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 18 of 21.
“Will the Minister of State agree that the increased promotion effort will be better done after the occupancy rate in Singapore hotels has been reduced when more new hotels come on line rather than doing it now, thereby just overheating the already very hot market?”
“Sir, the Minister of State has said that indeed the hotel room rates will remain very high. In view of this, may I ask him why is there a need to increase the cess on hotels and restaurants? Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the raising of the cess, as I have explained at one of the STPB's functions, is a means of providing additional promotion moneys for STPB to continue to make sure that the message that Singapore is a value-for-money destination is well heard around the world. We are competing in the area of tourism arrivals with many other countries, and it is very important that we continue to get this message across in a most effective manner. If we do not do that, then the continued growth in tourism arrivals will not be able to be sustained.”
“Sir, what are the options available to those applicants who either withdrew voluntarily or were forced to withdraw their applications, in particular those applicants who no longer qualify to apply for HDB flats under the income ceiling rules?”
“In our political system, Parliament has vested significant authority in the office of our Ministers on the assumption that these Ministers, who are MPs themselves, would have to face their own constituents. If they are PAP MPs, they have to hold meet-the-people sessions every week and get direct feedback from the ground regarding their policies. In other words, their seats will get uncomfortable very quickly if they were to introduce unpopular policies. Even so, I think PAP Backbenchers have had long discussions with Ministers in private conversations and private caucuses in the past and presumably in the future regarding the shortcomings of some of their policies, including this one. Regrettably, often times, our persuasions or arguments were to no avail. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very convinced that it would then be a herculean task in future if the Minister is a nominated Member of Parliament. On this ground, I would like to see that nominated MPs be specifically debarred from holding political offices. Sir, if these two safeguards were added to the Bill, then what we have will be a happy compromise where Parliament can experiment with a new concept without the risk of rushing into untested territory. With these two modifications, namely, one, on the number of nominated Members of Parliament depending on the composition of Parliament and, two, barring them from holding political office, I would give my support to the nominated MP concept.”
“Let us take the current number of 81 Members. We can start with the extreme scenario of 41 Government MPs versus 40, followed by 42 versus 39 and so on, all the way to the current composition. I must say that I am not smart enough to make sure that under different scenarios the nominated MPs in future will not play a role unanticipated by all of us in this Chamber. I am not so sure that sufficient safeguards can be built into the Constitution to prevent future governments from using nominated MPs creatively to frustrate the wish of the majority. As such, I would give my support to this Bill on condition that an explicit statement be added into the Bill to reduce the number of nominated MPs once the number of Opposition Members of Parliament exceeds a certain number, along the same principle as the Non-constituency MP. Mr Bernard Chen has proposed this yesterday and I support it. I would advocate that if future elections return less than 12 Opposition Members, the balance can then be made up of NCMPs or NMPs in that order. In other words, first, the NCMPs and then the nominated Members. If the elected Opposition Members exceed 12, then there shall be no non-elected Members of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, another reservation I have was addressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech yesterday and, that is, to explicitly exclude nominated MPs from holding political office. I am not objecting to the fact that individuals without political mandate be allowed to hold political appointments. There are many such political systems in the world - the United States being a very prominent example where the Secretaries of key departments of the government are all political appointees. Of course, in those systems there are also constitutional checks and balances.”
“Let us ask ourselves the question whether the current composition in Parliament is a permanent feature or a passing phase. I would be the first to say that I do not know. For the good of Singapore, I would like to see the PAP retain its strength for as long as possible. But in this matter of constitutional amendment, we in this House must cater for all eventualities. I urge the House to take one step away from the heat of the debate and analyze the issue before us coolly and logically. The concept of the nominated MPs takes root in Parliament where the Government holds 80 out of 81 elected seats. If we had held only two-thirds or less than two-thirds of the seats, we would not be here debating this concept because we would not be able to amend the Constitution. Since the First Deputy Prime Minister is here, would I be correct to say that if we were to have about 10% Opposition Members in Parliament, then he would not have bothered to push for the nominated MP concept? If that is the case, then I would say that the nominated MP concept is a viable one to pursue within the very narrow range of the number of non-government MPs in Parliament. I would be very reluctant to carry a concept, which is acceptable in this context, into a different one where the same players would not have even seen the need to think about the nominated MP concept, much less pushing it through Parliament against significant opposition from its own rank. On top of this, Mr Speaker, Sir, once the nominated MP concept becomes a reality, under the current provisions there will be six of them regardless of the future composition of Parliament. I would like to do an analysis of the different scenarios, of different compositions of Members of Parliament in future Parliaments.”
“Furthermore, it is possible that without the right to vote, it will be difficult to attract the right people to accept nominations as nominated MPs. If that turns out to be the case, then introducing nominated MPs into Parliament would become an exercise in futility, as the prime objective of attracting some of the outstanding opinion movers into Parliament would no longer be achieved. As such, I can understand why the First Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to take the heat and push for the nominated MP concept in Parliament. I would say that in our current context, given the current composition of Parliament, the concept of the nominated MPs does have its merits. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, while creating the new entity of nominated MPs, maybe the expedient thing to do in our current context to address the current situation, it may not be the right thing to do if the composition of Parliament is different from that existing today. We in this Chamber are going to change the Constitution for generations of Singaporeans who are yet to be born. I would like our children, our grandchildren and their children, when they celebrate the centennial or bicentennial anniversary of Singapore's independence, to say that our founding fathers have done the right thing. We must not fall into the mental blind spot that the Singapore Parliament will retain its current composition for all ages to come. In fact, as we survey the world in all functioning democracies of sufficiently long history, I would say that it will be difficult to find one where their governments enjoy the same majority with the same proportion as the Parliament in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we look at the evolution of our beloved Singapore, we should look in terms of historical perspective.”
