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 12 of 15.
“We are often accused of being too sensitive to criticism and over-reacting to minor criticisms. Now in this exchange we can see how personal a level differing views can sink into. The Straits Times has quoted Mr Derek Davies as saying, "I'm very glad that Mr Seah has a new heart. But I don't know how he could return me the $500 unless he gave me a piece of his heart." In today's Straits Times Forum page, there is a letter from Mr Derek Davies explaining what he was quoted to have said. Mr Davies has been accorded the right to reply by the Straits Times. The FEER did not accord the Singapore Government the same courtesy. Furthermore, without checking with the Straits Times - this is because several of my colleagues and myself have just returned from the AIPO conference for this morning's sitting - I am quite confident that Mr Davies' reply has been printed unedited. This reinforces my view that double standards do exist. Furthermore, Sir, I am deeply saddened by the closing remark of this morning's letter which smacks of sarcasm. He now says that his "sole concern is that, after the Australian surgery, Mr Seah's new organ is in the right place." I wonder where else does he expect the heart to be. Perhaps the underlying root problem may indeed be, as perceived by Mr Seah, "a clash of values." If this is the case, how can we resolve this? In the article, Mr Seah also mentions about the complaint of the foreign press "about difficulties in persuading Singaporean officials to talk to the international press, which makes it difficult for them to get a balanced story." Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on these two issues. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in summary, I support this amendment because the amendment is consistent with the original intent of the Act.”
“Mr Seah gave this illustration: 'Several years ago, the Straits Times employed an experienced American Journalist to work in the News Desk to help improve standards. After working briefly, he failed to appear for work one day. There was no word from him. He was not at home. One week passed, then two, and three. The newspaper eventually received a letter from him back in the United States saying he was resigning from his job. He said he could not work for a newspaper which carried government propaganda, referring to its role in helping the Government's anti-littering campaign. The Straits Times had been running messages extolling its readers not to litter. This offended his concept of press freedom and responsibility and he could not, in good conscience, work for such a paper.' We can see from this the difference in value systems. To us, maintaining a high standard of cleanliness is vital both for good health and the tourism industry. Is there anything wrong if the media works willingly with the Government towards achieving a goal that will benefit society? However, to this journalist, it is an issue of "press freedom and responsibility." Mr Seah's other views and the exchange of views between him and the Far Eastern Economic Review have been well documented in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post of January 9th and 20th 1988, and summarised in the Straits Times article of 23rd January 1988. This article carried the caption "heart-transplant journalist returns editor's donation." The "heart-transplant journalist" is Mr Seah, and the editor referred to is Mr Derek Davies, Editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review. What does this episode tell us? It reminds me of the double standards that is sometimes applied to us.”
“Is it not "intellectual and press freedom" that each be allowed to present its case, so that the readers can best judge for themselves the truth of the case or the accuracy of an article? Why do we now need to amend the Act to "permit the sale and distribution in Singapore of reproductions of a declared foreign newspaper made with the prior approval of the Minister"? This is because of the decision of the Far Eastern Economic Review to stop its circulation entirely in Singapore. To quote the FEER, it says: 'As the Review is prevented from serving all its Singapore readers, it prefers to serve none.' This has two serious implications for us. (1) It has broken the spirit or intent of the Act in allowing free flow of information while denying the profit motive. (2) It can now claim a ban on the magazine, albeit a self-imposed ban. None of the other three publications gazetted earlier reacted in this way. They abided by the law governing our country. They showed respect for our law. Let it be noted by all that it is the FEER that is obstructing the flow of information, not the Government. It is this House, through this Bill, that will make the free-flow of information available. Is our Government over-reacting or being too sensitive to criticism, some Singaporeans are asking? In an article entitled "A Clash of Values", a veteran Singapore journalist, the ex-Chief Editor of the now defunct Singapore Monitor, Mr Seah Chiang Nee, gave his opinion on the "present state of unhappy relationship between the Singapore Government and a number of Western publications ...". I quote from the article carried in the January 1988 issue of Petir.