GDP grows by around 7% a year, we are still going to have an increasingly larger amount of surpluses in our budget. Before we accept 4% as the norm, we must satisfy ourselves that there are good reasons to escalate our surpluses to 4% of GDP. Is 4% GDP surplus a problem? That will depend on our tax philosophy. What is tax? The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "money to be paid by people or businesses to a government for public purposes." Many Western governments will be more than happy if they can achieve a balanced budget, not to mention surpluses of this magnitude.”
“For FY90 to FY94, the Ministry of Finance had consistently put the estimated surplus at around $1-$1.5 billion, when the actual figures had been increasing steadily. Even in FY94, the estimated surplus was given as $1.58 billion, when the actual surplus the previous year had already reached $6.32 billion. Only in FY95 did the Finance Ministry up its estimated surplus to $5.75 billion or 4.8% of GDP. I find it inexplicable that the Ministry had been consistently under-estimating so much for so many years. One might want to find out that the revised FY95 budget surplus is only $4.81 billion, which is 4% of the GDP. This is also the first time that the revised number has dipped below the estimated number since 1991. Is this a reversal of the trend? Maybe not. Given the track record of the last four years, I would not be surprised if an extra few billion dollars would materialise from somewhere, thereby pushing the actual FY95 budget surplus even higher. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.40 pm I would like to ask the Minister a simple question. Why is it that despite all the tax cuts over the years - the Minister had been announcing tax cuts over the last 2-3 years in the budget - our budget surplus continues to escalate? Mr Chew Heng Ching has given some answers and said that if we look at the Report of the Estimates Committee, we can get some answers. But I would like to hear it from the Minister himself. I would like to find out whether these surpluses are structural in nature. In other words, whether it is part of our tax structure that continues to yield such tax surpluses. Or is it due to the increasing larger tax base with a larger number in the workforce?”
“On the other hand, if we had not given away this $2.45 billion, we would be looking at an estimated surplus of $8.86 billion or 6.8% of the GDP, the largest in our nation's history. My question to the Minister is this. Is this a one-time phenomenon as a result of a one-off economic boom in certain sectors? Or is this the result of our tax and non-tax measures coupled with an increasing tax base? Sir, not being a Member of the Estimates Committee, I ploughed through some figures and I have prepared a chart and a table depicting the previous years' surpluses including the estimated, revised and actual numbers, which you have given me permission to distribute earlier. Sir, if we look at the numbers, the actual budget surpluses from FY90 to FY94, one will notice that the actual budget surpluses have ballooned from $2.54 billion in FY90 to $8.57 billion in FY94. As a proportion of the GDP, the corresponding number has increased from 3.9% to 7.9%. The Minister in his speech has stated that budget surpluses have averaged 4.4% of the GDP over the last eight years. However, since the surpluses really have started to take off almost vertically in FY91, we should be looking at the numbers since 1991 if we want to determine the trend. Therefore, if we just look at the actual budget surplus numbers from FY91 to FY94, the average is 6.3%. This is significantly higher than the impression given by the Minister. Furthermore, if we look at the differences between the estimated budget surpluses and the actual budget surpluses, it seems that the Ministry has been doing a rather poor job in forecasting accurately its revenues. At this point, I echo Dr Lee's sentiments about urging the Finance Minister to be more accurate in his forecast.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the FY96 Budget is the most generous bonus budget in memory. The total tax rebates given away by the Government amount close to $2.45 billion. It has something for everyone. I must congratulate the Finance Minister for being so generous. Of course, to do so, there must be sufficient budget surplus. Our budget surplus reflects the able management of the nation's economy by the Government. Every working adult has contributed to our budget surplus in one way or another; each of us playing a different role. But, ultimately, it is the leadership of our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, that underpins the foundation of our economic success. My concern is this. There are so many goodies in the Budget that this might plant the seed of dependency in our people. And this is the very mentality which this Government has tried its very best to discourage. I am concerned that repeated direct rebates such as HDB service charges and PUB rebates might establish a tradition which neither this Government nor future governments can reverse without a heavy political cost. On the other hand, Sir, I support the concept of sharing the fruits of a booming economy with our fellow Singaporeans. I must also admit that every other means of sharing has its own pitfalls. Handing out rebates seems to be the most acceptable one. Obviously, sharing the nation's wealth is indeed a difficult balancing act. In this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would concentrate on the fiscal policy of the Government and take this opportunity to examine the trend of our budget surpluses over the last five years, along the same line as Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has done. Despite the rebates totalling $2.45 billion this year, the estimated FY96 surplus is still $6.41 billion.”
