Hansard, 1992-01-15

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) asked the Minister for Communications whether there were any plans to extend the Mass Rapid Transit system to the Punggol ward of Cheng San GRC and, if so, what was the current status of such plans.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government announced in August 1988 that it has given in-principle approval for the north-east sector MRT line. Punggol will be served by this line. However, the timing for the construction of this line will depend on HDB's programme for housing developments in the north-eastern sector. This is to ensure that there will be sufficient demand for the MRT when it is ready. The north-east sector MRT line is estimated to cost the Government $4.3 billion (1990 prices). This is a very heavy investment. The Government is prepared to bear the construction and capital costs. But there must be sufficient traffic to cover the operating cost, otherwise the operators will have to subsidise this line with revenue from its other lines. This will eventually lead to higher fares for all MRT users. The bulk of the housing developments in the north-east sector is due for implementation only after the year 2000. The Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC) can only firm up its plans nearer this date. Meanwhile, we are undertaking technical work to determine the route alignment for this line.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Communications whether there will be any station in the vicinity of Hougang Avenue 2 or Hougang Avenue 10. Is such a station being planned?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said in my reply, the line itself is only approved in principle. We have not actually made provision for any station along the route. This will depend to a large extent on what the housing developments are like.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister for Communications, in view of the population of the north-eastern sector being substantially more than twice that of Woodlands New Town and yet a line has been laid to Woodlands New Town, this being a question that has been bothering a lot of the residents in my constituency and the detailed statistics having been brought up -

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Dr Lim, no speeches. Ask your question.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Yes, I shall shorten it. Can the Minister kindly clarify whether the extension of the MRT line to Woodlands New Town is aimed primarily at encouraging Singaporeans to relocate there where there are about 70 blocks of unoccupied flats and hence priority was not given to the Punggol area and the rest of the north-eastern corridor?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, the truth of the matter is that the MRTC decided to extend its line to Woodlands before the north-east sector mainly because HDB firmed up its implementation plans for housing in Woodlands before the Hougang area. The other reason is the question of costs. The Woodlands line, according to the criteria for viability, is more likely to be viable under the present situation. It would take something like $1 billion to build the Woodlands line whereas it will cost four and a half times that to construct the north-east sector line.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, may I ask the Minister for Communications whether, since the Ministry has had some technical plans available for the extension of the MRT line, can he, in his wisdom, enlighten me as to what is the most likely date that I can look forward to for a line to my constituency at the north eastern area?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, it depends on many factors. I am afraid I am not able to give him a categorical answer. The Ministry of National Development will first have to firm up its plans for housing in that sector before the trains can go there. I think the question should also be directed at the Minister for National Development.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, though my ardent and earnest plea on behalf of my residents in Punggol could not bring about an early solution to my request for an MRT line, in the interim, can the Minister kindly consider my humble request to increase the frequency of public transport services, such as bus services, to the nearest MRT station in Ang Mo Kio; this being a reasonable request and being in line with the Government's policy to encourage the use of public transport?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) It is a reasonable request and I will certainly ask the authorities concerned to look into it.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) Sir, since the Government has plans to bring the MRT line to Woodlands, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are also plans to extend this line to Johor Baru.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM - (Extension to Punggol) The Government has indicated that when the line is extended to Woodlands, it will provide an opportunity for an extension, in one form or another, of a mass rapid transit system to Johor Baru. This of course would have to be undertaken jointly with the Malaysian authorities.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) asked the Minister for Communications whether there were plans to build a bus interchange, and to increase the bus services in the Punggol ward of Cheng San GRC and, if so, what was the current status of these plans.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Mr Speaker, Sir, there are plans to build a bus interchange at Hougang North to serve the north-eastern sector of the island which includes the Punggol ward of the Cheng San GRC. The bus interchange will be built in two phases. Phase I will be built starting in financial year 1992, ie, this year. When it is completed in 1993, there will be a total of eight trunk and two feeder bus services operating from there. The trunk services will link residents to major destinations like Orchard Road, Shenton Way and Chinatown and also to nearby HDB towns like Serangoon, Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh. Phase II of the interchange will be built later when the plan for the MRT is finalised, and for which I have given an answer just now.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Sir, arising from the detailed analysis of the bus services by the grassroots leaders in my constituency and, in the interim, while awaiting for a new bus interchange, can the Minister kindly improve the seven trunk services and four feeder services in my area? I will give the detailed proposals to him later.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Sir, I will be happy to receive those proposals and refer them to the relevant authorities.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Sir, as the construction of the MRT line and a new bus interchange will take some time, will the Minister for Communications consider an interim measure to have a direct bus service from Upper Serangoon Road (on the Punggol side) to link to the town area in Bras Basah Road? There was a bus service before (Service No. 82) but it is now redirected to Hougang Avenue 10 and as a result, residents living in Hougang Avenue 7 -

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Mr Low, just ask your question.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) All right, Sir. I would like to know from the Minister whether or not he will consider having this bus service as an interim measure.