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, when the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1986 to give the Minister the power to declare any newspaper published outside Singapore to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, the reasons were made very clear. Why? The main reason lies in the term "declared foreign newspaper." Singapore is a sovereign, independent nation. Our best interests must be protected against those who choose to be mischievious by engaging in our domestic politics for commercial gain. When the Bill was first set out in 1986, the intention was to give the Minister the powers to restrict the sale of a gazetted foreign newspaper so that a newspaper or magazine will not be able to profit by sensationalising reports or distorting reports on Singapore's domestic affairs. Why restrict and not simply ban the publication? This was to let everyone know that the intention was not to deny the public of information nor that of muzzling the media. What we expect is accurate and responsible reporting. We must not allow others to line their pockets to the detriment of Singapore. What has happened since the amendment of the Bill in 1986? Four publications have been gazetted out of a total of 3,700 foreign publications. They had their circulation restricted. Of these four, Time magazine which was gazetted in October 1986 has been reinstated and the order was revoked in July 1987. The order to gazette the four was due to the fact that they had published articles which contained error or distortion of facts. These publications also refused to publish letters, unedited, from our Government which sought to present Singapore's version. Is this fair play?”
“Will there be sufficient time for the committee to scrutinize these applications as the committee will have to issue a certificate to the candidate not later than the day before nomination day? Thus the committee must make their decisions in actuality within a day.”
“This will lead to better rapport and understanding. Unless the Team MPs who are expected to provide leadership and direction on the ground can work together, they will undoubtedly lose the next time around. Fourthly, as has been mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister, any party that refuses to contest in a GRC will obviously be one that cannot field a multi-racial team regardless of whatever execuse they may want to give. Sir, I would next like to raise several questions as to how a GRC will be administered, as this is not mentioned in the Bill. These are issues that are being asked by our grassroots organizations. Firstly, will every GRC also be a town council? Secondly, will the component constituencies of the GRCs maintain their present names? Thirdly, will the GRCs be carved out into three separate areas, one MP being responsible for each area? Fourthly, how will responsibility be shared among the MPs? Fifthly, has the Government considered the problem that may arise and probably will arise that the residents will surely want to see the MP with the highest stature in the team, namely, a Minister, if he has a problem? Will grassroots organizations in the GRCs continue to exist in their present form or are changes to be expected? In closing, Sir, I would like to make reference to only one clause of the Bill for clarification, clause 6 (new section 27A (5). In this subsection the minimum time for application to the appropriate committee is stated as two clear days before nomination day. My fear here, Sir, is that as an election strategy most parties may submit their application at the latest possible time.”
“Thirdly, on the ground, to hold the ground and serve the people, a team of MPs of various races will have to work closely together.”
“Much obliged, Sir. Sir, in this system, there are 52 elected representatives in the House of Representatives. They are elected on the basis of two main electoral rolls. Firstly, a communal roll and, secondly, a national roll. From the communal roll will come 27 representatives to the House. The communal roll has again three sub-rolls, a roll for voters who are Fijians, a roll for voters who are Indians and a roll for voters who neither Fijians nor Indians. Then there is a national roll from which will come 25 representatives. This is an additional roll. All voters who are registered on the communal roll are also registered on the national roll. Allocation of seats in the House Under the communal roll, the Fijians will have 12 seats, Indians 12, Others 3. Under the national roll, Fijians 10, Indians 10, Others 5. What does all this mean during an election? What it means is, firstly, that there are four electoral rolls or registers, three on communal or racial lines, plus one national roll. Secondly, that voting will be on communal lines. How will this work out? Let us take an example. For example, 22 members of the House of Representatives shall be elected from among members who are registered on the roll of voters who are Fijians, ie, the Fijian communal roll. And of those members, 12 shall be elected by voters only on the Fijian communal roll, 10 shall be elected by voters registered on the national roll. When we compare our proposed system of GRCs to any of these, it is my opinion that we have a far better system, the one that is most importantly best suited to our local context. Why is our system better? Firstly, minority representation will be ensured in the House. Secondly, the one-man-one-vote system remains.”