“Furthermore, in Singapore, property development is under the purview of HDB and URA. Although the White Paper encourages better commercial development around those sites, it did not elaborate on how the LTA would coordinate with these two organisations. This is the point that I find not too satisfactory. Indeed, there are merits to adopt the Hong Kong MTR model and maybe we should consider empowering the LTA to develop commercial property above the MRT stations as an integral part during the construction of future MRT lines. I am sure the Minister has already considered this proposal and would comment in his reply. Sir, the White Paper is a comprehensive one touching on almost every aspect of land transport. I am happy to note that the LTA will be introducing the concept of virtual slip roads or left-turn arrows on red where motorists could turn left when the red signal is on. This is a small item, but I have spoken on this twice during previous budget debates. So I am very happy to note that the LTA has finally supported the idea. On this note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by saying that the concepts in the White Paper are sound. In principle, I support them. When the concepts are implemented in the future, I believe Singaporeans would enjoy a world class land transport system befitting the aspirations of Singaporeans.”
“Yes, building a world class land transport system comprising the MRT, the LRT and the road networks is going to cost us a lot of money. But, fortunately for us, the Government seems to have the money because the White Paper never touched on how we would derive the money to pay for it. I believe we have the money. If we do not build the system today, or a few years down the road, it would mean that we would have passed the money down to a future generation. If we build the system, what we have passed down would be a world class land transport infrastructure. Between the two, most of us Singaporeans, present generation or future generation, would have chosen the latter option. Just like today's present day Londoners or New Yorkers, Parisians and Tokyoites, they are thankful to their forefathers for the foresight and vision and, on top of that, the ability to invest in their subway system so that today they could enjoy a very good land transport system. So I hope Singaporeans would also make the same choice. The White Paper also emphasises the more intense development of housing and commercial properties above and around the MRT stations. It mentioned that the Hong Kong MRT offers some valuable lessons that the Singapore MRT could adopt. However, the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railroad Corporation ordinance specifically gives the Hong Kong MTR the right during the construction stage to develop properties above the stations. In practice, the Hong Kong MTR formed joint ventures with partners for these commercial developments and paid full market price for the sites. In Singapore, the MRTC is not similarly empowered. As a result, we have already lost some opportunities in not developing the property, for instance, around stations like the Orchard Station and others.”
“I am suggesting that to bring us closer to this vision of a world class land transport system, the LTA should embark on a non-stop, maybe 10 years, building programme instead of the present approach in which we have to evaluate segment by segment and whether the North-East line is financially viable or not. In fact, I believe we have already lost some very good years since the early 1970s debating whether or not to proceed with the MRT in the first place. Besides delaying Singaporeans' enjoyment of a better land transport system, delaying in the construction has also increased the cost of construction significantly. The North-South/East-West lines cost us $5 billion. The Woodlands link costs us $1.3 billion, giving us a total of $6.3 billion in construction cost. The yet-to-be-built North-East line will cost us $5 billion. All these figures are quoted from the White Paper. So let us assume that we had built the North-East line at the same time with the North-South and the East-West lines. Using the rule of thumb and my simple ruler, I would saythat it probably would cost us between $3 billion and $3.5 billion. So by building the North-East line, say, a few years down the road, it would increase by $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a lot of money. This amount of money would have covered the interest cost, opportunity cost, or maybe the cost of running the North-East line at a loss for several years. So I believe we should ask the question whether it would have been better off for Singaporeans to build the line earlier or build the line later; or did Singaporeans now have to pay a bill close to $1 billion just to learn a very simple economic lesson?”
