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 14 of 15.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we spent several months last year in reaching out to the population and involving them in mapping out our future. This Green Paper compresses the deliberations and outcome of that massive exercise. To me, this is not only an Agenda for Action but also of hope; a breath of fresh air. Allow me however, Sir, to share my own observations and comments on what I think are two of the most crucial issues in connection with this Agenda. The first one concerns the section on multi-racial, multi-religious, society. I fully subscribe to the sentiments in and aims of this section. And I firmly believe that the harmony between the races and religions is indeed a cornerstone of our society. For so long now we have accepted this as the nation's creed. But so far - and perhaps because we consider it so priceless - that we have kept this attribute of our country in a showcase of sorts, avoiding to touch it or to discuss the problems that may be connected with it openly for fear of tarnishing or breaking it in the process. Sir, it was like an encased trophy. And because of this, there may exist among some of us at least certain assumptions or perceptions about other groups or other faiths which we prefer to keep to ourselves and command our actions rather than to discuss them with others to ascertain whether they are right. This Green Paper suggests that we take this trophy out of its protective covering for us to see, to touch, to explore if there are flaws or other valuable facets which we may have missed. I fully agree to this suggestion, for only then can we achieve full appreciation and understanding of what it means and whether we can make it better.”
“If so, has the Ministry any plans to ensure that the requirements for such qualifications would not render voluntary work difficult and an inaccessible one? Lastly, Sir, clause 18 of the Bill states that the Act does not apply to centres controlled and maintained by the Government, although the Minister just mentioned that the Government is not likely to operate child care centres. So why is this clause needed, Sir?”
“The other is even if the income mothers would have earned is only marginally more than the cost of sending their children to these centres, this would still be justified because the advantages and benefits enjoyed by the children at these centres would offset the cost involved, - like being taken care of in a better environment, being able to learn social skills through mixing with their peers and learning other skills which would not otherwise be found at home. This being so, Sir, then it is important, I stress, for the Ministry to pay attention to the cost of sending children to these centres, especially for those who may not be able to afford it. Because while there is merit in leaving costs to market forces, the only trouble is that such forces tend to always disadvantage those who cannot afford it. I hope the Minister will give his response to this caution. Apart from this, Sir, my GPC and Resource Panel have also identified certain issues which we think the Ministry ought to look into: (1) Under the definition of a "child care centre" in clause 2, we wonder whether this would include such places as children's corners in shopping centres and in department stores, as the definition appears loose enough to include such places. And what about "drop in" centres run by some charities? While these centres are not meant to be child care centres, in the strict sense of the word, again the definition seems to include them too. If so, does the Ministry have any plans to assist these centres should any upgrading be needed as they serve a much needed but free and voluntary service to the public? Then, Sir, we are rather unclear as to what constitutes "sufficient qualifications" in clause 4(3)(d) of the Bill. Can the Minister elaborate on this? Does it cover volunteers too?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is rather straightforward and I shall be brief. Sir, my GPC and resource panel have discussed this Bill at length and we support it generally as it aims to provide minimum standards to be observed in our child care centres. This is important for parents have to be assured that their children are properly taken care of in an environment conducive to their growth. Only then, Sir, would mothers, who would otherwise want to strive for a career or to work to augment the family income but are unable to do so because there is no one to look after their children, be induced to leave them at these centres. Therefore, the safety and well-being of children left at these centres cannot be compromised. Supportive as we are of this Bill, there is a need to ensure that the cost of sending children to such centres will not be too high as to squeeze out low-income mothers from taking advantage of these centres. And I am glad, in fact, to hear the Minister mention just now that as of now at least there would be no difficulty of existing child care centres in maintaining such standards. I presume therefore that cost would not be unduly raised. Because if the cost of sending our children to child care centres exceeds the income that we can get, then it would only be logical for mothers to remain as housewives and look after their children themselves. Sir, there are two views on this matter. One is that it would defeat the whole purpose of child care centres if mothers find it more economical or less cumbersome to take care of their children than to send them to child care centres.”
“Sir, actually I was about to make my concluding remarks when we broke off for lunch. All I would like to say, Sir, is that in our debate today we must think of our country's future seriously, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, but 10-15 years down the road. As I said, Sir, on my part, I would be more than happy to do away with this Bill altogether if I can assured, my children and my children's children can be assured ed that this country will always have a multi-racial Parliament and that our commitment to multi-racialism as a Government and as a people remains intact. If not, then surely my support must be for this Bill unless there is a superior one or a less imperfect one available. So the crucial question which we may wish to debate on today is: Will there be such an alternative to this Bill?”
“Certainly, Sir, more public discussion and education is necessary to convince everyone of the need for and the benefits and merits of this important and far-reaching Bill.”
“It does not impute any grade or stigma to MPs elected under the Team MP system. Therefore, any allegation of inferiority must either contain some mischievous intent or show a dismal lack of understanding of this Bill altogether. But, Sir, the Bill before us is by no means perfect, despite being an important and unique one. There are issues attached to this piece of legislation which I think Government ought to turn its attention to. For instance, some say that we seem to be in such a hurry to push this Bill through regardless of the viewpoints of the public and seeing that many Singaporeans appear to be still unclear about how the Team MP system will operate or even the concept of the Team MP itself. It has been said that the Bill attempts to overcome the trend towards ethnic voting. We have been told that this is the very premise for the introduction of this Bill, but some people in Singapore still doubt that this trend exists at all. Some say, why don't we continue with our tested ways and in the meantime explore other, perhaps better, measures? Are we afraid of our own shadow that we should panic; that we should rush into something which we may not need but which instead introduces contentious and divisive issues? Will this Bill not accentuate our ethnic differences? Will it not make it difficult for the Opposition to take root in Singapore? Then, Sir, there had been calls for a referendum or for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee. I am glad that the First Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. Sir, as a responsible Government, we must give these views due regard and due consideration and I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister will give this House full and satisfactory answers to all our questions.”
