Abdullah Tarmugi
Singapore
“As I have said, in most, if not all cases, we have a multi-disciplinary team to assess. In other words, even the protector himself or herself is subject to the assessment of this team. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Sir, I think that is a convenient tack to say. But AMP and others must also realise that the new policy applies to all NGOs which are co-located at community buildings, and not only to AMP. TRIPARTITE COMMITTEE ON PORTABLE MEDICAL BENEFITS (Progress report) 5.”
“Sir, this is precisely what we are talking about, ie, it is not just a question about numbers per se, and I would like to refer to what Mr Noris Ong said, about having three or more children, if we can afford it. This means, as I mentioned just now in my speech too, that we do not want children to be a burden.”
“At present, Sir, the policy is we will support up to three children. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].”
“My Ministry will continue to look into ways of removing the obstacles couples face in having children. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, we already have had eight days of long debate. I would be concise and you would be very relieved if all other speakers after me would be concise.”
“So we would leave it as it is and we only pay for working women. It is really to compensate the loss in income. He asked about the provision in the Bill on "lawfully married to the child's natural father". This is, as I said earlier, because we want to encourage child birth within wedlock and the family remains intact.”
The complete record
Every one of 726 lines we hold for Abdullah Tarmugi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 15.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by quoting from the Address of the President, delivered on the 6th of January: "We must encourage the more able to do their best for themselves and for Singapore. But the more able also need to show concern for the others and help them to catch up." This, Sir, is a crucial principle that has put us to where we are and will guarantee our progress in the future. It is unrealistic, Sir, if not, entirely hypocritical for us to withhold reward from those who are able, those who are talented, or those who make the effort in the name of equality. The question is: are we therefore being elitist as some have accused us to be? Elitism, Sir, presumes the enhancement and preservation of the status, position and privilege of a few who consider themselves, and make sure that they remain, superior to the rest in the country. How can we be elitist when our policies are not devoid of compassion, not devoid of charity and, more importantly, filled with schemes that maximise the opportunity for everyone to move up in life, if only they make the effort? I passionately subscribe, Sir, to the principle that opportunities must be made available to enable as many of our citizens to better themselves and to enjoy the fruits of their labour. And much as we like to, Sir, it is impossible to equalise society by ensuring that everyone is equal in terms of rewards, status and material well-being. Communism has attempted this, and it failed dismally. Many well-meaning non-Communist countries too have tried, but instead create other and bigger problems that threaten the fabric of their societies. But we must equalise opportunities and I am glad that continuous and earnest attempts are being made, as illustrated in the President's Address.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“May we know, therefore, the progress of work done by the Unit and what further plans does it have to assist women who need its help?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, our welfare policies are in the main geared towards providing opportunities for those in need of help to help themselves improve their own lot. During the last budget debate, the Minister of State informed the House of two measures which would be implemented to assist poor families and individuals. One of them, Sir, is the Rent and Utilities Assistance Scheme which my colleague, Mr Chay Wai Chuen, would speak about afterwards and has been, in fact, alluded to earlier on by the Minister. The other is the Skills Training Scheme for low income families. This scheme is purported to help those who want to improve themselves but cannot do so or do not know how to avail themselves of the many jobs and training opportunities that exist. Sir, it is only right that those who are willing to make the effort to help themselves be assisted to do so. In fact, such attitudes should be encouraged if we are to be a self-reliant and robust society. Can the Minister, therefore, inform this House the details of this scheme and how many have taken advantage of it? The other programme which I hope the Ministry can tell us about is the Women's Welfare Services Unit. Last year, the Member for Yuhua brought up the plight of women who were divorced, suffering from some kind of abuse or physical violence and of the problems faced by single parents. The reply from the Minister of State then, Sir, was that a Women's Welfare Services Unit would be set up in MCD to provide assistance to such women and to be "a direct point of contact for women who need help".”
“I am sure that in his review, he will also look into the various appointments in the Syariah Court and make his recommendations accordingly.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like now to move on to my suggestion to appoint a "Hakim" or Judge in the Shariah Court. My reasons for seeking another competent officer to assist the President of the Shariah Court in handling divorce cases are as applicable today as last year. Briefly, in view of the large number of divorce cases, it is inadequate for the President alone to deal with them within a reasonable period of time. Here, I would like again to appeal to the Minister responsible to appoint a temporary Hakim or Judge to serve a fixed term of, say, one or two years. If the officer is found not needed within that term, his services could then be terminated. I hope this suggestion could be tried out so that we could see if this system of temporary assistance is practicable. 4.03 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] Dr Ahmad Mattar( In Malay): Mr Chairman, I am replying to the questions raised by Encik Wan Hussin as the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs. On the question regarding the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM), I am pleased to announce that ROMM is compiling a handbook on Muslim marriages in conjunction with Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura. The handbook will include topics such as duties and responsibilities of husband and wife, the importance of a successful marriage in the socio-economic development of the Muslim community. The handbook, as suggested by Encik Wan Hussin, will be published in three languages - Malay, English and Tamil. I would convey the other views and suggestions by Encik Wan Hussin to ROMM. Mr Chairman, as for his suggestion to appoint a temporary Hakim or Judge to assist the President of Syariah Court, I would like to state that the Auditor-General is presently reviewing the functions of the Syariah Court.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri( In Malay): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chairman, every year more than 4,000 couples register themselves for marriage at the Registry of Muslim Marriages. Some of these couples are young people and some do not fully grasp the conditions they must fulfil, the preparations necessary and the responsibilities that they have to bear in setting up a family. In this regard, I am pleased and I would congratulate the various Muslim bodies and mosques that have been conducting marriage guidance courses for these couples. I understand a lot of useful guidance and advice are given in these courses. 4.00 pm Mr Chairman, I would like to suggest that the Registry of Muslim Marriages play a more active role in this area. This can be done perhaps by the Registry producing a marriage handbook for the benefit of the couples. This handbook can be offered to them free or sold at a reasonable price when they register themselves at the Registry. As for the contents of the book, it can include, among other things, the responsibilities of a husband or a wife and perhaps even the responsibilities of parents on both sides. And since counselling is now provided by various bodies, it will also be useful to list out in the book the locations of the various counselling centres, their opening hours and the officials manning them. I would also like to urge that the book be published not only in Malay but also in English and perhaps even Tamil. I believe if this can be done, it would benefit the more than 4,000 newly-wed couples every year.”
