Arthur Beng Kian Lam
Singapore
“Sir, the aim of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is to encourage optimal road usage so that car ownership can be increased. My questions to the Minister are (1) what is the estimated cost to a motorist, ie, the median, that the Ministry of Communications is expecting?”
“Sir, one point of clarification, please. I am very pleased to hear the announcement made by the Senior Minister of State about the very comprehensive way in which IT is going to be applied in schools. I am also very glad to hear that six more computers are going to be added to the existing five for administration.”
“Sir, my topic is on public transport in mature HDB estates. Sir, we are all excited about the plans to achieve a world-class public transport system. However, as many of the mature towns have little or no reserve land, it would seem that the bus will still be the mainstay of transportation. I would like to ask the Minister two questions.”
“The Minister has implemented a paradigm shift in his approach to personnel management. The new salary scales announced are welcomed and will do much to raise the morale of the teachers. I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises the principal as the CEO of a school. This gives a significant recognition to the role of the principal.”
“Sir, I am glad to know that the Minister will be taking active steps to implement the IMC and that he himself will be chairing the Ministerial Steering Committee which will include the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs.”
“However, upgrading is necessary as the business of the centre will be affected if the town is not upgraded, and experience has shown that the business in upgraded town centres indeed improves. Sir, the HDB or MND earns from the sale of shops. Should not a sum from this be allocated to town councils for the upgrading process?”
The complete record
Every one of 722 lines we hold for Arthur Beng Kian Lam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three questions for the Minister. Firstly, with reference to Table 1. He has explained . I would like to seek his explanation or clarification of where he adds 3% on to . How did he reach this figure of 3%, and will it not actually be fairer to give a range for a block? Second, the Minister has stated that the proposed solution will only contain the problem so that it will not deteriorate. I congratulate the Minister on this because the manner of implementation is not only fair but it also results in minimal disruption. However, will the Minister also consider giving priority to redevelopment in constituencies which are already affected by this problem of ethnic distribution? And will it be possible to do this in the next 3-5 years? Third, what criteria will the HDB use to define a sale of last resort?”
“Sir, my clarification is this. Will the Senior Minister of State in his reply to me give an undertaking that this Bill will not be gazetted earlier than two weeks after the passing by this House?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on one last clarification. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his conscientious and detailed replies. We have received many clarifications on practically all points. As a Member of the Backbench ---”
“Sir, now, about these people who would be sent to jail. If they were to be sent to jail, they may not want to own up. That is my point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification. Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to reiterate my point that all these press releases have been so effective, now they are trying to run out. That is why I quoted in the newspaper report of 25th January. They are trying to get out. Why waste our resources trying to catch those who are getting out? Let them surrender. Make it an additional point or another plus factor. Do not fill up our jails with these people, send them back! They will help us solve our problem. We do not even have to keep them for the six months under the present regulations. Let them go back home and spread the message for us - "You will be caned!" I did support the Bill, Sir.”
“Sir, I have two points of clarification for the Member for Potong Pasir. Firstly, he said that the Advisory Board is seen by the public not to be independent. I would like him to clarify as to his own views. Does he see it as an independent board? Secondly, in his enthusiasm to champion the cause of Chia Thye Poh, he has made an offer to resign as the Member for Potong Pasir. If that is the case, will he not be letting down the people of Potong Pasir who have voted for him?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I made the statement that the communist threat is still present based on events over the last year and the threat is of course both from without and within, and I believe that they will remain so for many more years to come.”
“Sir, the other Members of my GPC will, with your permission, rise also to speak on other aspects of this Bill.”
“Likewise, we are a product of our own social, cultural and educational environment. This is an inescapable fact of life. We are just not the same. Is it fair for us to expect anyone else to be able to switch to our mindsets? Our understanding of security threats obviously may not be the same as that of others. We are therefore the best interpreters and most competent to deal with our own security. Sir, having said all this, I would like to raise the following hypothetical case scenario. We cannot assume that we will always have the PAP as the ruling party, a Government of proven tract record of integrity and honour. What would happen if a corrupt regime were to by freak chance take over? With this in mind, would it not be wise to consider giving powers of review to our own courts on questions touching on illegality and legality? This fear has been brought to my attention by lawyers and laymen alike. My colleague, the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, will expand further on this. Finally, Sir, we know that the role of the Privy Council in our legal system is under review. The Minister has given us some insight. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill will also make reference to the Privy Council. Can the Minister at this time enlighten the House as to the various options under consideration? In this respect, I would also like the Minister to consider the setting up of a permanent Court of Appeal, a court of Appellate Judges as distinct from Judges who sit in the court of first instance. I understand that there are problems and constraints of manpower and expertise. However, I believe that this is the correct time to pursue this. This would be the next natural step in the evolution and maturing of our judicial system.”