“Pause for a while, analyse the sentiment that lurks behind this belief? Is this not confirming the argument for this Bill? And why not? If there is no doubt that Minorities can enter Parliament unless they are, to quote some people,"piggy-backed", "coat-tailed", or "carried in the arm-pits of their team mates", then this contention does not arise at all. For those who condescendingly argue that the Bill would make us Minority MPs feel second-class, I can only wish that they take the trouble to be familiar with what we have to face every day. For example, Malay MPs, just like any other MPs, are elected by their constituencies and will have to represent the interests and look after the welfare of their constituents, the majority of whom are on-Malays. And like any other MPs too, they have to take cognisance of the national interest which has to supersede sectional interests. And yet, Sir, the Malay community expects us individually and as a group to provide the leadership, the direction for the community's development. They expect us to represent their interest and bring up their concerns to Government. Because we have to balance the Malay community's interest with national interest, deal with contending, sometimes even conflicting issues or demands, out jobs become that much more arduous. And for us, it will be pure preceived as a communal MP by the electorate. It would therefor be a grave insult to any Minority MP, be it PAP or non-PAP, and to the community he comes from, that he is merely playing second-fiddle to his term-mates. Sir, the objective of this Bill is a political one. As I see it, it seeks to tackle a potential problem that can have wide political implications locally as well as geo-politically.”
“Sir, this Bill, as mentioned by 1DPM, seeks to institutionalize a multi-racial Parliament in this country regardless of who forms the government, be it the PAP; be it a coalition; be it a non-PAP Government. This point, Sir, I think must be stressed and must be fully understood. The end effect, Sir, will be the presence of minority MPs in Parliament, even though governments may change. But then, one may ask: what is wrong with a mono-racial Parliament so long as Members are elected fairly and through the usual democratic process; so long as we have the best men and women in this House, who are sensitive enough to the needs and concerns of the minorities and can adequately represent them? Sir, the signals such a Parliament sends to the country's minorities will be a far-reaching one because it is tantamount to telling the Malays, the Indians and Others, that they count for little, that they have no part in governing the country. If Parliament is to be a symbol and a reflection of Singapore's society, then it is only logical that the various communities will have to be in it. But more than this, Sir, such a Parliament ensures that the minority communities also have a stake in running the country and that every community counts, that each community has a contribution to make to the country. Sir, what better way to maintain racial harmony here? It is therefore perfectly clear to me, Sir, that this Bill intends to entrench the concept of a multi-racial Parliament for generations to come. This objective, Sir, I fully support and I see no reason why every well-meaning Singaporean should not support this aim. At this point, Sir, let me say a few words about the contention that Minority MPs will, under the Bill, be second-class representatives of the people.”
“Not only do we have different languages, different dialects, different groups, one of which is the majority, we are also cut vertically by differences in culture, differences in religion and marked again, mind you, Sir, horizontally by differences in economic, political and social achievements. Now, add to these a relatively short history and set against a backdrop of different pulls, different pressures, different influences from outside and without the region, ours, Sir, must surely be one of the most fragile of nations. People have attributed our success, even our survival, to many things, ranging from the presence of a good, stable, strong, continuous government to the mere existence of fortuitous events and circumstances. But whichever reason is true, Sir, one thing is certain, and that is, we would not have reached where we are now had it not been for the relative absence of civil strife brought about by our differences and our diversity. This, Sir, we must bear in mind. Always. So then where do we go from here? Do we go on as we have done contented and comfortable in our belief that such troubles will never come to us and that reason, goodwill and good sense will always prevail to ensure that we will always live happily together ever after? Or do we put together safeguards to ensure that the voices of each community, big or small, are heard, dealt with and resolved by constitutional means rather than leave things as they are and hope and pray that any communal discontent will never erupt into fighting in the streets. Or do we wait until such horrors are imminent before we hastily come to this Parliament to pass a Bill such as this one, only to find that we have acted very much too late.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I first heard of the intention to introduce this Bill, my reaction, rather similar to the reaction of many Singaporeans then, was: do we need to resort to this? Have we as a country which has accepted and practised multi-racialism all this while suddenly begin to realize that we can't maintain such an environment? Have we failed as a Government and as a people? Sir, for one who has grown up in a multi-racial setting and living in such a setting now, I see others not in terms of people of different races, of different colour, but as individuals, each with the good and the bad that exist in all human beings. Therefore, the given reasons for the introduction of this Bill appeared to me, then, too far-fetched, too improbable. But then, Sir, it dawned on me that perhaps I have taken our racial harmony for granted. That perhaps my own experience and hopes and my wishes for my country have distracted me from seeing what reality can be. Like in Fiji, Sri Lanka and other countries that we have read of in the papers and mentioned by 1DPM just now, where one's inherent differences, one's beliefs, are causes of conflict, of havoc, of pain. And all these, Sir, have taken place when man's civilization, man's reason and knowledge, have reached a point higher than he has ever been before, when his ability to communicate has gone far beyond having to stand in front of each other and speak a common language. This, Sir, is reality. We in Singapore have our realities too.”