“From the MPs' point of view, one loses credibility when one speaks like a lion but acts like a lamb. From the Government's point of view, outspoken Backbenchers could also cause problems for the Government in implementing its policies, sometimes from unforeseen quarters. An example that comes to my mind would be the debate on the caning of illegal immigrants during which some Backbenchers spoke out very strongly on personal convictions. In that particular case, editorials in foreign newspapers subsequently highlighted the fact whenever the topic surfaced. Similarly, in this case, passing the amendment Bill by the weight of the Whip would also be seen by the public that the PAP leadership is pushing the Bill through Parliament. I would say that nominated MPs would then serve the dual purpose of allowing these Members of Parliament to speak their minds and act accordingly. It will also remove the current uncomfortable situation to have Government MPs complaining loudly that they are subjected to the Whip. In fact, as I listened carefully to the debate yesterday, it was quite clear to me who would have been prime candidates for the nominated MP seats if the option were available earlier. And I also think it will be a logical conclusion in the future that with the implementation of the nominated MP concept, Government MPs would then be subjected to even stronger control of the Whip. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the nominated MP concept were to achieve its full impact, I can also understand the reasons for giving these nominated MPs the right to vote. Otherwise, the nominated MPs would then be placed in an unenviable position - basically all talk and no action.”
“Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech moving this Bill stated very clearly from his perspective one of the motivations for the Bill. That is, as we look down the road for the next four years, if we in this Parliament do not do anything there will only be two non-Government MPs in Parliament. So the question is, should we do something about it or should we not? Being action-oriented people, I believe it is against our grain to sit by and do nothing. So to me, the proposed Constitutional Amendment creating the nominated MP seats is a pragmatic solution to this problem that we face, which Dr Aline Wong has rightly pointed out, is a problem of our electoral success. For a moment, Sir, putting aside the purist argument whether a nominated MP has or has not got the mandate to speak in Parliament, I would concede that Parliament in its current composition could conceivably be enhanced if some very outstanding individuals whose opinions are highly valued by one and all could come to the Chamber and speak their minds. If a way could be found to bring this talent into Parliament, the debate in Parliament could conceivably and very likely be enriched. Sir, I would also like to add here that hon. Members who felt that the nominated MP concept is an affront to the quality or the intelligence of the current Backbenchers are actually chasing a red herring. Yesterday, we have seen some very sterling performance by Backbenchers, the better of which would be hard to find. Sir, I think the real reason is this. As has been made very abundantly clear by Dr Aline Wong, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the PAP MPs are subjected to the Party Whip. In many instances, including this particular debate, the rule of the Whip has crammed our styles.”
“With the split of the stock markets, what is the implication on Sesdaq?”
“What is the future outlook for Sesdaq, the secondary stock market?”
“In my speech I did not ask for the scrapping of the PARF. What I said was that to make the car ownership policy effective, one way to do it is to make the depreciation real and substantial. And I say the scrapping of PARF is very unpopular and will be very drastic. I did not ask for the scrapping of the PARF.”
“Anyway, in the past, the Government has never highlighted the population of motor-cycles on our roads to be a problem and I do not see the necessity of levying usage fees on motor-cycles under our current circumstances. Of course, I might be wrong but I believe the Minister needs to explain his rationale in this matter. In conclusion, I would say that the principle to reduce car usage is a good one and it will be useful to try out the effectiveness of the new policy in controlling congestion on our roads. In this respect, I support the measures in increasing petrol duty and hourly parking fees although I think they will not be very effective. However, I find the measures in increasing HDB season parking fees difficult to justify and explain. Furthermore, while the evening ALS may be a viable solution, I would like to see a shorter period of evening ALS. Finally, I would urge the Government to reconsider the decision to impose ALS charges on motor-cycles. Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion. 3.40 pm”
“Under the new measures, except for those taxis that have already acquired an ALS disc by carrying passengers into the restricted zone in the morning, most taxis would avoid it from 4.30 pm onwards. The available taxis are therefore only those already inside the restricted zone by 4.30 pm and those already possessing an ALS disc. It is quite clear to me that it would then in future become very difficult to find taxis once the evening ALS is in force. Queues would lengthen in the taxi stands, tempers would flare and Government would be blamed. I believe the Minister should consider a feasible solution right now and keep it up his sleeves. An obvious one would be to waive the ALS charges for taxis during the evening ALS. My next disappointment with the package is the classification of motor-cycles as vehicles subject to entry fee into the restricted zone. Mr Speaker, Sir, the $1 levy is substantial and is a burden to motor-cyclists who are primarily from the lower income group. What is even more significant is that motor-cyclists henceforth are subjected to all the fee control schemes that motor vehicles are subjected to. With the electronic road pricing which will be pilot tested within two years, it seems to me that in future the Government would require all motor-cyclists to have a transponder installed in them. How much would the transponder cost? Would this cost increase the cost of owning a motor-cycle substantially? Would motor- cyclists be billed like motorists in the full implementation of the ERP? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would prefer to see motor-cyclists excluded from this fee control scheme.”
“Granted that Government has ample evidence to show that there is congestion inside part of the restricted zone during the evening rush hours. But I do not think the civil servants formulating this evening ALS policy know exactly where those vehicles come from. From 4.30 pm to onwards to 5.00 pm, who are the drivers on the road? Are they businessmen returning to their parks in HDB estates, their counterparts? If these meetings are held inside the restricted zone, I would say that the evening ALS does not help matters. From 5.00 pm onwards, are the drivers driving cars that have been parked within the restricted zone suddenly leaving the restricted zonetaking them home after work? If that is so, then the evening ALS would not deter them from doing so. The outbound traffic will continue as before. What the evening ALS would restrict are indeed cross-town traffic. These are drivers going through the restricted zone to save time and fuel on their way home after work and these vehicles do indeed contribute to congestion. But drivers of this nature would only reach the restricted zone at about 5.15 pm to 5.45 pm if they finish work by 5.00 pm. Since these are the only people whom the evening ALS aims to deter, perhaps the time of the evening ALS should be shortened to this period and should last no more than one hour. This way, there will be no major impact on drivers residing within the restricted zone. As it is now, the burden of reducing the traffic congestion falls on them instead of on the real culprits. The second ramification of the evening ALS would then be the lack of taxis inside the restricted zone during those hours. Already a $1 incentive is needed to attract taxis into the restricted zone during the evening rush hours.”
