Hansard, 1996-12-02

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:- Dr Kanwaljit Soin -- from 13th to 17th November, 1996. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon -- from 13th to 15th November, 1996. Mr Charles Chong -- from 13th to 23rd November, 1996. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee -- from 17th to 24th November, 1996. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam -- from 17th to 23rd November, 1996. Mr Lew Syn Pau -- from 19th to 21st November, from 2nd to 4th December and from 8th to 27th, December, 1996. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong -- from 19th November to 4th December, 1996. Dr Ong Chit Chung -- from 20th to 21st November, 1996. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo -- from 20th to 22nd November, 1996. Prof S Jayakumar -- from 20th to 26th November and from 29th November to 1st December, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong -- from 20th November to 4th December, 1996. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman -- from 20th to 22nd November, 1996. Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng -- from 22nd to 23rd November, 1996. Mr Loh Meng See -- from 24th to 26th November and from 29th November to 6th December, 1996. Mr Chew Heng Ching -- from 25th to 27th November, 1996. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam -- from 26th to 28th November, 1996. Mr Leong Horn Kee -- from 25th November to 7th December, 1996. Dr Yeo Ning Hong -- from 29th November to 4th December, 1996. Dr Ahmad Mattar -- from 29th November to 6th December, 1996. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe -- from 2nd to 15th December, 1996. Mr Chiam See Tong -- from 2nd to 6th December, 1996. Mr Ling How Doong -- from 2nd to 9th December, 1996. Mr Lee Kuan Yew -- on 2nd December, 1996. Mr Davinder Singh -- from 3rd to 14th December, 1996. Encik Mohamad Maidin -- from 4th to 10th December, 1996. Dr S Vasoo -- from 5th to 8th December, 1996. Mr Chin Harn Tong -- from 5th to 8th December, 1996. Mr R Sinnakaruppan -- from 5th to 8th December, 1996. Mr S Dhanabalan -- from 4th to 8th December, 1996. Dr Ho Tat Kin -- from 6th to 18th December, 1996. Mr Yeo Toon Chia -- from 6th to 10th December, 1996. Mr Ho Kah Leong -- from 9th to 13th December, 1996. Mr Peter Sung -- from 9th to 31st December, 1996. RAdm Teo Chee Hean -- from 12th to 15th December, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 14th November, 1996 (i) Supply of Goods (Amendment) Bill 1996; and (ii) Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the current anti-Asian sentiments in Australia have affected Singaporeans who are there as tourists, pursuing their education, doing business, etc and whether the Singapore Government will seek assurances from the Australian Government to ensure that they provide adequate security protection for these people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no indication of Singaporeans avoiding Australia for holidays, study or business in significant numbers. The Australian government has condemned racial harassment. On 30th October 1996, the Australian Parliament unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution introduced by Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley denouncing racial intolerance. When the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment and I went to Canberra for the inaugural meeting of the Singapore-Australia Joint Committee from 30th to 31st October 1996, the Australian Foreign Minister and his colleagues expressed their regrets to us over any racial harassment against Singaporeans. From our discussions with them, we are satisfied with the assurances they have given us that they do not tolerate such incidents and that they will take whatever measures necessary to protect Singaporeans and other foreigners who are visiting or residing there. We welcome these assurances. We hope that Singaporeans visiting Australia will not be affected by the anti-Asian sentiments expressed by a few Australians.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how many Singaporeans in Australia had been attacked by the locals there since September 1996 and whether any Ministry of Defence personnel in Australia were attacked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there were four incidents involving SAF servicemen in Rockhampton, Queensland in October this year. The servicemen were part of the SAF contingent conducting training in Shoalwater Bay Training Area, near Rockhampton and were off-duty at the time of the incidents. Two were incidents of verbal abuse, one involved assault, and the other assault and robbery. Apart from the above four cases involving SAF personnel, our High Commission in Canberra is aware of only one other incident involving a Singapore student in Queensland who had reported to our Student Adviser based in Canberra that he had been assaulted. The Student Adviser had also received reports from some Singapore students reporting to her that they had encountered verbal abuses. Our High Commission in Canberra has assessed that these were isolated incidents. The local authorities have also assured our High Commissioner that they will take measures to ensure that there will be no further incidents.

Sir, were these incidents attributed to the current anti-Asian sentiments in Australia?