“The then Minister for Finance replied: 'In 1980, Singapore Pools declared a dividend of $75.6 million out of its accumulated profits which was credited to [now, hear this] the Government Consolidated revenue. Singapore Pools is now held by Temasek Holdings Ltd and its profits will be treated like those of any other member company in this group. It is unlikely that Singapore Pools will allocate much money for charitable purposes, including the provision of scholarships to needy and outstanding students and the construction of sports complexes.' Sir, it is not my intention to resurrect the controversy on the loan issue to the Singapore Sports Council and indeed this is a separate issue. But I have taken the liberty to quote rather lengthily the circumstances surrounding the profits of Singapore Pools to demonstrate the possibility of implementation of the Bill not following the purpose and intent of the Bill. In this case, clause 5 of the Singapore Totalisator Board Bill. I hope, Sir, this will not happen to this Bill now before us and I hope the Minister for Finance will give this assurance to this House.”
“8 million and that it was intended to form a Corporation to run the Stadium. The income to repay the loan, as well as future loans, would come from two sources - the profit from Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd and the takings at the gate of the Stadium.' I quote again from the PAC Report: 'The Committee were informed of large surpluses accumulated by Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd and urged that early steps be taken by the Ministry of Finance to ensure that the original aims of Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd vis-a-vis the Singapore Sports Council are adhered to, or if the policy has been changed, to clarify the position.' Audit referred the above matter to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry answered that: 'Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd had contributed $11 million to the development of the National Stadium Complex. Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd also made annual contributions to the recurrent budget of the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) (from figures given by the Ministry of Finance, the total contributions from 1971/72 to 1976/77 amounted to $3.35 million). The Ministry of Finance was also of the view that so long as reasonable financial assistance is provided to the SSC for the provision of sports facilities in Singapore, the Board of Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd is adhering to its original aims.' Then again, Sir, in the parliamentary debate on 3rd March 1982, (Hansard, Vol. 41, col. 374) the Member for Delta raised a question on Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd. His question was: how were the profits of Singapore Pools being used and whether the Minister for Finance would use a portion of the profits to provide scholarships to needy and outstanding students and to construct sports complexes in housing estates?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some observations on the Bill which is now before us. The Bill would make available an additional and welcome source of funds for social and charitable purposes and for the promotion of the arts in Singapore. We are only too familiar, Sir, with our high dependence on public and corporate donations and sponsorship, especially in the running of charities and the promotion of the arts and sports. While I appreciate the philosophy of encouraging community participation and the building of a self-reliant society with regard to these efforts, I believe that much more can be done with the energy and manpower that go into fund raising activity and with more money. It is, therefore, in this context, Sir, that clause 5 of the Bill is welcomed as it empowers the proposed Totalisator Board to distribute its profits which, by past experience, is pretty substantial, for the purposes which I have mentioned. Having said all this, Sir, I would like to stress that we should ensure compliance of the intent and purpose of clause 5 of the Bill. What brings me to mention this is the memory of what happened to the profits of Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd. Let me elaborate. In the appendix to the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1978, the Auditor-General then said: 'It (referring to the Committee) recalled that on the 13th May, 1968 the Minister for Social Affairs informed Parliament that the proceeds from the Toto Pools to be started soon would be utilised to meet the cost of building the Kallang Sport Complex. Subsequently, in the debate in Parliament on the Annual Budget Statement of 9th March, 1970 the then Minister for Finance stated that the National Stadium would be offered a loan of $7.”
“Ministry of Community Development (23) That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The sum of $96,532,130 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $34,769,800 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, as time is short, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“These are, to my mind, Sir, but symptoms of the problems. What is more relevant and crucial is for us to dwell into the causes which drive these individuals to do what they do and to be in a specific situation which they are in, not only for the blinds but also for people with other kinds of disabilities. The questions, Sir, which we need to ask: Are the disabled provided with adequate education and training? Provide them the means is my point. Are there adequate opportunities for them to secure education and employment? Is the Ministry satisfied with the programmes which exist to achieve these goals? What is the attitude of society and employers towards the disabled? Do they need changing? And if so, what plans does the Ministry have to change them? Sir, our argument has always been that we are doing what we can for the disabled, and that our attention really should be to develop the resources, be it people, be it material which can make a higher contribution to the country. Admittedly, Sir, there is logic to this argument. But I doubt if we can extend it to our efforts at helping the disabled. Frankly, there is no way that investment in our disabled can be commensurate with the contribution that they can give. But it is not intended to be either. The arguments for giving more help to the disabled go beyond cost-benefit considerations, go beyond cost-benefit impera- tives. They have to do with our willingness to help as a value in itself; our commitment to charity as a virtue to be instilled and the need to care for others which, Sir, is no less a component of our vision for the future.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JE-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, in my earlier speech, I alluded to the need for Government to do more for the less fortunate among us. Before I misconstrue, and I think the Minister has misconstrued me earlier, we are certainly not expecting the Government to provide all that is needed for the community. My speech indeed categorically rejected the welfare state concept and my point was precisely the need for us to nurture and develop a sense of self-reliance among the people that we think the Government could do more to encourage, to persuade and even motivate the people to develop this attribute. It is in this context, Sir, that we are asking for more direct assistance from Government. Certainly, Sir, it should be a tripartite effort. But the Government, to my mind, Sir, should act as the catalyst. Coming back to the disabled, Sir, there are so many areas that we should pay attention to: rehabilitation, recognition and acceptance by society of their plight, providing them with the skills and means to enable them to take care of themselves and to be part of society, thus giving them the pride and dignity which I am sure they would like to have despite their misfortunes and disabilities. I hope the Ministry could look deeper and more comprehensively into the ways in which we could prepare the disabled for jobs and vocations. The recent controversy on some blind people going around selling tissue paper comes to my mind, Sir. So is the difficulty of a blind father recently featured in the newspapers in his attempts to eke out a decent living for his family. I am not about to go into the rights or wrongs of the issue.”