“What these measures, will achieve indeed would be to fatten Government coffers. Indeed, if Government really wants to reduce car usage through these measures, I would foresee more substantial increases in the pipeline. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister should say so now. In the context of increasing the per trip cost to reduce car usage I would say that the reduction of ALS entry fees for private cars is illogical. Under the new measure, for a single trip, a driver will save $2 a day. Parking fee will go up 40 cents per hour in the city. So if a person drives to the city and parks for one hour, he will save $1.60 for that particular trip, petrol cost increase being relatively insignificant. And for a businessman who buys a monthly ALS disc, he would save up to $40 a month after taking into consideration parking fee increases. In fact, these savings will encourage more car owners to drive into the restricted zone. I say so because the Government has indeed confirmed this by saying that if the fees were not reduced that would lead to an under-utilization of our roads. Indeed the Government recognizes that and reduces the fees to encourage more people to drive into the restricted zone. But we must remember that people are creatures of habit. Once the habit to drive to work is developed and inculcated, to curb such habits in future more and more stringent measures would then be required to change it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only say that while this reduction in entry fee will please the motorists in the short-term, it might be a short-sighted measure in the long term. It is the evening ALS that I find quite difficult to rationalize.”
“Thus, it is, in fact, very difficult to justify the 100% increase of HDB season parking fee. As has already been explained by Dr Hong Hai, no matter how one looks at it, this 100% increase cannot be justified on the principle of reducing car usage. It indeed confuses the issue. On top of that, the burden does not fall evenly on all car owners since only those living in HDB estates will be affected by it. As a result, Government has been perceived as being unfair. If the Government's position in this measure is to recover the cost of operating the car perhaps it would actually be easier for our people to understand and to accept if the Ministry of National Development were to announce this policy separately. Now let me address the philosophy behind car usage. To curb car usage, the car owner must be deterred from using his car whenever he wants to go out for an errand. He will also decide on a per trip basis. The Government has taken measures to increase the per trip costs, such as the fuel cost and the parking charges at the end of a trip as well as the restricted zone entry fee for those going into the restricted zone. The fuel cost is increased by raising the petrol tax and the parking charges incurred by raising the parking fees and parking surcharges. These are logical derivations of the car usage reduction principle and I support them. On the other hand, when measures are introduced to change human behavioural patterns, I believe they would have some shock values. I reckon, by and large, that 10% increase in petrol and the small increase in parking fees are unlikely to achieve any reduction of car usage on our roads. Indeed, today there is no indication that sales in petrol kiosks have been affected by the petrol tax increase.”
“This tendency has been confirmed in a study done by the Automobile Association of Singapore which showed that the average mileage of a car in Singapore is about 18,000 km per year while those in the OECD countries is about 16,000 km per year. Furthermore, this distortion caused by the high import levy is accentuated by the rapid appreciation of the Japanese yen from 1985 till 1988. The result was that the value of used cars has appreciated significantly over the same period. I knew many individuals who bought used cars during that period and sold them after several years of use and, instead of losing money, have made money out of it. So in effect, they has gained free use of their cars over this period. Indeed, pursuing our past policy in controlling car population has produced this very severe distortion. So any increase in ARF would have similar implication as the yen appreciation. In fact, this was confirmed by the reported losses suffered by used car dealers when the Government unexpectedly left the ARF untouched in spite of the rapid increases in the number of cars on our roads. Mr Speaker, Sir, to remove this distortion and to make car ownership policy really work, the depreciation of the motor vehicle over its operating life must be real and substantial. One way to do this is to remove the PARF and concurrently make driving an old car on our roads expensive. But any move in this direction would be drastic and extremely unpopular. Therefore, the shift in emphasis to curb car usage through increasing the cost of operating a car is to be welcomed. I support this principle behind the measures introduced by our Government to curb car usage. However, I believe the Government may have oversold this concept of controlling car usage vis-a-vis controlling car ownership.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the road transportation measures which are the subject of this motion aim to encourage people to use their motor vehicles less. The assumption is that if the motor vehicle usage can be reduced by, say, 10%, then vehicle population can be increased by correspondingly 10%, without causing additional congestion on our roads. The Minister for Finance has been quoted as saying that the Government would be happy if people buy cars and keep them at home, driving them mainly in Malaysia. So a perception has emerged among Singaporeans that Government henceforth will not discourage car ownership explicitly. Instead it will control primarily car usage. My question is this: is that really the case? I do not think so, and I think it would be useful for the Government to clarify its position. To begin with, the measures already implemented to control the number of cars remain. In my opinion, these measures will remain an important policy instrument in future, despite the shift in emphasis. We must recognize that fiscal measures to control car population have been successful, even though pursuing it single-mindedly has led to some serious distortions in the economics of owning and operating a car. The distortion arises from the fact that the operational cost, including road tax, parking and petrol, are comparatively low in comparison with the capital cost of buying a car. Like any piece of expensive equipment, the tendency in such cases would be to maximize the use of that piece of equipment. So the person who is going to put up $40,000 or more for a vehicle would tend to use it as much as his budget for operating the car will bear.”