“Example two is New Zealand. The electoral Act here provides for four Maori representatiaves, one each for four Maori electoral districts. Example three is Fiji. Sir, I must emphasize that this is the constitution before the military coup. This constitution is a rather complex one. May I have your permission to have the Clerk distribute a summary (Cols. 271 - 272) of this constitution? summary - Fiji (Cols. 271 - 272)”
“The total number of elected representatives is 50.35 or 70% shall be elected by the Greek community and 15 or 30% elected by the Turkish community. Thus each community elects its own representatives. Which system is better? Ours or theirs?”
“Each of those that I will cite have tried different methods. Some are more successful than others. Let me categorically state that my reason for making these comparisons with other nations is not to criticize their system, for each of them have their own historical reasons and special problems to deal with, just as we have ours. Yes, I will prove my case. Sir, the first example is that of Cyprus which the Member for Potong Pasir himself has cited.”
“I disagree with this. Let us just for a moment compare other models with the Bill presently before us, before we make sweeping and emotive judgments such as this. No country enjoys racial strife.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Sir, I support this Bill because the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure the representation in Parliament of Members from the Malay and other minority communities. Multi-racialism, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said this morning, must remain a cornerstone in our Constitution. And this Bill will ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament. One may disagree on certain clauses in the Bill. But I am confident that few Singaporeans will disagree that multi-racialism is essential to the survival of Singapore as a nation. Sir, our Constitution is adopted from the Westminster system. The Westminster model is not especially geared to the protection of the minorities. The concentration of power that it allows in the hands of the parliamentary majority may work against minority interests. Thus there is a need for the constitution of multi-racial societies to tackle this problem in different ways. Some examples of this have been cited and can be seen in the constitutions of New Zealand, Cyprus, Mauritius and Fiji. Sir, in our concept of GRCs, in each of a team of three, there will be one MP representing the Malay or minority community. The Singapore Democratic Party in its publication says that this will "enshrine racialism in our Constitution". Is this really true?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before we adjourned I was speaking on the merits of the Bill in providing for treatment and rehabilitation of the inhalant abuser, ie, the treatment of the abuser as a patient and not as a criminal. Finally, Sir, I would like to turn to the problem of the easy availability of these inhalants. Of all the inhalants used, I believe the most commonly used is glue. Will the Minister comment whether it is practicable to add into the glue an obnoxious smelling additive so as to make it unattractive to the user.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely. The figures given by the Minister are horrifying in my view. Over 7 1/2 years of monitoring from 1980 when the number of abusers was only 24, we have now reached the figure of 3,302. When we consider the fact that inhalant abuse is a very dangerous habit leading to permanent health damage, we can see how serious this matter is. There will be damage to the peripheral and central nervous systems, liver, kidney, blood damage leading to anaemia and even leukaemia, damage to the heart and also sudden deaths due to laryngospasm. So far, 20 deaths have been recorded as the Minister has said, and it is shocking to hear that 7 deaths were recorded in the first half of this year. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has said that not enough education has been done. But SANA has been carrying out a prevention programme and many of us in our constituencies have participated in this inhalant abuse prevention programme. Yes, this is indeed a social problem. Parents complain of having to live in constant fear of children who turn abusive, demanding and threatening. They are a constant source of embarrassment to the family. I am told of a case that an abuser even attempted to rape members of his family. Do we need more evidence that this is a serious problem requiring very firm action? Prevention and education are, of course, the best answers. But now we have reached the situation where we need to turn to treatment and rehabilitation. This Bill will empower the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau on confirmation after a blood test to commit the patient to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation after a second offence. I think this is indeed good for the young person.”