“Sir, in 1988 several high-powered Advisory Councils were formed to examine various topics and to make recommendations which would turn Singapore into a society that is more robust, yet cultivated and gentler. Various recommendations of the Councils have been implemented or are about to be realised. Off and on, we hear of new committees being formed, new measures and projects being implemented, some of which are in pursuance of the recommendations of the Advisory Councils. Can the Minister therefore give us a complete status report on what are the recommendations of the Advisory Councils that have been implemented and those that are to be implemented? I note, Sir, that the Ministry's OOE will increase by $12 million over the FY 90 revised expenditure towards the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Advisory Councils. Can the Minister therefore give details of this proposed expenditure to this House and the implementation schedule that is adopted?”
“Families under stress are fragile and even those who manage to keep the family intact have to work hard at it. Sir, at this stage, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would share with us his Ministry's thinking and approach in promoting the shared values, especially in respect of the family. What are its plans and how is it going about its work to ensure that the family remains strong and intact? What kinds of help and support is it offering to families so that they can continue to play their crucial role in society?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, earlier this year, this House discussed the kinds of values Singaporeans should share and adopt as the basis for a common identity. It was the culmination of effort which began in 1988, and involving every strata of society. Now, Sir, that we have arrived at a considerable consensus on what these values should be, the next step is for us to promote these values among our population. We have agreed, Sir, that these values should not be promoted by fiat, nor forced onto our people. Rather, we should create conditions and an environment that could encourage and reflect these values. So far, Sir, no single Ministry has been charged with promoting these values nor with coordinating Government efforts in spreading them. The Ministry of Community Development, in my mind, Sir, by virtue of its mission and programmes, appears to be eminently suited to spearhead the promotion of these values among our population. Its portfoliocovers the family, community and grassroots activities and welfare. These inevitably touch on the values of the family as a basic unit of society and community support for the individual. Members of my GPC will deal with specific aspects which impinge on these shared values. Many families are under stress and the necessity to provide for economic needs in an intensely competitive environment, of ensuring that children get a good education, of making sure that the future is assured, often creates strains within a family. With increasing nuclear families being formed, the emotional and spiritual or even financial support by relatives in the same household is becoming increasingly hard to come by.”
“For centuries, race and ethnicity have been de-emphasised in the interest of ideology and the policy of assimilation, yet the menace of racial difference has now reappeared to threaten the integrity of the nations concerned. This does not mean, however, Mr Speaker, that there is no formula we can look for. We can still identify existing similarities. To me, it is better to take a hard look at our various cultures and try to find elements of similarities among them, than try to de-emphasise them or assimilate them or otherwise let the different cultures grow untendedly along their own separate paths, for there remain a lot of common grounds that we can identify in our multi-cultural society, that we can develop to create a new synthesis for Singapore. These elements can then be a source of strength for all of us. I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh.”
“The ceremonies, celebrations and artistic aspects of each culture are but the leaves and the flowers, the manifestations of the flourishing of the plant. We must look into the mental and intellectual aspects existing in the cultures of Singapore and identify elements that we can turn into the foundations of an even more dynamic, potent future. Would we by doing so become more conscious of our differences and thus create stumbling blocks in the way of a cohesive society? More to the point, Mr Speaker, would the concern about this approach result in divisions among us? I think no new undertaking or endeavour can be free of problems. If we emphasise the differences, of course, division would be the result. But if we try our level best to seek this new dynamism by stressing the similarities existing in our various cultures, we would overcome the initial problems that might arise as a result and continue to use this new discovery for our common objectives and benefit. Efforts in this direction will necessarily be a long process and must be handled carefully and sensitively. I think the hon. Member for Siglap has just emphasised the importance of handling this issue with circumspection. We must realise that every culture possesses enormous latent strength. Simply pushing it into the ground will not eliminate it, for it would re-surface the moment the situation changes. Just look at developments in Europe and other parts of the world. The recent resurgence of racial differences in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, Northern Mediterranean, even Canada, and some African countries, is a reality we cannot ignore.”
“Why not Western culture, when we have committed ourselves to making English our administrative language, our language of learning, technology and progress? Mr Speaker, natural order does not allow this in Singapore. Western culture puts priority on the individual. And this idea has been sown, nurtured and nourished in a socio-cultural environment alien to us. While it has successfully brought Western societies to their glory, this culture now runs into problems in carrying the West into a new phase. People might see it as natural for a culture to grow and mature and then decline before dying out, but this theory of civilisation cycle has certain elements of fatalism. Every culture and civilisation really contains the seeds for a new civilisation, which must be identified, nurtured and developed scientifically in order that they could bring forth a new, even more glorious civilisation. Singapore is fortunate in having cultures originating from some great civilisations, spanning hundreds, even thousands of years. I am of course refering to the Chinese, Indian, Malay and Western cultures that, individually, possess such enormous potentials. We must seek the strength for our 'new propellant' in the meeting of these cultures and civilisations. Promoting consciousness of our Malay, Indian, Chinese or other roots is the right start. However, Mr Speaker, we should not limit ourselves to only the external aspects of our cultures, such as the ceremonies and the celebrations. More important is selecting and developing the mental and intellectual aspects of these cultures. These are like the roots of a tree, that spread through the soil seeking minerals and nourishment so that the tree could grow strong and flourish.”