“(c) A further safeguard provided by the ISA and the Constitution is that the power to detain without trial is conferred on the highest executive body in the country the Cabinet. Who is the Cabinet responsible to? Ultimately to this House Parliament. Sir, let us remind ourselves once again that Parliament is supreme. Parliament has the people's mandate to make laws. The duty of the courts is to interpret the legislation passed by Parliament. In discharging this duty, the intention of the Legislature is all important. It has never been the intention of the Legislature, as expressed in the ISA, that the courts should be assigned the right to review Ministerial discretion in security matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I at this point quote from Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 44, 1983, page 510, under the subtitle "Functions of the Courts". Paragraph 840 reads: 'It is the province of the legislature to enact statutes, and of the courts to construe the statutes which the legislature has enacted.' Paragraph 841 reads: 'The making of law is a matter for the legislature, and not for the courts; and the courts are not entitled to canvass the power of Parliament to make any statute, or the propriety or wisdom of making it .....' This, Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand, is a cardinal principle and a generally accepted view. Sir, I next turn to the Privy Council. Sir, the Privy Council has rendered invaluable service to Singapore as our Appellate Court. However, on national security matters, the final Court of Appeal must be the Court of Appeal of our own nation. Sir, we must view with gravity that in interpreting what is a security threat the mindsets of the interpreters is of paramount importance. They are a product of their own social, cultural and educational environment.”
“We still have the Communist threat with us. This threat, of course, takes a different form today. Nevertheless, it is a threat which must never be underestimated nor can it be a threat to be wished away. We must next remember that we are a multi-racial, multi-religious community, set in extraordinary circumstances. Yes, it is said that there are many nations which have a multi-racial, multi-religious composition. What is the big deal about Singapore? But is any of them comparable to us in that we are living in a tiny island of 600 sq km? Under these circumstances, the chances of creating mischief and misunderstanding are ever present. The Executive must therefore have unchallenged power to nip the problem in the bud, in the light of highly sensitive information available only to the Executive. In any responsible society, the individual's interest must be second to that of society at large. Nevertheless, the individual must also have his rights protected. It may be perceived that if the Executive's decision is final, then the individual is denied of his rights. Will this amendment make the individual totally impotent, and therefore at the mercy of the Executive? Sir, the proposed amendments must be read in the context of the ISA. Under the Internal Security Act, there are safeguards. These are: (a) The detainee's case must be reviewed by an Advisory Board within three months of the issue of a Detention Order. The Advisory Board itself is presided over by a High Court Judge. This ensures, in my view, judicial supervision. (b) The detention is further reviewed by the Advisory Board on a yearly basis. The current state of the detainee is thus annually reviewed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law supports the Bill. Sir, today is momentous as we are discussing a matter of great importance, an amendment to the Internal Security Act and, for the first time, reviewing the status of the Privy Council which has been part of our legal system for over a century. The Privy Council is the highest court of appeal in our system, a time-honoured and hallowed institution. The Law Lords of the Council are eminent jurists of great intellect, knowledge and wisdom. The Council has been the beacon to our legal path and has helped developed our laws and concepts of law. Sir, the issue before us today is not just the competence of the Privy Council as judges of the hour. It is also an issue of national importance, namely, whether on matters of national security the Executive should or should not be the final arbiter, subject of course to the restraint that the Executive is ultimately accountable to Parliament. We have before us today two issues: (1) should the courts have the power to review the acts of the Executive under the ISA? (2) should the Privy Council be retained as the highest court of appeal in security matters? Sir, I will deal, firstly, with whether the courts should have the power to review the acts of the Executive under the ISA. To answer this, we must refer to the original intent and purpose of the Act. Let us remind ourselves once again that this Act was promulgated by the British before our independence. Preventive detention is practised to this day in the United Kingdom, as mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Law, with respect to their unique problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Do we also not have our own unique problems? The answer is an obvious yes.”
“Sir, now that the Minister recognizes the fact that infant care is more costly, would it not be good logic to increase the subsidy for infant care?”
“Sir, will the Minister also try to convince the Minister for Labour to allow foreign maids to be used for the setting up of child care centres, as a temporary measure, so that the programme will not be hindered because of the shortage of manpower?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the views of Mr Chandra Das. Sir, when one gives a speech, others are entitled to their opinions and interpretation of one's speech. My speech given yesterday, and I am very flattered, has been given various connotations. The Straits Times thought I was chiding. The Minister thought I was saying that his Ministry has been uncooperative all along. Mr Davinder Singh feels that I have been going for the jugular. And now the NCMP feels that I am crossing over. However, what I said is recorded on videotape and it is in the Hansard. May I remind the NCMP that I ended my speech by saying that I still believe in our present system and I am still an optimist. Can I quote from my own speech: 'Is there hope for consensus building and meaningful participation? In spite of some setbacks, I am still an optimist. As I see the momentum pick up in the discussion on the National Ideology, I believe that there is still hope for the consultative process.' 3.12 pm”
“In the long term, this may prove counter-productive to our efforts in building a more cohesive and meaningful Singapore for ourselves and for our future generations. I sincerely hope this will not happen. My worry is because we have to accept two realities. First, it is not easy for anyone to forget his ethnic origin. Second, prejudices and stereotyping in society still exist and will continue to exist. May I suggest that when dealing with issues that could arouse emotions and should we err, it is better to err on the conservative side in order not to spark off unnecessary controversy with its attendant unhappiness that may take a long time to heal. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I back the call made by the Member for Marine Parade, Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe, that serious attention be given to the proposal to set up a high-level committee to study and evaluate the position of the minorities who perceive themselves facing a lot of barriers in securing jobs in the private sector. In this connection, I certainly feel that personnel managers in the private sector could perhaps be more conscious and sensitive towards this problem, wherever it exists, so that they could contribute towards our nation building efforts. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap.”