“For the injection of Government resources could be utilized for projects which would enable organizations and individuals, be they giver or recipient, to help themselves and to help others. My GPC, Sir, is willing to work towards this objective. Incidentally, one of my members, in fact, has some ideas for a comprehensive community-based care system, albeit with increased Ministry involvement. When we have mulled over this sufficiently and when the ideas are more concrete and crystallized, Sir, we will certainly submit a report to the Ministry for its consideration.”
“I say this, Sir, because there appears to be a heavy dependence on the work of voluntary organizations and private sector's responses to supply the manpower and finance for the various community relations, welfare, sports and cultural activities on the ground. While this, Sir, may help in developing a sense of responsibility, a sense of care and self-reliance among our people, we should also be mindful of the limitations of such a heavy dependence quite apart from strapping the Ministry with having to manage, to administer and to distribute the various funds we have. I believe, Sir, the Minister will agree with me that this is one problem, for example, in the organization of cultural activities that there is a lack of sponsors. We want to organize more really but we are unable simply because we do not get enough sponsors to finance the activities. Sir, as our society progresses and as expectations rise further, there will be increasing pressure on the Government to provide more direct assistance to the less fortunate and programmes at national level. But more important, Sir, there will certainly be more arguments, and very compelling ones too, for Government to do this as the proportion of the aged increases and, with it, the dependency ratio as the need for better infrastructure and facilities grows and as the effect of intense and increased competition takes their toll on the mental and social health of our nation. Right now, Government commitment is small. For instance, its commitment to social welfare is minimal amounting to hardly half a percent, 0.08% to be exact, of the total FY 87/88 estimates according to functional classification. Sir, increased commitment does not necessarily mean a departure from the principle of self-reliance.”
“Sir, as Chairman of the GPC for the Ministry of Community Development, I would like, at this point, to only comment on broad principles and general directions of the Ministry and leave the debate on specific issues to other members of my GPC. Sir, I foresee the work of the Ministry assuming a higher profile and indeed growing in scope and importance, judging by the trend of development in our society. Let me explain. By the end of this century, Sir, our aim is, among others, to evolve a society that is caring, highly cultured, integrated and with a higher standard of living. By all indications, Sir, there will be, to my mind, more intense competitions in Singapore. Now, if we super-impose this scenario on to our present situation, we can see the area that would have to be covered before we achieve our stated goals. Sir, ours is not a welfare state and we should not be one, if we wish to avoid the dilemma and problems of countries which have taken this route. Besides, we simply cannot afford it. My GPC therefore has no quarrel with and indeed accept the concept of a self-reliant society as has been enunciated by the Ministry of Community Development. This is a good way of building a resilient society, a more participative society, a society with caring members, all, Sir, very laudable aims. But, having said all this, Sir, and notwithstanding all this, we contend that there need to be a higher commitment by Government in providing the lead, coordination and direct assistance to the activities and programmes within the purview of the Ministry of Community Development.”
“Whether the vacant stalls are filled or not, it does not concern them. They just enforce regulations. Everything else is a matter for the higher-ups. All these things do not concern them. Sir, yesterday the Member for Telok Blangah talked about the problem of noise. The Minister's reply seemed to be very good and apt. His reply seemed to be well grounded in law, in reason and in compassion. And if HDB officers could similarly treat matters also with compassion and with reason besides the law, then things will be easier for the Minister to deal with. Does it strike a resonant cord in the Minister's heart? If it does, I hope he would pass the message on to his officers as a code of guidance.”
“I asked HDB officers in charge why there were no lifts. His reply was the rented units were temporary ones and the blocks either had been demolished or would be demolished soon. As regards purchase flats, the reply was because there were very few people in such small units, unlike higher and bigger blocks, therefore there was also no need for lifts in such blocks. But I told them I personally saw the handicapped and old people walking up the staircases with much stress, panting and sweating all the way up, out of breath. What happens if they should die on their way up? Who is to blame? Also pregnant women, nearing time of delivery, are seen walking up the steps carrying a basket of vegetables. They have got to stop and rest for a few minutes after every step. I asked the officers concerned, "Do you not have any compassion for these women? Do you want to force premature birth?" Another example is the hawker centres in the HDB estates. Many stalls are vacant for many years. Nobody cares. I say, this is a big problem and these are important things. I said to the HDB inspectors, "You do not have to pay so much attention to small things but you have to take care of this matter." But the HDB officers would not care, as though they did not hear. Every day the officers would turn up at the HDB hawker centres to chit-chat with the hawkers and workers, talking about unimportant things like there is one stool too many. And on occasions they would threaten to take back the stalls if the stall- keepers did not clear such things away in one week. I say they should pay more attention to major matters and should not be concerned too much with minor and unimportant things. To matters like whether there are lifts in the flats, they seem to be nonchalant, it does not matter to them.”
“Even a few HDB estates bear names which have no relationship to existing, already well-known, locations. The rate at which old names disappear and new ones crop up makes those over 30 or 40 years like myself, feel lost when we want to get around these few places. Sir, I am glad that the name, Bukit Panjang for example, has been reinstated instead of the proposed Zhenghua. But why Shilida? What is wrong with Seletar? I would like to see the time when they decide to pinyin-ize Kadayanallur Street, which incidentally is very near to the Ministry of National Development Building. Sir, are we so ashamed of the different road and street names in the different languages that we have? Is direction-finding in new HDB estates that difficult if some existing street names are retained? Is a little bit of effort in trying to retain some of our characteristics and history an obstacle to effective planning? Perhaps the Minister could clarify some of these points for us. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson)( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Ministry of National Development is a very big and important ministry and the Minister has taken on this additional portfolio with very heavy duties to perform. Among the duties that the Minister will have to discharge, the most important is HDB under his care. Because the functions of the HDB are many, there are inevitably some short-comings. I do not mean the job is not well done. Let me give two examples for the Minister to see whether there is anything that needs to be corrected. There are certain things done which have not been reasonable. For instance, there are five to seven storey-high buildings. Some of the flats in such buildings are rented out while the others are purchase flats. There are no lifts.”
