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 15 of 15.
“On the part of employers, I think the time has now come for them to consolidate and take advantage of the recommendations to increase their efficiency and to develop new markets. However, there may be fears that there may be some who may want to abuse the flexibility and the incentives that have been proposed. Just the other day I was told that a certain employer, on hearing that the corporate tax will be reduced from 40% to 30%, merrily placed an order for a new Mercedes. I am not too sure whether this is exactly the intent or the purpose of the incentive that is to be given. Therefore, the Government, and especially the unions, must be very vigilant to ensure that such abuses do not take place because such abuses cause leaks in the system. And once the system has leaks, it will not work as efficiently as you would like it to be. Before I conclude, let me come to what must be a crucial component among the trio, which is, the workers. I have mentioned about the need to change attitudes, to change outlook and to my mind the need for change among workers is the most needed. There must be willingness among them to learn new skills, to do the third shift, to do overtime and to go for jobs which may be physically uncomfortable but nevertheless necessary or even well paying. The commitment and will to increase productivity must be planted and we need to realize that the days of higher wages cannot be sustained unless we are more productive and competitive. Unfortunately, even during these hard times, I still hear from my colleagues, from employers, and even from my experiences in my meet-the-people sessions, that some workers who have been retrenched and claimed they needed money to support their families, were choosy in jobs offered to them as alternatives.”
“Talking about the role of Government, I am also glad to note that there has been a recommendation that Government-owned or quasi-Government-owned agencies ought to have more participation of the private sector. With regard to Government-owned companies, the Economic Committee has already recommended that the Government ought to divest it interest in the company wherever desirable and feasible. To my mind, I think we also should look hard at the roles and objectives of our statutory boards. This could and should be reviewed to see whether there is also room for private sector participation in some of their functions or activities. While I agree that statutory boards must be viable units, their more crucial role, to my mind, is to serve the population as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. We must move away from the perception that the more surpluses that are accumulated the more successful these statutory boards are, until a point is reached whereby the accumulation of surpluses seem to be an end in itself. Therefore, I applaud the recommendation that savings of these bodies ought to be passed on to consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, our commitment to be flexible and our commitment to encourage creativity must never flag. Among the recommendations, the Economic Committee has also said that our education system must be suited to create this environment where our workers, our population, will be developed to their fullest potential and where people will be educated as a "total" person. To my mind, that is very crucial. Because if we were to strike out into new fields, if we were to be innovative enough to seek opportunities as they come, then the spirit of inquiry, of creativity must be present.”
“And, as my colleague has said before me, what is important right now is for us to act decisively and to act quickly. All this will need the concerted effort of three parties, the Government, employees and employers. And if things are going to work, therefore attitudes must change. And as everyone knows, attitudes take a long time to change, they must therefore take place right now. The Government's duty is to govern to govern fairly, to govern efficiently, and its duty is to provide a stable environment, one that is conducive to better effort, more creativity, so that our citizens could grow and develop their potential to the fullest. And just as we are urging the population to be flexible, the population to be responsive to changes, we ourselves must show that commitment to be able to be flexible, to be able to change, to adapt to changing conditions. I am glad that steps have been taken to relook into our rules and regulations to see whether there are any which could stifle growth, to see whether we can modify any of these rules and regulations or even discard them if they somehow block our path of growth. I am not suggesting that we totally throw off altogether our fundamentals. I am not suggesting too that we forget what we have agreed and decided to be the cornerstones of our society in the past. But I think that we must be daring enough to review even sacred cows, to determine whether they need to be slaughtered if they have lost their sanctity. Previously we have been afraid even to touch the sacred cows, let alone bring them down from their altars. I think the time has come because the situation needs daring moves, daring measures, that we need to review all our fundamentals to see whether they need to be changed.”