“This is a clear manifestation of Government's farsightedness and political wisdom as such a scenario must be viewed within the perspective of our political history and geopolitical situation. As President of a parent body of 43 Malay organizations, I have the confidence that the majority of Malays are making strenuous efforts to improve themselves. A good indicator is the 1988 PSLE and GCE 'O' level examination results which have shown improvements compared to results 10 years ago. But it is undeniable that there exists a minority group within the Malay community who are not responsive to changes. Their numbers are insignificant and will not affect the commitment, endeavour and resolve of the Malay community to make hard choices. With regard to the small group, it is better that Malay community leaders themselves be entrusted with the task of correcting their situation. Next, I would like to touch on multi-racialism. In order to continue to promote goodwill and harmony among the people, I am in agreement with the Member for Siglap that very sensitive issues such as race or religion should be handled with care and tact. Open and frank discussions can be carried out as long as we know where to draw the line to avoid arousing negative or provocative feelings. In this regard, I could confirm the statement made by the Member for Siglap that I too experienced the feeling of being alienated by my own community as a consequence of our decision to discuss sensitive issues openly and frankly. My fear and concern is that by doing so, what guarantee is there that we are not opening Pandora's Box where the end result is a hardening of attitudes and reinforcing of existing biases and prejudices within our multi-racial population.”
“Secondly, Mr Speaker, I am comforted to learn that the Government will continue to pay more care and attention to the less talented, less well-endowed and less able members of our society - a declaration first made during the opening of the Sixth Parliament in 1985. It is a known fact that this segment of the society has been shackled by various social and other problems (such as large family size, inadequate living space, or having family members who are susceptible to anti-social activities) and they require outside help to improve their lives. All they need is a little extra assistance in order to succeed in pulling themselves up to improve their lives. Those who are willing to help themselves ought to receive more help, not because we believe in hand-outs but because this is to enable them to give off their best without sacrificing our meritocracy principle. However, to expect the low-income families to respond on their own accord to outside help is not easy. The Government and the better-endowed members of society should think of ways and means to reach out and get them immersed into our assistance schemes. And it is in this area, Mr Speaker, that I feel that grassroots organizations, namely the Citizens' Consultative Committees and the Residents' Committees, could expand their roles through close cooperation with relevant Government agencies and voluntary welfare organizations to provide the necessary assistance for the less successful among us. Related to this, the Government's decision to extend special assistance to the Malay community to facilitate their progress into the mainstream of national life is highly commendable.”
“In this regard, I welcome the recognition on the need to continue efforts at consenus-building, encouraging participation and accommodating dissent. This has already been practised by the Government but what remains is for this process to be further improved upon so as to make it more effective. Working within our accepted parameters, Singaporeans should respond positively to make this workable through their involvement in community service and public participation which would pave the way for a better understanding and knowledge on the intricacies of how the Government and society function. In this way, people can voice their views, bring in new ideas to various issues and matters that affect their daily lives. On the other hand, Sir, I would like to suggest that Government leaders strive to create such an atmosphere by making themselves accessible to as many community leaders, organizations and concerned individuals via dialogue sessions (both public and private) and not confine themselves to receiving feedback only from selected sources and reports. This is necessary in order to counter the perception that the input-gathering exercise from the public is just a mere routine because decisions have already been made on important, controversial or sensitive issues. In this regard, Mr Speaker, I am confident that our Government would adhere to the fundamental principle stated in the President's Address that unless support is forthcoming from the majority of Singaporeans, the Government would find it difficult to implement its policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is really reassuring to hear the Minister say that he is totally committed and so are his Cabinet colleagues. I think I have achieved the aim of my exercise yesterday. If I have extracted this, it is something which all of us are happy about, and we are very reassured about. But, Sir, I want to put it on record, if the Minister has misunderstood me, or my speech yesterday, that nowhere did I impute that the Minister or his Ministry was uncooperative with me over the whole period of my Chairmanship of the GPC. I mentioned specifically and I quote "then came a series of shocks and setbacks, as I see it, after the general election." Mr Speaker, Sir, I mean no disrespect to the Minister or to his Ministry officials at all. If that has been mis-conveyed, I apologize so. But, Sir, never did I use the word "reneging", never did I say "not kept his promise". I thank him for his compliments that we have done a job and, as he said, "an excellent job" and I thank all my Committee members for their support, the Minister and his officials too. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues who have spoken before me in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap to thank the President for his Address at the opening of this Parliament. In my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address was significant, meaningful and balanced in that it provides Singaporeans with a broad insight into the philosophy and approaches our Government will pursue to resolve likely problems our nation expects to encounter in the coming years. Firstly, Sir, I would like to touch on the subject of political stability.”
“Sir, I unequivocally say here that I have been very satisfied up to that point.”
“Sir, on the issue of diesel tax, I conveyed the message that there could have been much more consultation. We were not consulted on the diesel tax and that was the example that I brought up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the media is entitled to its opinion. I never used the word "chide", I never intended it to be a chide. I expressed what was my personal viewpoint and that was what I did.”
“Sir, the Minister of State imputed that I did not understand the process of what can and cannot be discussed with the Minister. Did I for one moment ask or mentioned anything about the timing of the tax? I talked about the consultative process, about discussing the issue. That is all, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, the new GPC Chairman for Communications and Information is also a first-term MP. And he is also well aware of it. He mentioned to me that as a member of the Telecoms Board, he is aware that there may be conflicts of interest. We are well aware, Sir, and we know that you are a watchman and that you will watch over us. We are aware of this, Sir. Thank you for the reminder, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I rise on a point to clarify on what the Minister of State said?”