“I refer now to Part V Section 21, and I quote: "In considering any application for approval of bus, taxi or Mass Rapid Transit System rate of hire or fare, the Council shall take into account - (a) the need for the applicants to remain financially viable; and (b) the need for public interest to be safeguarded". Section 21 requires further clarification. Does this section imply a guarantee of profit for operators? If so, at whose expense? It must certainly be at the public's expense. Similarly, the safeguarding of public interest, if carried out to the extreme, could result in the operator making a loss and to a deterioration in the standard of services provided by the operators. I seek the Minister's clarification on this section. Sir, several members of the public have asked me the question whether members of the GPC would be sitting on the Public Transport Council. We have discussed this matter in the GPC with our resource panel and with the Ministry of Communications and Information. The unanimous view is that the GPC should continue to maintain its independence and objectivity. No member of the GPC will thus sit on the PTC. In conclusion, Sir, we are aware of the great challenge to the PTC. We wish them every success and pledge our support and cooperation to them. Although I have highlighted only the areas of concern, or the parts of the Bill which we seek clarification, I wish to state that we in principle give our wholehearted support to this Bill. We realize that the Ministry is working under considerable time and other constraints and congratulate them on this effort. As the PTC moves into action, I am sure that amendments to the Bill will be made as and when required, and I hope that our comments will not be forgotten but will be given serious consideration.”
“" Should not the PTC have the power or at least have a say regarding the licensing of the MRT operator rather than leaving this to the sole discretion of the MRTC? In Part I Section 2 of the Act, the definition of a "public service vehicle" also excludes the MRT. I quote the definition of a "public service vehicle" means a vehicle used or kept for use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, other than a vehicle constructed for use on fixed rails or specially prepared ways." Should this definition not be reviewed to include the MRT? I am sure that we all agree that the MRT train is a public service vehicle. Section 5(b) refers to the Council appointing "an agent to do anything which the Council may do". Here I would like to ask the Minister as to his thinking on this issue. The GPC has been informed that in the first instance the Registry of Vehicles will assist the PTC in carrying out its functions. The GPC agrees that this is a logical first step. However, it is our opinion that in the long-term the PTC and the ROV must remain as separate entities if the purpose is indeed to allow the PTC to function as an autonomous and objective unit. To this end, the GPC considers that the PTC should look into setting up its own resource unit and to capture the expertise of the MRTC/Bus Integration Committees before it is disbanded. Sir, I next turn to the question of fares. I have dealt earlier with the question of integration of fares being a function of the PTC, and I will not labour this point any further.”
“With regard to the functions of the Council, Part II, clause 4 (c) reads: 'to regulate bus routes and bus, taxi and Mass Rapid Transit System fares;' It is the view of the GPC and the resource panel that integration should be specifically spelt out as a function even though one may read this as implied in this section. Similarly under the First Schedule, public participation is implied through the appointment of "not more than 9 other persons" by the Minister to sit on the Council. The GPC is again of the view that, as public participation is a cardinal principle in this Bill, the issue of public participation should also be included as a function of the Council. This would make it clear to the members of the PTC in no uncertain terms that integration and public participation are functions as important as the others mentioned in the Bill as it now stands. Powers of the Council The PTC has been given wide powers under Part II Section 5 to effectively discharge its function. Under Section 5(a) the PTC may "approve new bus routes and amend or delete existing bus routes". Having been given this power, one has to ask whether it would be prudent to prescribe certain criteria so that the PTC can be guided and the public can be kept informed. One also has to ask whether this applies to the MRT. We all understand that there is severe restriction to change of rail routes, but one cannot discount this possibility in the future. Does the PTC have similar powers over the MRT? Similarly under the Functions of the PTC, Section 4(a) states "The functions of the Council are to receive and consider applications for the issue of bus service licences.”