“But there is a place for some colour, place for some interest, place for some rounded and not sharp edges in our policies. Only yesterday the Member for Ayer Rajah made an impassioned appeal for Government to pay more attention to processes, to be more people-conscious. I, Sir, cannot agree with him more especially in the case of National Development, particularly in the case of HDB. I wonder if the Minister can say whether there is any move to look into the powers, rules and regulations resident in the Ministry and HDB especially, in minute detail to see if there are any rules or regulations which need to be modified or even dropped altogether to make the running of the Ministry more responsive to the needs of citizens. The other issue, Sir, which I would like to comment on is the question of preservation. The way and speed at which we demolish what we have and build anew prompted one of my Professors to remark that we seem to have a phobia against our past and history and we appear literally to bury the vestiges of the past for fear others will see us as we were. Of course, Sir, he was exaggerating because he did not understand the space constraints under which we live and the need to provide a balance between what to retain and what to build for the needs of our citizens. But maybe, just maybe, he has a point as the balance apparently is tilted a bit too heavily against the retention of what we already have. However, I am glad to say that there have been, to be fair, efforts recently at preservation and restoration. Perhaps such efforts could and should be continued. But what seems to persist, Sir, even appearing to gain momentum, is the tendency of HDB to change names of existing streets and roads into new names.”
“Sir, no Ministry affects and determines the physical character and environment of a country as much as the Ministry of National Development, and no department within this Ministry could transform a piece of land like the HDB does and with it determines the socio-economic structure and relationship within this piece of real estate. Sir, for a Ministry with such awesome powers, it becomes incumbent upon it to adhere to the highest form of responsibility and to be very mindful of the needs and feelings on the ground. Of course, Sir, the easiest way to carry out this responsibility is to surround itself with a myriad of powers and regulations covering the entire spectrum of life and activity of residents. This, Sir, to a very large extent is what has happened and one can hardly step out of one's house without having to contend with one regulation or another before one even reaches the bus stop. Sir, while I concede that rules are needed to protect the majority interest, there must be flexibility to cater for individual or minority cases where they do not hurt others and where their peculiar circumstances merit a special and deeper consideration than merely slapping on existing legislation rigidly. I am sure, Sir, as MPs, we have come across many, perhaps too many, instances of rules being applied without due regard to special or peculiar circumstances. I am certain too that my MP colleagues could cite many instances of rigidity, from the type and colour of door to be installed, to the so-called 30-month debarment period, rules governing settlement, to regulations specifying how and where signboards should be put up. Sir, I am by no means advocating anarchy.”
“To my mind this is a problem which both Government and the Malay community have to resolve together. The Government on its part must be willing to reach out to the community. The sense of alienation has been creeping in. Before it has gone too far it is for us to retrieve Malay feelings for the country. I suggest this and I sincerely hope that we work at it. But the community, Sir, on its part must also choose. They have to choose where their destiny lies. They have to choose where their orientation should be. Now that we are an independent nation, they should not and they cannot look to elsewhere for help. They should try and they must try indeed to develop themselves, to grow in the country that they have decided to make their home. So trust must be worked on and it must be worked on by both sides; the Government and community. I do hope, Sir, as has been requested by the Member for Chong Boon, that the Minister would elaborate in this House the actual and true position of the Malays vis-a-vis the Army. Now, Sir, trust is something which has to be won, something which has to be deserved, something which has to be worked upon. But in trust too, there must also be a willingness on the part of Government to give that trust to the community, to give opportunities for the Malay community to display that trust. Being able to feel part of the community, being able to feel part of the country, being able to have a stake in the country is indeed an important facet of psychological defence, which is, I think, part of Total Defence. So I will be waiting, just as the Member for Chong Boon will be waiting, for elaboration and for explanation by the Second Minister for Defence on this issue.”
“Sir, I would like to join the debate on the Ministry of Defence. Sir, people must feel that they are part of the community, part of the country. One of the ways that they can be made to feel so is for them to know that they have a stake in the country, that they are valued as citizens. Home ownership is one way and I think we have gone a long way towards achieving this. Participation in defence is another and this, it seems to me, is more important, psychologically, for it gives a man the feeling that he is wanted, that he can be depended upon. Unfortunately, however, of late this point has become a bone of contention vis-a-vis the Malay community since the Herzog visit and statements made by the Second Minister for Defence. I would like, Sir, to put the whole question into proper perspective. This has been mentioned somewhat by the previous Member. To be fair, Sir, the position has improved somewhat. Where previously not enough of the Malay community were drafted into the Army, there has been, in fact, Sir, noticeable effort in increasing their number in the Army. There has even been an effort to put Malays in units hitherto denied to them, for example, the Commando unit. And while it is undeniable that the position has to be improved, and could be improved to the point where it should, this, Sir, I is a question which we will have to resolve ourselves and to find solutions to. I therefore join the Member for Chong Boon in protesting the foreign interference in our internal affairs vis-a-vis the Malays in the Army. To my mind, far from helping the Malay community here, these inter- ferences have, in fact, made our own effort at finding solutions to the problem that much more difficult. But that being said, what then should we do?”