“I am confident that goodwill amongst all is present today. What we need to do is to nurture this and take precautionary steps to ensure that we build upon what we now enjoy - peace, progress, prosperity and happiness. Let us never take this for granted.”
“These actions will send a very clear signal to all that the Government is serious in its intention. Building a multi-racial and multi-religious society Sir, I next turn to the question of a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Sir, this is a reality of our situation today. Very correctly, the President has advised "tolerance and moderation". Very wisely, there is also a call to separate religion from politics. To quote from the President's Address. "Religion must be kept rigorously separate from politics. Religious groups must not get themselves involved in the political process." Sir, the President has also stated that to separate religion and politics, the Government will "spell out these ground-rules clearly and unequivocally." This is indeed timely. It is good that clear guidelines will be set. However, in such an emotive and sensitive area such as race and religion, guidelines alone will not be sufficient. We must take more precaution. Sir, I would like to suggest the setting up of a Department for Race and Religious Relations - something akin to what was mentioned by the previous speaker - in the Ministry of Community Development to oversee this very important aspect of our daily life. Religious leaders can then approach the relevant authorities for guidance in cases of doubt. The Ministry can give cautionary advice to religious groups who may unintentionally tread on sensitive areas. Through dialogue, understanding and tolerance, confrontations will be averted - prevention is better than cure. The money spent in having a highly specialized team in such a Department will indeed be well invested. I am sure that all in this House will support any measure that will contribute towards harmonious inter-racial and inter-religious relations.”
“But why now impose it on taxis which are public transport vehicles? What anomaly are we trying to correct? Mr Speaker, Sir, my contention is that there is no anomaly and the tax is irrelevant. Did we have a chance to present our case? No, we were never given this chance. Is there hope for building consensus and meaningful participation? In spite of some setbacks, I am still an optimist. A good friend once told me, "In politics, if you live in hope, you will die in despair." I, however, disagree. As I see the momentum pick up in the discussion on the National Ideology, I believe that there is still hope for the consultative process. The Minister for Trade and Industry has just now stated that even the term "National Ideology" need not be kept. This is good. This is how we should discuss. This is how consensus should be built. I believe that there is still hope for the consultative process. The First Deputy Prime Minister has stated and the President has reiterated that "Parliamentary Committees will hold public hearings on major proposals, to collect views from the people." Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, we will live in hope but we hope not to die in despair. Can the Government do more to further prove its sincerity in wanting to build consensus and encourage participation? Yes, the Government can. May I respectfully suggest the following to the First Deputy Prime Minister: 1. Give the Feedback Unit more autonomy and grant it more resources - financial and manpower; 2. Provide the GPCs with more infrastructural support and give an undertaking that even before the First Reading of a Bill that the GPCs will be consulted; 3. Formalize the Advisory Councils and recognize their work by presenting their reports to Parliament for debate.”
“Parliament was not yet convened. GPCs were not told till the eleventh hour. I am not talking of consultation. We, at least the GPC on Communications and Information, were briefed only on the implementation at the eleventh hour. The taxi operators were not consulted. Even the newspapers had better information than us. Is this consensus building? Will this encourage participation? Sir, the GPC did not even have a chance to convince the Ministry. The decisions were already finalized when we met. Is there an alternative opinion regarding these measures? Yes, indeed there is. Let me just take the example of the diesel tax. In the Ministry's statement of 9th November 1988, it was said that the diesel tax of $6,600 was introduced, and I quote, "to correct the anomaly in tax rates between cars consuming petrol and taxis consuming diesel". But if we delve into the historical reasons for the diesel tax, we will find the rationale fully explained in Command Paper 21 of 1970, in a White Paper of Parliament, entitled "Reorganization of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore". The problem at that time was: (1) Air pollution from diesel vehicles - 20,000 of them. (2) Pirate taxi operators. I quote from paragraph 7.6 of the White Paper on page 22: 'As the majority of private cars and diesel engines are believed to be used for "pirate" taxi operations, it has been decided, as a first step, to increase by 100% the present diesel tax for private cars.' This is the historical origin of the diesel tax. It was a tax for diesel private cars. In 1970, there were 20,000 private diesel cars. Today, there is, I believe, only one registered private diesel car. Has the diesel tax been successful in achieving these aims? Yes, very successful and the Ministry must be congratulated for this.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the President's Address. Firstly, that of building consensus and encouraging participation, and secondly, that of building a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Building consensus and encouraging participation Sir, the President has stated in his speech that a clear "national consensus on major issues has made Singapore a more stable Society", and that the Government will continue to work towards a broad consensus. Sir, the challenge that faces the Government of today and tomorrow differs from that in the past in one very significant way. Singaporeans today want a government that not only governs well but also want a government that works in consultation with the people. A paternalistic style of government is no longer acceptable. How has this Government fared in this respect? On the plus or positive aspect we have seen some very clear changes in the last five years. Firstly, the setting up of the Feedback Unit, the setting up of Government Parliamentary Committees, the setting up of Advisory Councils, and the round of consultations leading up to the National Agenda. Hope was in the air. A new style of leadership had emerged. Optimism was bountiful. Then came a series of shocks or setbacks, as I see it, after the general elections. Suddenly, out of the blue, came a series of unexpected blows. Implementation of the full diesel tax for taxis, a rise in road tax, a rise in foreign maids levy, a rise in foreign workers levy. Why do I say that these were unexpected blows? Did we expect these rates to always remain static forever? The answer is an obvious no. They were unexpected because of the manner or style of implementation. There was no discussion.”
