Hansard, 1989-01-17

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Wong Kan Seng (Toa Payoh GRC), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House - from 21st to 22nd January, 1989. Mr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Trade and Industry - from 30th to 31st January, 1989 Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 6th to 12th February, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16th January 1989], 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi] Question again proposed.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) 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!

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) 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.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) $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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on a point of clarification?

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Yes, but be brief, please.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Sir, in yesterday's debate on the President's Address, I mentioned in my speech the Chinese saying: shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren ( ) to mean that it takes 10 years to develop a tree but it takes a hundred years to develop a man. I stand by what I said, as I have before me a chi yuan ( ) which is a dictionary of Chinese idioms as printed by Commercial Press, first published in 1915. On page 789 of this dictionary, shu ren is defined as pei chi ren chai ( ), which means to nurture and develop a capable man. Therefore, the saying shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren, taken idiomatically, means it takes a hundred years or a long time to nurture and develop a capable man. Whereas it takes only 10 years or a much shorter time to plant a tree. The dictionary continues to elaborate quoting Guan Zi ( ) a sage who lived in the same historical period as Confucius, as follows: yi nian zhi ji, mo ru shu gu, shi nian zhi ji, mo ru shu mu, zhong shen zhi ji, mo ru shu ren which means that if you plan for a year, you plant grain; if you plan for ten years, you plant a tree; but if you plan for a lifetime, you nurture and develop a capable man. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Changi in his speech yesterday has emphasized on the hundredfold reward in nurturing and developing a man. To do so, the Chinese saying which I use should then be changed into: shi huo shu mu, bai huo shu ren rather than shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to emphasize that I have not quoted out of context and I stand by my interpretation of the long-term nature of nurturing and developing "man" in my speech yesterday. Shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren has often been used to express the need for a long-term programme to nurture and develop the young.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Second Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. Sir, in countries which are developing and maturing there are a number of indicators which suggest that their society is progressing. These indicators include, Sir, people feeling happy and proud that they belong to the place; they are willing to commit themselves to various challenges; they want to protect their place at all costs; they are interested in supporting one another. In these aspects, Sir, how do Singapore measure? Singapore has achieved some of these indicators. This is because people have generally shared the benefits of accessible and affordable basic social services. Sir, it is in this area that I would like to probe the conscience of our policymakers. A gentle reminder would be useful in terms of what they would be formulating in relation with the various policies related to social services. They should not become too profit-orientated in their policy formulation. The danger with such an emphasis is that it can become an end in itself rather than a means to achieve social and economic development. To quote Prof. Kenneth Boulding, an economist, he says: 'We are always trying to live precariously between the too little and the too much and are always in danger of falling into one or the other. This problem is just as important in economic policy as it is in social policy; it cannot be assumed that higher rates of economic growth are always better. Even here there is a problem of the optimum. A society that forces itself into too high rate of growth pay dearly for this in terms of social disorganization, misunderstanding between the generations, and the break-up of its traditional integrative system.' Sir, it is important for us to see that basic social services such as health, housing and education remain affordable to most people in Singapore. These services have provided the foundations for our nation building and contributed to social stability in our society. In providing affordable social services to people we can achieve a number of desirable objectives. We can develop a more cohesive society; facilitate self-help; prevent frustrations among different socio-economic groups; promote mutual support and enhance human development. It can in the long run prevent people, particularly those in the average and low income groups, from being left out from the mainstream of our society. I feel that excessive profit-orientation in the long run without taking into consideration the ramifications of such a pursuit, can in a way leave out a large number of people from participating in our main stream. Therefore, Sir, in the implementation of our future social policies, attention must be given to the question of affordability of social services. Sir, there are some negative consequences if basic services become non-affordable. These are more often than not accumulative and policy makers must be mindful to assess their impact over a period of time. Without such a sensitivity we may polarize various sectors of the community whose support and continued participation in the main stream of our community activities will be eroded. I would like to highlight a few of these negative consequences. Sir, there is now a pressing sign in the number of Singaporeans migrating to various developed countries, particularly in the West and South Pacific regions, namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America. We say that it is no loss to Singapore. Sir, every Singaporean who migrates is a loss to Singapore. Our talent pool will be affected in the long run. Semi-professionals and professionals are some of those who have migrated. I have gathered from