“He also, somewhere in his speech when discussing the economic recession, mentioned that one Minister has been given undue publicity over others. Mr Speaker, Sir, I really fail to see the relevance of the insinuation or accusation. I am quite sure that if the Minister concerned can dismiss the economic problems just by playing a low profile and go into hiding, he would do it. But alack and alas, somehow the solution attributed to the problems that we are facing is totally off the mark. He has also mentioned just now that some 299,000 people may have problems servicing their loans with the intended 15% CPF cut. I am not too sure whether he has really ascertained the accuracy of the number, and I am sure the Minister for National Development could later perhaps enlighten him on what actually is the extent of the number of people who may not be able to service their loans because of the 15% CPF cut. But even so, the Government has already announced its intention to assist those who have problems in trying to service their loans by extending the loan period, by making available easy loans, etc, etc. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned just now, it is important for us to look into the future. This is important. For us to continue dwelling on our misfortunes and continue to wring our hands in sorrow will only serve to perpetuate and spread the gloom and blunt our resolve to act positively to build for what is to come. The Economic Committee has made far-reaching recommendations, not only to stop the deterioration of the bad economic conditions but also to lay the foundations for a bigger and hopefully better economic future. Doubtlessly, the recommendations will have to be scrutinized in detail. Doubtlessly too, there will definitely be kinks which have to be ironed out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said and much has been discussed on what the Economic Committee will be doing to get the country out of this economic morass that we are in. And my colleagues before me have also discussed at length, have also criticized the recommendations made by the Economic Committee and have given suggestions on what ought to be done and could have been done. Allow me to concentrate on what we ought to do in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we gathered here last year to debate on the Presidential Address, each of us heard and spoke on the vision that was placed before us. This year, I am heartened by what the President said about what we ought to do for the future, that the goals set by his predecessor are still valid even though our economic situation shows signs of diverting us away from these goals. Sir, we are facing trying times. I assure you that all of us sympathize with those workers who have been retrenched, those businessmen who have been forced to fold up their businesses. But then I think it would be much more fruitful for us to think of what we ought to do from now on to ensure ourselves our future. Let us not again dwell on what could have been and what should have been, like some purveyors of doom of this House have suggested. Members have just now heard that the Member for Potong Pasir - I am afraid he is not here right now - saying that if our neighbouring countries could have chalked up 3-4% growth, why did we have negative or zero growth. The reasons why our neighbouring countries have been able to make positive growth despite the recession all round has been adequately explained. And since he is not here right now, I do not think we ought to spend more time in trying to elucidate what he has somehow missed.”
“It is examples like these, Sir, which make people view politics as dishonest, as unethical and even as a dirty and immoral activity. Woe betide. Everything, Sir, they say, is fair in love and war. Many would even say of this in politics. But need this be so in Singapore? Sir, I am well aware of the remarks describing PAP MPs as bland, as uninteresting, as uncolourful, as too prim and proper, as too straight and unbending. In short, a cross between a robot and a priest. It is possible that the codes that we live by make us so. And I concede that perhaps we ought to soften our sharp and rough edges. But I believe, Sir, that we should not compromise our scruples just to further our own political ends, with scant regard for the fate and well-being of our citizens and of our country. This standard, I submit, Sir, could only be maintained if we agree on the fair and proper rules of the game and conduct which all of us in this House, without exception, could adhere to. Therefore, if I could beseech the Cabinet to look into this proper rules of the game, and perhaps respond to my pleas.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. As I said, things like these have happened in other countries. We have read about them in the papers.”
“Sir, if acts like these are allowed to go on, and to continue, there is a real risk of our political process being corrupted. I am sure you have read about these acts in the papers, you have heard from the media. These have happened in other countries.”
“When I choose examples, I choose external examples. I did not say who they were. I did not mention names. I did not mention MPs. I said, "we", which could mean any one of us here. Unless the Member for Anson is in the business of mind reading and he could read my mind as to what I am imputing, then I suggest he withdraw his objections. If I may continue, Sir, before I was abruptly interrupted. If acts like these are allowed to go on --”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I chose my words carefully when I made the speech.”