“Firstly, Government will build the transport infrastructure such as roads, MRT and LRT. Secondly, the public transport operators are to recover the cost of operation as well as the depreciation of current assets. These are very sound fundamental principles to build and sustain a world class land transport system, and I support them. Besides these fundamental principles, I would like to make the following observations regarding the White Paper. As I said earlier, the White Paper is too focused on reiterating the obvious and not sufficient on specifics. For instance, I believe all of us would agree that the land transport system would mean a public transport system which ultimately would come down to a rail transport system. In the White Paper, three cities were quoted. London started their rail system in 1863, which means 131 years ago; Paris 94 years ago; Tokyo 67 years ago; and Singapore MRT seven years ago. The White Paper implies that Singaporeans should be patient and wait for a better land transport system because ours is still very new. From my point of view, I believe that since we actually started off quite late, there should indeed be a sense of urgency for us to build a comparable system in the shortest possible time. Singapore has become a developed country in a short span of 30 years. Singaporeans are used to moving fast and I think the LTA should lay down in the White Paper a time-table showing the various milestones to achieve this vision of a world class land transport system. I hope that once Parliament endorses the principle behind this White Paper, the LTA should remedy this shortcoming.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper before us is a well thought and well written piece of document, depicting the concept of a world class land transport system to usher Singapore into the new century. It describes the architecture of a world class land transport system comprising the following modes - the MRT, the LRT, buses, taxis and private vehicles - each serving the needs of the commuters based on their personal choices. It paints a picture of seamless integration between the various modes of land transportation. This goal of a world class land transport system is a worthy one for us to pursue as this is a vision with universal appeal. Sir, I believe most Singaporeans will support this vision of the White Paper. Therefore, not unexpectedly, most of the concerns expressed by the general public on the White Paper centre around the financial framework under which this land transport system will be built and brought into being. Here, Sir, I find the White Paper too intent in its agenda to drive home the message that the user must pay for the use of the system. To drive home this message, it lays down three principles of cost recovery, namely, adjust fare regularly, cost recovery and asset replacement. Frankly speaking, I think there is basically only one principle, ie, cost recovery. I think most Singaporeans will accept this principle of cost recovery for operation. The other two principles, for instance, asset replacement and fare adjustment, are mechanisms to achieve the objective and can be subsumed under the simple basis of operating with sufficient fare adjustment to support cost recovery. Therefore, I find the financial principle proposed in the White Paper as simply the following.”
“Sir, how does the Ministry of Education ensure that the promotion exercise is fair and equitable across all schools?”
“If we establish the LTA in such a way that the LTA is going to keep most of its funds from the land transportation system, like PSA, then this problem of transitional government will no longer arise.”
“Whereas if you decide to build the North-East line today, it is possible that some of the funds can be used. In other words, we have sufficient surplus to build it. If we wait till the next general election, the next Government will start with zero in their Consolidated Fund and they would have to wait a few more years until the Consolidated Fund is built up in order to build the North-East line.”
“So if we were to build the North-East line in the next term of Government, the sum of, say, $5 billion, has to be raised by the next Government, even though it is under Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Whereas by the end of this term of Government we probably would have collected maybe $3 billion from COE premiums, which will no longer be available for use to build the North-East line.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I raised a point in my speech regarding the provisions of the Elected President and I would like to seek confirmation from the Minister whether my understanding is correct. I stated that under the provisions of the Elected President, all the reserves we put into the Consolidated Fund after the current term of Government will then become our reserve, which would no longer be available to the next Government to tap, even for land transportation improvements. Is that correct?”
“However, Sir, if one takes a helicopter view, one can visualise the distributed network of roads and railroads in exactly the same manner as the airport and the port. Furthermore, as the Minister has just said, the Government has always justified the measure to keep our roads free flowing on the economic ground that it is an important infrastructure in Singapore. So I would suggest that the visualization I propose is only one additional small step forward. Sir, I believe we should set up the LTA in the same mode as CAAS and the PSA, to plan, build and operate the land transportation system. We should give it the mandate and enough resources to build the land transportation system of tomorrow. As land transportation touches the life of every Singaporean every day, this Bill is likely to be one of the most important Bills introduced in this House. I support the Bill. I am proud that we have a visionary in the Minister. I am also proud that our civil servants are prepared to give up their own turf for greater interests. I would only urge the Minister to take the logical step to allow th e new Land Transport Authority of Singapore to manage our land transportation system as a crucial resource for the nation, much like the CAAS and PAS. I am confident that given this mandate, we will have, in the not so distant future, the best land transportation system in the world.”