“We need to look into this aspect because, firstly, we are shifting our style and approach to resolving problems and issues, through open participation by the people. We are emphasising consultation, the readiness to listen to public views and consider their proposals in formulating our national policies. Secondly, realising the aspirations and desires of our younger generation and the trend towards evolving a new political culture, we want more young people to come forward and join us in building and shaping our future. Thirdly, the new phase that we are moving into makes new demands on us, requiring far more than economic pragmatism, social discipline, political stability and hard work. It requires a spiritual strength capable of lifting and transforming us into a society of even higher distinction. Mr Speaker, we are now on a new path. Unless we act wisely, this path could lead to bigger problems for us. What we are seeking now, Sir, is a new strength that could propel us effectively into a new era of progress. I call this new element a 'new propellant', something capable of sparking a new dynamism and at the same time keep us on a steady course. We want to find the formula for this 'new propellant' in the wealth that we possess, the wealth I am sure still exists in the treasury of our cultures. If the American spirit of free enterprise was launched by Calvinism; if the Japanese could overtake United States through a new perspective on Shintoism; if the Koreans could give new meaning to their culture of survival; if the Swiss could formulate their own unique philosophy, we must find our inner strength in the elements existing in our own multi-racial culture. Why our culture?”
“Sir, let me conclude by hailing the President's Address as a significant milestone in the history of this country as it attempts to bring us into a new era in Government-citizen relationship and a qualitative change in our non-material environment. We have reason to be expectant but before we become too euphoric of the exciting prospects that lie ahead of us, we should always remind ourselves of the constraints that we have to face and the fundamentals that have brought us to where we are today, and to make the vision laid out in the President's Address possible in the first place. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, while so many newly independent countries are still struggling to give substance to their independence by providing basic facilities for their people, Singapore has succeeded well in this area and, indeed, has achieved way beyond providing basic necessities for almost all its people. No doubt, an honest, dedicated and farsighted leadership and a hardworking citizenry, along with pragmatic policies, have brought results in terms of prosperity and progress. Our people have achieved a high standard of living and we are now poised to run the next lap with a new agenda for action. The Presidential Address clearly outlines the objectives we have to achieve. We are seeking not only to keep up the success we have achieved, but also to build stronger foundations for our people to attain even better progress and higher distinction. Mr Speaker, I would like to focus my attention on one aspect, building a new socio-cultural environment, something which has recently aroused heated discussion and even led to the debate we saw yesterday and today.”
“I agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens yesterday when he mentioned that these fundamental issues had not been dealt with in the Presidential Address. Granted that the issues had been dealt with before, it bears repeating and discussion, if not, review. What do we expect 25 years from now? What do we see happening in terms of inter-racial, inter-religious relations in time to come? How do we retain our differences and yet remain united? While these will have to be discussed more openly, it will have to be done more dispassionately. We will still have to tread carefully and unhastily, always cognisant of the sensitivities involved and the readiness of our people to do so. Just yesterday, Sir, in this House, two MPs lost no time in responding to Dr Lau Teik Soon when the latter expressed his views on how the different cultures should evolve and should be presented. I would suggest that this issue be addressed and an agreement as to how we would proceed be reached. The defensiveness and the enthusiasm with which Messrs Goh Choon Kang and Peh Chin Hua pushed their arguments went to show that the issue evoked strong and deep feelings which we in this House cannot ignore. If MPs can display such feelings, imagine the emotions that could be evoked in a free-for-all discussion in the market-place. So while a freer and open discussion of issues is laudable and even inevitable, sensitive issues which touch the heart will have to be consciously dealt with, and with care. In this connection, I would also like to inquire the progress in implementing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which we passed last year, more specifically, on the setting up of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.”
“We are rather reluctant to give them a second chance, to redeem themselves and be given the opportunity to contribute to society later in life. If Singapore is to be a place for everybody, then we cannot ignore the aspirations and hopes of these people. If we want them to feel at home in Singapore and feel attached to this place, then we must not make them feel unwanted and discounted. The avenues and opportunities to be recognised must therefore be widened. The emphasis on paper qualification is understandable, but not when it becomes all-consuming and all-determining. We often blame parents for pushing their children and ask them to exert less pressure when we ourselves have stressed the primacy of a good paper qualification in the assessment of a person's ability and potential and in rewarding him or her. Then there are those who had erred some time in the past. It appears that their transgressions follow them well into their future, blocking further opportunities for them to lead a normal and useful life. Our attitude seems to be that if one has muddied one's feet, he or she should forever be banned from entering into the house even when those feet have been wiped clean. But, Sir, to do so would leave them little or no choice but to remain in the mud outside the house. We must create as wide an environment as possible to include as many of our citizens as possible, so long as we do not compromise our ideals and fundamentals. We need to bring as many of our citizens as possible on board for unless we do so there may be more and more who will find it difficult to identify emotionally with Singapore. Let me now come to racial and religious harmony.”