“Yes. There is a ruling and I said so. There is a ruling. But I am merely asking for the Law Society to think about it and look into it in the public interest. Thank you very much.”
“I am not saying that the rule does not exist. As I said, Sir, at the beginning, I quoted the letter, "Re: Present unfair terms incorporated in the practices, directions and rulings, 1984." If the Member for Potong Pasir had kept his ears open, perhaps he would not have jumped up unnecessarily.”
“But I think many new home owners who are ignorant would be denied of their interest which should be due to them. The present rule favours the lawyers tremendously, in the sense that if the client does not bring this matter up or notify their lawyers that they want the interest, the lawyers can keep all the interest earned. The new ignorant home buyer is losing in two ways. (1) He has to pay the bank or finance company interest on money which the bank pays to lawyers as stakeholder. (2) The interest earned is kept by lawyers. In our profession as cargo surveyors and adjusters, it is implied that interest earned on client's account should be credited to them.' He suggested, Sir, "that this rule should be changed, ie, if the client is silent, all interest due should be for client's account." I am not suggesting that the Government should force the matter through, but as proof to my earlier suggestion just now. Perhaps the Law Society ought to look into matters of this kind, so that they could ----”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Minister for Law and the Government for having made changes to the Bill after representation by the Law Society. To my mind, they have taken into account those views of the legal profession which were central to the Bill, mainly, the lifting of the permanent debarment period for lawyers to be able to be Council members - its five years now - and also the inclusion of a layman in the Inquiry Committee. But I am glad too, Sir, that the final document does not depart from its original intention of ensuring that only people of unblemished record may lead the Law Society. In the past, Sir, the Law Society and the Government had been making regular contacts and consultation and I hope that this practice of consultation and contact between the Society and the Government will continue. Sir, after the sittings of the Select Committee, it should not be construed to mean that all is well now and that changes to further improve the quality and effectiveness of the Society should not continue. If I may say, Sir, the Society itself should continue its self-examination; examining its role and function in the public interest. For instance, just a week ago, a constituent of mine wrote to me bringing to my notice the practice of lawyers keeping their client's interest when they act as stakeholders. If I may read the letter of my constituent: 'Re: Present unfair terms incorporated in the practices, directions and rulings, 1984, in respect of stakeholder's money held by lawyers. Sir, I am writing to you on the above matter as I was nearly denied of my interest. Fortunately, through my own effort and initiative, I did not suffer any loss.”
“So there is therefore the need for effective mobilization of resources or the removal of obstacles so that rescue or salvage operations could be carried out as expeditiously as possible. At the same time, Sir, I am also glad that there is a protection against loss of employment or its benefits for anyone carrying his civil defence duties during an emergency. Last, Sir, I come to what I consider a very sensible approach in encouraging the population to become civil defence volunteers or to acquire civil defence skills. Sir, these skills are among those which we hope we will never get to put into practice. For to do so would mean that an ugly incident or tragedy has taken place. But still, just as we hope we will never have to go to see a doctor, it is reassuring and useful to know that the doctor is available as and when we need him or her. So it is indeed a good idea to get as many of our residents as possible, especially those living in highrise flats, to acquire civil defence skills and to participate in civil defence exercises for their own safety and that of their neighbours. But people may be discouraged from doing so if they find that they will be somehow disadvantaged because of personal injury or personal liability if they do so. Therefore, I am indeed gratified that provisions have been made for adequate compensation for injury, for loss of life and for protection against personal liability for acts carried out in good faith during trainingor during civil defence exercises. And I certainly hope, Sir, that these provisions would encourage more people to become civil defence volunteers and to take civil defence more seriously. With that, Sir, I would like to say that I support this Bill.”
“Sir, it has been five years now since the SCDF was first formed. During these years it has crystallized itself in image, shape and function as a force to be noticed. It is now, I think, poised to assume a greater and expanded role in the Republic. On rising in support of this Bill, I wish to make some observations, especially on three provisions of the Bill. One is on clause 23 which spells out the Service offences and penalties under this Bill. Sir, we have read and heard of the undesirable acts of looting in other countries during civil disorders and during the war. And certainly we would not like this to happen here, and especially so, by those from whom the public expects help and especially so during times of disaster and tragedy. It is therefore appropriate that the public should be adequately protected against such acts and the gravity of these offences be impressed upon those in the SCDF. I am, Sir, therefore, all for a deterrent sentence and am glad that such a provision has been included in the Bill. Next, Sir, is the provision of clause 102 which empowers the Minister to declare a state of civil defence emergency. Sir, we need not remind ourselves that ours is a small country. By its very size, an incident or tragedy in one part of the island has a greater chance of spreading to or affecting other parts of the island and in very quick time too. It is therefore necessary, Sir, for such incidents or tragedies to be contained and dealt with swiftly and effectively with minimum of destruction to the general population. The recent Hotel New World collapse, Sir, is a case in point.”
“The relationship or the communication so far has been between these JHDs and the Muslim organizations, but individuals somehow tend to be left out in all this. So could the Minister concerned enlighten this House on what exactly are the functions and roles of the JHDs, and whether coordination between the various JHDs in the various areas could be better made so that there will be no confusion among the Muslim public of which JHD or which committee an organization or constituency fall into? And this recently, in fact, has created some problems among residents because they are not sure which JHD they belong to and therefore they tend to quibble among themselves with regard to the kinds of activities they could or could not do. Thank you.”