“I am also sure that all car owners would be quite happy to see their money being used this way to relieve the pressure of future COE price increases. Hence, I would advocate that Government allows the LTA to function much like the other statutory bodies in the Ministry of Communications, such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) in keeping more of the revenue in the land transportation system within the Authority. In the case of CAAS and the PSA, these organisations have used their resources wisely to improve their infrastructure to the benefit of Singapore. Today, we have the best airport and the best port in the world. They have also used the resources to plan for the future without having to justify every project on its own viability. For instance, when PSA proceeds with its plan to construct the new container port, it utilises more than $7 billion from its cash reserve. If we were to apply the same principle to PSA and ask it to justify the new container port on its own viability, it is possible that the new container port would be deferred for several years. Perhaps it is easy to rationalise the operation of the airport and the port as the CAAS and PSA manage crucial entry points into Singapore by air and by sea. The efficiency of the management of these is also important to the economic development of Singapore. They are also centralised at certain locations. It is perhaps less easy to visualise land transportation in the same manner. For one thing, the resources of land transportation are distributed throughout Singapore. For another, land transport serves mainly Singaporeans in their daily commute.”
“If we apply the same principle to the MRT as we apply to the bus companies, the question we should ask is whether the SMRT will remain profitable in operating the whole system including the North-East line? Mr Speaker, Sir, in operating the land transportation system, the Government is adopting an approach of piecemeal optimisation in the belief that the summation of all these piecemeal optimal solutions would result in a globally optimal solution. Sir, I would surmise that this might not be true. The LTAS Bill provides us with a good opportunity today to address this problem of sectorisation. We should consider the operation as well as the planning of the land transportation system as a total system. We should allow the paradigm shift, I mentioned earlier, initiated by this Bill to go all the way. What do I mean by that? I suggest that we do not look at private vehicles and public transportation as separate and unrelated modes of moving people around. Instead, they are actually alternatives people choose based on their own preference of balancing cost versus convenience. Sir, I surmise that this is a very different approach. In this case, the land transportation system would be viewed as a total system. As long as the whole system is viable, it should be acceptable if part of the system makes money and the other part loses money. Of course, we must ensure that in subsidising one sector against the other, we would not encourage dependency and unbridled consumption. Therefore, if we look at the system as a whole, it is viable or feasible to use COE money to improve the public transportation system such as building new MRT lines and LRT lines.”
“In effect, it becomes a new source of tax revenue when it was not meant to be. Worse still, under the provision of the Elected President, which is meant to safeguard our reserve, the COE money ultimately becomes part of the reserve, especially after the current term of the Government when Parliament is dissolved. It gets locked away and becomes unavailable, even to the same Prime Minister in the new Government to tap for land transportation system improvements. This can be problematic, Sir, since land transportation solution such as MRT lines and LRT lines would typically take more than five years to plan and build. From the private vehicle owner's point of view, acquiring a COE today becomes an exercise of his ability to bump another fellow Singaporean off the car ownership queue. Is the money he contributed used to relieve the constant pressure of ever-rising COE prices in future? No, Sir. When the person goes back to the COE market a few years down the road, he has still to go through the same treadmill. He does not see his COE money being used to provide relief to car ownership. Another problem of sectorisation is the justification of new bus routes, MRT lines and LRT lines. For instance, before a new MRT line is built, such as the North-East line, its viability is analyzed and considered on its own in isolation to the rest of the MRT system. On the other hand, Sir, bus companies are supposed to average the revenue from all money-making as well as money-losing routes to meet their social obligations to the commuting public. So that leaves one to wonder why different principles are applied to different sectors. Why is the North-East line considered in isolation and not as part of the total MRT system?”
“Furthermore, this legislation calls for the merger of four Government departments from two Ministries with their own well-defined turfs. In other countries, inter-Ministry rivalry and civil servants' instinctive protection of their turf would have killed the Bill. I am glad that in Singapore, we have civil servants who are prepared to forgo departmental interests for the greater interest of the nation. I think this House should acknowledge these civil servants for their selfless dedication in supporting this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is currently constituted, the LTA will keep only a small portion of the revenue to maintain its operation but the larger amount of revenue collected such as road taxes, COE quota premium and in future usage fees, such as Electronic Road Pricing, will continue to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. As the Minister said, to fund other infrastructure development, we might have to borrow money in the open market. This, to me, is still reflective of the old mentality in the operation of the land transport system. To me, Sir, the paradigm shift I mentioned earlier is incomplete. What are the problems of the existing approach? There are many. The key one is that each sector of the land transport system is considered distinct and separate from the rest. In other words, private vehicles are considered private vehicles. Public transportation is public transportation. They are managed separately even though they share the same infrastructure. How do we address the problem of too many vehicles on the road? The COE system is introduced to control the number. Motorists pay large amounts of money for the right to register their vehicles. What has happened to the money they pay? They are transferred to the Consolidated Fund.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill would merge four existing departments, viz, MINCOM'S Land Transport Division, PWD's Road and Transportation Department, ROV and MRTC into one single entity. As the Minister put it in his speech, the vision is for the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to plan and develop infrastructure for land transport of Singapore as a total system. For new satellite towns and commercial developments, for instance, this will be done as an integral part of town planning together with HDB and URA. In other words, transportation is built into the system even before the housing units are constructed. The objective is to move people around using various modes of public transportation as seamlessly as possible. Roads and LRT/MRT tracks will be designed to serve people in a more user friendly manner. Intermodal transfer between bus and train will be seamless and a great improvement over the situation today. For instance, one could visualise stepping off a train, and stepping right onto a bus across the platform or vice versa. It will be a complete departure from the conventional view of building land transport infrastructure as captured in the Chinese proverb: ( ), which means that the road exists because people walk there. In the conventional method, a road is built if there is enough traffic. An MRT line is constructed if there are enough passengers to justify its viability. Transportation infrastructure, in the conventional approach, is an after-thought. Sir, the new approach, to borrow a term from the business arena, is a paradigm shift. I dare say that this is an innovation in legislation, probably never attempted elsewhere in the world. This demonstrates the calibre of our Cabinet and, in particular, the vision of the Minister.”
