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 15 of 21.
“Thank you, Sir. I too would like to seek a clarification from Mr Koo. He has used my speech as one of the reasons for his coming out to speak but, given his eloquence, he does not need my excuse. But, anyway, he has handed out a table, and I appreciate Members handing out tables. However, from the numbers he has given in the table, the only correlation I can tell is that high GST means high unemployment, given the fact that everything being equal. I would appreciate it if he could explain further why he hands out such numbers.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider allowing market forces to determine the proper price for telecommunication services? On "market forces", I wonder whether he would allow other private companies to come in to provide services, in particular, value added services.”
“Does the Minister realise that these owners of strata title buildings are small owners? And it is very difficult for them to come together as a group to decide how to convert the buildings to residential use. Would the URA consider holding a dialogue session with this group of owners to address their concern and resolve the issue?”
“Sir, does the Minister realise that some of these strata title buildings are relatively new? In fact, some of them are less than 10 years old. And to force them to demolish the building is a waste of money.”
“Yes. I can ask my question in one minute. I would like to find out from the Minister whether the land under the elevated MRT track can be better used than at present. In Tokyo, one finds shops and restaurants under rail tracks and these are thriving and bustling places. In Singapore, these lands are just left vacant. I wonder whether the Minister would consider allowing businesses or community organisations to use such land. 3.00 pm”
“I think it is important for the Minister to share his thinking on this matter early so that taxi companies could plan ahead, thereby minimising the disruption of service to passengers. For instance, would the Ministry assist in getting the PWD to construct taxi stands with a lot of parking lots for taxis, instead of the usual two lots nowadays, or get URA to look for land for taxi companies to build taxi depots? Furthermore, I think it is only fair that passengers pay the ERP charges in future once they hire the taxi. The question is whether the ERP device in the vehicles can be integrated with the taxi meters. If the two meters are not integrated, then manual operation will be required and the potential for fraud and dispute is high. The integration is technically achievable provided the relevant authority incorporates this requirement early into the design specifications.”
“Sir, before I proceed on the ERP, I would like to declare my interest on this topic as I am a member on the board of directors of NTUC Comfort. What I would like to address here is the impact on the taxi industry after the implementation of the ERP. What I would like to find out is whether it would still be feasible for taxis to cruise around looking for passengers at that time. Cruising is indeed the normal mode of operation for taxis nowadays, so much so that Singaporeans have developed this mentality that when we see a parked taxi, we would immediatelMicome to the conclusion that either the driver is lazy or he is making too much money to be able to afford the leisure. So various levies would then be introduced by the ROV to make him work harder. However, when ERP is introduced, unless taxis are exempted from the ERP levies, cruising around looking for passengers would just add another cost to the taxi drivers. When the driver cruises around empty looking for passengers, his ERP meter will be ticking away. The tendency would then be for the driver to minimise driving around. How strong this tendency will be will depend on the ERP charges. I would presume, given historical trends, that the same charges which apply to cars would apply to taxis. It is possible that when the rate increases beyond a certain rate, very few taxis would cruise around. They will all be forced to wait at taxi stands or at taxi depots. Taxi companies would then need to operate taxi depots at convenient locations around the city to provide a reasonable level of service to taxi passengers. However, doing so, would need time and capital.”
“Sir, it seems to me that the PTC does not always have the same broad perspective as the former regulatory authority, the ROV. It seems to have a much narrower perspective, with greater emphasis on the interest of public bus companies which are, after all also represented on the PTC with equal voting rights as other members on the Council. Surely that was not the intention of Dr Beng who proposed the establishment of the PTC. May I ask the Minister whether the same inclination is carried over to the bus route rationalisation exercise that is still going on currently? Maybe we should relook at the membership of the PTC to give a greater voice to the interest of the bus commuters. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister can ask the PTC to look into allowing alternative bus operators, such as the Clementi Park Condominium, greater flexibility in running shuttle services to better serve their residents. Along this line, would the Minister consider allowing Town Councils to run their own shuttle service to serve their residents, since many Town Councils are having difficulties getting SBS or TIBS to provide the service? Would he permit enough flexibility in laying out the routes so that the service would at least break even? Sir, can I go on to the next topic?”
“The outcome seems to be that more of the money losing or less profitable routes were expunged. Often times, this was done first and then the outcome was informed to the CCC concerned. Feedback from the ground would normally be ignored. I would like to find out from the Minister whether, under the pretext of integration, the past social contract of the bus company to provide public service has been thrown to the wayside. Furthermore, at times, the decision of the PTC makes one wonder whether the PTC serves the interest of the bus companies or the commuting public. Let me give an example. The Clementi Park Condominium at the end of Sunset Way ran a very successful private shuttle service, completely funded by the residents in the condominium. Prior to the establishment of the PTC, ROV granted the management corporation permission to run a shuttle from the condominium to three destinations, the Clementi MRT station, the Bukit Timah Plaza and the Cold Storage Jelita. That was great as residents living along Sunset Way could hop on to the shuttle and left their cars behind when they wanted to go to these destinations. This serves the bigger picture of reducing car usage among the residents. Soon after the PTC was established, permission to run this shuttle to Bukit Timah Plaza and Cold Storage Jelita was withdrawn and only the shuttle run to Clementi MRT station was allowed to continue. Did those who no longer can take the shuttle to Bukit Timah Plaza or Cold Storage Jelita take public transportation instead? The answer is definitely no. These people own cars. They just switched to driving instead. Did the bus company gain anything from curtailing these two services? Unlikely. So it seems to me that this is a classic case of the triumph of self interest over common sense.”