“The other nine appointed members will not have this privilege except perhaps if they are officials from the Ministry of Communications and Information. Thus the role of the Chairman is crucial to the success of the PTC. An independent, unbiased but knowledgeable Chairman is essential. I next turn to the operators. As has been mentioned, the chief executives of the four main transport operators will be on the Council. However, one should be mindful of the interest of the smaller operators. For example, in buses, there are Scheme B buses and other operators to consider. In taxis, there are the yellow-top taxis and others to consider. It is our fervent hope that the small operators' interest will be taken seriously into account by the PTC in all its deliberations. This is very important as many, for example, a yellow-top taxi owner may be the sole breadwinner of the family. Today, many Scheme B operators are already expressing apprehension regarding their fate. A reassurance from the Minister would be most welcome. Functions of the Council A large portion of the PTC Bill concerns the licensing of bus services. And with the enactment of this Bill, the Bus Services Licensing Authority Act will be repealed. The BSLA Act, as has been mentioned by the Minister, has served its function well in the past. The PTC Bill, whilst encompassing BSLA Act, has two added functions that never existed under the BSLA Act. These are, firstly, to integrate routes and fares, and secondly, to provide for public participation in a decision-making process with regard to public transport.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications and Information. Sir, the establishment of the Public Transport Council is a step in the right direction. It provides an avenue where the public is represented in a decision-making process regarding issues of public transport. In this forum, operators and representatives from the public can discuss important public transport issues. This concept is new in Singapore and for it to succeed, the constitution, the functions and the powers of the Council are important and have to be very clearly spelt out. The Chairman Sir, first, I refer to the constitution of the Council. Under the First Schedule, it will be noted that the chief executives of the four main transport operators will be members of the Council together with not more than nine other members to be appointed by the Minister. How effective will the Council be? The Council can only be as effective as the members are. Who is the leader of this team? The Chairman, of course. The Chairman will be appointed by the Minister. It is our hope that the Chairman will be an eminent community leader, totally apart from the operators. He should also not be an official from the Ministry of Communications and Information. This is suggested as it is important to ensure that an independent member of the public chairs the PTC. An independent chairman is important because the major transport operators will already be represented on the Council by their chief executives. These CEOs are knowledgeable people and will come to the Council backed by computer printouts of facts and figures to support their case. They will also have the benefit of consultant's reports, case simulations, etc.”
“I do not think that here there is any doubt as to what we can do and what we cannot do as Members of Parliament. Sir, as Backbench Members of Parliament, all of us are part-time politicians. We each have another career or profession to pursue. We receive an allowance as Parliamentarians. In the course of pursuing our career or profession or social contacts, issues of public or national interest are brought to our attention. What are the issues that we know best? Of course, the issues concerning our career or profession! If they are of national importance, can we bring them up in Parliament? The answer is, "Yes". But the onus will be on us to declare personal pecuniary interest. It is then up to the House and the public to decide whether we have acted honourably or whether we have abused our parliamentary status to further our individual careers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the facts of this case are clear. A Member, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, failed to disclose direct personal pecuniary interest in a matter he raised in Parliament on 26th March 1986. Sir, before I close, may I just take up a point on the question of courage raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He has accused my hon. colleague, the Member for Khe Bong, of lack of courage. May I bring to your attention, Sir, that in the proceedings of both Committees in which the hon. Member for Potong Pasir is a Member, at the final meeting when decisions were taken to accept or reject the Report, he was absent. Is that courage? Had he not the courage to be present? Why was he absent?”
“They are: '(1) remunerated directorships of companies, public or private; (2) remunerated employments or offices; (3) remunerated trades, professions or vocations; (4) the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by the Member which arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the House; (5) financial sponsorships, (a) as a parliamentary candidate where to the knowledge of the Member the sponsorship in any case exceeds 25% of the candidate's election expenses, or (b) as a Member of Parliament, by any person or organization, stating whether any such sponsorship includes any payment to the Member or any material benefit or advantage direct or indirect; (6) overseas visits relating to or arising out of membership of the House where the cost of any such visit has not been wholly borne by the Member or by public funds; (7) any payments or any material benefits or advantages received from or on behalf of foreign governments, organizations or persons; (8) land and property of substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived; (9) the name of companies or other bodies in which the Member has to his knowledge, either himself or with or on behalf of his spouse or infant children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings of a nominal value greater than one-hundredth of the issued share capital.' From this list we can see that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam should have disclosed pecuniary interest with respect to at least two items, items (3) and (4). Under section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of Singapore, it is obvious, as has been mentioned by the Minister, that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam should have made a declaration of direct personal pecuniary interest.”