“Someone I know, Sir, who has since migrated, once told me that he was merely treated and felt like a tenant here in Singapore. He was judged by his economic worth and contribution, by what he could pay. So, as a tenant, he argued, he expected good and proper service and good facilities to be provided by the Government. It was purely an economic arrangement that he did not feel compelled to harbour any feeling or attachment to this place. While we may disagree with his sentiments, I cannot but feel uncomfortable by the symptoms that he and perhaps many others like him have begun to show on their relationship with Singapore. While Government has good and valid reasons for emphasising excellence and achievement, we may not be totally guiltless in creating the kind of environment which has led to such feelings among some Singaporeans here. So we have to change attitudes, as the President has asserted. We have to create an environment where Singaporeans would be inclined to have deep attachments to this country. The methods outlined in the Presidential Address would help us create this environment. Government has to set the tone. But apart from the methods and measures mentioned, Sir, we could perhaps do more in creating a softer and gentler environment for those who do not excel, those who are less capable and those who do not make the grade at the first try, either in school or at the workplace. The slow developers or the disinterested school leavers who later realise the error of their ways have little opportunities to re-enter into the education mainstream. Then, we appear to be too unforgiving to those who have erred, but later repented.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the President for his Address given in this House last week. It was an inspiring speech, bold in vision and comprehensive in scope which, when implemented, will bring this country to a new and higher phase of development. Sir, the following statements, to my mind, encapsulate the ideals and aspirations contained in the agenda: 'In the next lap, we must strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans. We want to change attitudes and develop civic pride. Every citizen should treat Singapore as he would treat his own home. We must work together to build, expand, and upgrade it.' In one sense, we have arrived. We are, by most standards, rich materially. There are few things that we cannot find here that are found elsewhere in the world. We devour new products and fashion with ferocity. Objects have become to be assessed by the status or prestige in their ownership rather than their intrinsic value or necessity. In other words, we have become rather blase, about our material comforts and begin to take them for granted. Things work in this country. Our garbage is cleared every day, our streets are swept clean. Water and electricity flow as if they are free and unlimited in supply. Our system of rewards favours the capable, the daring, the high achiever. People are measured by the kind and amount of rewards that they can amass for themselves. In sum, Sir, we risk ending up a country with a lot of glitter, like a well-appointed hotel, but with little soul; with many travellers, but no owners who are emotionally attached to this place and to call it home.”
“Those who are unable, through no fault of their own, or through no lack of trying, to grasp the opportunities that are available will tend to be left behind and to be left alone. I am referring, Sir, to those who are less fortunate among us - the poor, the handicapped, the less privileged. These individuals and these families must be given the community's attention and the community's assistance, and indeed this includes also the Government. To enable them to live a decent and meaningful life, the community must take upon itself to share with and care for them so that they too have a place in this country. This also dovetails our aspirations towards creating a society that is not only economically successful but also kinder and gentler as well. How do we inculcate or promote these shared values? In our earnestness, Sir, we may be tempted to legislate and turn these values into law. I would strongly discourage this. By all means reflect these in our policies and the way we, the Government and the people, conduct ourselves. But they should be accepted, not forced down, internalised and not contrived. It would appear therefore that the best way is through education in the home and through the schools, and starting also from the young. I am confident, Sir, that through these methods, our shared values will, through time, be a body of values that are alive and relevant to our people. I support the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Batok.”
“What in fact we are doing is to institutionalise and formalise these values at national level whereby they become common reference to all Singaporeans instead of being buried in our separate groups. In other words, to make these values not merely Chinese, Malay, or Indian values, but Singaporean values, because they emphasise our similarities rather than accentuate our differences. We have spent a considerable amount of time and energy in searching for and identifying these values which we can commonly hold. Five have been chosen. And I agree with Mr Chandra Das, the Chairman of the Feedback Unit, that, although we may have many other values worthy of consideration, it will indeed be more practical and more effective in terms of implementation if we confine ourselves to a workable number to cover only those which are basic to our quest for nationhood and to our survival. I will not discuss all the values proposed as I believe other speakers would comment on each one of them. But as Chairman of the GPC for Community Development, I am particularly pleased with the addition of a fifth to the original four values proposed, that is, Regard and Community Support for the Individual. Sir, it is only fitting that while we put the interest of the nation above community and that of the latter over the individual, we should not forget and brush aside the condition and welfare of individuals. The practice of meritocracy has enabled us to prosper and progress and facilitate our adaptation to an ever changing environment. But the pure and simple practice of this principle must necessarily end in the rewards going only to those who are able and to those who make the effort.”
“Sir, Dr Ong has been most comprehensive in his speech. I shall be brief. Sir, so far we have concentrated on turning this country into a successful economic unit. And for some time now, we have also increasingly addressed ourselves to the question of forging this entity into a nation. Crucial in this exercise, Sir, is the formation of a Singaporean identity and a sense of attachment and belonging to one another and to this country. I see, Sir, the proposed promotion of these shared values as part of this important exercise. Ours is a multi-racial and multi-religious society with a relatively short history as nations go. There was not simply enough time for us to evolve a set of commonly accepted values to which all citizens could adhere and subscribe to. The glue that have kept the society together and going are the benefits and rewards that economic prosperity and political stability bring to its members. Stripped of these elements, Singapore would, as some would argue, surface as a society of separate races with probably separate loyalties and interests, waiting to break in times of stress and tension, for there is nothing deeper to anchor its members to one another and to this place. In this context, Sir, the proposed shared values could offer the deeper and more enduring emotional and spiritual ties that could bind this society together, especially in an atmosphere that is fast changing and perennially exposed to influences from other societies. We must therefore take the shared values very seriously. Some say that the sentiments that have been proposed are nothing new and are already embedded in our respective traditions and our cultures. Indeed, Dr Ong has already alluded to this earlier, and I agree.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I fully support the view that we should not become a welfare state in the fashion of some Western societies. However, given our not-too-poor state of wealth, the amount we have put aside for social transfers is indeed nothing for us to shout about. It is true that the proportion of the population who are in dire need of help is comparatively small. Some people say that this is a question of definition but they, nevertheless, Sir, need our help. Then there is also a growing number of, for want of a better word, "marginally poor" - those who have problems, sometimes temporarily, in meeting everyday expenditure of conservancy and rental payments. Can something be done to help them directly or indirectly? I note, for instance, that the provision for school fees, transport and pocket money has dropped to about one-tenth of the revised FY 89 figure, that is, from $22,500 to only $2,320. I would have thought that with the increasing cost of education, such a provision should at least be the same, if not increased. Can the Minister therefore give us some explanation on this? Lastly, Sir, the Minister spoke at the last Budget about his Ministry conducting a review of the public assistance rates once every two years, the last being in 1988. Will there therefore be another review this year as scheduled?”