“Sir, the MRT has brought great changes to the Singapore commuting public. It is comfortable, dependable and affordable. Owing to the need to integrate the MRT and the bus system, it has also brought great changes to the bus routes. More than that, it has also introduced new innovations, for instance, the fare card system which is unique to Singapore and has substantially enhanced the ease of transfer. These changes are all very positive, indeed quite revolutionary changes that have taken place quietly without major fanfare. This has put Singapore in the forefront of public transportation development in the world. We should all be proud of this achievement. However, many bus commuters are lamenting the inconveniences brought about by the major transformation of bus routes over the past two years. They are unhappy about the changes and yearn for the old and familiar. Before the MRT and Public Transport Council (PTC) were established, the Ministry exercised control over the approval of bus routes. The two bus companies were required to operate a share of money-losing routes as a condition for the franchise to operate in Singapore. Indeed, there was this social contract to provide public service, and proper checks and balances were put in place. For instance, route changes in the past were normally discussed beforehand with the Citizens' Consultative Committee concerned and their inputs were incorporated with the changes. After the establishment of the PTC, everything related to public transportation, including setting of fares and operation of bus routes, fell under the purview of this Council. And in the process of MRT and bus integration, many bus routes were removed, re-routed, shortened, etc.”
“However, being a fee-based service, only those who pay for the service get to watch it. So, in this respect, it is no different from renting video tapes from a video library. This will also address the needs of the older non-Mandarin speaking Chinese population. Doing so will probably ensure the commercial viability of this venture. With this as a base, an independent Singapore television company could be formed. Sir, while I welcome foreign participation in our television industry, we should nonetheless incubate the development of our own local company in this very important media. As we seek to build a second wing for our economy, what could be better than our very own television network beaming Singapore shows and video series via television satellite to the region. May I have the Minister's comments on my remarks?”
“However, if Singapore wants to be a motion picture and video production centre, which is one plank in the EDB's promotion for the Singapore industry in the next decade, then producing local talent and television programmes is a necessary step. And we should encourage local companies, like NTUC Radio, or even Rediffusion, to venture into TV broadcasting. Furthermore, television is a mass media with power to mould public opinion. Its reach is so pervasive that in the latest US presidential election, the innovation in the election engineering was the appearance of candidates on the talk shows. Furthermore, as Dr Vasoo has just now talked about cultural heritage, young people spend hours watching television and, therefore, TV also helps to shape the character of our future society and plays a major role in forming our future culture. As such, I think it is important that, as we introduce more special interest channels, the interests of Singapore should be safeguarded. I am concerned that the American programmes which dominate HBO and CNN could leave an indelible impression in the minds of our youths. I am concerned that as our youths are fed a constant diet of American culture, Singaporeans are becoming more and more, to borrow a term from my colleague, Mr Walter Woon, "cosmopolitan". So I agree with Dr Vasoo that somehow or other we should take charge of our own destiny in our own culture. Sir, would a local television company be successful? Perhaps, the mode of operation of HBO could be adopted here and this new channel could screen many movies using languages commonly understood by Singaporeans, including movies in Chinese dialects. One might argue that this is against the Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
“Sir, recently the Minister officiated at the opening of Home Box Office's (HBO) regional headquarters in Singapore. The operation of HBO channel is part of the liberalisation of our radio and television industry by the Ministry to give Singaporeans a better choice in their home entertainment. I believe this is a move in the right direction. It is noteworthy that, in radio, liberalisation had led to the establishment of NTUC Radio Heart and it is pretty successful by any measure. This is a wholly-owned Singapore company with Singapore programmes. This service attracts a large audience and its DJs have become household names. Faced with competition, the SBC radio services have also improved significantly. In television, Sir, the picture is quite different. All the service channels for news and movies are dominated by foreign companies. Through these fee-based services, we have allowed foreign companies access to a potentially lucrative market. Very few countries in the world give foreign companies unfettered access to their TV audience. Similarly, I think we should always ensure that local companies are given a piece of the action. Furthermore, the local companies should be given the opportunity to gain the knowledge and technology of running such a fee-based company to gain a toehold in this very important industry. It is regrettable to note that to-date, no local company is deemed suitable to run such a service. Sir, I realise that producing television programmes is several orders of magnitude more complex than producing radio programmes.”
“Of course, if the Minister thinks that it is beyond his Ministry's charter, perhaps he can consider issuing TOLs to town councils together with grants that would cover the normal upkeep of these lands. I am confident the town councils will be happy to participate in this venture, particularly the Jurong East Town Council.”