“A high standard of moral conduct was set by the Party leadership and, if I may say so, accepted and generally adhered to by all its Members. However, since the passing of legislation allowing for Non-Constituency MPs and with the entry of Opposition Members to this House, this quality control over MPs' conduct could become increasingly difficult. Now, new MPs like me would therefore be faced with codes of conduct different from what we know. Hence, as one who is new and still learning the rope in politics, I would therefore like to know if there could be some guidelines from Cabinet so that they could serve as common reference for all of us in this House. Sir, I would like to know, so do my new colleagues would like to know too, so do some of my constituents who asked me, they too would like to know. The need for such guidelines is crucial because virtually everything we do outside this Parliament could be turned to political advantage by an unscrupulous but smooth politician. As an example, it would be entirely absurd for anyone of us to break the law, to get into scandals perhaps, or, even to commit a criminal offence, and then to portray it as a political act or, when convicted of that act, to portray it as political harassment or persecution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have laid claim to speak on the Motion for Adjournment today on a matter which, I believe, is of considerable importance to the public and which I hope the Cabinet could look into and consider action, if necessary. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The matter, Sir, which I am referring to has bearing on the dignity of MPs and their conduct, especially outside this Parliament. With regard to our conduct in this Parliament, I think the Standing Orders determine quite sufficiently how we ought to behave, what we ought to say, what we could and what we could not do. In fact, I am quite highly tempted to pursue the suggestion by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. But I am afraid I have to disappoint him. Sir, we must accept that the values, the moral beliefs that MPs hold, determine their conduct, whether they be Ministers, whether they be Backbenchers, even Opposition MPs, and this in turn sets the tone of the political life and the quality of political activity in this country. I believe, Sir, we have heard of instances in countries where improper conduct has spelt the demise of governments. Now, while there are clear laws and rules governing who can and who cannot stand for election, there are, I am afraid, no definite guidelines or codes of conduct on how all Members of this House ought to conduct themselves after being elected to Parliament. Their conduct, Sir, is usually based on unwritten assumptions of fair play, moral behaviour and the dignity of their office. But this, Sir, can only be possible if and when each and everyone of us accepts these assumptions. Mr Speaker, Sir, previously when this House comprised entirely of PAP MPs, control of a Member's behaviour and ensuring the proper conduct of its Members was easy and effective.”
“Can the hon. Minister tell us the nature of these complaints, please?”
“Mainly, it is because these political Parties could not produce anything to be appreciated by the people. They could not convince the people that they are reliable, trustworthy, or worth anything. They only come out during the general elections to take part in the election, after which, they will disappear without a trace. If you say that in the past 25 years, the people of Singapore have not elected any Opposition Party because of the suppression or obstruction by the Party in power, then how can you explain the fact that today in this House, there are two Opposition Members sitting in their seats. We all know that the Member for Anson came into this House in the 1981 by-election. At last year's general election, another Member was added, the Member for Potong Pasir. If the present Party in power could suppress or obstruct the Opposition Parties, how could they have come here? Therefore, by making such accusation, they are just slapping their own faces. The people of Singapore are sophisticated. Maybe the Opposition Members can get a lesson from a common Chinese saying that "genuine gold does not fear the test by fire". If they are of true stuff, they could seek their opportunity at the next general elections and not try to give pretexts and excuses that they have been subjected to Government obstruction, harassing and so on. It only shows that they are lacking in confidence and feeling not safe. 12.20 pm”
“In a democractic system, particularly where we have the one-man-one-vote system, the government is elected by the people. If the government could not produce evidence to show that it has ruled the country well and could not improve the livelihood of the people, then the government would not only be criticized and queried at the general elections, it will also be over-thrown by the people. Under the one-man-one-vote system, the power of electing a government obviously is in the hands of the people. The birth of a government obviously is due to the will of the people. Therefore, similarly, the appearance of an Opposition in Parliament is also as a result of the will of the people where the people feel that there should be one or two Opposition Members in Parliament, thereby they have voted the Opposition into the House. In other words, this is not what anybody else can sway or force away that it might not happen. Over two decades, the people have at every general election elected a PAP Government. Obviously, it has not been due to the PAP suppressing the Opposition Parties or other political Parties, but it has been a result of the manifestation of the will of the people by exercising their voting rights. In other words, the Government has been seen to be a good Government in the minds of the people as it has been able to improve the lot of the people and achieve a great deal in many fields, including social and economic progress. The people are pragmatic. As long as the Government is a good one, naturally the people will support it. As we all know, there are more than 10 registered political Parties in Singapore. Why have they not been able to get the support of the people? Is it due to the suppression or obstruction of the Party in power? No.”