“It is therefore important for local organisations to respond to these challenges and for the general population to support and encourage such effort if we are to achieve our stated goals in this direction. But Government on its part can play a pivotal and catalytic role by creating an environment where the arts can flourish and even giving direct help, when necessary, to ensure that local organisations and impresarios are on a sounder footing. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what further assistance have been made and planned for our local organisations? I note that this year's budget provision for such organisations has remained at $400,000 since the last financial year. Can the Minister also enlighten the House on the steps he is taking to streamline the licensing procedures so that show promoters will be further encouraged to bring quality shows to the country? Before I close this topic, Sir, I wonder if the Minister could also enlighten the House on the censorship criteria and procedures on artistic works. We are made to understand, for example, that the coming play, M Butterfly, has had to have portions of its script re-worked. Recently, a local play has also had to have parts of its script altered. There were also other similar instances in the past. Sir, while I understand and support the need to weed out obscenity, ridicule, violence and anything that offends local sensitivities, are we not being too sensitive perhaps or even over-protective when it comes to social comment and artistic expression, bearing in mind the subjectivity of assessment on artistic works? Do we not risk stifling creativity and effort? I hope the Minister can comment on this. Let me now come to my last cut, and that is, on the provision of welfare services.”
“Last year, the six Advisory Councils formed by Government submitted their recommendations. Taken as a package, these recommendations will go some way in raising the quality of life in Singapore. Can the Minister therefore enlighten this House the actions that have and will be taken to implement the recommendations? I note that some $13 million have been put aside for the implementation of these recommendations. Can the Minister therefore give some details on this? Can the Minister also, in particular, tell the House whether any decision has been reached on the recommended formation of the National Council for the Aged, National Council for the Family and the National Arts Council? If so, what are these decisions? Let me now take the second cut which deals with cultural and artistic develop- ments in Singapore. Sir, the development of the arts in Singapore is a daunting task, albeit an interesting one. Our incessant pursuit for material well-being has hitherto prevented us from putting enough effort in this area. So we have to first get out of this inertia. But it is also a daunting task in the sense that we are committed to developing and promoting our traditional and multi-cultural art forms to reflect the multiplicity that exists in our society. In addition to this, we also have to cater for the section of the population who appreciate and are more inclined towards Western art forms, mediums and expressions. All these mean, Sir, that there is an inevitable segmentation and dispersion of the already small local audience and available resources and talent that we have here. But all these also mean that we have a more colourful and varied art scene in Singapore, something which we have to cherish.”
“Sir, I note that this year's budget shows a slight shift in the relative share of the GDP taken up by the various Ministries. And I am indeed glad to note the increases especially in the expenditure of the Ministry of Community Development for its programmes. There is also indication, Sir, that there will be gradual increases in the share of the budget for the social and community services sector in the medium term. This is a good beginning and an encouraging trend in view of Government's commitment to raise the quality of life for Singaporeans. As often being said, Sir, having provided for the basic needs, the Government is now paying more attention to raising the qualify of life. I do not belittle the importance of economic development and progress, for without this there is little point at all in talking about qualitative improvements in the country. However, our state of development indicates that while economic progress is still necessary, it is not a sufficient condition towards raising the quality of life in Singapore where our people, Sir, now yearn for higher order goals and for the finer things in life. It therefore behoves as a Government to give flesh to such aspirations. Notwithstanding this, Sir, it appears obvious that for those with no or little means, material improvement plays a more crucial role in the betterment of one's quality of life. This too will have to be taken into account. MCD therefore has the dual role of helping to improve the well-being of this section of the population who need material assistance and to assist in the achievement of higher order goals for those who are in a position to aspire for them. And it is in this context, Sir, that I am encouraged by the relative increase in the expenditure for the Ministry.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, with your permission, could I take all my three cuts at one go?”
“To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether he will consider reducing the interim registration fee for motorcycles before the introduction of a quota system for vehicles. INCREASED VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES (Special exemption from payment) 6.”
“On this, Sir, the Government has a very large part to play. As of now, our people are still unsure of what they can do in terms of their religion without breaking the provisions of the Bill. How far can proselytization go, for example? What words, what deeds, would be construed to be offending others or to be dabbling in politics? What can be said in religious sermons, in religious speeches? The Government must ensure that the people fully understand the ramifications of the Bill. A lot of explanation and clarification would be needed to clear the confusion and misunderstanding among our people and to ensure that our religious leaders and officials can play their roles properly and do their jobs without difficulty. I hope the Minister will consider this request seriously. Religious harmony is something that we have enjoyed and something we should cherish. It is indeed paradoxical that the religious freedom we enjoy is possible because of the moderation, because of the restraints displayed by the various religions. Maybe this is the only way. I support the Bill.”