“Sir, there are many HDB estates with canals and rivers running through them and these minor waterways are bordered by reserve land on both sides and this reserve land tends to be narrow and long. And being adjacent to HDB estates, this land is readily accessible by the public. The jogging track along the Ulu Pandan canal in Ghim Moh is an excellent example. However, these lands are under the management of the Ministry of the Environment and trying to make use of this land for recreational purposes can be a bureaucratic nightmare. I read about the new URA guidelines for allowing new property development all the way to the water edge. Would it not be wonderful if a town council which wants to provide a better living environment to its residents can plan for an integrated approach for the usage of these narrow pieces of land? However, these lands are not easily available from the Ministry although the Ministry has done an outstanding job in cleaning up the waterways. If it were to be given to the town council, a jogging track can be constructed, benches can be placed, palm trees can be planted and barbecue pits can be sited at strategic locations. All in all, a scenic setting for a gracious living. Sir, I think it is time for the Ministry to take on a greater responsibility. Instead of just maintaining these waterways, I would like to urge the Minister to take on the leadership to utilise these reserve lands along the waterways for recreational use. I am confident that as more and more Singaporeans gain access to these recreational facilities, the standard of living in Singapore will be so much more gracious.”
“Sir, since I have not much time, let me go straight to the point.”
“It is interesting to note that the Minister for Finance did not use the word "abolish" when he suspends these taxes, thereby leaving open the option of reintroducing these taxes in future. I would urge the Minister not to be too quick in their reintroduction. Perhaps the Government should take this opportunity to review whether these taxes are needed in the first place under the new tax regime and, hopefully, abolish them entirely. One thing I am pretty confident of is that the reduction of cess to 1% would indeed be temporary. Cess is the sole source of income for the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB) whose function must be continued for the benefit of the tourist industry in Singapore. I do not think STPB is getting any of this GST revenue. This is quite clear from STPB's support for the refund of GST to the tourists. As such, I think it is a matter of time before cess would be increased back to 3% or more, perhaps in one or two years' time. It looks like that instead of having plus-plus on our bills, the day of plus-plus-plus would be a feature of Singapore living very soon. In conclusion, Sir, let me reiterate my support for the tax reforms introduced by the Minister in his budget. I only hope that he will take some of my comments into consideration.”
“By looking at that particular Appendix, I come out with some interesting figures. The total tax reduction in this budget is $1,070 million, of which $318 million is corporate tax reduction. This means that the reduction given to the population at large, if we remove the corporate tax, is $1,070 million less $318 million, which is $752 million. This is before the temporary relief of $34 million. On the other hand, the GST on consumers is expected to generate around $921 million. There is a difference between $921 million and $752 million, and the difference is close to $169 million, which is the tax burden shifted from the companies on to all groups of consumers. This is not a small number that we are talking about. It amounts to about 50% of the corporate income tax reduction. Even if we throw in the temporary relief of $34 million, the transferred tax burden still amounts to $135 million. Who bears this burden? It is possible that the GST on business consumption, which cannot be reimbursed, would form part of this amount. If that is the case, then the total cost base of doing business would have increased, thereby partially offsetting the benefit of corporate tax reduction. If households have to bear part of this burden, then some households would really be feeling the pinch since the Minister has assured us that most households would be better off. So, instead of me making guesses, perhaps I would request the Minister to enlighten me which groups bear the additional amount of money and what would be the impact on them. Sir, another issue I would like to bring up is the reduction or the suspension of Government taxes with the implementation of GST.”
“I urge him to err on the safe side and maybe keep some tricks up his sleeve with additional rebates or higher quota of rebates, if necessary, so that the expectation that the Government has created in the people's mind that "no household should be worse-off" can be met. I think a lot of people will be disappointed and they will feel short-changed if their experience does not match up with their heightened expectation. If this is indeed the case, this could generate a backlash of unhappiness towards the Government upon the implementation of GST. In retrospect, in my mind, Sir, it would have been better for Government to adopt the stance that GST is a tax reform to create a more rewarding business environment. By making business more profitable, it is hoped that entrepreneurs will take greater risks and create greater wealth. More MNCs will come to Singapore to establish their business. It is hoped that with companies being more profitable, the employees of these companies will receive better compensation and everyone would be better off in the long run. However, this would come at a price. And the price is the shifting of tax burden from businesses on to consumers, thereby increasing their tax burden as a group. We should state this very clearly as a fact of life and create the proper expectation in the minds of the people. In future, if the GST-induced inflation can be controlled and indeed the tax rebates more than offset the increased tax burden, then the outcome would be a bonus. This would have been my preferred approach. Sir, coming to the shifting of tax burden from businesses on to the consumers, I would like to use Appendix G of the Minister's speech, which is Total Revenue Loss to Government of Offsets.”
“However, if one looks at the figures very carefully, one would realise that the balance for every case would come out to be positive because the Minister made a very important assumption, ie, price increase will go up by 3% and no more. I asked myself this very simple question: by how many percent would prices go up in 1994 before all these positive balances go to zero? For the 1-room rental flat, my computation shows that the net gain will become zero when price increases by 6.8%, inclusive of the 3% GST. There is a margin of about 3.8%. So for others, the margin is even narrower. If you look down the table, you will see that the figure ranges from 4.7% to 4.1% for 2-room flats; for 3-room flats it is about 5%, and 4-room HDB purchased flats, 4.6%. In other words, the margin is that narrow. If the price increases indeed go beyond 5% for the household, all these gains will be wiped out. I would like to highlight this fact to the Minister who, I must assume, is well aware of the situation. As my colleagues, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Toh have mentioned, even without profiteering, the effect of rounding up and the cost of GST compliance would probably drive up prices by more than 3%. So the chances of zero balance instead of positive balance are very high. Of course, with profiteering, the bright picture the Minister presents no longer exists. I think this shows how important it is for the Government to ensure that there is no undue price increase. Furthermore, I would like to urge the Minister to be more pessimistic in his analysis on the impact of GST.”