Since the investigations are still in progress and some of the investigations are difficult because identities of the individuals were not established, it is difficult to state conclusively whether these were acts of hoolinganism or acts deliberately motivated by racial connotations.

Sir, since the investigations have not been concluded, what is the Minister's advice to Singaporeans who work or study in Australia or plan to travel to Australia for holiday?

The advice given to Singaporeans is the advice that we normally give to any Singaporean who is travelling abroad, ie, to be aware of the local situation but, as I have said, the situation is that there are only isolated incidents. There is no evidence of a systematic campaign being directed only against Singaporeans.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Private Limited suffered any losses from investments made through Rockefeller & Co (Far East) from 1st January 1994 to October 1996.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the GIC has incurred some loss in its investments made through Rockefeller & Co and is in the process of ascertaining the amount. GIC is seeking to recover the loss attributable to possible wrong-doing of the Managing Director of Rockefeller & Co (Far East) Limited. Discussions with the parties involved are under way and it is therefore premature to disclose the extent of the losses.

Sir, would the Minister be able to give us a rough estimate of the amount of losses?

As I said, at this stage, because the investigation involved transactions over several years, it is quite complex. I do not think it will be desirable to make any broad estimates. As soon as we have the information, this will be made public, if the Member wishes.

Sir, I would like to know from the Minister on what basis was Rockefeller & Co selected by GIC to be its fund management company.

Rockefeller is an established fund management company. GIC employs a range of such fund managers and there was no indication earlier on that this company had any particular problems. I would like to point out that it is a specific manager employed by this particular company who caused the trouble, and not the company itself. Their reputation has been good prior to this.

Are there any established procedures or criteria in GIC selecting its fund mangers?

I think the basic criteria are the company must have a good track record, it is well-established, and have a good reputation, particularly on its performance criteria.

After appointing the fund manager, does GIC check or monitor the portfolio investments of the fund manager?

Indeed, it does. It checks the performance of all fund managers employed by GIC, principally based on their return on the investments. So all fund managers' performance is compared regularly.

When did GIC discover, through this monitoring which the Minister just mentioned, that Rockefeller & Co has actually made some losses in the funds which were invested on behalf of GIC?

The actual information on this particular person's misdeeds were in fact reported by Rockefeller themselves. It would be very difficult for GIC to monitor from the performance itself because the amount would be small relative to the total funds managed. I would like to point out that when a fund of a sizeable amount is managed by a fund manager, normally the performance depends on market conditions and the ability to earn a return based on their investment portfolios. If the company is doing reasonably well, to be able to identify malfeasance on the part of a particular trader is extremely difficult. In this case, it was in fact reported by Rockefeller themselves who do, on their own, carry out checks on the performance of their dealers worldwide.

May I confirm with the Minister that this case was actually discovered by Rockefeller instead of GIC?

Yes, it was.

How does GIC ensure that such a similar case would not happen again because it seems to me that GIC was unable to discover the problem?

It is impossible to detect every single dealer's transactions which might go wrong considering the large size of the investments which are managed. To track accurately will require sustained tracking of performance which could involve market movements also. It is a very complicated procedure.

What is the Minister's assessment of the risk involved in such an investment since GIC is unable to track accurately every dealer's transactions?

I think the risk is very small. Do not forget that GIC has been in operation for many years and this is the first significant case we have come across. So the risk is relatively low.

asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in view of the rise in the cost of living, whether he will consider raising the income ceilings set for Malay students applying for tertiary tuition fee subsidy, as they had remained unchanged since the scheme was introduced in 1991.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) Scheme administered by Mendaki has two very important objectives:-

Sir, could the Minister get Mendaki to consider, on a per capita basis, the number of children that is going to university? Would the Minister agree that a family with one child in the university and earning, say, $2,999 a month, is better off when compared to a family whose income is more than $3,000 but has, say, five school-going children? Would the Minister please comment on that?

On the second question whether a family with an income of $2,000 and one child in university is better off than a family earning above $3,000 but with five school-going children, it really depends on the actual expenditure of the family. A person could be earning thousands of dollars a month but the expenditure may be high. This is also tied up to the Member's first question, ie, whether we do consider the per capita income. The answer is, we do. In other words, we look at each case on its own merits. Those whose income is $2,000 and below will be given full subsidy whereas those whose income is between $2,000 and $3,000 the subsidy will vary up to 70% and this will take into consideration the per capita expenditure of the children.