“Had we been a society with a single religion or a dominant religion, the story would have been totally different. Would this curtail our religious freedom? Frankly, Sir, it depends on how freedom is defined. If by this freedom we mean the right to choose and practise one's religion, build houses of worship, proselytize and accumulate merit for doing charity, social and community work, then religious freedom is untouched and undiminished. But if freedom is theologically defined where it encompasses not only the spiritual but the socio-economic and political spheres as well, as Christians and Muslims do, then this freedom may be perceived as being modified somewhat. And for good reasons. The intent is not to stifle religious practice, however defined, or from preventing citizens to take part in politics. Neither is it to deny the inseparability of religion and politics as propounded by some faiths. It is to prevent the misuse of religion for political purposes and objectives. Indeed, Sir, if a government is so corrupt, so rotten, so unbearable, then it is the duty of every citizen, not only of any religion, to bring that government down. The Penal Code, Sedition Act, ISA, will not stop the tide. There is, however, one possible consequence to the Bill that we should look into. This Bill should be viewed in its right and proper perspective. By this I mean we should not decrease our tolerance by being over-sensitive and over-suspicious, always on the look out for the slightest perceived infraction. To do so would be counter-productive and against the spirit and intent of the Bill. Neither should we be so withdrawn and so fearful and cowered that we become resentful of the restraints that are introduced and necessary.”
“As a person with a religion, I personally have no quarrel with this trend of Singaporeans being more religious as religions generally teach people to be good human beings even if theological definitions of virtue and piety differ among the faiths. But such zeal and fervour could push some of us to preach and proselytize in ways which transgress the religious sensitivities of others. Some could even go to any length to project and propagate their faiths. In our context, Sir, this could be explosive business, as it is natural that every action invites a reaction, more so when it comes to beliefs. If this trend continues, how do we deal with it? Sure, we can appeal for good sense. Sure, we can appeal for moderation. We can educate, we can persuade. But how do we argue against actions and attitudes which are based on and motivated by faith and the promise of eternal salvation? Or do we in the interest of the public or public order and stability begin to use the Sedition Act, the Penal Code and even the ISA liberally and wantonly? Surely, Sir, this is not what we want. On closer examination, I see this Bill more as a preventive measure than a punitive one. It enables us to act promptly and without much fuss before a situation becomes ugly and out of control. If a prohibition order is issued and complied with, then that is the end of the whole story and no further penalty need to be meted out. We must be clear that the Bill does not refute divine truths and theological precepts. Rather it is the recognition of the realities that we in Singapore live in and as a Government it cannot turn its face away from these realities and the adaptations that are needed to live with them.”
“Sir, this Bill is indeed a very important and sensitive one and I am glad to hear the Minister assure us that it will be sent to a Select Committee for deliberations. I think it is important for us to address two fundamental issues and I will therefore touch on the basic principles of this Bill rather than on the specifics. One fundamental issue is whether this piece of legislation is required at all and, secondly, whether it will curtail religious freedom in this country. Initially, Sir, I had doubts whether we need this Bill at all, whether, as some have mentioned, we are increas- ing the restrictions on our citizens burdened as they already are with numerous rules and regulations which govern a large part of their lives. I have thought, Sir, as those who oppose the Bill do, that existing laws were more than sufficient and adequate to handle the issues and problems addressed by the Bill. And indeed they are, Sir, in many respects. Take the Penal Code for instance. It is a crime for anyone to utter words to deliberately wound the religious feelings of any person. The ISA empowers the Government to detain anyone whose religious activity is likely to set religious groups against one another or to heighten differences and intolerance between religions. I found it difficult, Sir, if not futile, to argue that these are provisions could not do the job we want in this Bill except, as pointed out by the Senior Minister of State for Education, on the question of religion and politics. Sir, one of the premises which prompted the introduction of this Bill is the growing religious fervour and missionary zeal in the population.”
“In closing, Sir, I hope the Minister can clarify one final point, and that is, the difference between the drug offenders who will be considered for supervision under clause 6 and those who are sent for the Exit Counselling programme because they appear to be the same type of offenders. 5.29 pm”
“I support the move to plug the loophole in the existing law whereby a person cannot be given the maximum sentence for a second or subsequent offence unless he is under an existing supervision order. All the supervisee has to do is to wait out a supervision period before continuing his drug habit or to make sure that he does not get caught for his second or subsequent offence while under supervision. In view of the seriousness of recidivism and the growing number of hard-core addicts, the need to bring down their numbers through stiffer penalties is therefore necessary. Indeed, Sir, there are those who advocate that repeat offenders be caned. It indicates the feeling of desperation and anger of the community against the problem of recidivism. Finally, I would like to comment on clause 6 of the Bill. I applaud the spirit and intent of this provision. By giving the Director, CNB, the discretion to place a suspected drug addict under a supervision order instead of committing him to an approved institution is tantamount to offering him a second chance. Sir, being sent to a drug rehabilitation centre is certainly no picnic. But more serious is that ex-inmates suffer a social stigma. This has been mentioned by the Member for Fengshan just now: the social stigma of being in such a centre, a stigma which many employers find it difficult to forget when the former tries to apply for jobs later. By being placed under a supervision order only, the first-time offender is spared the experience of being an inmate of these centres and of being stuck with the stigma that goes with it. For them, the chance to amend their ways, this way is therefore more appropriate than being incarcerated in a rehabilitation centre.”