some of our friends who have migrated that there are varying reasons to suggest why they have gone. When asked why they have migrated, they replied that it was for the sake of their children's education. When pressed further, they said they expected more opportunities for initiatives. They feel Singapore is to some extent very stifling. Sir, for whatever reasons there may be, I think it is crucial for us to look into the underlying reasons for their migration. Perhaps through reviewing and knowing these reasons we can take some positive steps to lessen the attrition. Sir, abrasions and conflicts between and among various social and economic groups can result. This might lead to divisions in our community. When these are attached with ethnic and religious labels by opportunists and fanatics, they could become minefields and be very explosive. We must therefore be on the guard to prevent people from playing up racial and religious sentiments which have ill effects to Singapore. We must look into ways to prevent religious groups from indulging in politics. This is crucial and I hope that we will be able to review and take this into serious consideration. Sir, another negative consequence is that our potential for human development could be stifled. Without access to affordable health, housing and education, people may become demotivated. If they see that by working hard they can get the benefit of these services, they are likely to aspire to achieve better. All these need not be handout services. All that they are asking for is reasonable pricing of the services. Sir, our Government in the last 30 years has made a conscious effort to provide the majority of our population with better housing, health, education and security. Such an effort has created a closer bond between our Government and the people. We have to continue to strengthen this bond, Sir. However, Sir, with the recent moves by Government institutions and statutory boards to corporatize or privatize, call what you may, Sir, I think the bottom line is whether services are going to be more expensive. Are people going to pay more? I think this is the bottom line of it. The average income families are concerned about a number of crucial issues. They are asking: Will my family be able to own bigger homes? Will health cost go up to an extent that it will strain the family's budget? Will transport become too expensive? Is education going to remain affordable to my children? Will child care services be still affordable? These are some of the queries of the average income earning families. Sir, we can and we must allay these anxieties. This is provided that those managing primary service sectors are not too profit-orientated and devise a pricing system which makes it difficult for people to get access to the basic social services. Sir, I will deal with only three areas in which affordability is much discussed about. People are talking about these areas of concern which is worth highlighting. Firstly, Sir, HDB housing has remained affordable to the majority of our population. However, the HDB's recent move to adjust its flat pricing system to reflect variations in design, location and finishes has generated concern among families who are living in older housing estates and those planning to upgrade their housing. They feel that future increases in prices may cause them to abandon their plans to upgrade their housing. This can negate HDB's programme to redevelop older housing estate neighbourhoods and goals towards achieving a home-owning society. Our housing policy has provided a stake for people to be committed to Singapore. It is hoped that the pricing of flats will continue to remain within the reach of our population, particularly the young married and the lower income group. Sir, the lower income group also faces difficulty in finding ready cash to renovate their new flats. As a result they tend to go for older flats which do not entail cash outflow for renovation. If such a trend continues, ethnic enclaves are likely to become more accelerated. It is hoped that HDB could extend a renovation loan to lower income families so that they could be attracted to the new towns and thereby reduce ethnic concentration in the older housing estates. I suggest this is worthwhile reviewing and a move in this direction would be positive. Secondly, Sir, the plan towards reorganization of the health service and more specifically the cooperatization of hospitals has generated speculation of increases in health cost. The question is the amount of increase, Sir. This is the question that people are talking about and it is worrying them. People are worried that hospital charges will be steep and this will impose further burden on the average income and lower income families. We must, Sir, make hospital charges reasonable. Otherwise, Sir, it would be a pity that we get to a situation where we have modern hospitals but those who really need to be treated for their illness are unable to use these services. Thirdly, Sir, one cannot but agree with the Government that there must be afford- able child care services for working mothers. However, the recent increase in levy of foreign maids and the lack of child care facilities are likely to attract more women to work. This also stifles the effort in encouraging working mothers to continue working and many of them are contemplating that they would stop working because they are being affected by this new policy. The levy also counteracts the new population policy of "three or more". The negative impact of the foreign maids levy need to be assessed. The substantial increase in the levy will defnitely hurt those who are really in need of domestic help. It may not deter those who are not really in need of domestic help. There are many of those who engage foreign maids but they are not in dire need of their services. It would be appropriate therefore not to impose the second stage increase for working couples, particularly those with very young children to care for or elderly sick parents to attend to. This will be helpful to those who have more urgent need for foreign maids. I urge that some criteria be established to discriminate those who require such a support. In conclusion, Sir, may I urge the Government to ensure that social services remain affordable to most people. By providing these services at an affordable rate we are neither creating dependency nor promoting welfare syndrome. These are much needed basic services which will provide the foundations of our future growth. The charges should remain reasonable so that people can get access to these services.