PUNGGOL WARD OF CHENG SAN GRC - (Building of bus interchange) Sir, the question of specific bus services that the Member for Hougang has raised, I would rather leave to the operators to answer. But, in general, there has been a conscious effort on the part of the bus operators to provide an adequate level of service, a minimum standard of service, from each of the new towns in Singapore. You have to recognise that there are limits to the resources that are available to them and within these limits, they do try and make adequate provision for all bus services. If the Member wishes to put his request in writing to me, I will refer it, like all other requests, to the relevant authorities.

BILL INTRODUCED - SMOKING (PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN PLACES) BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Smoking (Prohibition In Certain Places) Act (Chapter 310 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to prohibit smoking in specified places and vehicles and to provide for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [13th January, 1992], '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.".' - [Dr John Chen Seow Phun]. Question again proposed. 12.42 pm

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your indulgence, lest it be said that I will be harping on the same topic as my colleagues, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Cheo have touched on earlier. I am speaking on the deprivation of MPs' offices. Sir, at every election, it has been held out by the Government to the public at large that anybody who wants to take part in the election and on the successful contest of the election, he will be provided, inter alia, an MP allowance and also an MP's office. Sir, it is my submission, on this implied offer, that anyone who takes part in an election is deemed to have accepted the offer. It therefore becomes a contract that the MP should be provided with an office. Another point is that, as my friend, Mr Cheo has mentioned yesterday, Opposition MPs have got only the MP's office to operate. We cannot make use of the community centres. Neither can we make use of the Residents' Committees' premises. I need not have to repeat again that we, as elected representatives of the people, are performing the function more than grassroots leaders. I urge that MPs should continue to be provided with premises. Sir, this ruling, in fact, affects the interest of every Member in this House but until now, I have yet to hear one single MP raising this issue. It is most telling, and I think the silence speaks volumes. I now move on to the topic of education. In education, the system leaves much to be desired. The Government's proposal is that only 25% of the independent school pupils will be funded and the average pupils from the non-independent schools will also be given another type of scholarship. However, in respect of the second type of scholarship, the number and the amount have not been spelt out. With the introduction of a scheme whereby 25% of the pupils from the independent schools are to be funded, it would appear that elitism has finally permeated the cradle and, to say the least, this is elitism at its worst. With the 25% of the students being funded, what about the 75% of those who are not funded? I am quite sure that quite a high proportion of this number are either from the lower or the middle income group. Imagine for a moment, Sir, a family who has got two children who are both in independent schools, would they afford the fees of $200 per child? Not forgetting, in Singapore, we have between 400,000 and 450,000 workers earning $1,000 a month, and after CPF deductions, the take-home pay is in the region of over $800. Furthermore, one half of the workers among the 750,000, their income is only $800, and the take-home pay after CPF deductions is only $616. What I am asking is: what will the Government do to lighten the financial burden of these people? In fact, I would even suggest that it is near impossible for them to finance the children in the independent schools. Sir, we are not quarrelling, and while we agree that talented and gifted children should be given the opportunity to advance their potential, that should not be done at the expense of the average pupil or his parents whose taxes provide the scholarships given to the more able. All of you will agree with me that families of pupils in independent schools who are already benefitting from better facilities and teachers should be subject to a means test when applying for scholarships. In other words, the granting of scholarships to pupils in independent