“In the public eye, the image of the Parliamentarian will be tainted each time there is a misconduct by one. Thus, it is important that this House treats seriously the case before us, as Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has breached parliamentary privilege not once but on five separate occasions, and on three occasions for non-disclosure of pecuniary interest. What constitutes parliamentary privilege? I quote from Erskine May: 'In the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by the other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.' Thus we can see that privilege is indeed a serious responsibility conferred on MPs to enable them to discharge their duties effectively. Direct Pecuniary Interest In the British House, a Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) in June 1975 identified nine classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit which were to be disclosed. Here, I would ask the Member for Potong Pasir to take note that guidelines are firmly mentioned.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The Minister for Community Development has given the facts of the case and I will not repeat them. Sir, it is no joy when any Member of our House is disciplined by this House for misconduct. Parliament is the supreme law-making body of our nation, and Members of Parliament are expected in this House to discuss and debate issues so that the best interests of our nation are served. However, if the personal interests or pecuniary interests of a Member are mixed up with his duties as a Member of Parliament, then objectivity is lost in parliamentary debate. When a Member declares his pecuniary interest, the other Members are alerted, and we can decide whether the view that is being presented is an objective view or one that is biased. We can then debate with the best interests of our nation as the central focus, and not the pecuniary interests of one Member. In short, the House will not be misled. More importantly, when a subject is debated in Parliament, the public has the right to know whether the person speaking has a personal pecuniary interest in the subject. The public then can decide for itself (i) whether the facts presented are biased; or (ii) whether the case being brought up is of any national importance. The onus is on the Member to declare so that Members of the House and the public can then look at the issue objectively, bearing in mind that the issue under discussion has been brought up by a Member with a pecuniary interest in the subject. I mentioned earlier that it is no joy when any Member of this House is disciplined, even if he is an Opposition Member, because we are all in the same ship of Parliament.”
“School of Nursing (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PD-11-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Will the Minister agree to consult with the Academy of Medicine in this respect?”
“Sir, can I rise on a point of clarification?”
“There is an estimated shortfall of 800. In the private sector 2,500 nurses are employed and there is an estimated shortfall of 400. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider relaxing immigration policy to allow foreign trained nurses of recognized institutions to be employed to alleviate the present acute shortage. What steps will the Ministry take to ensure that the long-term manpower needs of the para-medical specialties are met? Finally, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister regarding the policy of registration of foreign medical specialists in Singapore. My understanding of this policy is that the original aim of opening our register to foreign medical specialists is to import expertise to upgrade the standard of practice in various specialties here. I would like to ask the Minister how successful this policy has been. Are these foreign specialists actually imparting their knowledge and skill to Singaporeans at the under-graduate or post-graduate level? Are these people actually participating in the training programme in the NUS? Or are they merely making a living in Singapore without contributing? Before a foreign medical specialist is registered, will the Academy of Medicine be consulted to ensure that his expertise will be an asset to Singapore? Perhaps the Minister would like to review this policy.”
“1489]: 'The main objectives for incorporating NUH as a private organization are: (1) To institute a new organizational and management system which will be fully autonomous and outside of the Civil service, yet within the guidelines set by the Ministry of Health. (2) To allow the management to improvize and bring about innovative management systems which we believe can lead to greater economies and efficiency in the running of hospitals. (3) To enable the Hospital to establish and maintain the highest levels of excellence in medical education and research and in the delivery of patient care. Through better staff remuneration systems, we hope that the Hospital will be able to attract and retain the best medical staff.' Perhaps the Minister would like to state to what extent the NUH has achieved its objectives after these last few years. Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of this House that though NUH is a private company, NUH is (1) receiving $20 million a year from the Ministry of Finance; (2) it is being staffed by doctors from the National University of Singapore; (3) it is the only private hospital which has house officers assigned to it; and (4) although it is a private hospital, practitioners from the private sector are still not allowed to admit and care for their patients in the hospital. Will the Minister consider allowing private practitioners the choice of admitting their patients to NUH? Sir, I would now like to turn to the subject of manpower planning for the para-medical or supporting services, for example, the physiotherapists, occupational therapists, technicians and nurses. In many of these areas there is a shortage of trained personnel. The shortage is especially acute with nurses. The public sector now employs 5,500 nurses.”