“It is not a question of having feedback from the citizens to the Government but the other way round too. So can the Ministry perhaps enlighten the House on the kinds of policies, modifications which have been brought about as a result of the work of the Feedback Unit? Can the Ministry also enlighten the House on the kinds and amount of manpower available in the Unit to handle the activities, and whether they are sufficient? And lastly, does the Ministry also have any other plans to provide additional channels of communication between Government and public? In other words, in terms of communication, in terms of dialogue, where do we go from here? The last item, since Mr Speaker, Sir, you wanted me to take all of them together, is about the Missionary committees, or what the Muslim community calls the Jawatankuasa Haiah Dakwah (JHD). Since the JHD was formed, there have been a lot of questions from the Muslim public as to what it does, what are its functions, and what are its powers, and where exactly do they stand vis-a-vis MUIS and other Muslim organizations. In particular, they want to know to what extent do these missionary committees have power over the local Muslim organizations and how are the activities of the various missionary committees from the various areas coordinated by the Central JHD. Now, I say this, Sir, because there have been comments both by the Muslim public and also in the press of just how confused some of them are with regard to the kinds of activities that have been carried out by JHDs. They are not too sure as to what exactly are these JHDs for, what do they do, and how they expect to react to these activities.”
“I have in mind, for example, the Esplanade. The Esplanade could perhaps be identified as a location where these amateurs could gather on weekends and display their work, to paint there, maybe even in groups to come together and dance, and in a very informal, spontaneous atmosphere, so that lots more Singaporeans could take part in these activities. The Esplanade, to my mind, is an ideal place for such activities because it is a place by the Singapore River where plans are now being made anyway to develop it into a recreational area. The other area I thought could be ideal for such purpose would be the Orchard Mall. As it is now, the Orchard Mall is a popular place where people gather. Even tourists gather to see the world go by, to see how we Singaporeans live. So what could be a better place than the Orchard Mall, for example, where tourists can see how Singaporeans express themselves in terms of the arts. Allow me now, Sir, to turn to the feedback services. Sir, when the Feedback Unit was established, there was considerable interest from the public on what it could do or what it should do or what they wanted it to do. But there were, too, certain sections of the community who were sceptical whether it could achieve what it purported to do and, more crucially, whether Government is serious in its commitment to have a dialogue with the public by taking heed of the feedback from the Feedback Unit. It is true that there have been occasional reports of what the Unit does and the number of issues that have been referred to it. But many people have asked me how effective is the Unit in bringing up issues to Government and how effective is it in modifying or changing policies and rules. In other words, they think that Feedback should be a two-way traffic.”
“Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like us to take our minds away from our economic problems for a while and project ourselves into the future, into the kind of society that we wish to have for ourselves. Among the visions for the next century is the burst of creativity, innovativeness and the blossoming of the arts. These cannot be created overnight, neither can they be created by edict. The foundation for an environment for such a society must therefore be made available now so that the blossoming of the arts can grow and can evolve and be available when we need them when the time comes. Sir, the Ministry of Community Development can, I think, play a part in this scheme. I am well aware of the plans to develop an Arts Complex at Fort Canning and a recreational area in the vicinity of the Singapore River. While these are worthwhile projects, what I fear is that these may cater more for the professionals, the well-established painters, sculptors and performing artistes, rather than those individuals who are just as committed to the arts, the amateurs, weekend painters, weekend hobbyists but who for want of space may not be able to come to these places or may be even too shy to express their craft in such places. So I am talking of space which could be set aside, perhaps maybe on weekends, where occasional artists or amateur artists could gather to compare their work, to even demonstrate their craft, or even sell them. The Ministry of Community Development, to my mind, could work with STPB perhaps to identify such places where there could be spontaneity and informality, where people could come together to display their art, express their creative interest so that more citizens could take part in this creation of the arts in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got three amendments on this Head. May I speak on two of them briefly, first, and take the third one later?”
“And in January and February of last year, there were 59 accidents. Therefore, there seems to be an increase, comparing period for period. Does he think this trend will continue? Because if this trend continues, then there would be an increase over last year.”
“If I got the Senior Parliamentary Secretary correct, he said that the first two months of this year there were 68 accidents. Right?”
“Sir, comparing the first two months of this year with last year, there seems to be an increase of accidents of SBS and TIBS services. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary comment on this?”
“This is because we have incineration plants and dumping grounds. But in view of the shortage of land, I was wondering whether any other land-saving methods have to be considered for the disposal of our rubbish.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to raise three points on the collection and the disposal of refuse in Singapore. Sir, Singapore is one of the few countries in the world right now where refuse is collected daily. This is something which we are proud of and something which even many developed countries are not able to achieve. Those of us who have been abroad will bear this out. The question is whether MOE is satisfied with the efficiency of our refuse collection system. Why do I ask this, Sir? It is because I still do get complaints from both my residents, and also through observation in other constituencies, of garbage spills from trucks and garbage spills in the rubbish bin centres. The Member for Ayer Rajah the other day distributed photographs of how bad the situation can be. The other problem, Sir, is the question of bulk refuse left at rubbish bin centres and also along the roadside and apparently they are not being collected for many days. The second issue is about the role that the public can play in keeping our country clean. This refers to (1) the progress of our Use Plastic Bags Campaign. To my mind, much as it is the role of the Government to keep an efficient system of refuse collection, the public still have a role to play in the sense that they too have to play their part in making sure that the rubbish they throw or dispose of in their homes and in front of their homes are properly stacked, properly packaged so thatwhen the garbage man comes, the garbage can be collected efficiently, with a minimum of spillage. Finally, Sir, I would like to know whether the Minister could enlighten us on the refuse disposal capacity of our country, whether the capacity is sufficient now, and what is the projected capacity of our refuse disposal.”