“The budget announced by the Minister clearly demonstrates the Government's resolve to put its money where its mouth is, and I quote the Minister: 'We will ensure that as far as possible, no household should be worse-off when the GST is implemented.' In fact, I think the Government is bending backward to make GST palatable. Through income tax reduction, tax rebates and suspension of usage taxes, most households would come up ahead. I could not recall any incident in the past that this Government has done something similar. I commend Mr Goh and his Cabinet for the compassion they have shown to the people of Singapore, in particular, the lower income group. My only reservation is that the Government might be doing too good a job in selling GST. By now, every Singaporean is under the impression that overall they will come up ahead when GST is introduced. In fact, there was one person who came to my meet-the-people session very much aggrieved that in future he would be worse off because he is not paying any tax now, as a result of the Government's third child incentive scheme. By default, people like him would be worse off when GST is implemented. I bring this fact up not because I think he is deserving of consideration but because of this impression left in the people's mind. At this juncture, may I ask the Clerk ofParliament to distribute the tables used by the Minister in his Budget Statement. [Copies of tables distributed to hon. Members] These are the five tables in Appendix F of his Budget Statement, Annual Accounts of Different Types of Flats, to demonstrate how different households would fare from 1st April 1994 till 31st March 1999 under a 3% GST regime.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the CPF Top-Up Scheme introduced in this year's budget. The Minister for Finance has also mentioned that depending on future surpluses in the Government budget, more disbursements would be coming along the way. I recall urging the Government to share the fruits of Government surpluses in a more direct way in last year's budget. This Top-Up Scheme reminds me of the cash disbursement by the Alaskan Government to the residents of Alaska when its coffers overflowed with money from its oil-boom years. Singapore does not have an oil field, but our reserve is better than having one. Properly managed, the nation can tap this reserve for generations to come. I think the people of Singapore should let this fact sink into their mind, that future disbursement will be the norm so long as the PAP continues to form the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, both the two tax reforms introduced by the Government in this budget, namely, incentives to promote an external economy and the corporate and personal income tax rebates, will sustain a long term economic growth for Singapore, as eloquently argued by my colleague, Mr Koo Tsai Kee. The incentive for an external economy is a non-controversial issue and is welcomed by everyone. The same cannot be said of GST, which is introduced to make up for the shortfall of revenue from corporate and personal income tax. Like my colleagues, I would not go into the pros and cons of GST, as there is a GST Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. However, I would like to discuss about the tax rebates introduced in this year's budget, mainly to annul the impact of GST. The Government has declared many times in the past that GST is not an exercise to collect more revenue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, which organisation has been commissioned to undertake the "environmental impact study" and what are their credentials?”
“The situation in the telecommunication arena after this Bill is enacted is quite similar to the public transportation industry prior to the establishment of PTC with ROV being the regulator, and SBS and TIBS being the operating companies. The establishment of the PTC means that there must be benefits to be derived with the establishment of such an authority. So we must have learnt some lessons from the operation of the PTC. To me, for instance, the PTC has allowed more citizen participation by giving the common citizens an access to the decision-making process. I think the lesson we learnt there can also be applied in this case. And if we do so by establishing a public committee to review and to regulate the telephone service, we are just moving the industry in line with the practices in other developed countries. I would like to ask the Minister to look into the possibility of setting up another PTC, in this case, the Public Telecommunication Council, to better regulate the marketplace.”
“Even in broadcasting and television which I note is specifically excluded from the purview of Singapore Telecom in this Bill, Singapore Telecom is currently involved in a joint study on cable television together with SBC. To me, this reflects a predatory tendency in the culture of Singapore Telecom which could be further unleashed as an unrestrained private company. In this respect, Sir, it is useful to note that in Hongkong, which used to have a monopoly company in cables and wireless for the cable-based telephone service, there are three companies providing mobile telephone services to the benefit of the consumers in Hongkong. BG George Yeo, in his speech supporting the privatisation of SBC, pointed out that satellite dishes for television broadcasting are getting very small. I can say that the same can be said regarding telecommunication services and equipment. Already suitcase-size mobile phones and communicating via satellite are a reality. So using BG Yeo's argument, how long can the marketplace be controlled in view of telecommunication and technological changes? Sir, I note that the Minister has already agreed that, in future, competing telecommunication service companies can be allowed. I would urge him to consider introducing such competition early to the benefit of all Singaporeans. In terms of checks and balances between the regulating authority and the operating company after the enactment of this Bill, I would like to ask the Minister why we did not adopt the model of the Public Transport Council (PTC) in regulating the marketplace.”