“Withdrawal from the drug appears to show no clear abstinence syndrome in most people as with other drugs. Some people who consume it can also stop abusing it at will. It is therefore a misleading drug and particularly dangerous because superficially it does not appear to be addictive. However, animal studies have shown that taking a joint or two daily for several years destroy the brain cells. Research has also indicated that taking one to three joints a day could produce lung cancer risks comparable to smoking five times as many cigarettes. But there is more. The National Institute of Drug Abuse in the US has found that marijuana now produced is more potent as the amount of THC or Tetrahydrocannabinols - the major psychoactive ingredient in the drug - averaged 1% in 1970. But today it is as high as 3-3(r)% and in some types of marijuana it can go up to as high as 10-15%. So the drug is not as innocent as it seems to be and its inclusion in the new list is therefore justifiable. But one aspect of the clause, Sir, continues to bother me and that is the presumption clause. Mere possession by anyone of the drugs in this list above the stipulated amounts shall "until the contrary is proved, be presumed to traffic in that controlled drug." My concern is that such presumption may result in the death of people who merely possess such drugs for their own consumption or as a result of the drugs being planted by others on the person. While I can appreciate the difficulty of gathering evidence of trafficking, we cannot rule out the possibility of someone being put to death for a crime he did not commit. I hope the Minister can assure the House and our citizens that such a possibility, remote as it may be, will not happen. Let me now, Sir, touch on clause 5.”
“Sir, I would like to throw in my support for the Bill and I would also wish to convey the support to the Minister of the Malay Anti- Drug Task Force, of which I am Chairman, for this piece of legislation. Sir, notwithstanding our tough anti-drug laws, thousands of traffickers have been arrested between 1977 and the end of last year. But our drug situation would definitely have been worse had it not been for the severe punishments provided by the law. Even so, Sir, we cannot confidently say that we have licked the drug problem in Singapore. Indeed, the worsening drug situation around the world gives us cause for concern. This has been mentioned by the Minister just now. In Colombia, the drug barons have grown powerful enough to wage war against the government. The bountiful harvest in the Golden Triangle creates the potential of more drugs being brought into the market. New and more dangerous drugs are now available. Crack, a derivative of cocaine, has been the number one drug in the United States and poised to take on the world. This drug brings about unprecedented levels of paranoia and violence. All these developments give us cause for concern as we are so open and exposed to the happenings around the world. Firm action against drug offenders, especially traffickers, is therefore not an over-reaction as some liberals would want us to believe. Let me now touch on some of the main provisions of the Bill. Under clause 2, trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of cocaine, opium and cannabis will be offences punishable by death. This, Sir, is a widening of the list of controlled drugs that come under the death penalty. The dangers of cocaine and opium are well-known. But less widely known are the dangers of cannabis or marijuana.”
“But mostly, Sir, will we not be inundated with nominations which are frivolous or nominations from the public which are unreasonable? While I agree that this can be handled administratively, are we not creating unnecessary workload for ourselves? Sir, it is important that we avail ourselves of more views and people participating in the process of government. But for this to work, we will have to seek out men and women who are indeed knowledgeable, men and women who are indeed moral and not merely out to destroy us but to contribute. And if we can find these men and women, what is to stop us from getting to them and seek out their views without getting them into Parliament? Why not a think-tank, for example, comprising these informed and expert persons? The outfit can be attached to Parliament and they can be non-partisan. We can always ask for reports from them to be made available to Parliament. This way, Sir, they can contribute without being involved in the political process and without us having to change our parliamentary system. But, Sir, I am willing to hear out reasons for preferring the NMP system over the think-tank concept and keep an open mind about it. It is important that we keep an open mind without prejudging the issues at hand. The speaker before me mentioned that we need to try it out and see whether it would work or whether it would not. The proposal before us is an important one not only for the goals it hopes to achieve but also for the changes it will make to our parliamentary process. We will need to separate principle from scheme, principle from proposal and while the principle is a sound one I hope the Government can do more to convince us and the people that the scheme proposed is the best one possible and that we need not rush to go into it.”
“Unless this premise is present, the purpose of having these additional numbers would be lost and their presence superfluous. But those nominated to the House, Sir, whether we like it or not, will be often perceived as being partial towards the Government, if not already in Government. This will happen if the selection process is deemed to be partial to the induction of these kinds of men and women into this Parliament. The method of selection itself will become a contentious issue. I would therefore appreciate it if the First Deputy Prime Minister can elucidate the ways we can avoid these contentions and perceptions. The other perception, Sir, is that the proposal is tantamount to an indictment of the existing system and of the elected MPs we now have, especially the Backbenchers in the House. This perception has been alluded to by several MPs in our private conversations and some from those outside this House. Are we not creating the impression that MPs are not really bringing up enough solid and diverse views in this Parliament that we need to bring in others to this Chamber to provide such views? Then, Sir, there are real problems in the implementation of this scheme. Whose or what sectors of interests will be picked to be represented in this House? On what grounds are these interests to be chosen and why not others? What about the nomination process itself? As the Bill now stands, it needs only a handful of people to put up nominations for the MP-ship. Their mandate therefore to Parliament is a small one, maybe even smaller than the NCMPs which we have in this House, unless the person so nominated is of such stature that thousands would be willing to nominate him for candidateship.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our parliamentary system has an established tradition and appears to be working well for us all these years. People who fill this House are elected by the respective constituencies. Even NCMPs, although not elected into this Parliament, can claim to some support for them in the general elections. Before this House now, Sir, is a proposal to modify all this. It is a significant modification and one which we should not take lightly. And I am glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister promise that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. Sir, I can appreciate the arguments for having more diverse views and contributions in Parliament. Such diversity is after all one of the hallmarks of democracy. If this is the principle that prompts the proposal for Nominated MPs, then in clear conscience I am comfortable in supporting this principle. Indeed, I think nobody can quarrel with it. But, be that as it may, I am still filled with doubts whether this is the best and only way to put the principle into play in this country and I doubt whether, according to the speaker before me, that this is the only way to improve the standard of debate in this House. Sir, the method proposed to select people into this House as Nominated MPs would challenge the very basis for the proposal. The principle presupposes that the House would be better off with more diverse and expert views than have already been made available through the normal electoral process that we now have. The presumption and expectation therefore are that these views should be independent ones, though not necessarily, but frequently offering alternatives from those that are already prevailing in this House.”