“Yes, I will be finishing. But then where would the city find parking space for these taxis? So either way we are faced with this very difficult problem and I urge that the Land Transport Authority give this concern due consideration. I find the statement that empty cruising should be reduced, because it is undesirable, too simplistic.”
“Of course, unless the ERP rates for using the road are so high that taxis will be immobilised when they are not carrying passengers.”
“Many of us have indeed experienced the frustrating wait for an empty taxi during those times. Therefore, one can only reduce empty cruise rate by so much. This phenomenon should be obvious to anyone who has studied the queuing theory. From experience, the current empty cruising rate of 30-plus percent is about at the right level. Although the Minister did not mention it, I think the Ministry is thinking of reducing the empty cruising rate by increasing the use of radio calls. This would also help the Ministry to implement the ERP system in future because somebody has to pay for the ERP charges as the taxis cruise empty. Sir, if you look at the facts, we have indeed a long way to go before we could change the current usage of radio calls for taxis from the current 5% to even, say, 20% of the total usage. This is so for several reasons. The current radio spectrum dedicated for radio calls is completely used up. Perhaps with better management, one can squeeze a greater usage out of it. But to do so, heavy capital investment in the order of $5,000 per taxi would have to be required. Who would have to pay for this? Already the current radio call fee of $2.20 is not a very strong incentive for taxi drivers and this is also the reason why during peak hours taxi operators prefer to take passengers off the kerb than to respond to a radio call. Even if we could change the mix to 20-80, there is still this 80% of services that have to be catered through hailing and a sizeable fleet is still going to be cruising the street looking for passengers. Furthermore, the compactness of our city would make a much higher percentage of radio calls unrealistic to achieve within the foreseeable future.”
“Sir, before I proceed on this topic of taxi service, I would like to declare my interest as a Board Member of Comfort Group Limited. Sir, by and large, Singaporeans can be proud of the taxi service being economical and efficient. Currently, since Mr Goh has talked about radio calls, 5% of the services in Singapore are catered by radio calls and the balance through hailing a taxi off the kerb. Our taxi operators are generally hardworking and honest. True, there are certain areas which can be improved and these are primarily related to the lack of taxis during peak hours as well as the difficulties of placing a radio call. However, these are nitty-gritty issues which could be resolved readily if the Public Transport Council could adopt a more market-oriented approach in taxi fare structure. In the Ministerial statement announcing the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the section on taxi service has noted that empty cruising is undesirable and hence the Ministry would be implementing policies to reduce it. I am concerned about this seemingly innocuous statement. Empty cruising rate is determined by taking the number of kilometres when a taxi travels without passengers and divide that by the total distance travelled during a given period. Currently, the average empty cruise rate is about 33%. And from the road usage point of view, empty cruising uses up valuable road space and should be reduced. From the taxi driver's point of view, he also wants to reduce empty cruising to get a better return. However, by reducing the empty cruising rate, occasionally, there will be insufficient taxis on the road to cater for demand, and this in fact already happens during rainy days when the demand goes up while the empty cruising rate goes down.”
