Speeches on bills in Parliament (May 2021)

SECOND READING BILLS: SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT LOAN BILL

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

The logic behind it is compelling. The current proposal presents an opportunity to arbitrage — we can make more with our capital in our reserves, generating returns to fund our social programmes, as compared to the cost of borrowing. So, it makes sense to borrow under these prevailing circumstances where there is low interest rate and we enjoy a good credit rating.

Notwithstanding that, circumstances can change. And in that regard, I am happy to note the Government’s safeguards built into this Bill.

One safeguard is that the infrastructure developments must last for at least 50 years. I listened intently to the speech of the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim when he argued that infrastructure should be extended to not just hard infrastructure, but also soft infrastructure. And by that, he meant an investment in health, education, accumulation of knowledge, and human capital. While I listened to him, I think there is a lot of agreement, as opposed to disagreement, on the need to invest in these areas. In fact, if we were to reflect back on how the Government has been investing in these areas — things like SkillsFuture, building more hospitals, schools — we can see that that is also part of what the governing party is doing — investing in soft infrastructure.

The focus of this Bill, however, is financing infrastructure. And this is where we need to be careful because we are talking about sending a bill to our children, our children’s children to settle. And I thought what the hon Member Prof Hoon Hian Teck said was quite compelling because he cautioned that the situation can change. There could be a situation whereby the safe interest rate, in his words, can increase. And this is where I think the rub lies. What are the infrastructure developments we should send to be settled by our children and our children’s children? Here, I would respectfully submit that it is safer and more prudent for us to invest in soft infrastructure as much as we can and settle the bill ourselves. But when it comes to infrastructure developments which lasts for generations, to achieve — in the words of Prof Hoon Hian Teck — intergenerational distributive justice, then it makes sense to consider the format that we have in the SINGA Bill.

There are two other safeguards which I thought was laudatory — the gross borrowing limit of $90 billion, which is about 20% of our Singapore’s GDP, as well as the interest threshold of $5 billion per year and this limits the Government’s ability to borrow if interest rates go up. I have two points to make. First on the nature and the structure of the bonds and, second, on the realities of implementation.

First, on the nature and structure of the bonds. In this regard, I have two points to make. First, the interplay between the constitutional safeguards — and the hon Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the reserves protection framework — and SINGA. As mentioned by the hon Deputy Prime Minister, Article 144 of the Constitution is engaged, and he highlighted that the in-principle approval of the President has been obtained for the passing of this Bill. And it was specifically mentioned that Her Excellency agreed to a borrowing limit of $90 billion. My question relates to the workings of the procedure. Say, for example, the Bill is passed and the Government intends to issue bonds. Would the Government come back to Parliament for a resolution to be passed and would it still be subject to the discretionary approval of the President? I respectfully seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter.

The second point I wish to make is in relation to our commitment to Green Bonds. The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned in February 2021 that Singapore will issue Green Bonds on select public infrastructure projects with up to $19 billion of public sector, green projects, already identified. Today, he mentioned that one of the objectives of SINGA is to build a safe, green, liveable environment.

To further encourage sustainability efforts, would the Government be minded to stipulate at least a minimum percentage of SINGA bonds that will be green? This will have a salutatory effect of ensuring the high percentage of infrastructural projects being undertaken in Singapore with sustainable measures in place.

Now, on to my second point about the realities of implementation. What about projects that may, for one reason or another, be aborted? For instance, when there is a change in government. We cannot predict the future, but we have seen examples all over the world. One government may come in and say it wishes to build a wall. Another government may say no. Closer to home, one government may say “build a high-speed railway system”; another government may decide not to do it. Would it not be prudent to work in a requirement that the government of the day which wishes to abandon infrastructural projects funded by SINGA bonds must ensure that it is able to finance the abortive costs from its current revenue?

Sir, I conclude. The logic behind this Bill is compelling, but I sense nervousness in the speeches of the hon Members, such as Mr Edward Chia, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har. And it is understandable, because borrowing always entails a risk, just as the fruits of spending are always alluring. But I am satisfied that the safeguards that the hon Deputy Prime Minister highlighted are safeguards that will stand us in good stead. So, notwithstanding my comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Video of speech: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/videos/may/murali-pillai-on-significant-infrastructure-government-loan-bill-14780950

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, few of us in the House today would have arrived without being at some risk — of having an accident on the road, of being grazed, or bumping someone’s fender, or something even more serious.

Over the years, the Traffic Police has done exemplary work and, with its partners and the cooperation of the public, brought down road traffic fatalities significantly. This is the point that the hon Minister of State made just a few minutes ago. It is clear that there has been a downward trend over the past 10 years, even discounting last year where there was a circuit breaker imposed.

However, elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists continue to be involved in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents resulting in injuries or death. Motorcyclists were involved in more than 63% of fatal accidents in 2020. Half of the fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians were due to jaywalking.

It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change. These informal norms work together with legislation to instil in each road user a culture of safety and mutual respect. It is against this context that I now proceed to review the Bill, which I support.

I start, however, by highlighting an area involving road safety that the Bill does not cover. In August 2018, I spoke in Parliament about the need to bring to hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles involved in fatal accidents owing to mechanical failure liable — and criminally liable — for these accidents. This liability must be commensurate with the weight of consequences — I had highlighted specific cases where death was caused because of poorly maintained vehicles.

I also articulated the need for legislation to cover the area. The Road Traffic Act focuses on driver conduct. The Workplace Health and Safety Act focuses on vehicular accidents causing injuries to the employer’s own workers. Neither applies to accidents that caused injury or death to third parties, owing to mechanical failure.

We might argue, as the hon Senior Minister of State who replied to me then did, that we may rely on the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a person, who through his rash or negligent act, causes death. The same provisions may make corporations liable too. The problem, however, is that this is a general provision and a blunt instrument when it comes to a vehicle owner or operator in charge of maintenance.

What is needed is a specific provision that makes it clear that vehicle owner is liable so long as the lack of maintenance played a contributory factor, it is not necessary that it plays an effective factor which is the Penal Code’s requirement. What I am arguing for, therefore is a lower threshold on which liability can be proven. I also pointed out that it would be easy for a corporation to escape liability because of the absence of a provision in law to impute liability to corporations as a result of a default on the part of its employees for not maintaining the vehicles.

Just earlier this year, I asked the hon Minister for Transport what is the average number of vehicles that caught fire per year in the last five years owing to mechanical failure. The hon Minister informed that there are 200 vehicular fires per year but for the majority of the fire incidents, it would be difficult to pinpoint the cause of the fire. Notwithstanding that, I think it is safe to assume that a significant percentage of these fires are caused by poorly maintained vehicles.

I am not alone. SCDF thinks so as well. Its officers carry the buck of extinguishing such fires on roads and putting their own lives at risk and I think we should listen to them. In its own advisories, it states as follows: (a) most vehicle fires in Singapore occurred while the vehicles are travelling on the road; (b) the primary cause of these fires is due to ignition sources such as overheating and electrical faults within the engine compartment. SCDF also highlighted the need to service the vehicles regularly at authorised vehicle workshops to prevent vehicles from catching fire.

It is time to make vehicle owners criminally responsible for fatalities and injuries arising from accidents caused by their poorly maintained vehicles. It is also time for vehicle owners and workshop owners to be criminally liable if they have made illegally modifications to vehicles that are involved in accidents causing fatalities and injuries where these modifications played a contributing factor to the accidents. I believe this is the point that hon Member Mr Derrick Goh would expand on in his own speech.

With that, let me come to the Bill proper. I have three points to make. First, on the point about ensuring pillion riders to wear safety helmets, I obviously support that. The issue I seek clarification on is the age of pillion riders. Under Paragraph 36 of Road Traffic Rules, it is stipulated that no person riding a motorcycle or scooter on a road shall carry any child below 10 years of age. In comparison, pillion riders on PABs must be at least 16 years old. Why is there a difference in age? This affects the viability of parents escorting their children through PABs, especially school children in Primary schools. I would have thought that, if anything, it would be the other way around because the motorcyclist is likely to be travelling faster than a PAB rider.

Second, vehicle forfeiture in situations where the motorists engage in speed trials. I support the stiffening of penalties for illegal speed trials. They put other motorists and road users to great danger. My question concerns the proposed section 117 (7) of the Road Traffic Act which makes the vehicle forfeiture regime non-mandatory where such vehicles are used for speed trials.

It is stated in the provision that the Court “need not” make an order for forfeiture where the person who committed the offence is not the owner of the vehicle and he used it without the consent of the owner. How about a situation where the owner did not know that his vehicle was being used by the offender but he was wilfully blind? In other words, he suspected, he could have asked but he did not. However, he did not specifically know that his vehicle was used by the offender. I would be grateful for a clarification on the policy reason for the proposed change, as I understand the original reason for imposing mandatory forfeiture is to deprive would be offenders from easily accessing vehicles for commission of offences.

Third and finally, I come to the definition of a “responsible officer” under the proposed section 81 of the Road Traffic Act that the hon Minister of State outlined. Under the proposed section 81, where the owner of the vehicle is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, it is the owner’s responsibility to keep a proper record of the vehicle’s usage and the persons driving the vehicle. So far so good.