“To carry this argument further, where the appointments to some key positions were blocked by the President, the Prime Minister and his government might find themselves unable to carry out its planned policies. Situations may arise in future where there may be differences of opinion between the Prime Minister and the President. In such a situation where the elected President belongs to a political school, say, the conservative type while the Prime Minister is from another political school, a more radical one. When there are differences of opinion on certain key appointments, with the elected President only approve appointees agreeable to himself, then the Prime Minister may not be able to carry out his political policies and aims although the candidates possess all the high qualities befitting the job. Even if the Prime Minister's plans and policies have got the people's support, his political ideas cannot be realized. So I feel that this point in the White Paper is very important and merits our further consideration. As the proposals of the White Paper will lay the way for and affect the future politi- cal system and the development of our nation involving our interest for a long time to come, they should not be treated lightly. We must give serious consideration and careful attention to the proposals in the White Paper.”
“Since the restriction is on the use of the reserves accumulated by the earlier government and not on the reserves accumulated by the incumbent government, I conclude that the incumbent government will have the freedom and power to make use of the reserves accumulated by itself. If an incumbent government should want to appease the people by resorting to the use of reserves accumulated by itself during its term of office, then the people could only blame themselves because they have elected that government and should therefore bear the consequences. For analogy, when we see a rich person's son living a luxurious life, spending excessively on comforts of life and luxuries. Although we may not agree with his way of life, if the money he spends comes from the wealth he has created himself while he is still able to preserve the heritage of his parents, then even if we do not agree with his way of living he still has the right to do what he likes. Conversely, should he live beyond his means and resort to the use of his heritage, then his parents had better set up a trust over their property for him. Similarly, we can apply and compare this to the first proposal in the White Paper. There is some similarity in this comparison. The second proposition in the White Paper is about maintaining the integrity of the public services. This proposal is to give the elected President the approving power on the appointments of key positions or personnel to some important public organisations. This is good in case of a corrupt government. However, if the PSC and such organizations with improved system of selection can exercise the function envisaged in the idea and purpose of this proposal to a certain degree, then the need for it will be lessened to such a degree.”
“It is difficult for most of the people to answer positively to this question. But we can trust the judgment by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers who have 30 years experience in leading Singapore. Their conclusion is enumerated as the proposals in the White Paper, that is to say, the integrity and the soundness of our present system do not entirely depend on the political system itself but to a large extent on the Prime Minister who wields great power over the Government and the integrity and honesty of the Cabinet members. That is to say, if one day there is a corrupt team in charge of government, then in a very short time they will be able to squander away our reserves and destroy our achievements. Knowing the potential risk in our political system, it is our duty now to take the necessary precautionary measures to prevent such events from happening. So the proposals of the White Paper when passed by Parliament will institute safeguards against such happenings. The White Paper proposals empower an elected President to safeguard the integrity of our political system. I believe many people may want to ask under the suggested amendment proposed in the White Paper whether the existing power of the Prime Minister will be greatly restricted by the elected President to the extent that future Prime Ministers may not be able to implement their policies. Let us look at the White Paper about the two proposals. The first proposition is to prevent Government from squandering the reserves accumulated by the earlier governments. Much thought and consideration have gone into its deliberation.”
“I believe that the principles laid down in this White Paper will enhance democracy and it will enhance it three times over. Firstly, we will have an elected Parliament and from an elected Parliament by the people will come the elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Secondly, we will have an elected President and Vice-President. And we should take note that the elections for Parliament and for the President and Vice-President will take place at different times. All these elections will be by the people of Singapore. They will be the ones who will give the mandate to the President and to Parliament. Thirdly, should there be an impasse between the President and the Prime Minister, the final arbiter will again be the electorate. On each occasion, the electorate, ie, the people of Singapore, will have the last say. Sir, based on these principles, I fully support the White Paper. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper enumerates some propositions which are for two principle objectives. One is to safeguard the national reserves and assets accumulated by the earlier Government. The second is to preserve the integrity of the public service through the appointment of clean and honest key personnel to the civil service. These two objectives are lofty ones, important to the long-term interest of Singapore. I think everybody will concur on this point. Put it another way, only when there is safeguard for the integrity of the public service and safeguard for our reserves not to be squandered away can the long-term interest of Singapore be preserved. The vital question is whether the present Constitution and administrative system have the character and property to fulfil these two objectives.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will be brief. The White Paper has laid down the rationale for the proposed constitutional amendments. I fully support the principles as laid down in the White Paper. My reasons are two-fold. Firstly, the proposals will provide additional safeguard to the financial assets of all Singaporeans and to the integrity of the civil service. Secondly, the proposals will further enshrine and enhance democracy in Singapore. Sir, with your permission, let me elaborate. Under the system proposed in the White Paper, our national reserves and the CPF savings of each and every Singaporean which is a part of our national reserves receive additional safeguards. Further, our national assets in the major statutory boards will also receive additional safeguards in that the appointment of members of these boards will also have to receive Presidential assent. We have always taken it for granted that our statutory boards will make profits. What if they face a deficit? Let us take, for example, Telecoms. The result will be disastrous. The cost to the consumer will rise. Efficiency will be adversely affected. Our position as an international communications centre will be adversely affected. The business community in Singapore will be affected. So it is right that the key positions in the civil service and in the statutory boards are guarded for two reasons. Firstly, our national assets are invested in many of them; and, secondly, they form a key pillar in our society. Sir, it has also been raised that the proposals will result in an erosion of democracy in Singapore in that too much powers will be placed in the hands of one person, namely, the President. The sceptics believe so. I disagree.”