“Sir, does the Minister have a separate CPI for the higher income group? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have not computed it but it can be done. SERANGOON TOWN CENTRE (Development) 23. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for National Development whether there is any plan to enliven the Serangoon Town Centre; and, if no, whether he will consider providing a cooked food centre next to the Serangoon Bus Interchange and other facilities so as to attract more people to the Centre.”
“Can I ask the Minister which department in his Ministry is in charge of enforcing such regulations to maintain the air quality designed into the air ventilation systems?”
“On top of that, to remove the temptation to tamper with the fuel measuring system, the Minister for Communications and Information will be moving the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill imposing substantial punishment for doing so. Before this amendment Bill, no one in his right mind would ever think of fooling around with the fuel gauge. After all, it is always better to drive around with an accurate meter than one that shows more fuel in the tank than otherwise. But after the Bill becomes law, there are two more things in life that Singaporeans should not do. These things are not serious by themselves but they do nag at the subconscious, and this is a matter highlighted by my colleague, Dr Hong Hai. As such, I am in favour of the levy system mentioned by the Minister which will produce the same result without creating and imposing these two additional punishable offences. I am glad the Minister has agreed to keep the option open.”
“As the Minister has recounted, cheap petrol in Johor Baru puts a cap on the petrol tax the Government can impose. Thus the Government has been unable to use the petrol tax as one of the measures to regulate car population and car usage effectively. I would like to point out another side effect. Over the past few years, the monthly fuel cost of operating a car in comparison with the car price, insurance cost and road tax has remained relatively low. One of the reasons is, of course, the soft crude oil market and the other is the petrol tax which has remained unchanged. This relatively low fuel cost has led to a growing trend amongst Singaporeans to buy bigger cars with higher capacity engines. While the drivers obviously enjoy greater comfort, such cars consume more petrol for the same distance travelled compared to smaller cars. They spew out more pollution, poison our air more, and eventually making the Singapore environment a poor place to live in for all of us, the majority of whom do not own cars. Furthermore, bigger cars also mean greater dependency on imported oil. When the price of oil increases in future, Singaporeans will find it very difficult to give up a luxury that they have become accustomed to, namely, bigger and more comfortable cars. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's intention to raise petrol tax in future. Of course, before the Government can do so, it must plug the escape route via the Causeway. However, there are several things about this Bill I have reservations about. To begin with, under the Bill, leaving Singapore in a car with less than half a tank of petrol becomes a punishable offence when it was not so in the past.”
“Therefore, it is right and necessary for URA ---”
“Sir, I just have one clarification for the Minister. This amendment Bill would revoke the Authority's power to request the President to acquire land. In so doing, I would like the Minister to tell us whether the Authority's function will be unduly hampered because of this amendment. On the other hand, I do support the Minister to revoke the power because in so doing the power to acquire land will now rest with one single authority, thereby streamlining the acquisition process. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Amendment Bill. I feel that under this Bill, URA will be able to exercise extra powers to carry out its work and functions in preservation and in delineation of conservation areas and also in other related matters with facility. It is therefore necessary. Any Singaporean who has gone to China on a tour will know that land in China is very cheap and houses built there although are big but very old and unhygienic. Moreover, their interiors are not maintained or renovated. Therefore, after a period of time, the houses become dilapidated dangerous buildings. This kind of situation is caused by low rentals, so that owners of the houses have no means or incentives to maintain and renovate them. On the contrary, let us look back at Singapore. Had the PAP Government not exercised land acquisition power and if all the old prewar houses were to remain, then our housing problems and houses now would be in the same position as in China. And our people would not be able to enjoy such a good and ideal living conditions such as provided by HDB estates and our people would be faced with serious problems of housing shortage as in Hong Kong. On the contrary, about 80% of Singaporeans are now able to benefit by the efforts of URA.”
“For instance, the Government has retained the service of the Chief Justice beyond his retirement age, the reason being that it has been difficult to find a replacement. The Government in the past has also stated on many occasions that it is hard to attract the best legal minds into the Legal Service, the latest speech by the Minister for Finance in Parliament being one. This gives the impression that as one looks down the pipeline for younger judges to take over from the current ones there are gaps. My concern would be what action would the Government be taking to ensure that the integrity and the high esteem our courts have enjoyed so far would be maintained in future? In fact, in view of the abolition of the right to appeal to the Privy Council in this Bill and in view of the fact that the Government has already given notices that in due course our link with the Privy Council would be severed completely in future, the need to attract the best legal minds into the Legal Service would become all the more urgent. I urge the Government to take concrete steps in this matter. In ensuring the high standards of our courts, Mr Speaker, Sir, money should be the consideration of the lowest priority.”