“Could we not use the NMP mechanism to induct private sector talent at their existing income, existing pay, into those non-political posts? These are not new ideas. The Deputy Prime Minister, in moving the NMP Bill, had touched on this. When the Cabinet has serving Members from the private sector, drawing private sector pay, then benchmarking political Ministers' pay would no longer be a matter of faith. I believe there are merits in this proposal, the details of which can be delved into later. Basically, I think it would be a shame that at this time, when the House is debating a substantive change to the Ministers' pay package, we do not explore this option as well. Sir, I think we have to decide whether our Ministers are political leaders or just very capable political entrepreneurs. As long as we prefer our Ministers to be political leaders, our people would like to see them as individuals, motivated by idealism, fired by a sense of mission and driven by a desire to serve.”
“Perhaps they had given this problem of recruiting talent into government some very deep thought. Because, at that time in their history, theirs was a new country without a landed ruling class, like the British. It was a situation very similar to Singapore. They innovated and devised a new system with separation of the judiciary, legislature and the executive. A member of the US executive can be inducted straight from the private sector. The best could be nominated by the President and confirmed by the legislature. To distinguish them from the politicians, they are even given a different title - Secretary of Department. They serve their terms, they contribute to the nation and they return to the private sector. The Senior Minister says that political entrepreneurs are needed for success. That is true. And he looks for them in the private sector. But this process of selecting and inducting capable and talented individuals from the private sector is not part of the Westminster model of government that we have in Singapore. It is more like the US executive mode of government. May I humbly suggest that this is also part of the root cause of the difficulty in inducting talent into the Cabinet. We are trying to use a very old instrument, the British Cabinet system, to serve the needs of the Government in a very modern world. The White Paper proposes a mechanism using pay to overcome this problem of the system. May I ask the Prime Minister whether we should look into introducing fundamental changes in the Cabinet system to address this? Perhaps we too should innovate and create a new system to meet Singapore's needs. Could we not have a mixture of political and non-political Ministerial positions in the Cabinet?”
“I believe the prestige of the Ministers might be eroded in the short term since they will be the main beneficiaries under this proposal. This disruption in rapport would take time to amend. Thus, I find the timing of this White Paper to be a bit perplexing. With the next general election rumoured to be just around the corner, Mr Speaker, Sir, why do we choose this time to introduce a very, very touchy subject? Sir, this problem of paying our political leaders well and yet at the same time have to placate voters' sentiments is not unique. In fact, it is an inherent problem of the parliamentary system we inherited from the British. The Prime Minister in his speech already pointed out the corruption in the current British Parliament arises partly because of this reason - poor pay. The Senior Minister also pointed out in his speech that the calibre of the British Minister is not high compared to the private sector, for the very same reason. So is it possible to say that the system itself is part of the problem? If we were to have high pay for our Ministers, who is to say that no future Singaporean politician will use the slogan, "Vote for me, and I'll cut the Minister's pay by half," and thereby win votes and get into Parliament. I remember, as a young man, when the Senior Minister, who was then the Prime Minister, cut his own pay and all the pay of the civil servants, I applauded. Today, wouldn't a young man applaud another politician vowing to do the same thing, and gaining a lot of popular support? Sir, the United States, which was also a British colony, did not adopt the Westminster system when it became independent slightly over 200 years ago. Why? Perhaps their founding fathers did not change the system just to be different.”
“Just think about how the people would have reacted if this pay formula were in place when the Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister for Trade and Industry, moved in this House to cut CPF contribution of everyone in Singapore by 15% to pull the nation out of the 1985 recession. A big question mark, isn't it? Sir, political leaders are also entrusted with making very difficult and tough decisions that will touch our lives very deeply. Past decisions of this nature include calling up young men for national service, mother tongue education, restriction of right to reside in Singapore for foreign spouse, corrective work orders, etc. Future decisions could involve sending our young men into combat in defence of Singapore. Only political leaders with the moral authority to lead could make such decisions and be obeyed. I think we should not dilute that moral authority. Hence, the calibre of a political leader cannot be measured by his earning power alone inside or outside the Government. Neither should we select one just because he is very successful in his own profession. As political leaders, our Ministers have to mobilise grassroots leaders in the RCs, MCs and the CCCs, all of whom are volunteers. The Senior Minister spoke about them and how they are the people that turn the concrete jungle of Singapore into a living community. These people serve without pay and often times dig into their pockets to pay in order to serve the community. I think this emphasis on Ministers' pay would not go down very well with them. Even before a single new blood could be inducted into the Cabinet under the new formula, every serving Minister's pay would have gone up.”