“Under our present democratic system, the will of the people cannot be manipulated by any political Party or politician. Let us refer to a short extract of the history of China. In Chinese history, for several thousand years, the country was under the rule of kings and emperors in different dynasties. Of course, under such feudalis- tic regimes, there was no popular suffrage. The kings and emperors won their kingdoms and empires through their prowess in actual warfare and armed contentions. But it does not mean that under imperialistic rule, the dynasty once in power could carry on for an indefinite period of years. Even such imperialistic rulers would have to claim their authority by the mandate of Heaven, giving the pretext that they were exercising the rule through the mandate given by heaven. So they were acting on behalf of heaven. But I feel that heavenly mandate was not important. What was important was that they had to achieve some beneficial results for the people as a basis to justify their rule. That is to say, during their reign, whether they had enabled the people to live better, having food and supplies sufficient for their livelihood. If a dynasty became corrupt and the people were starving and suffered hardship, then the people would rise in revolt against that dynasty or emperor and set up another dynasty. There is a Chinese saying that if the officialdom forced the people to revolt, the people could only revolt. Imperialistic history tells us that even under autocratic rule, force could not suppress the people. So, at a time of democracy in a democractic country, the will of the people is even more supreme. It cannot be over-run. The reason is very simple.”
“I do not think anybody can argue that parliamentary democracy does not exist in Singapore. Therefore, let me come to the nub of the whole point, which is, whether we ought to support or not to support this motion. If you were to ask me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my answer would be, as younger Singaporeans would put it, no way. 12.09 pm Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, allow me to say that I do not like so many cameras focusing at us in this Chamber, because when the proceedings are telecast on the TV screen, it will give people two impressions. First, it seems that the proceedings in this Parliament are like a drama or some kind of a play where the MPs are like actors playing out their parts. Actually, the proceeding in the House is a solemn affair where there is dignity and decorum. The second impression is that since we have two Opposition Members in this House, whenever we are debating on any subject when a PAP MP stands up to speak or to rebut the speeches of the Opposition Members, the impression given to the TV audience would be that we are encircling and attacking the Opposition Members and would sympathize with them as it is human nature to have sympathy for the weak. But the question is if we do not rebut the motion and speeches made by the Member for Anson, there will be two possible consequences. The first is when his arguments are conveyed through the mass media, the TV, a confusing impression is created. The second is that if his arguments on this motion are not rebutted, then it would be an insult to the intelligence of the people of Singapore. So, I would use what had been said by Mencius that I am not argumentative but I have to argue.”