“One of the Minister's arguments against retaining this provision is that it would have placed an unbearable burden on the Disciplinary Committee in taking action against lawyers convicted of offences by our courts. Let us assume for one moment that the rationale to retain the legal recourse to Privy Council is still valid. My question will be: is there any other alternative that the Minister can advocate that will reduce this burden whilst still retaining the appeal to Privy Council. For instance, can a case be heard by the Privy Council first before disciplinary action is taken? Alternatively, disciplinary action taken by the committee can be considered as a purely consequential action taken by the committee by removing the discretion from the Disciplinary Committee. Perhaps we can change the legal provisions such that the Disciplinary Committee cannot be sued for damages as a result of any consequential action taken by it. Other alternatives have also been proposed by the hon. Member for Fengshan. I surmise the Minister with his wisdom has indeed considered all these alternatives and found them wanting. Perhaps he can enlighten us with his reasons. Mr Speaker, Sir, the next concern I am raising deals with the linkage of our legal system with the Privy Council in general. Under the current arrangement, our legal system has operated very well and our judges are well respected. The question is, is our legal system ready for this dissociation of this link? Would that be an improvement of the current situation particularly in view of the fact that many of our senior judges are past or approaching retirement age?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was preparing for the debate on this Bill, I asked myself what would the concern of a rational, logical and an informed Singaporean be regarding this Amendment Bill. The questions I come up with are those of a lay person and they centre around clause 13 of this Bill, ie, the abolition of the provision for appeal to the Privy Council for debarred lawyers. I will put this question to the Minister seeking his clarification. As the Minister has pointed out in his speech, the legal profession was given special considerations as being the only profession to have the final appeal to the Privy Council. The Minister has also touched on the origin of section 95 of the principal Bill which is the provision of this appeal, but the arguments he has gone through for and against this appeal are not new ones. When the principal Bill was drafted and subsequently passed in Parliament in 1966, fine legal minds must have gone through the arguments for and against and come up in support of that provision. The principal Bill was amended nine times, the last of which was in 1986. We were also told by the Minister during the debate on ISA (Amendment) Bill at the last sitting of the House that the question of appeal to the Privy Council had been considered in the Cabinet for several years. As such, can we assume that the Minister and the drafters of the 1986 amendment would have also considered the question of this access to the Privy Council and again came to the conclusion that it would be better to retain that provision? As such, it would seem to me that there are good reasons to give lawyers this special privilege, some of which may still be valid today. I am not sure the Minister has touched on every one of them.”
“, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have several questions for clarification by the Minister. My question actually relates to Table 1 which gives the proportion of flats permitted for each race in each neighbourhood and for each block. If you look at the second column, that is, the permissible proportion of flats in each neighbourhood versus the percentage in population, you will notice that for Malays, 22% is 5 percentage points beyond 15%; and for Chinese, 84% is 8 percentage points above 76%; and for Indians, 10 percentage is only 1 percentage point above 8.9%. Perhaps the Minister can give us a better understanding as to how this number is arrived at. For instance, I would imagine that it might be better to say that for the Indians, being half the percentage shown in terms of population, the variation would be half of that permissible for Malays. So 3.5% might be a better figure, judging from this Table. Question No. 2 also relates to this Table. These percentages are based on current percentages in population. Would these percentages, in terms of permissible proportions, be reviewed from time to time if the population shifts in future?”
“Sir, is the residential service to the consumers currently being subsidized? Would the reorganization not give Singapore Telecom an exact measure of that subsidy, if it exists?”
“Hence our public transportation system must evolve to such a stage that the lack of a car does not imply hardship in getting around for those who are in the car ownership bracket. The MRT would satisfy the need of the population living around the MRT stations. For other people living away from the MRT stations, our taxi system must be improved to provide an equivalent level of service as that of a private car. The availability of taxis must be improved so that waiting time can be reduced. This can be achieved via increasing the number of taxis on the road or increasing the fare of taxis to modulate demand. Radio taxi service must be expanded comprehensively so that door-to-door service can be provided. Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised two matters of concern to Singaporeans and if these two matters are addressed properly, I believe that we will be moving closer to the society envisaged by the President in his Address. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on a point of clarification?”
“When I was in Tokyo recently, for instance, my host told me that travelling a distance that would take half an hour in Singapore, it would easily take one hour in Tokyo. And this one-hour journey can easily stretch to two hours or more under bad traffic conditions. So in Tokyo when the people plan to go to a meeting by car, ample time must be provided for travel. So it is not surprising that in Tokyo the subway is the preferred means of travel, followed by taxis. By the way, Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that from the experience of other cities, there are natural inhibitors for the car population; they are parking problems and traffic congestion. Of course, that is a very inefficient way to go. In Singapore, indeed we have gone the other way. There are ample and cheap parking facilities in the city. The average speed on our road is about 30 km per hour, roughly double that in the other cities. So indeed we are talking about trade-offs. If our drivers feel frustrated about the high cost of new cars, I would urge them to look at the situation from a more positive angle. We in Singapore pay for the cost of operating the car up front, in the form of capital cost. People in other cities pay for it in the incremental cost of operating the car, such as parking, time involved in parking delays and travel delays, pollution due to congestion, etc. The Government has reiterated many times that we in Singapore want to maintain the current efficiency of our road system and I support that position. Having a car may not be important but mobility will be. As our people get better educated, they will start to value their time more and more.”
“15% is already higher than the 10% proportion I mentioned earlier, as dictated by our land transportation policy, given the fact that other occupations like the hawkers, insurance agents, entertainers and other not-so-upright occupations like bookies, etc, will produce high-income individuals who can afford cars. The conclusion will be that fewer of the younger professionals in the future are likely to achieve car ownership than the current generation and the previous generation of professionals. This is already happening and will be aggravated in the future. So clearly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the expectation of our people regarding car ownership must be set right as early as possible. We must grab the bull by the horns and face the facts now. We must come to accept that achievement in life as a people to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives does not mean owning a car. In this respect, I would say that our news media can help. Recently, I came across statistics in the newspapers, such as Snapshots in the Straits Times and the Sunday Times, showing that the car to population ratio in the US is 1:3 and in Japan 1:2, etc. This might give an impression that Singapore still has a long way to go in terms of providing a better standard of living for Singaporeans. I believe this is misleading, Mr Speaker, Sir. A better comparison will be with large cities like New York and Tokyo. I do not have the figures but I am certain that Singaporeans are already doing fairly well by comparison. For people living in these cities, having a car is in fact quite a hassle. For instance, parking in New York city for one afternoon can easily cost more than S$50.”