In that case, could Mendaki consider favourably applicants whose family income is more than $3,000 and who are not qualified for this scheme so that they could be given the subsidy if they have, say, a few children who are in university or school?

Sir, I would not give a definite answer to this simply because we have to look at each individual case closely. For every family the number of children going to various institutions varies and we will have to look at the actual expenditure and burden on the family. But certainly, for each and every case, Mendaki looks carefully at the circumstances of the family.

asked the Minister for Labour, following his Ministry's review on the shortage of cleaners faced by Town Council contractors, whether he will now allow these contractors to employ workers from non-traditional sources.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, cleaning contractors are allowed to employ foreign workers from traditional sources. Our review indicated that despite the 25% foreign worker dependency ceiling, Town Councils still face a shortage of manpower. Our review also indicated that there is still scope for further mechanisation, automation and application of labour reduction methods in cleaning and refuse collection work. New technologies that reduce manpower requirements have not been fully exploited in Singapore, compared to developed countries. Our strategy should therefore be to step up our mechanisation efforts and look into areas to reduce manpower needs in the industry. Liberalising the supply of unskilled non-traditional source (NTS) labour should not be our only or long-term solution. Nevertheless, to achieve the long-term objectives and yet meet the short-term needs of Town Council cleaning contractors, my Ministry has decided to implement a special scheme to enable some Town Council cleaning contractors to employ foreign workers from non-traditional sources. Under the scheme, Town Council cleaning contractors that are registered with the Construction Industry and Development Board and have at least $500,000 paid-up capital will be allowed to employ a limited number of NTS workers. They are also required to have an investment of at least $100,000 in labour-saving equipment. Eligible Town Council contractors will be allowed to hire NTS workers depending on the number of housing units they are servicing and subject to a 25% dependency ceiling. The levy for these NTS workers will be $440 per worker monthly, in line with the levy for a majority of other NTS workers. The Town Council cleaning contractors must also undertake to provide housing for NTS workers, that is, proper accommodation, and not temporary structures at work site or in estates, or in non-residential premises such as bin compounds or utility rooms in the HDB flats. My Ministry will be consulting MND, HDB and Town Councils on the implementation details. I expect the scheme to be ready in three to four months' time. I hope that this measure will help Town Councils meet their short-term needs for more cleaning workers without undermining the long-term objectives of upgrading the industry, increasing its productivity and reducing its manpower requirement. Finally, I also hope that Singaporeans living in public housing estates will take it upon themselves to keep their estates clean. By doing so, they will cut down on the number of foreign workers needed and reduce the social problems caused by a growing number of foreign workers.

asked the Minister for Communications what is the rationale for the Land Transport Authority spending $3 million on publicity campaigns.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the publicity campaign launched in July this year is to promote greater use of public transport. Getting more people to use public transport is key to having smooth flowing roads. Over the years, our public transport has improved significantly. We need to raise awareness of this and improve the image of public transport so that more people are encouraged and persuaded to use it. The publicity campaign is a joint effort between the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and all public transport operators. Car companies spend a great deal of time, money and effort packaging their cars as a superior class of transport and as status symbols. Public transport operators must not only strive to continuously improve their service but also market the improvements made. They must offer public transport as a viable transport alternative, otherwise the public will increasingly believe that cars are the only means of convenient and comfortable travel. With higher ridership, bus operators can operate more direct bus routes, and the Government can justify the expansion of the MRT and LRT network. If the campaign succeeds in persuading more people to use public transport, we will be able to build a better public transport system for Singaporeans. The $3 million will be more than worth it.

asked the Minister for Education when his Ministry will build a primary school at the vacant land between Blocks 401 and 553 at Jurong West St 42.

Sir, the subject site has been rezoned as Residential in the Jurong West Draft Master Plan. Therefore, it will not be used for school development. However, MOE plans to build one new primary school in Jurong West Extension under the 5th Primary School Building Programme.

Sir, in the development plan for the last five years, the vacant land was earmarked for a school. How come it has suddenly changed to some other development?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Development Guide Plan has to be reviewed from time to time. However, MOE is cognisant of the fact that there is a need for a primary school in that area and we have provided for one in Jurong West Extension. It is scheduled to be ready before the end of 1999.