“Again, this was mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon with regard to the planting of some exotic plant to commemorate the setting up of the office, to commemorate the victory of the SDP or whatever. I would like him to know that the same ruling would apply to PAP MPs if they applied for permission to plant a tree to commemorate the opening of a branch, victory of the Party, their birthday or whatever. Again, what I am trying to impress is that rules devised by the People's Association or by the HDB apply equally to all, without exception, and for rules to be effective, they have got to be applied as such. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very suspicious when people come round professing that they speak for the people of Singapore. I do not know whether they speak for themselves, whether they speak for the Party or whether they speak for a certain section of the constituency. But certainly, Sir, I would not be so presumptuous again as to say that I speak for all Singaporeans. This self-professed representation, if I may call it, saying they speak for all Singaporeans - Singaporeans do not want this, Singaporeans do not want that, Singaporeans want this, Singaporeans want that - these are, to find a better word, exaggerations in the sense that they accept or deem themselves to be a speaker for everyone in Singapore. I will not bore Members with answers or replies to his arguments on parliamentary democracy. These have been amply answered and also amply demonstrated by my colleagues in the House. But if they were to pause for a moment and think: how is it that they can be in this House if it is not because of the will of some of the people at least, ie, they have been elected, which means that there is some form of choice?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many allegations have been hurled at the Government yesterday on the so-called purported hurdles that the Government puts in the Opposition's way. Some have already been answered by my colleagues yesterday. Others, I am sure, will be answered by the proper authorities and I will not be so presumptuous as to pre-empt their replies. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was no lack of vehemence, no lack of emotion in the Opposition Members in hurling and throwing their allegations. I must admit, and I must confess too, that I admire their consistency, consistency in conclusions based on the wrong premises. Allow me to comment on some of them. One was the example brought up by the Member for Anson on the refusal of the People's Association to allow classes to be held in the Anson Community Centre. The contention was that the refusal was obstructionist. The Member was not precise actually as to who wants these classes. If it is the people of Anson, then it has nothing to do with obstructing the Opposition. But if it is asked by the Workers' Party, then I have this to say. In fact, the Member for Changkat has alluded to this just now in that the People's Association has made it abundantly clear that political activities by the PAP or by non-PAP bodies or whatever should not be held in the community centres. That applies to the Opposition. It applies to the PAP MPs too, equally. So I do not see how the Opposition, again as alluded to by the Member for Changkat, wants special treatment on this. The same goes with the allegation by the Member for Potong Pasir yesterday.”
“Sir, I would just like to add to what the Member for Punggol has said earlier. He was talking about the bad maintenance of garbage trucks. Fortunately, he was not at High Street at the material time. I was. And so was the Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of the Environment. Quite attached to the maintenance of garbage trucks, Sir, is the attitude of workers who man these trucks. Often times the householders take the trouble to really package their garbage and put them in the bins provided in front of their houses. But unfortunately when the workers pack them or load them onto the truck, they somehow drop bits and pieces all over the place. So it is a question of attitude. Perhaps they are underpaid or they are not really taught how to do their work well enough. This is especially so in areas where it is due for resettlement, for example, because somehow they are less careful about the way they load the garbage onto the truck. This also happens in private estates which I have quite a lot in my constituency, and I have lots of complaints from constituents on garbage being littered all over the place by the workers. Much obliged, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Housing and Development Board consider payment of resettlement benefits earlier to those who have moved out of the area?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, given the easy availability of inhalants to the public, does the Ministry have any long-term plans to tackle this problem of easy supply?”