“In other words, in the future, as we look down the road, only 1 out of every 10 persons who come into the labour force will be able to afford a car. Of course, some of the new working people will get to a point of owning a car earlier than others. But in a steady state, what I have said is true. Mr Speaker, Sir, straightaway, what I am going to say next becomes self-evident. We are moving from a situation in Singapore where 1 out of every 5 working people can own a car into a situation where even a smaller proportion of people can own a car over the next 10 years. That is to say, while the total number of cars will continue to increase, the number of people wanting to own cars will increase even further. My assumption is that the car population will increase at a steady rate of 2% a year. What happens if the road expansion slows down in future? What happens if the car population is not allowed to grow by 4,000 cars a year for the next 10 years? It is quite clear that a smaller and smaller proportion of working people in Singapore can own cars. Since the Government uses market forces to determine car ownership, the conclusion is that cars will become increasingly expensive. There is no escape from this conclusion. And who will be hit the hardest? I would say the young professionals, many of whom take car ownership as a measure of success. This is so because the second self-evident fact is that getting a tertiary degree is not going to be a passport to car ownership. Currently, about 15% of the cohorts in our school system get into the tertiary institutions and this number is set to increase with the setting up of a second university and, possibly, a third university.”
“$180 to $200. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do have problems with my figures. Anyway, I think the total amount would actually come up to about $100 million a year. Coming back to the issue of car ownership, there are about 220,000-230,000 cars in Singapore currently. For a population of 2.6 million, that works out to 1 car for every 10 men, women and children in Singapore. However, I would say that a better measure of the distribution of car ownership will be to count the number of cars for working people in Singapore. Give half of our population are below the working age, the current situation is that 1 out of every 5 working people can own a car. The Minister of Communications and Information has stated repeatedly in the past that the increase in the road space in Singapore would be able to support a 1-2% annual increase in car population. Let us assume that the Minister is very generous and allow an annual increase of 2%. That works out to about 4,000 new cars a year on the road in Singapore. If you look at the number of new entrants into the labour market which can be determined by looking at the number of primary school students in our school system, that will be about 40,000 people coming into the labour market every year for the next 5 to 10 years. Distributing these 4,000 cars among the 40,000 people means that for the new entrants into the labour market, only 1 out of 10 will be allocated a car, no matter what system we use in the distribution of these cars. Even if you take into consideration the fact that when the current number of working people retire when they get older and give up their cars, I believe that this number will not change.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about car ownership yesterday when Parliament adjourned. Before I continue, permit me to make a correction on the figure of the annual collection of fund generated by the foreign maid levies which I gave yesterday. Otherwise, I might acquire a reputation as that of the Member for Potong Pasir, ie, someone having trouble with his figures. I said that if a fund were to be set up funded by the foreign maid levies, the amount would come up to about $25 million a year. Actually, there being 40,000 maids in Singapore and at the new rate of $250 a month, that amount would actually --- An hon. Member: $200! Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Currently, it is $200 but I understand it will be increased to $250 in July, as reported in the papers. An hon. Member: From $180 to $200.”
“I am prompted to speak on the matter when I noticed that the near panic that gripped the car buyers towards the last few days of December 1988. The state of mind of our people is such that a mere rumour of price increase caused otherwise rational individuals to register their new cars on the last few days of 1988.”
“Of course, other worthwhile programmes can be implemented in due course in the future. Before I leave this topic, I would like to propose that child support system, like child care centres, be viewed in the proper light. It seems to me that our Government would prefer not to take child care programmes on as a government responsibility, but to let the private sector provide such facilities as evident in the Addendum to the President's Address. But if you look around, you will notice that there are also other social facilities such as primary schools and pre-primary schools that we, as a people, have come to accept as the basic responsibilities of the Government. And this institution does not exist naturally but has evolved over the years to cater to changing social needs. Our society has changed. In today's society, our young mothers are crying out for better child support systems. And I believe the Government should shoulder greater responsibility in this arena. The next concern of younger families, especially the upward mobile families, is child ownership (sorry) car ownership.”
“Currently, for families which can afford it, the Government's position in terms of child support seems to be for the families to get a foreign maid. However, when that led to an explosion in the number of foreign maids, the Government in trying to control the number imposed a higher foreign maid levy. And I can see the trend will continue in the future. In this respect, I echo the sentiments of the Member for Kampong Glam and the Member for Eunos GRC in saying that our Government is reacting to the problems rather than adopting a long-term comprehensive approach in getting to the root of the matter. In fact, many of my constituents have asked me, what is the Government doing with the money collected from the maid levy. Why do the Government not use the money to reduce the dependency on foreign maid in the first place, instead of channelling it into the general revenue pool? Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that is a very good point. Since maids are mainly employed to take care of young children and old parents, I propose the set-up of a fund using the maid levy. Perhaps we can call it the Community Development Fund (CDF). This fund should have an inflow of at least $25 million a year. Sir, we know that the Minister for Finance would, in principle, oppose such a single-purpose fund. However, if we take a look at the Skills Development Fund and the good work done by the National Productivity Board managing that fund, we must agree that such funds do provide focus and will galvanize actions. The objective of the proposed fund (the CDF) would be to first reduce our mothers' dependency on foreign maids and, in general, provide a better social support system such as child care centres for working mothers.”
“Although much poorer than the Western European countries, these Eastern European countries spent a much greater percentage of their national budgets for family policies. One principal goal of these family policies is to increase the number of babies born. The figures show the impact. In 1960, Eastern European's number is 2.47; for Western European countries, 2.62. By 1970, both figures had dropped to 2.27 and 2.38 respectively. Following the implementation of the Eastern European pro-natalist policies, the fertility rate in Eastern European countries stablized while that in Western Europe continued to decline. By 1985, the figures are 2.16 and 1.62 respectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason I quote all these figures is to show that evidence exists todate which shows that pro-natalist policies are very convincing. Of course, these pro-family policies cost money, big money. One estimate done by two demographers in their book, "The Fear of Population Decline", shows that if specific Western countries were to match the comparative level of family allowances provided for in Hungary and Bulgaria, that would involve a 120% increase in government spending on family policies in Sweden, a 100% increase in West Germany and a 70% increase in Britain. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the big difference we are talking about. But as the numbers show, these mass programmes with high expenditure do work, and there is no half-way measures in this respect. And I believe that to encourage larger families, the problems faced by our younger parents must be addressed. With the proper level of expenditure and a well-managed programme, I am sure Singaporeans will respond in like manner.”