“The Minister, in his speech yesterday, when he dealt with the evolution of bus services in Singapore, elaborated on how and why TIBS was established after SBS, as a monopoly, failed to provide satisfactory service to commuters. He has stated unequivocally that with two companies competing, the service level has improved while the cost to the commuters has been kept low. I could have lifted his speech, replacing "SBS" wherever it occurs with "Singapore Telecom" and "TIBS" with another telephone company to argue persuasively for introducing another player into the telephone service industry. Coming to the postal services in Singapore, unlike telephone services, in fact, the postal services face competition in its industry. There are many courier services, including DHL, UPS, which provide fast and efficient overnight mails to overseas countries. So the analogy, in this case, on telephone service is easy to perceive. Local mail is like a domestic telephone network and overseas mail is like international telephone services with different agents providing different levels of services to different customers according to their needs. Despite this competition, the postal services in Singapore are doing very well and are also making money. So I do not think that there is actually any fundamental objection to introducing competition in a largely monopolistic marketplace. It is unfortunate or, maybe, fortunate that in the telecommunication services in Singapore, we have an absolute monopoly. Not only that, Singapore Telecom has its fingers in all areas of telecommunication services, including mobile phones, zone phones, public office automation service, Teleview, and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill paves the way for the privatisation of Singapore Telecom. To most Singaporeans they are not so much concerned as to whether Singapore Telecom is privatised, corporatised, or restructured. They are more interested in what the restructuring or the privatisation means to them. As far as the marketplace for telecommunication services is concerned, the situation before and after the enactment of this Bill remains the same, that is, primarily a monopolistic marketplace. As such, it is useful for the Minister to go back to the fundamental objectives of the privatisation exercise. He mentioned two of the primary objectives. They are good reasons but those are the reasons of Singapore Telecom. I am disappointed with him that he did not place services to the consumers as one of the major objectives of the privatisation exercise as well, because from past experiences, particularly from the experiences of corporatisation of Government hospitals, many Singaporeans have come up with this perception that privatisation means higher costs. So, it seems to me that it will be an opportunity lost not to introduce competition into the communication marketplace during this process of privatisation. Monopoly in the early days of telecommunication services was justifiable on the grounds of substantial capital investment in the cabling plants for subscribers. In those days, when the key consideration was to provide universal service, service to everyone, monopoly was a good vehicle to increase the penetration of service. However, today, when the penetration has reached saturation level, the emphasis should be on service to customers, service to consumers. And there is no better way to introduce better service to consumers than competition.”
“Sir, may I get the Minister's comment on the privatisation of CAAS?”
“30 pm The issue of privatisation of CAAS has been looked into currently, and if privatisation could help this matter, I would urge the Minister to review this matter with some urgency. As I have noted earlier, SIA and its subsidiary, Tradewinds, could not truly and fully utilise the potential offered by the unused reciprocal landing rights of our air services agreements. I am not certain whether all those unused routes are unprofitable or they are not used because SIA does not have the capacity to serve them. Perhaps it is time that we considered fostering another Singapore-based international airline to fully realise our potential. In order for us to grow as a transport centre, a world-class meteorological service is essential. Even though there is a provision of $0.72 million for development expenditure for the service, I believe more needs to be done in this area, so that airlines operating out of Singapore could have better weather forecast to plan their flight time. Sir, Changi Airtropolis faces aggressive competition now and in the future. Business Times on 11th March reported on the front page that the Malaysian Airline System, in a bid to make Senai a regional hub, is offering cheaper fares by up to 39% when the airline starts international service in April this year. Other airports in the region are also being rebuilt or being upgraded. In this competition among nations, we cannot slacken our pace. I urge the Government to continue to pursue its proven air transport policies with vigour and determination.”
“My only regret is that some countries, including those who preach free trade, do not always necessarily practise what they preach. In this respect, I recall the recent disputes with Indonesia and Canada. While the issue with Indonesia has been settled amicably, the dispute with Canada, a main supporter of free trade, regrettably remains an issue of contention. So I would like to urge the relevant Canadian authority to shed its protectionistic attitude and truly uphold the spirit of free market. It goes without saying that the concurrent development of Changi Airport goes a long way into fulfilling the potential of our air transport policy. I am impressed that immediately following the commission of Terminal 2, Terminal 3 is on the drawing board. Furthermore, there is a plan to expand Changi to meet the needs of the 21st century. Land reclamation for the expansion has already been approved by Parliament and there is a provision of $6 million in this year's budget to carry out this programme. As a result of this tradition of long-term planning, Changi Airport continues to have ample capacity for growth. Contrast the smooth development and expansion of Changi Airport versus the controversy and traumas faced by other airport authorities in dealing with their congested airports, then the achievement of Singapore in this area is truly amazing. In this respect, the CAAS has played a key role in carrying out the Government's air transport policy. It is regrettable that its former Director-General, Mr Lim Hock San, has left the service and joined the private sector recently. To ensure the continued success of our air transport policy, we must ensure that CAAS continues to be able to retain its talented staff. 3.”