schools will be subject to a means test. If the parents' ability to pay for the fees is there, they should not be given. If it is a recognition of their academic performance, I would suggest that the school give them book prizes. Let us remember that at the last general elections, the People's Action Party promised the voters that every child would benefit from Edusave. Every one would start with $100 a year. The figure would gradually rise to $500 and this of course depends on the investment or the benefit derived from the Endowment Fund. It is also very clear now that with the creation of these two scholarships, this particular fund of $100 a year per child would accordingly be reduced. How much would the child get? Even before the introduction of these scholarships, it is only $100. Now perhaps the child may even get $50 a year. I do not know. It may be much less. I am urging that the Government should seriously consider this factor. One distinction ought to be drawn here. For tertiary education, one can understand that we grant scholarships based strictly on merit, because for tertiary education the scholarship is given to you and you are bonded to the Government. You are to serve the Government in return. Whereas in the independent schools, there is no bonding at all. You are given the scholarship, after which you can decide whether to serve the Government or not. Under the present system, the children of millionaires who are accepted into independent schools will receive scholarship funds from the Government along with children of the less well-off families who are fortunate enough to be in the independent schools. As for the children from the less well-off families, they are not lucky enough to get a scholarship to the Government school and they will find that the Edusave of $100 per year to start with would be drastically reduced. And as I said earlier, the amount that is ultimately for the children of average intelligence would be very much less. It would appear that in Singapore there is no true democracy. All children are not born with equal opportunities. Those considered to be brighter are given more advantages than the average. The Government's elitist policy is to widen the differences already existing at birth. Those not up to the mark are to be denied the chance to fulfil their potential and are destined to a future as lowly paid menials to the elite. In respect of health care, Sir, I think the Government ought to be applauded for its policy to continue subsidising C and B2 class wards. However, I am urging the Government to seriously consider only to charge Singaporeans the running cost of the ward. It would appear to me that, as it stands now, the Government is in fact making money from the citizens of Singapore. To make money from one's own citizens in respect of health care is bad enough, and to make money at the misery of the citizens is worse. I will cite a few examples, Sir. In fact, I have checked with two hospitals in Singapore. For the B1 class, there is no subsidy at all. The B1 class in Singapore is a 4-bedded ward with air-conditioning. The Singapore General Hospital is charging $170 per bed. Whereas in one well-known private hospital, for an air-conditioned 4-bedded ward, it is charging only $150. For another hospital which has only 2- and 3-bedded wards, they are charging only $160 per day. In comparison, the Singapore General Hospital has the highest ward charges compared to these two other hospitals. Sir, not forgetting that these two hospitals are investments by private individuals and companies who have sunk the money into the hospitals, and they are not sure that they will get any return. And yet they could charge $160 or $150 per day. How come the Singapore General Hospital is charging $170? When a private hospital can charge you $160 or $150, I am quite sure they make $70. They make 50% from the ward charges, in other words, leaving the running cost to about $70. Even based on this assumption, the Government should charge $70. But I would go further. The Government would be able to charge less than this, simply because for a Government hospital, the infrastructure, the buildings and all the equipment are purchased from the taxpayers' money. Therefore, the Government should consider this factor. For non-subsidised wards, the Government should charge only the running cost, not the amount which appears to be profitable. The next point, Sir, is that the Government should also ensure that kidney patients in Singapore are looked after. Every year, we have between 200 and 250 patients suffering from kidney ailments and they have got no one