“We were very impressed by what we saw - the efficiency, the attention to details, the dedication and the single-minded commitment to make Changi the best airport in the world, and this they have done. Sir, Singapore practises an open-sky aviation policy. Our liberal aviation policy is well-known. In spite of the protectionistic practices in the aviation industry, Singapore has managed to survive and thrive. The Ministry of Communications and Information and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have throughout the years been meeting with officials of other countries to negotiate for increased frequency of flights and capacity to Singapore and countries beyond. Only four days ago, on 7th August, the 100th direct air link between Changi Airport and its latest destination, Pulau Langkawi, was established. Sir, the Bill introduced today is indeed timely and appropriate. The GPC on Communications and Information fully supports the Bill. 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. - [Dr Yeo Ning Hong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.38 am”
“Sir, the Carriage by Air Bill is to give effect in Singapore through the provisions of international conventions relating to carriage by air. The introduction of this Bill is in keeping with our position as a leading international air hub. Sir, the civil aviation industry is very important for Singapore's growth as a global city. In 1987 Changi Airport recorded its highest passenger and air freight volumes: 11.2 million passengers and 418,000 tonnes of cargo since it began operation in 1981. The peformance for the first half of this year has been just as encouraging with passenger and air cargo traffic increasing by 13% and 23% respectively. I am told that for 1988 passenger traffic is likely to exceed 12 million passengers and cargo volume more than half a million tonnes of freight. Sir, Changi Airport has in no small way made Singapore's role as an air hub possible. Its reputation as one of the best airports in the world has been around for some years. In 1984, barely three years after it began operation, Changi was ranked the second Best Airport by Business Traveller magazine readers. Now, only four years later, it has made it to the top. Moreover, in 1986, in the first ever global awards for the world's air cargo industry, Changi was again named Best Airport for Air Cargo. Sir, I wish to congratulate the Minister, his Ministry officials, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and each and every member of the staff of Changi Airport for this achievement. It is indeed a well-deserved honour. It is indeed the best present that they can give to Singapore on our 23rd birthday. My GPC members and I visited the airport last year, and again last week.”
“Parliament is the only body that can make these changes. This is the reason why it is so important that every elected Member of Parliament is sincere and loyal to the interests of Singapore. If he is the puppet of any foreign power and takes instructions from his masters overseas, then we will be in trouble. Let us not be deceived into believing that the American model of democracy is the best or the only model that works. We have our own. As long as we have a Parliament in Singapore and a government that is honest and have the interest of Singaporeans at heart and not foreigners, we need not fear change - even Constitutional changes, for the better. Change is a fact of life - in every facet of life, political and otherwise. Let us stand up against the criticism of foreigners and the foreign press. As my colleague has earlier said, who knows what is best for Singapore. We Singaporeans or they, the foreigners? Let us all Singaporeans unite and make this message clear to all. Hands off our domestic politics. You may be rich, you may be big, you may be very powerful, but mind your own business! We have a right to lead our lives the way we want. It is our privilege and right and no one else's to elect our own leaders. Our future, our destiny, shall be in our own hands and not be dictated by others. Be they "wolves" or "wolves in sheep's skin".”
“In West Germany, people have a right to reply if facts stated about them are false, but no one has any right to counter opinion or criticism. The reply has to be published within three months and on the same page as the offending article. In Norway, counter statements can be made by anyone directly connected with the original story and who can show it contains errors about them. This right of reply also exists in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Finland and Greece. We are not the "queer birds". In 1983 Time Magazine carried an article "Journalism under Fire" and under the caption it reads: 'A growing perception of arrogance threatens the American press.' The article by David Slater had this as the opening paragraph: 'They are rude and accusatory, cynical and almost unpatriotic. They twist facts to suit their not-so-hidden liberal agenda. They meddle in politics, harass business, invade people's privacy and then walk off without regard to the pain and chaos they have left behind. They are arrogant and self-righteous, brushing aside most criticisms as the uninformed carping of cranks and ideologues.' To top it off, they claim that their behaviour is sanctioned, indeed sanctified by the US Constitution. Even in America itself there are different perceptions by their own journalists. So why are we not entitled to our own viewpoints? Our pattern of democracy or our Constitution is patterned after that of the United Kingdom or Westminster model, as we were once a British colony. Many other Commonwealth countries have made changes to their Constitution to meet their local and special needs. The Westminster model is also not perfect. So we, like others, have made constitutional amendments to suit our special needs. Who authorizes these changes?”