“Sir, with our naturally endowed deep water harbour and our geographic location straddling the main sea lanes between Asia and Europe, Singapore has grown to be an important sea port in this region. On the contrary, Singapore does not have any inherent advantage to emerge as the air transport centre for this part of the world. Not too many years ago, other airports in the region were more prominent than we are. So as recent as the 1970s, when one travelled to the US, one had to fly first to Bangkok for transit. In other words, Bangkok was the regional hub for many airlines serving this region. Despite the early start of other airports in this region, Singapore has emerged as the regional air transport centre, directly linked to 110 cities in 52 countries. Changi Airport has emerged as the transit hub for millions of transit passengers. The growth of our air cargo sector has also been just as impressive as that of the air passenger sector. This achievement is a testimony of the foresight of our air transport policy. This also demonstrates the value of a consistent air transport policy pursued with dogged determination over more than two decades. Our success comes from pursuing the twin objectives. Firstly, freedom of the sky policy, and secondly, the development of a super airport. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has been granting landing rights to foreign airlines liberally, including hubbing rights to foreign airlines without necessarily asking a reciprocal arrangement to SIA. I understand that in fact more foreign airlines operate into Singapore and out of Singapore than the countries Singapore Airlines and Tradewinds taken together serve. This is at variance with the practices of other countries. I support this air transport policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister not making a sweeping statement in saying that in the provision of medical health care, free market forces do not apply? Because in the provision of hospital services to the country, within the confine of that particular arena, in restructuring the hospitals the Ministry is also applying the free market forces to determine what is the rate to be charged to the patient. Furthermore ----”
“Sir, would not the Minister agree that if there are reported cases of patients who are prematurely discharged, even in Alexandra Hospital, with all these improvements, there is still room for improvement?”
“Sir, would the Minister consider inviting the respective town councils to participate in this review?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to ban chewing gum is to govern. That is easy. To galvanise Singaporeans to take on the difficult task ahead of us in the Next Lap is to lead. That is not so easy. Mr Chng Hee Kok yesterday had also pointed out what leadership meant in terms of getting people to accept unpalatable policies. We all know that in battles there is a big difference between the response of the troops if their leader in leading an infantry shouts, "Charge", versus another who shouts, "Follow Me". We look to the Prime Minister for leadership. To the Prime Minister, I would say this. Lead us well, lead us into the future. Lead us, and Singaporeans will follow you and give you our fullest support.”
“And yet change we must in order to move forward and become a developed country. Of course, changes in Singapore can be classified into changes in response to external factors as well as government dictated internal changes. People's adaptation to changes is also a function of how much time they have got left in their working life to respond to these changes. Older people are indeed by nature typically more conservative and resistant to change. Still, I believe that if Singaporeans can see clearly for themselves that changes are inevitable, are necessary, as a result of external competitive factors, they will accept the changes. The cut in CPF contribution in 1985 is a very good example. However, for government-mandated changes without what the people perceived as very good reasons, they will find them more difficult to accept. Indeed, this is what the President's Address calls "resistance to change in the absence of visible threat". The Address also asks the rhetorical question of how to mobilise the population in the current changed environment. Indeed, how? That is the question, and that is the challenge for us in the future. Several Members of this House have cautioned about Singaporeans getting soft. However, getting soft, Sir, is more or less the natural order of things. Being lean and trim, when people are going flabby, requires discipline and hard work. To galvanise our population in this time will require leadership, leadership that is quite different compared to the early years of our nation building, when our people responded to the challenge of the days under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In times of peace and prosperity, as it is now, would our people respond to a new generation of leaders? Therein lies the greatest challenge before us.”
“A ticket to the movie is about $4. A cheap Korean car, there is no cheap Japanese car anymore, including COE, is around $60,000. HDB does not build 3-room flats any more. So in a New Town it is hard to get them. A 4-room flat in a New Town is about $100,000. A terrace house costs $500,000. A bungalow, $1.4, $1.5, or $1.6 million. So in terms of the young engineer's purchasing power, something has indeed become cheaper, more affordable, but other things have indeed gone out of reach. Is the young engineer better off today versus 20 years ago? The answer will depend on his expectations. So it is very difficult to say whether we are better off or worse off. Another important set of statistics that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned yesterday is the educational attainment of residents aged 25 to 29 years old. It shows that 60% of our people have more than primary education, and in the same statistics it shows that the number of graduates has also doubled from 1980 to 1990. With better education, people's expectations have changed. When we use statistics to show that we are better off, perhaps we also should take these into consideration -- that people have changed, their expectations have changed, times have changed. The question we should ask is this: Are my children going to be better off than I am when they grow up? I think in Singapore, you can be very certain that the answer is yes, but some of their expectations must be modulated. Indeed, that is the key problem. The President's Address has also pinpointed that the pace of change in Singapore has been very, very fast. And by nature, people are risk-averse to changes. The people's unhappiness about changes is manifested in the polls in the last General Election.”
“Sir, in this House, over the last several days, we have also heard the debate whether Singaporeans are better off or worse off. The Opposition said we are worse off. The Deputy Prime Minister said we are better off, supported by a whole host of statistics. I think statistically the Deputy Prime Minister is correct. Singaporeans are indeed better off. However, as Madam Foo pointed out yesterday, whether we consider ourselves better off or worse off is relative. Relative to what? Relative to our expectations. One of the statistics that can be used to compare whether we are better off or not is to look at the purchasing power of the workers in different countries in terms of the number of months one needs to work in order to afford certain goods, let it be a shirt, a meal, a car or a house. So perhaps we can apply the same statistics to compare ourselves whether we are better off now versus several years ago, 10 years ago. Since I graduated in 1972, I will use my own experience as an example. However, before I start, let me point out that the figures I use are not exact, mindful of what happened to Mr Goh Chee Wee when his statistics were different from the Minister. In 1972, my salary as a fresh graduate engineer was $1,050 a month. At that time, a plate of noodle was at most $1. Ticket to the movie was $2. A cheap Japanese car was $7,000. A 3-room HDB flat was about $12,000, a terrace house was about $40,000 to $50,000. I do not know how much a bungalow would cost at that time since I never thought of buying one. It was beyond my reach. In 1992, 20 years later, a fresh graduate engineer can expect to command a salary of $2,300 a month, plus one month Annual Wage Supplement (AWS). So salary has indeed more than doubled. A plate of noodle now is around $1.50 to $2.00.”