“Sir, nothing is more galling to a citizen or to an entrepreneur in his relationship with officialdom than to be faced with differing, sometimes even conflicting, requirements on the same issue from different departments or Ministries. Just yesterday the Senior Parliamentary Secretary of Defence and Member for Tampines, related the predicament of those hoping for a new bus terminal in his constituency and having to face no less than three bodies, each with its own priorities and each with its own concerns. Sir, such occurrences not only increase the ire of our people unnecessarily, but they also tend to be unproductive and waste much time. I must concede though that our civil service has gone a long way in being more responsive and nimble to the needs of our community. In my relationship with Government departments, I have come across officers who show a lot of empathy, who show a lot of sensitivity and the ability to see beyond the written rules and regulations. I certainly hope that officers like these will not remain exceptions because, given our state of things and in the context of where we want to go, this kind of officers must indeed be the rule. Sir, I would like to conclude by saying that I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. 3.46 pm”
“So when our goods become more expensive because of the added taxes, we will have still less to offer. So even if we grant that the introduction of consumption taxes is necessary and inevitable, it is incumbent upon us to take these factors into serious account. To be sure, it will be a massive and delicate task. But I see no other way especially since we have ample examples and lessons from other countries which we must learn. Lastly, Sir, before I leave the subject, I would like to support the call made yesterday by the Member for Serangoon Gardens that if and when the time comes for the introduction of such taxes, our people must be sufficiently informed and adequate explanations offered even without being asked. Let me now come to what must be among the key words in our economic strategy to survive and prosper from now on. And these are "flexibility" and "adaptability". In this regard I note the commitment of the Minister to weed out bureaucratic red tape so as not to bog down our economic development with rigidities in the system. Sir, just as we urge the people to be flexible, to be adaptable, we too must practise what we preach. If rules and regulations stifle and if our civil service pay more attention to the letter rather than the intent of such rules, we will only be making things difficult for the private sector to assume the role that we wish it to take and we cannot expect the kind of vibrancy, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity to issue forth from our citizens and businessmen. In this connection too, Sir, I appeal for more coordination between Ministries and even among departments in the same Ministry.”
“But notwithstanding this, I too share the view of the Member for Chong Boon when he said yesterday that this method of taxation should be our last resort and best deferred until our economy is in better health. Sir, it has been intimated that consumption taxes have existed in some form in our society, except that they affect relatively few items that we consume. If this form of tax is to play any significant part at all, it must therefore, logically again, cover a wide enough array of items consumed by the people. I would therefore urge extreme care and sensitivity in implementing the collection of consumption taxes. And I will hold the Minister for Finance to his promise that the Government "will make every effort to ensure that the less desirable effects are mitigated." Sir, my principle concern, just as it is the concern of many other Members, is the burden that these taxes would have on the lower-income sections of our community. This we must work hard to avoid as the consequences would go well into the long run. In deciding the items to be subjected to these taxes, therefore, I would like to urge the Government to spare as many as possible those items which we, in the context of our present-day living have deemed as necessities or staples in life. And this, I grant, is not easy as the exercise of distinguishing between needs and wants, especially in a period of rising expectations, could be a very complicated one indeed. Then there is the oft-mentioned undesirable effects of such taxes on the tourist industry, one that has already been identified as the growth industry for Singapore. To be candid, Sir, we have very little to offer the tourists when compared to other destinations even within this region.”
“Yes, it is true. This is a fact. But then does he realize that this is a problem which we have accepted, which we have recognized, way back in the 1970s when we introduced education streaming? This is the very problem we recognized and wanted to redress way back in the 70s. The majority of the of workers who have only primary education or lower are, in fact, older workers who had either dropped out of school or who had no chance of furthering their education during the colonial days. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget statement has been given several descriptions since yesterday. It has been called pragmatic, realistic, comprehensive, generous. If I could add another adjective, I would like to call it a sobering one. Sobering in the sense that it indicates starkly just how fragile our economy is; small as we are without any natural resources and always open to the whims of the international economy. The statement may not have revealed anything new, being already pre-empted by the Report of the Economic Committee and the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement earlier in this House. But I suggest let us not underestimate its importance on the impact that it will have on our economic future. The cuts in taxes and increases in incentives are unprecedented, so is the confirmation of the possible use of consumption taxes as compensatory revenue in the economy. Many Members have spoken about the latter, about their undesirable effects, consequences and burden, especially on the lower-income sections of the community. Even the Minister for Finance in his statement conceded the truth of some of these claims. Even so, I can see the logic for their introduction in our lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget statement is our strategy for FY 86 as well as for our economic future. I would have expected Members to give their opinions, their views, to better that statement. But instead we find in this House people who still stick to the age-old argument that the root of all the problems is the PAP Government. Sir, this seems to grossly overlook the development, the progress, that we have so far achieved in the last 25 years. We talk of specious arguments, we talk of cliches. Now, guess who are the main culprits? The Member for Potong Pasir also mentioned that 53% of our workers have only primary education or lower. Mr Chiam See Tong: It is true.”
“It could be that they are used to high standards of living, but then if they are as desperate as they claimed themselves to be, I think now is hardly the time for them to be choosy in what they can get. But then again amidst all these problems, amidst all these anomalies, I do see a glimmer of hope. If anything good at all could come out of this present recession, I get reports from some employers that their workers now are somewhat more willing to do overtime and more willing to be deployed to tasks which are less pleasing, but nevertheless necessary. It is my fervent hope that these changes will persist even when we come out of this recession. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I give my support for the Motion. 3.07 pm”