“Now, the Minister for Communications has said that incomes will in fact not decrease, if only taxi drivers will work longer hours or if they will also work on multiple shifts. As you know, Sir, most of the taxi drivers are 40 years old and above. An ergonomist will tell you that driving longer hours at that age may lead to very fatal consequences. And the ease with which drivers can have multiple shifts depends very much on the kind of people they can have as relief drivers. As you know, Sir, it is not easy to find people who are good enough to take care of their taxis, and it is also not easy to find good drivers who ensure that the taxis loaned out to them are returned in good condition. Sir, in this period of economic uncertainty, things are in a flux and we must be sure that the citizen is not overly taxed beyond his threshold of pain. Many Members in this House have said on the debate on the Presidential Address that we need feedback from the people, we need consultation, so that policies which ultimately issue from this consultation will be accepted by everyone and are in the best interests of all. I can only hope that the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Finance will take heed of all the comments and suggestions of this House in carrying out very close reviews and monitor the whole situation before taxes remain as a permanent feature of our life. What we want, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is a long-term and viable solution to our problems. Sir, I support the motion. 4.00 pm”
“In this exercise, feedback from the public is therefore necessary. Quite apart from the dollars and cents of these rises in taxes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the social cost that they bear to the society. Car ownership has been increasingly perceived as the privileged domain of increasingly fewer citizens. Car ownership has become a status symbol for someone to strive for. On the other hand, car ownership also will be increasingly perceived as an object of envy, something that is to be scratched, something that is to be vandalized. I therefore urge the Government to seriously review the matter of increased taxes and to ensure that there is strict monitoring of the whole situation before the whole issue runs out of hand. As for taxis, volumes can be written on this. In fact, before the debate started this afternoon, I was talking to the Member for Bo Wen who is actually an avid taxi commuter. And he has in fact been given an earful from taxi drivers on their woes and on their problems. Now, the basis of all the assumption that they will increase their earnings is that the demand for taxis will fall by a certain percentage. And the whole premise that they will indeed increase their incomes will be based on this percentage of demand that will drop. The suspicion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that demand will drop so much that earnings will in fact be chipped away. The Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Rochore have said that we need to ensure that the taxi drivers' earnings will not be chipped away. We realize that we have to look into the whole matter very seriously, that we have to give the whole system a chance, as the Second Deputy Prime Minister has said, before we adopt or scrap the whole issue. The problem of taxi drivers has indeed been raised many times before.”
“A formula for this could be worked out and the amount of relief allowed to the parent could be pegged to the level of education of the children. Now, to the more controversial issues of increased taxi fares and increase in the ad valorem tax on petrol, road and diesel taxes. As I said before, these arguments have been raised very eloquently by the Members for Leng Kee, Anson and Rochore. Fiscal disincentives, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can only be temporary in the sense that we can only bring about temporary solutions. As incomes rise, the threshold of unaffordability will definitely also rise. There will be a time when this threshold will be crossed and this again will serve to push up the cost of living index. Fiscal disincentives too, Sir, are always misconstrued by the public as a measure to raise revenue rather than to solve the problem at source. Taking the measure as a whole, it affects a very wide spectrum of the Singapore public by threatening to raise the cost of living and production cost in an already flat economic climate. This is especially painful to smaller entrepreneurs who are struggling hard to survive. And these measures may even jeopardize the chances of their ever making it. The timing, Sir, is not right. As it is, there is no alternative form of an efficient public transport in Singapore. Although the intention is for the people to steer away from taxis and to take buses, but the efficiency of the buses in Singapore is hardly to our liking. And the MRT is still a far way off. I suggest therefore a comprehensive look into the whole transportation system in Singapore and to look into whether we can adopt non-fiscal measures which are indeed in the longer term. What we need to do, Sir, is to change travel attitudes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at about this time last year, I was in the Gallery hearing the debates on the Budget statement. The mood then was more euphoric than what it is today; the gloom and doom that lie in this House is so thick that we can almost cut it with a knife. Sir, on the whole, I view the Budget as slightly rejuvenating. The attempt to keep business and industry above water is indeed a necessary step, if not a commendable one. The bias towards the corporate sector therefore is necessary. Sir, the Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Rochore have very eloquently spoken about the woes of the common man on the rises in taxes and the rises in petrol prices. I applaud especially the intention of the Government to allow tax deductibility on tuition and exam fees on courses, especially on those which cover correspondence courses. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is timely if not already over-due. One rider, however, I would like to add is that the definition of "courses related to employment and courses related to a job" should not be too restrictive as to disallow a lot of people these tax deductions. Sir, I would also urge the Government to extend the spirit of incentive and the spirit of encouragement to parents who have children studying 'A' levels or those pursuing higher education. I am not suggesting that tax incentives, for example, should be across the board because it is very clear that there are families who could afford to send their children to study 'A' levels and above. But rather I would urge the Government to give these incentives to those with relatively lower incomes, say, for families earning up to $2,000 and those with children studying 'A' levels and maybe even in university.”