Sir, Jurong West is quite far from Jurong West St 42 and there are three primary schools there which are adequate for Jurong West, but they cannot accommodate the children who are living in Hong Kah West 1. We have to face the residents there and in the plan the site was for a school. Who is going to answer them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have a ready answer to this question, but we will take a re-look at how the population is distributed. The proposed school is in Jurong West Extension Street 62. We do not know the exact address. But we will look again at the numbers and the population distribution, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a statement on the "Estimates Containing a Vote on Account for Expenditure for Part of the Financial Year 1st April 1997 to 31st March 1998" which I have presented to Parliament today as Cmd. 18 of 1996. Copies of the Command Paper are placed on Members' seats in the Chamber. The notice required under Standing Orders of the allotted day for consideration in the Committee of Supply has also been submitted to the Clerk of Parliament this morning and the allotted day will be 11th December 1996. Sir, it is proposed that pursuant to Article 148(B)(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Parliament will approve the Estimates tabled. The total sum to be appropriated under the vote on account is $11.399 billion. This is to meet projected operating and development outlays in the first five months of FY97/98, that is, over the period 1st April 1997 to 31st August 1997. Of this total sum, $4.771 billion is to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for operating outlays, with the remaining $6.628 billion to be appropriated from the Development Fund for development project expenditures and loans to statutory boards. Under Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the present Parliament stands dissolved on 5th January 1997, five years after its first sitting on 5th January 1992, unless it is dissolved at an earlier date by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has indicated that he would like the present Parliament to run its full term of five years. He could call for the dissolution of Parliament in the first week of January 1997 or allow Parliament's mandate to run out on 5th January 1997. In either case, under Article 66 of the Constitution, a General Election would have to be called within three months of Parliament's dissolution, that is to say, before 5th April 1997. From past experience, after the elections we will need about two months for the Government to formulate its programmes for the new term of office and for the President's Address and debate thereon. Thereafter, there will be a break of one month before the Government presents its FY97/98 Budget proposals to Parliament. The debate on the Budget Statement and the proceedings of the Committee of Supply which follow will take another three weeks or so. Overall, this process will take about four months. Even if the Prime Minister chooses to call for elections immediately after the dissolution of Parliament in the first week of January 1997, the President's approval of the FY97/98 budget can only be obtained towards the middle or end of May 1997. Legislative authority to make payments and drawdowns against the Consolidated and Development Funds will in the meantime have lapsed on 31st March 1997. However, if the Prime Minister decides to defer the holding of fresh elections until nearer 5th April 1997, the approval of the FY97/98 Budget will correspondingly be delayed until the middle or end of August 1997. To provide for expenditures that need to be incurred between 1st April 1997 and the approval of a new Budget for FY97/98, I am tabling Estimates containing a vote on account to be approved by the present Parliament. The vote on account is for $11.399 billion, or 21.2% of the FY97/98 estimates, to cover projected outlays over the 5-month period from 1st April 1997 to 31st August 1997. The amount requested is 95.7% of actual total outlays over the same period in FY96. Members should not misunderstand the amount requested under the vote on account to be a signal that the elections will be held later than earlier. This is only to provide the Prime Minister with flexibility should he decide not to hold the elections earlier. Historically, a vote on account is not without precedent in Singapore. In December 1961, the then Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, secured a vote on account for the first half of FY63 amounting to 55% of the Estimates for FY62. The sum approved under the vote on account will form part of the Estimates of Expenditure for FY97/98 when these are subsequently tabled for Parliament's approval.

"to amend the Property Tax Act (Chapter 254 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Government Proceedings Act (Chapter 121 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Second Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion* is to approve the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges had to sit because of a complaint from the Minister for Health as a result of a written submission by the SDP research team and its Secretary-General. Since this Committee of Privileges Report concerns the four SDP members, it is important that the SDP MPs be present. Unfortunately, all three of the SDP MPs are in court today over some other matters. Since they are not here, I propose to adjourn this particular motion to 11th December 1996. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves -

So be it.

Resolved "That Parliament do now adjourn to 11th December, 1996." -[Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes past One o'clock pm to Wednesday, 11th December, 1996.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs since 1990, how many drug addict suspects were injured or died while trying to evade police arrest.

Since 1990, 17 drug offenders have fallen from high-rise flats when trying to evade arrest during raids by drug enforcement officers at the premises. 16 have died. One who fell on 8th March 1996 is still in hospital. CNB officers are trained to act with discretion during these raids and will try to persuade the drug offenders to open the door. One officer is also deployed to cover the rear windows to prevent any escape. Unfortunately, despite these measures, drug offenders act desperately in their attempts to evade arrest.