“So my question is: Is the HDB renovation really the best way of sharing our wealth created together? Are we giving our people the wrong gift? Or, as the Minister for National Development says, we should not look at the gift horse in the mouth. Take it or leave it. Perhaps this upgrading scheme is based on the consideration that flat upgrading will improve our people's asset, an asset which they cannot readily convert to cash for consumption. However, there are also other ways to achieve the same goal and also with greater impact as well. Here, I will borrow an idea from Mr Heng Chiang Meng, and one way is to create an investment mutual fund of, let us say, $10 billion, with $1 billion allocated over 10 years, ie, the same disbursement from the Government as in the HDB upgrading programme. In this case, every deserving Singaporean will be given an entitlement equivalent to what they will receive in the HDB upgrading programme. If necessary, the person will also be required to come out with 10% contribution to enjoy this entitlement, just like the HDB upgrading programme as well. The advantage of this scheme is that everyone will be able to enjoy this and they do not have to wait 10 years. And to prevent instant consumption, instant conversion to cash, restrictions can be placed on a minimum holding time before their entitlement can be redeemed. Another advantage, to my mind, Sir, is that the investment mutual fund would marshall our national savings into more productive use rather than just residential real estate investment in HDB flats. So in view of this, I would urge the Government to reconsider, besides the HDB upgrading programme, other alternatives in fulfilling this objective to share wealth with our people.”
“For those who stay in private residential estates we can say perhaps they do not need this handout from the Government. But how about those in the lower income group who cannot even afford an HDB flat yet? Furthermore, what is disappointing is that there is this general lack of enthusiasm from the people over this generosity of the Government. The question is why? One of the reasons, I think, is that the time frame we are talking about of 10-15 years is too long. It dilutes the impact of the $10 billion giveaway by the Government. For those elderly citizens not owning flats to participate in the early part of this programme, they might not be even around. They might not even live long enough to enjoy this benefit, even though in terms of their past contribution to Singapore, they should be the most deserving ones. Furthermore, for those people living in the older HDB flats, I think their number one priority is not necessarily in having extra space added to their living space. I would say that for those old people their concerns are in the leaking toilets, leaking downpipes, crumbling wooden windows, spalling concrete, as Madam Foo has pointed out. For those who are upward mobile, their wish in life is actually to upgrade to a newer flat. They do not want any renovated HDB flat. They do not want to be tied to their old HDB flat for another four to five years. For the old, what they really need is to have a lift which stops at every floor so that they can commute up and down without having to climb the stairs during their daily life. There are also other nitty-gritty problems in the implementation, such as obtaining more than 70% of those concerned to participate in this programme, which I would not take time to highlight here.”
“I hope my parliamentary colleagues from the Opposition will, in the current term of this Parliament, put the national interests over and above political considerations, and support this Government when it comes to choosing what is right and what is expedient. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government also states that it will share the wealth created together with Singaporeans. The method it has chosen to do so is by upgrading and increasing the value of their HDB homes, at a cost of $10 billion over 10-15 years. To my mind, in so doing, the Government is saying that budgetary surpluses are the wealth created together, which is true. But in sharing, the Government is also saying that these budgetary surpluses become shareable, which I think is new. It is also new in the sense that this Government is handing out money to individuals for just being a Singapore citizen. Of course, in this case, the handout is not in cash but in kind. With the Elected President Act in place, I would assume that the money for this upgrading programme will come from future revenue surplus. Presumably, the Government has also decided that the reserve accumulated to date is sufficient and there is really no further need to continue to accumulate reserve at the same rate as in the past. This is all well and fine. However, I have several philosophical objections to this method of sharing wealth. To begin with, it seems to me that the only qualification for people to enjoy this gift from the Government is to own a HDB flat. In fact, the older the flat you own the better it is. The chance of getting it is faster, more of it too. But why only share this wealth with HDB owners? How about those not owning HDB flats? How about those who cannot afford HDB flats?”
“The question is: will the Government show the same compassion in dealing with other situations where people are caught as a result of Government dictated changes or is Medifund a specific exception? Sir, by tackling the potentially explosive political task of restructuring the provision of medical care, the Government is anticipating the increasing demand of the older voters in getting the Government to provide more for them. The development in other countries with a greying population provides ample warning of this trend. In the US, an increasingly larger share of the Government budget goes towards the benefits of the senior citizens, often times at the expense of the young. For instance, in many US local governments, voter revolt, especially the revolt by senior citizens against increasing tax burden is depriving their schools of the necessary financial support. There is even one city which has gone to the pain of re-zoning its district to get rid of its primary schools so that the senior citizens do not have to bear the burden of supporting the schools. Robbing the cradle takes on a new meaning in this case. So is it surprising in those cases that the standard of education in the US is declining? I am glad to note that our Government has chosen to continue to invest in the young. We have selected the choice of success. However, can a democratically elected Government continue to withstand the pressure put on it if sufficient voters want a certain benefit? To start to placate voter demand in Singapore would mean going down the road of decline.”