“Sir, I fully understand the sentiments of the Member for Ayer Rajah and also the sentiments of all Members of this House. It is with that in mind, Sir, that I phrased my amendment very carefully. I make no such assumption. Indeed in my speech I did say that the views of this House must be heard, that the views have been expressed, that the views are the views of the people, and that these views are legitimate. Therefore, I make no such assumption. My amendment merely states that these are the measures and these are the criticisms, and that Government makes regular reviews. The review can be immediate for that matter. Not only immediate but regular review. What more can be done?”
“Well, haven't you got the amendment by now?”
“If the Member had listened carefully to my speech just now ---”
“Do we try to stop the bleeding as best we can? Or do we say, "Ah, this is a job for the doctors. And let's wait for the doctor to make his diagnosis and treatment."? My amendment, Sir, is for us to voice our concerns and ask the Government to specifically review regularly the measures proposed to gauge the effects. Government is therefore tied to making regular reviews and we will certainly nudge the Government to do the right thing as and when the time comes. I think, Sir, my amendment is one that can be accepted by all.”
“It exists elsewhere, and especially in Singapore where our small island has to accommodate not only roads, but also homes, offices, shops, hospitals, factories, and a hole in the ground for us to collect water to drink. The problem, therefore, is how does the country allow the realization of people's wants and expectations and yet avoid our roads being so congested, that not only it diminishes the convenience and comfort that vehicles can give but also risk jeopardizing the economic well-being of the country? I am afraid Singaporeans must be objective and must accept some form of restriction on the use of vehicles on our roads because the reality is we are in greater danger of clogging our roads with too many vehicles than other nations bigger and even more advanced than we are. Indeed, Sir, all things considered, we have done not too badly if we compare ourselves with some nations around us. Those of us who have been to Bangkok, Jakarta, or even Tokyo, will know that our traffic problems are not really that bad. But at the same time, Government too will have to contend with people's aspirations and take them into consideration - the hardship that its policies may cause to owners and users - and take a more total approach to solving our traffic problems rather than putting the onus of solution mainly on the shoulders of its citizens. Sir, many views have been put forward on the evening ALS, the increase in season parking fees in HDB estates, the position of ALS fee for motorcyclists. These are valid views and valid concerns too. And Members are right indeed in voicing them out in this House. But what do we do in the meantime? Twiddle our thumbs and wait, or go deeper into study, as suggested by the NCMP, before we decide? It is like a man bleeding, Sir?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. This afternoon, Sir, has been an afternoon full of amendments. And not without confusion too, I am afraid, accompanied also by a lot of spark and a lot of fire. But, Sir, underlying all these arguments is the need for Government to review the interim measures proposed so far and this I really subscribe to. Sir, the original motion by Dr Hong Hai accepts the principle but without specific suggestions for review. The amendment that comes closest to what we all think should be done comes from Mr Ng Pock Too. However, Sir, the word "onerous" in his amendment sounds to me a bit judgmental as there cannot be any measure which can be painless. Therefore, Sir, with your indulgence, I would like to add to the confusion, hoping that when we reach the summit of all this plethora of confusion, we can see a clear sky and the direction for us ahead. I would therefore like to propose yet another amendment; to leave out all thewords after "but" and there to insert - 'urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as their effects are uncertain'. Sir, a vehicle is but a steel carcass on four wheels or two wheels for that matter. But encapsulated in this lifeless object is the notion of convenience, the focus of one's aspirations and status and even a means of livelihood. It is therefore understandably difficult for anyone who owns a car, van or motor-cycle not to feel aggrieved if ownership or usage of this object is felt to be threatened. I hope Government too recognises this aspect of this whole issue of ownership and usage of vehicles. But on the other hand, and perhaps because of this aspect, the spectre of our roads being jam-packed with cars, lorries, motorcycles, and what have-you, is real too.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Ismail Marjan too. And every boy or girl who held a racket saw Wong Peng Soon in the Thomas Cup as a symbol which motivated them to train, to play the game, to strive and to excel. But ever since then, that enthusiasm, that mood, has somehow subsided and, I think, to a point where it has disappeared at all. We launched into a Sports for All policy. In essence, this was sound, given our priorities and given the kind of constraints we face. But sports was given a somewhat reluctant, and some would even say perfunctory, attention by Government, employers and even parents. The nation turned into a nation of weekend sports persons and sports feature in their daily lives only when they have time and only when they felt like it. Sir, I am therefore heartened by the recommendations of the Advisory Council for Sports and Recreation and I am glad to note, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, that 40 of the 43 recommendations by the Council have been accepted by the Government. I am especially concerned with those recommendations under section 4.3 of the Report under Nation Building Through International Champions. Can the Minister elaborate on this in this House Government's commitment on these recommendations and Government's plans to support the Singapore Sports Council, employers and schools in building a conducive sports environment in this country?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JL 3100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, those in my age group or older will remember how we used to reign supreme in the Thomas Cup competitions. There was a time when the whole nation, irrespective of race, religion or culture, used to identify themselves with people like of Wong Peng Soon, Ong Poh Lin, Eddy Choong and the rest. An hon. Member: And Ismail Marjan.”
“By having such a fund, we will be able to encourage various groups to undertake activities which will help solve some of the problems in the neighbourhood. These funds can be a working capital or it can be used as seed money for the organizations to initiate their programmes.”