to turn to. And if your income is low, that is the end of you. Because dialysis treatment alone, unless you get a place like the National Kidney Foundation or whatever it is, it will be a crippling blow to most breadwinners of the family. So I urge the Government to consider helping these people by subsidising their treatment and supplying cyclosporin at affordable rates, if not free. In respect of Medifund, I am going to say that a certain aspect of the Medifund scheme is a cruel joke. It is a cruel joke. It is supposed to be a safety net, but it is a net which is not big enough and it has holes. This safety net has got holes in it. If you want to utilise Medifund, it has to be decided not by doctors but by unqualified community leaders who, in addition to looking at the patient's actual medical condition, will also be looking into the wallet. Getting a grant from Medifund depends on how well the patient has paid his contributions in the past, and not on how sick he is. This is the criterion for the grant of Medifund. One has to consider the factor whether he has paid in the past, and not so much on how seriously ill he is. As regards access to this fund, the assessment should come from qualified people, not by our neighbourhood busybodies, because it will ultimately become an intrusion into the privacy of the patient. Imagine for a moment, a woman who suffers from breast cancer or cancer of the cervix and who needs surgery, or a senior citizen who requires colostomy for treatment of piles, he or she has to apply to the committee of the RC or community centre. Could you imagine for a moment the embarrassment? Because they are not qualified medical people and yet they are given the task to assess the eligibility of applicants to qualify for Medifund. Sir, this factor ought to be considered seriously by the Government. In respect of housing, the upgrading of HDB flats would be a tremendous burden, especially to those retirees, those in the low income group, as they have neither savings nor CPF and they will have no way to contribute towards the upgrading of their respective flats. In a way, the upgrading exercise is a bit of a joke. The Government and the Town Councils will have to contribute to the upgrading. But, in reality, it is the residents who pay all this, simply because, firstly, they are the taxpayers. Secondly, they pay their conservancy charges to the Town Council. So the Government contributes through the taxes of the people. The Town Councils contribute through the conservancy charges collected over the years. Thirdly, direct cash from the CPF. It therefore begs the question: what happens if a person has no savings and no CPF? This problem would not have arisen had the Government actually built first quality flats. The fact that the Government is considering water-proofing the bathroom floors is an indication that the flats were constructed without water-proofing in mind. From the experience of my Town Council, we are now faced with the problem of spalling concrete from the roof and we have to carry out all the repairs now. Next door to us is the Princess Elizabeth Estate which was built in 1951 by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT). These flats have got no problem of this nature. Sir, the Government has announced that recruitment, promotion and management of civil service personnel would be delegated to the various ministries and departments. This is because central control means rigidity and an inability to cope with changing labour market conditions. These changes, I must admit, are welcome in principle, but I hope the Government will ensure an adequate review mechanism to ensure that the civil servants are protected from arbitrary personnel management decisions by their departmental superiors. Furthermore, with the wage scale becoming more flexible, there should be some standardisation of other benefits so as not to disadvantage the staff. Also, adequate arrangements should be put in place to ensure that the transfer of staff between ministry and department can easily take place. This treatment of all grades of staff is not just confined to the so-called high-flyers. Besides all these, the Government should also look into other reasons why it is not able to attract and retain staff. Perhaps, it is because this Government does not allow the civil servants sufficient scope for the exercise of initiative, career development and treat them like digits. Lastly, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, mentioned the other day (liangyao ku kou) - good medicine tastes bitter. I am curious to know whether it will be (kujin ganlai).