In the proposed amendments, it is also provided that the owner should designate at least one of the responsible officers to ensure that a proper record is kept — it is a personal responsibility. The personal responsibility is reposed on the chairperson, managing director or the company secretary of a company or positions analogous to any of these offices.

As the hon Minister of State mentioned, failure to do so attracts liability, criminal liability. With respect, this seems rather draconian. What is the rationale of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary personally responsible for maintaining a proper record of a vehicle usage? Would it not be sufficient to require that the board appoint an employee to be a responsible person? Is it possible to write in a provision to state that the responsibilities on these senior officers are discharged, once such an appointment is made?

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, when our movements are curbed because of the COVID-19 safe management measures, we better appreciate the true value of easy mobility. Safety, respect for all users and a thoughtful, fair approach must govern the use of our roads. This Bill gives us the promise of a step in the right direction. It solves some legal issues, but the need for public education, improving the safety culture and deepening the respect amongst road users — all those remain work in progress. I support the Bill.

Video of speech: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/videos/may/murali-pillai-on-road-traffic-amendment-bill-14786748

LAND BETTERMENT CHARGE BILL

Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, while urban planners in most parts of the world are accustomed to planning for swaths of land, in our small Singapore, land is counted out inch by niggardly inch. As a matter of public interest, land here — those pieces that we have agreed to be developed — should be developed to its optimal potential. Where the Government allows for land to be developed more optimally, its value, in most circumstances, will tend to increase.

This Bill deals with the increased value arising from consent on the part of the public authorities. The land betterment charge represents a tax to divert part of the increased value, created by the decision of the public body, for public good. The logic of this is that the value created by the decision of a public body must benefit the public.

To share the increase in the value of land with the public is not a new concept: since Independence in 1965, Singapore has a Development Charge (DC) system, as mentioned by the hon Minister, under the Planning Act. It is a tax that is payable when planning permission is granted to carry out development projects that increases the allowable intensity or allows a change in zoning that increase the value of land.

Singapore also has a Development Premium (DP) system which works similarly. A DP is levied, as a matter of contract, unlike DC which is a tax, by the Government on the developer in return for the Government lifting title restrictions that will have the effect of increasing the value of the land.

This Bill consolidates these concepts under one Bill. This is an elegant solution to consolidate the bases for taxation and the levying of a charge arising from increase in land value because a public authority agrees to lift restrictions to enable a better utility of the land.

There are similar pieces of legislation in many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom.

I seek some clarifications on the Bill with a view to understand the scope of the Bill.

First, will the DP system continue to operate outside the lifting of restrictive covenants? For example, when dealing with remnant land which is not capable of independent development because of the small size or shape, but has amalgamation potential which can bring out an enhancement in land value.

What will be the situation where the planning authority allows for amalgamation of land plots that has the effect of increasing the land value of the remnant land? From my perusal of what constitutes “chargeable consent” under the Bill, such situations seem to fall outside the Bill.

In contrast, a land betterment charge may be levied arising from chargeable consent given in relation to sub-division of any land, even if there is no development on it, giving rise to an increase in its land value.

If my reading is correct, may I please ask: why is the Government not minded to bring such a situation under the Bill since the intent of the Bill is to consolidate the concepts of DC and DP under one single Bill?

Also, may I clarify that the Government will continue with the current practice to charge DP in such situations?

Second, I would like to understand the applicability of the Bill vis a vis decisions of the Court that may have the effect of enhancing land value.

Let us take an example where the Court makes a declaration that the burden of an easement over a servient tenement has been abandoned. As a consequence, the land value of the servient tenement may increase. Or, alternatively, a situation where the Court exercises the power under section 105A or section 140(5) of the Land Titles Act to vary or extinguish an easement or restriction over a servient tenement on the basis that they are obsolete and such burdens impede the development of the land. In such situations, by a stroke of the pen of the judge, the land value may increase too.

Again, my reading of the definition of “chargeable consent” is that such situations fall outside the Bill.

In my respectful view, if my reading is correct, there is little difference between an administrator lifting a restriction and the Court lifting a restriction that results in an increase in land value. Both should produce the same consequence. Alternatively, we should separately capture part of the increased value arising from Court decisions for public good.

Sir, let me conclude. In Singapore, land is a vehicle through which Singaporeans’ wealth is built and transmitted. It is our duty to ensure that we make the best rules possible to optimise its use and to distribute the gains fairly.

I believe the Bill represents a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my points of clarification. I support the Bill.

Video of speech: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/videos/may/murali-pillai-on-land-betterment-charge-bill-14781666