“Recently I came across a book on declining birth rate titled "The Birth Dearth" by Ben Wattenberg. The author compared the birth rates of East Germany versus West Germany since the 1970s and the measures taken by their respective governments to manage them, which I think would be useful for us to take note of. As we know, the two Germanies have the same language, same historical and cultural heritage but with different forms of government only since the end of the Second World War. Democratic and pluralistic in the case of West Germany; centralized, non-demoractic communist in thecase of East Germany. They also have very different pro-natalist policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, in terms of fertility rate, as measured by the average number of children a woman will bear in her life-time, the figures for the two Germanies were very close up to mid-1970s. In 1972, it was 1.72 for West Germany versus 1.78 for East Germany. By 1974, the figures had dropped to 1.51 and 1.54 respectively. At about that time, recognizing the gravity of the situation, the East German government began implementing a variety of very expensive pro-natalist measures. These measures include cash incentives for child allowances, day care centres, maternity leave and housing allowances. West Germany being a pluralist society did practically nothing. And this is what happened. The fertility rate in West Germany continued to drop gradually to 1.27 by 1984 while that in the East Germany showed a turnaround in 1977, and by 1984 it had stabilized around 1.80. 1.80 is obviously still below the replacement figure of 2.1, but nonetheless very much higher than the 1.27 in West Germany. The situation in other Eastern European countries is similar.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address to Parliament, the President stated that it is the Government's intention for Singaporeans to enjoy meaningful and fulfilling lives. What is a meaningful and fulfilling life? This means different things to different people. In creating this future society, many facets of our society should be addressed and improved on. Of these, I will touch on only two which are of concern to the younger Singaporeans, namely, social support system for the children for those with a family of young children; and secondly, the ownership of a private car for the upward mobile group. Mr Speaker, Sir, most of our young women work prior to their marriage. However, once a couple decide to start a family, the question of whether the mother should stay home invariably arises. While this is a private decision to be made by the couple, the resulting impact has national consequences. If our mothers stay home to take care of children, they can no longer work. This would aggravate our already tight labour market resulting in an increased demand for foreign workers. Many of our younger mothers would like to work given their training, their education and their personal aspirations. Besides, the money from the second income is often important to keep up the lifestyles they are familiar with. Given the current social support system, these young mothers are faced with the trade-off between children or better fulfilment at work. Many have chosen to have a smaller family so that they can lead a more fulfilling life. The aggregate of all these individual decisions resulted in a long-term declining birth rate. Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the large number of babies born in 1988, I believe the trend has not been arrested nor reversed.”
“Is he unhappy with the Government for enabling more than 86% of our population to live in HDB flats, the majority of them owning them? Is he unhappy that every Singaporean who wants a job can have a job? Does he think it is wrong to develop Singapore the way we did with excellent infrastructure, hospitals, universities and schools? Is he unhappy that food is easily available, plentiful, cheap, wholesome, in Singapore? Or alas, does he think we are a ridiculous lot of people to want to jealously guard our racial harmony or keep our country safe and secure for Singaporeans? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are the things which the Government has delivered to the people and which the world is still talking about. Surely Mr Hendrickson cannot be unhappy with the Government for providing all these for the people of Singapore. Then what is Mr Hendrickson unhappy about? No credible Opposition in Parliament? Sir, whose eyes is he pulling the wool over? He can certainly draw a red herring across the path of Mr Francis Seow. But certainly not across the path of the majority of Singaporeans. No credible Opposition in Parliament? Sir, what is the Member for Potong Pasir doing here in Parliament? An hon. Member: Not so credible!”
“Singaporeans from all segments of our society, from the lowly-paid workers upwards, find Seow's willingness to be subject to foreign influence despicable. Singapore, being a strategic island in the crossroads of Southeast Asia, remains a key piece - a key piece on a chess board of global geopolitics. The temptation for foreign powers to interfere in Singapore would always remain. I support the firm stand taken by the Government in rejecting any attempt by foreigners to do so. The people of Singapore can rest assured that the PAP Government can be counted on to resist such meddling. I am sorry to say but there will always be Singaporeans who are prepared to collude with foreigners in perpetuating subversive activities. Today, we have Francis Seow. Tomorrow, perhaps someone else. To deal with them in protecting our interests, the ISA provides the legal means, in many cases, the only means of protection for us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the names of the Member for Braddell Heights and the Member for Radin Mas. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the names of the Members for Braddell Heights and Radin Mas. Sir, I detect an air of arrogance coupled with a distinct self-interest in Hank Hendrickson's urge to dabble in Singa- pore's domestic political affairs. We have all read in the press of his surreptitious dealings with Mr Francis Seow and some lawyers which he had never denied. In essence, he was attempting to get a number of lawyers to stand for election and take the Government on. Sir, what is it that Mr Hendrickson is so unhappy about with the Government?”