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) Sir, I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by the Member for Bukit Gombak. Sir, firstly, I am glad he applauds the Government for continuing the subsidy for B2 and class C wards. I am also glad that he agrees that we should charge at least the running costs for the class A and B1 wards, being unsubsidised wards. As stated in the Presidential Address, we will continue to gradually increase the recovery rates for A and B1 wards, because at the present moment they are still being subsidised. So we will be doing that. I am glad that Mr Ling fully agrees with us. Sir, he has made some very simplistic statements about the pricing of the B1 beds in SGH versus the beds in the private hospitals. I agree with him that private hospitals are doing business and therefore they must make a profit. But obviously, although he is in the private sector, he does not understand the mechanism of pricing. Sir, there are such things as loss leaders in business; if not loss leaders, at least attractive packages to get people in through the front door. The pricing of hospital beds in private hospitals, unfortunately, is a very classical case of pricing low to get people in through the front door. Patients who go in to a private hospital pay between $150 and $170 only for the bed. That, unfortunately, is not what the patient actually ends up paying. If Mr Ling had taken the trouble to find out from his friends about the actual bill sizes for patients in private hospitals, he will find that the cost to the patient is not $170 but that the final bill size in private hospitals is routinely in excess of $600. This is only for the hospital portion of the service. It does not include the services of the doctors or the anaesthetists. Those are over and above what is payable. Sir, if the private hospitals are indeed cheaper than SGH, I can assure you that Singaporeans, being very, very careful about value for money, would be flocking to the private hospitals and SGH would have a dearth of patients for the B1 wards. Unfortunately, the contrary is the truth, ie, in SGH, patients who want to go into the B1 wards, unfortunately, have to wait today for their beds because they are so popular. Surely, Singaporeans are no fools. If it is so much more expensive to go to SGH, they will speak with their wallets and with their feet. Sir, he has also mentioned about Medifund. He asked: how can we allow community leaders to determine who should receive subsidies from Medifund and allow the community leaders to make decisions on medical matters? Again, he has talked in a knee-jerked manner without first determining exactly what is the proposal. Again, a very simplistic approach to the discussion of the issue. Sir, the concept of Medifund is that the patients who find that they are unable to pay the fees for medical treatment can make a request for additional subsidies to be given through Medifund. The Government can take the easy way out by referring all these requests to the Ministry of Health. But we feel that by allowing community leaders to take part in this approval process, we will be able to bring the decision-making to a lower level and to a group of people who are likely to be more compassionate and who have a better feel of what is happening on the ground. So therefore the proposal to bring in community leaders into this process of determining who should be receiving the additional support from Medifund. Sir, they will in no way be involved in determining whether medical treatment should be given because they are in no position to make such decisions. So I hope that the Member for Bukit Gombak will take the discussions of issues in this House very seriously and do his basic research before coming here and making such simplistic statements.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) Mr Speaker, Sir, as I walked in just now the Member for Bukit Gombak was commenting on the HDB upgrading programme. I think he should be aware, but if he is not aware, I would like now to make him aware that the upgrading programme is not compulsory. It requires 75% of the residents to agree, and those who do not agree have to go along. But if they cannot afford, they can get a loan from the HDB for their portion of the upgrading programme costs. And if they have no income, as he said, those who have retired, they need not even borrow. The amounts spent will be held against their flat and one of these days when they sell their flat, the amount will be recovered. But since he is so much against the upgrading programme, I want to assure the Member that we will leave his constituency entirely out of the upgrading programme.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) Sir, if you are now hard of hearing, I could understand because I was. I did not hear you when you called the Minister to speak, because sitting in front of the Member for Bukit Gombak while he was speaking, my ears are still ringing from his sound and fury - 90% sound and 10% fury. Perhaps I should make a request to you to change my seating position. Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address. In this respect, I would like to applaud the Government for taking the first steps into the Next Lap. More so in the caring nature in which these steps are being taken. For if there ever was a central theme in the President's Address, it would be one of human resource development to level-up all Singaporeans, to as high a level as possible. The focus on education for a sound mind, health for a sound body and housing to provide quality homes for sound bodies and minds is, well, if I may say, sound. Earlier, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, asked in his speech, "What type of Singapore do we want?" Sir, it is a very good question but, unfortunately, he provided the wrong answers. Hopefully, my colleagues who spoke earlier have put him on the right path, so I will not belabour this point.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS - Debate on the Address - (Third Allotted Day) It is not for you to decide, but for the voters to decide.