“As such, while the Government is wise to reiterate its commitment to provide basic medical care, it also needs to give a better definition of what that means. Does it stop at providing Class C beds in the restructured hospitals or does it go beyond that? To provide a safety net for medical care, Medifund will be established. In the disbursement of Medifund, the President states that the Government is prepared to be more flexible when it comes to individuals without sufficient Medisave savings because Medisave was launched too late in their productive life. I welcome this commitment. It will help to remove some of the major worries of our aged. However, if this is indeed the case, would it not be true that the Government is also establishing a new precedent? In the provision of medical care for our people, Government is the prime mover of change. As a result of restructuring the Government hospitals, fees have escalated. To help to pay for these higher medical costs, Medisave scheme was implemented. For those who have retired or close to retirement, the health care scenario is no longer the same scenario when these people were in their 40s and 50s. The scenario has now been changed and changed completely by the Government. Since Medisave is a recent scheme, most retirees and people close to retirement are indeed caught without sufficient Medisave fund. In other words, to borrow a term from the business world, there was a paradigm shift, a shift dictated by the Government. To these people, in the dispensing of Medifund, Government is saying, "All right, we change the scenario, we will help you to take care of this." This shows compassion.”
“I am glad to note that the recent minor setback at the polls has not weakened this PAP Government's resolve to do the right thing in the long-term interest of Singapore. In my speech, I will deal with this principle in turn. In investing in education and infrastructure, the Government is building for the future. Our expenditure on education will ensure that our young will be equipped with the proper skills to take on the challenges of tomorrow. Our expenditure on infrastructure means that we and our children will be able to create greater wealth with more productive facilities at our disposal. On medical care, the Address expresses Government's concern regarding new and untried medical treatment. Given the rapid advances in medical technology, the biological body function of a terminal patient can be prolonged longer and longer, and often times without enhancing the quality of living, the meaning of life. The Government, as such, should not be placed in a position of playing God in determining who should enjoy and who should be denied life sustaining medical care. Rightly, the individual should be given the responsibility to manage his own health and be responsible for the medical care he seeks. The question is: what is basic medical care? In my mind, treatment like heart transplants, liver transplants, etc, are not basic medical care. How about other treatments like open heart surgery, kidney dialysis? These, I would say, become more difficult to classify. Are they basic or discretionary medical care? Are they new and untried medical care? Take kidney dialysis, for example. The treatment enables the patient to become productive once again, but the treatment must be sustained for as long as the patient lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the President for enunciating the Government's policies and priorities for the current term of Parliament. His Address is concise and yet it pinpoints clearly the key challenge faced by this Government. It is clear that significant intellect has been brought to bear in the preparation of the Address. The President states that the Government will translate the lofty vision of the Next Lap into immediate programmes so that Singaporeans can be better off by the end of this term of Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister has also reiterated this point yesterday in his speech. To me, in other words, this means that the various said programmes will have to show measurable results in four or five years' time. And given the latency of most Government programmes being around three or more years, it would imply that, if we are talking about new programmes, there shall be a flurry of activities in the next 1-2 years to start up all these new programmes for Singaporeans. And Singaporeans will look forward with anticipation the benefits of these programmes, although I think it will be useful if the benefits can be made clearer to us. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Address also reiterated some fundamental principles of this Government. They are, firstly, this Government will invest in education and infrastructure, but will not subsidise consumption. Secondly, this Government will provide basic medical care while limiting its expenditure on the insatiable demand for better medical care. And, thirdly, this Government will share with Singaporeans the wealth created together. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are important principles, sound principles.”
“All right. What would the Minister do if the users of motorcycles come back to the Minister and request for converting it back to the transferable category? Because it is likely that most of the users will be inconvenienced when the COE for motorcycles is converted to non-transferable COE. The second question I have is: what criteria will the Minister use at the end of the trial to determine whether the COE will be transferable or non-transferable? Under what conditions will he decide that certain COEs will continue to be transferable or non-transferable?”
“Yes, Sir. Would the Minister elaborate on the reason why he has included motorcycle COEs into the non-transferable category? There was no evidence of speculation in that particular category. There is no user demand. In fact, the users requested, "Please don't change the system." So what are the reasons for including the motorcycle COE into the non-transferable category? It is likely that as a result of this -”
“I am asking questions. Mr Speaker: Could you ask your question, because I believe there are other Members who would like to ask questions?”
“Yes, I will ask my question. I want to find out from the Minister why he is more than generous in granting what the GPC had asked for, by including two additional categories for non-transferable COEs. I can understand the rationale behind the Weekend Cars. Perhaps it is because of the lack of playing fields, the Minister is worried that most of the speculators would then crowd to participate in the bidding for the Weekend Car COEs. On the other hand, the question on motorcycles -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to congratulate the Minister on the flexibility he has shown in this policy on the transferability of COEs. And in adopting the majority of the recommendations on COEs, I believe that the Minister's new policy will go a long way towards satisfying the demand of the motoring public. In fact, the Minister is more than generous.”