“What I have found most damning are the many unanswered questions regarding his sudden improvements in his personal financial affairs. He was very much in debt when the notion of getting into politics first "congealed in his mind", to use his own words. But at that time, the threat of bankruptcy hung over his head like the Sword of Damocles. Any of his creditors could have easily taken him to court and commenced bankruptcy proceedings if they choose to do so. As Members are well aware, a bankrupt is disqualified from standing as a candidate for Parliament. I am sure Francis Seow's creditors who have been waiting in the wings to collect will be rejoiced to know that he intends to be a candidate. Because if he does so, he would have to pay up. Francis Seow is a lawyer, an experienced one at that. So I would suggest that the very next notion in his mind, following the first one to get into politics, must be how to resolve his indebtedness. So quite unlike the Member for Potong Pasir who saw no need to seek asylum when he entered politics as an opposition member, Francis Seow first sought the assurance of the British. And failing that, he found comfort with the Americans. Soon thereafter, Seow's finances improved and he repaid some of his long-standing debts, in particular, those that could result in bankruptcy proceedings against him. I would say that even the most sympathetic person towards Seow must find this suspicious. The pure logic of the sequence of events would lead to the inescapable conclusion that Seow is now a beholden man, beholden to whoever is bankrolling him. Francis Seow's actions are indeed a great blow to the prestige of the Singapore professionals and especially those belonging to the law profession.”
“For instance, under the Fifth Amendment, an individual is free not to answer any questions which answer would incriminate himself. Further, I was reading a recent issue of the Time magazine where it was reported that the Americans are now seriously debating legalizing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and crack. Surely, many civilized societies would be aghast with such an unthinkable proposition. That the American society is not necessarily the ideal one does not seem to deter them nor register in their psyche. Like Christian missionaries, some of them look at the rest of the world and feel compelled and completely justified in trying to change it to their own value system. After all, it is for their own good, they say. That others might disagree is of little relevance. There are many examples to this propensity. Witness their direct interference in Panama recently. In the process of trying to get rid of Noriega, their interference has left Panama in economic chaos and near collapse. Today, Noriega is still there and Panama is in a very hard state. In trying to cure the disease, they have nearly killed the patient. While we are intolerant of improper conduct of our foreign guests invited to our home, borrowing the analogy used by the First Deputy Prime Minister, we shall be adamant in our condemnation of fellow Singaporeans who are, to use an American expression, prepared to get into bed with foreigners. Francis Seow, a lawyer, a former Solicitor-General, an intelligent man, a man whose educational background readily puts him in the top 10% of the Singapore society. Unfortunately, he is also a wayward man. He has disclosed in his statutory declaration that his venture into politics is intertwined with foreigners.”
“While Singaporeans are united in their opposition to this flagrant interference by the American officials, I think it is useful to emphasize that our anger and our dis- appointment are directed only at those individuals who perpetuate these transgressions and at the official policy of the US Administration in so far as it represents official policy. The Singapore people continue to regard the US as a friendly country and the American people whom we find frank, open, honest and upright as friends, especially those residing in Singapore. I am sure the Americans in our midst feel more welcome and safer in Singapore than in any other place in this part of the world. For instance, only the previous Sunday, the Bukit Timah Constituency's Sports Club organized a soccer tourn -ament. One of the participating teams was the Eagles, an all -girls team from the Singapore American School. The competition among the teams, locals and Americans, was friendly when the Eagles emerged as champions of the Women's Side, the Singapore crowd gave the Eagles a hearty cheer. This reflects the good relationship between our peoples. Yes, we value our friendship with the American people. What we find intolerable are the actions of the few State Department officials who took it upon themselves to mould Singapore in the image of the American society. It is quite understandable that from the American point of view, what they have done is nothing wrong. Perhaps that is so because Americans are brought up in the belief that the American system is the best in the world. They cherish the various Amendments to their constitution where the rights of the individuals sometimes outweigh the interest of the majority.”
“However, in the official statement issued by the State Department spokesman, Charles Redman, entitled, "US denies Singapore's allegations", which I take as representing official stand, the American government has called our actions groundless, gratuitous and baseless. I will quote from the American press release. In paragraph 1 of the press statement, the statement says: 'The public campaign being waged by the government of Singapore and its allegations of wrongdoing are groundless. Attacks on their intentions [that is, the American diplomat in Singapore and in the United States] and their character are gratuitous and unfounded.' The statement continues: 'The constant repetition of the baseless charges against them and the US government can only serve to damage the traditionally close and co-operative relations between our countries.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would have thought the speech by the Minister for Trade and Industry was very clear in pointing out at what point the diplomat and the State Department officials stepped out of bounds. Do things need to be made any clearer? I do not think so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I believe we have stated our case very clearly and forcefully. This press release is just another face-facing measure by the Americans. Singaporeans will not be so easily swayed by this statement denying and rejecting every fact the Government has laid on the table. As a result of this statement, I say now, let us be firm with the Americans.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my interaction with my constituents and the community leaders in the Bukit Timah Constituency, I found them to be very supportive of the Government's actions with regard to the American interference in our domestic affairs; in particular, they have supported the request by our Government for the recall of Mr Hendrickson. Some of them indeed are so indignant over the American action that they urge the Government to be firmer with them. For instance, while recognizing the need to preserve our long-term relationship with the Americans, they found that in the initial Government's press statement on the subject, we were treating the Americans with kid gloves in trying to limit the embarrassment to them. We initially identified the officials involved only as Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z. As a result, it was very confusing when one tried to figure out who is who in this episode, especially as it turned out, the seniority of the officials involved are not in the same ascending order as X, Y, Z. By any accepted standards governing behaviour between nations, the actions of these officials must be considered interference in our domestic affairs. The American Secretary of State in his letter to our Government has assured that it was not American government policy to interfere in our affairs. I would have said, let us accept the American government's official stand and take it at face value. I would have said that since they are our friends, let us give them an easy way out, allow the whole episode to be blown over.”
“Sir, would the Minister kindly rephrase his answer in terms of the land area, especially in comparison to, let us say, something that the lay person can understand? For instance, would he say that the area occupied by the race course is one-third or one-half or one-quarter of the Sentosa Island?”