“They felt that they had the right to give encouragement, even to the point of allowing asylum to those who would oppose the democratically -elected government of Singapore. Why? One can only guess. Their senior officials did not like the Legal Profession Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act passed by the legitimate and democratically-elected Parliament of Singapore. They wanted to transpose onto Singapore their values and their concepts of democracy. When they did not succeed, what is their solution? Encourage the Opposition and "boot" the PAP out. Yet they consider this appropriate behaviour, diplomatically acceptable. When our Government requested for the recall of Hendrickson from Singapore for interfering in our domestic affairs, they retaliated by asking for the withdrawal of our First Secretary in Washington, but stating in the same breath that this was merely in retaliation to our action. Our First Secretary had done no wrong. A mere childish tit-for-tat. This is American democracy. This is American justice. Is the American model of democracy universally accepted even in the Western world? Let us just take the example of the concept of freedom of the press, for which we have been so much criticized. We insist on the right of reply where we feel that the report on us is inaccurate. Many American journalists and editors disagree. Let us look at some European models. In France, editors are required to publish corrections to inaccurate reports where they affect an identifiable person. If they fail to do so, then the offended person can bring a legal process through a low level court which has the power to fine the editor.”
“Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the names of my colleagues, the Member for Braddell Heights and the Member for Radin Mas. Sir, since our independence some two decades ago, the PAP Government, democratically elected by the people of Singa- pore, has fought the communalists, communists and other foreign subversives to maintain our sovereignty. Our platform has been a multi-racial Singapore and equal opportunity for all of us. We have maintained that the destiny of Singapore is for Singaporeans to decide. On this platform the people of Singapore has given the PAP the mandate to govern by returning the party with an overwhelming majority, election after election to this day. This is the envy of many, friends and foes alike. Further, the success of the PAP Government in raising the standard of living of the people of Singapore over the last two decades is testimony to the credibility of this Government. We have not failed Singaporeans. We are a Government that delivers what it promises: peace, progress and prosperity. Sir, events over the last year, and especially recently, serve to remind us that many of the dangers to our society in the early days of independence are still with us. What is most outraging and deplorable is that Singapore, the bastion of anti-communism in this part of the world, is today being systematically undermined by not only the pro-communists but also by the so-called champion of democracy, the United States of America. We have for so long considered the US to be a good friend and ally, so that it was with disbelief that we awoke to realize that the US was, in fact, meddling in our domestic affairs by actively encouraging lawyers to stand in elections.”
“Yes, Sir, I must declare my pecuniary interest. My second point is in regard to the Hepatitis B vaccination. This, I understand, is also being done in Accident and Emergency units. Is this the correct place to do it? Will the Minister please comment?”
“Sir, I would like to seek two points of clarification from the Minister. Firstly, regarding health education pamphlets. I would like to congratulate the Ministry on the very good quality health education pamphlets that are distributed. I would like to ask the Minister whether the booklet that is produced by the Maternal and Child Health Clinics can also be sold to GPs so that our patients can also use it because this is an extremely good booklet. An hon. Member: Declare pecuniary interest.”
“So as long as they are in the scheme, it would be automatically renewed. We have not decided yet on whether there should be differentials according to the age group. Most of the schemes offered by the private sector do take into account the age group of the policyholders, and for good reason because the older the patient is, the more likely he is to be hospitalized. Therefore there appears to be good grounds for a differential scale of premiums. But we have not decided on that. It is still under review. As to whether premiums would be revised periodically, I think the answer to that must be yes. Costs go up. The insurance scheme is for the good of everybody. No one will be in a position to subsidize the systems. Therefore premiums must go up in line with the number of claims being made and in line with the costs. That is why it is important that there must be adequate safeguards to ensure that costs do not run away because of over-usage. In the case of private companies, yes, we will allow private companies to participate in terms of offering supplementary coverage.”
“We hope to learn from their experience and to be able to implement our own monitoring and assessment systems in the near future. With such systems, I can have a higher level of confidence when pronouncing on whether or not there has been any abuse. In the meantime, we will of course continue to advise Medisave account holders that they should use their Medisave funds carefully. They must never fall into the trap of believing that they or their family members will never fall seriously ill or be involved in a serious accident at any time. By using theirMedisave funds carefully and only when their medical conditions warrant it, they will have adequate Medisave reserves when they grow old. That is the time when their need for medical care will increase very dramatically and, in line with that, the funds required for such medical care. Doctors also have an important role to play in safeguarding their patients' Medisave funds. Doctors are responsible for deciding on whether and for how long a patient should be hospitalized. They are also responsible for the number and type of tests to be carried out and on the need for a surgical procedure to be performed. A doctor will not be true to his profession and himself should he allow the easy availability of Medisave funds to influence him into causing his patient to spend more than is necessary. Sir, it is my belief that most doctors do take this responsibility seriously. We will continue to monitor and ensure that the long-term objectives of the Medisave scheme are safeguarded. Sir, with regard to renewability, the thinking at the moment is that for those Medisave account holders who are already insured with the CIIS, renewability would be automatic. There should be no need for them to undertake annual medical check-ups.”
“In fact, those who prefer to be fully covered by a private company's CIIS will be allowed to opt out so as to purchase coverage totally from the private companies. In fact, there are already a few companies that are offering CIIS and, as the Member mentioned, ICS already has a system in place. I think many other insurance companies also have similar proposal in place. Sir, we are still looking into the details of the scheme as well as the long-term ramifications. When the full details are finalized by my Ministry and by the CPF Board, I would be very happy to make them available to this House. Sir, with regard to deductibles, I agree with the Member for Changkat that it would be difficult not to allow deductibles from Medisave funds because Medisave account holders are already able to draw on their Medisave at the present moment for whatever disease-type it may be, so long as they are hospitalized. We will definitely check to see whether there has been any abuse or misuse of the Medisave scheme. Although I have told the House that my Ministry and the CPF Board have to date found no evidence of any abuse, misuse or overuse of Medisave funds, I must however qualify this statement a little bit, because it is only recently that the CPF Board and my Ministry have started to audit the Medisave claims. Even then only Medisave claims from Government hospitals have been audited. The tools that we have available at our disposal for analyzing such claims are also very basic and limited. To correct this administrative weakness, we will be sending a team of officers to several countries which have already had many years of experience in handling either national medical insurance claims or medical reimbursement claims.”
“And I am sure our ability to retain the nurses that we have on hand as well as to be able to recruit new trainees will be far greater than at present. So I urge Members to be a bit more patient. With regard to Medisave, the Member for Changkat is very correct in stating that although the Medisave scheme is very commendable, unfortunately it probably would not be adequate for those account holders who have serious catastrophic and long-term illnesses. My Ministry has been looking into this catastrophic illness insurance scheme or CIIS for quite some time, in fact, since late 1985. It is a fairly complicated scheme with tremendous long-term implications. We want to be sure that whichever scheme we embark upon does not land us 20 - 30 years down the road where the US and the other developed countries have landed today. Their schemes also started on very good grounds, very good premises. Unfortunately today, if you look at their schemes, there is great unhappiness for everybody. My Ministry has been working with the CPF Board on a scheme that will automatically cover all Medisave account holders. However, we will take into consideration the Member's suggestion that opting-out be allowed. In fact, that provision has already been built in to the present proposal. Also, the immediate dependents of account holders will be covered on a voluntary basis. This scheme will be designed as a very basic and low-cost scheme and will be underwritten and managed by the CPF Board. Those who require a more comprehensive coverage can purchase supplementary coverage from the private sector. I am sure the private insurance companies will be very happy to compete among themselves to get all this coverage.”
“Now, several of them are discussing with my Ministry on how to implement training programme for their own nurses so as to meet their own future needs. Over time, this problem of private hospitals' participation will be overcome. In terms of the needs of private hospitals and why the nurses have been resigning or retiring from the Government service, I think it would be useful for me to give Members some additional information. Sir, from 1984 to 1987 1,502 Government nurses either resigned or retired from the Government Nursing Service. The bulk of them resigned, as only 40 or 50 retired during that period. In contrast to this figures of 1,502, the number of nurses in the private sector actually increased by only 734. Of these 734, 455 were absorbed by NUH. So Members will see that out of the 1,502 nurses who resigned or retired, only 279 of them joined the private sector other than NUH. The needs of the private sector has not been that great and it has not been a significant pull factor in terms of the resignation rate. In terms of the number of private nurses in the private sector, that is, those who do it on a contract basis - I think they charge between $80 and $100 per session - that number has only increased by 40. So the number that joined the private hospitals would be around 220 to 230. It is very, very small compared to our overall turnover rate. Sir, with the restructuring of the hospitals and with the hospitals being given more autonomy in management, in manpower deployment, in career development, I think our Government hospitals would be able to come up with more attractive career schemes, better scope for promotion, for training.”
“We have identified a multi-pronged approach that must be taken towards resolving this problem of shortage of nurses as well as therapists. We have been able to proceed with actions that are within our control. For example, the examination of the work content of the nurses. How do we make sure that nurses are more efficiently occupied and are doing mainly nursing work? How do we make sure that non-nursing functions which can be removed are being removed so that the nurses can be more effective in their work? All those have been going on for the past few years as part and parcel of the process of internal improvements. How to improve the working conditions, how to ensure that the night shift roster which is very, very unpopular, is more evenly distributed so that we do not cause more nurses to resign or to retire? How do we improve the status and image of the nurses? All that we are able to do on our own, we have done, quietly without fanfare. With regard to the private hospitals, I agree with the Member that the private hospitals have not been playing their part in solving this problem of shortage of nurses. They too have been very badly hit, although not as badly as the Government hospitals. As far back as 1985 I had, in one of my speeches, called upon the private hospitals to undertake their own in-house training. This way they can be guaranteed of their own supply of nurses and they do not have to pinch from the Government to meet their future needs. Sad to say, there was no response, no reaction at all until recently. We have now tied the training of nurses by the private hospitals to the supply of nurses from non-traditional sources. This has resulted in some interest on the part of private hospitals.”
“Most of our physiotherapists and occupational therapists have been sent abroad under scholarship and even today we have a number who are being trained abroad under scholarship. The PSC has been offering scholarships every year. Unfortunately, the take-up rate is rather low. The reason is that the qualifications criteria imposed by PSC in the past have been much too high. Therefore, many of those who applied did not qualify, whilst those who did qualify were not prepared to accept the scholarships because they could opt to take up scholarships in other more lucrative professions. So we are caught in the bind in terms of our ability to train the required number of therapists. I am glad to report to the House, however, that after consultations with the Ministry, PSC has recently agreed that the qualification requirements for applicants applying for these therapist scholarships will be lowered so that more will qualify and hopefully the available scholarships can be taken up. Consequently, we should be able to overcome the shortage within the next six to seven years. We are also looking into the possibility of establishing a local college for therapists. We have been discussing with various parties abroad and we have also been discussing with the Ministry of Finance in terms of financing for this project. It is still at a very exploratory stage, so I would not like to give Members any false hope in this area. The Member for Kaki Bukit has suggested that the Ministry should perhaps form a task force to study the problem and come out with an integrated approach to solving this problem. I wish to inform the Member that we have studied this problem quite extensively.”