“Sir, may I first declare pecuniary interest in that I am a medical practitioner. Sir, the Ministry of Health must be commended for its efforts at upgrading the peripheral hospitals like Kandang Kerbau Hospital, Toa Payoh Hospital, Alexandra Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. There was a time when there was a fear that all the resources of the Ministry of Health were only being concentrated at the Singapore General Hospital and the National University Hospital. I must also commend the directors of these hospitals for their efforts at improving the relationship between private practitioners and the hospitals. Doctors from the private sector now meet at regular intervals with doctors from these hospitals. Sir, there is still, however, a feeling that there are several grades of hospitals. At the top of the pyramid will be the National University Hospital followed by the Singapore General Hospital, then the others, the poorer cousins. My question to the Minister, Sir, is whether all hospitals have the same role or does he see different roles for the different hospitals. Will we be having certain hospitals which are considered superior, first-class hospitals and others that are second- or third-class? Sir, two years ago in this House, other Members and I have brought up the question of privatization of Government hospitals. I know the Minister is averse to the use of the term "privatization" when it is used in reference to Government hospitals. He prefers to use the term "autonomous". In 1985 the Minister said and I quote from Hansard [Vol. 45, col.”
“Three belong to MCI, namely, CAAS, PSA and Telecoms. It is noteworthy that the Committee did not recommend the privatization of HDB or SBC. Why? For obvious reasons. Because who will want to buy shares in a statutory board that is not making money. Sir, while there are good reasons for privatization, we must also be cautious. This is because the money-making statutory boards are national assets. They belong to the people. Because they are viable businesses, they have been able to pass back savings to us, the users, time and again, but as statutory boards. Will a private company want to pass back profits to the public or to shareholders? Safeguards must be set in place to protect the public before we merrily privatize all our national assets. Let us also remember that henceforth the profits of statutory boards will be taxed and that these additional earnings may even lead to a postponement of consumption tax, as has been stated by the Minister for Finance. Let us not be hasty. Let us be cautious in privatization of the whole statutory board. Perhaps we should first start with the privatization of non-essential services of these boards. Would the Minister like to comment on the plans of privatizing the statutory boards under his Ministry as they are some of the most lucrative?”
“It is my firm belief that this is the best insurance to long-term price stability and an efficient transport system. This is too important an issue to be left to the discretion of public transport operators only. Sir, as Singapore is a small city state, we should also try to include taxis into our concept of land transport integration as taxis have an important role to play. We have approximately four major taxi operators operating a very efficient taxi fleet. My colleague, the hon. Member for Bukit Timah, will elaborate on this further. If we can succeed in this, we would be the first in the world to have a really comprehensive integrated land transport service. I wish next to make some comments on the privatization of the operations of the MRT. Sir, I support the privatization plan but I would like to suggest that privatization of the MRT should be deferred to a later date for the following reasons: (1) When the MRT trains come on-line, the bus companies will have to re-adjust the management of their fleets. Essentially, it will mean a contraction of their fleets. (2) The MRT trains will come on-line in phases and the whole system will only be operational in 1990. Will Singapore MRT Ltd make a profit on partial operations in 1988 and 1989? (3) We would be seeing a situation that SBS and TIBS will actually be shrinking while SMRT will be expanding. If all three companies are privatized, would not all three companies want to keep shareholders happy? Would this not impede integration or result in a higher cost to the public? Should we not wait till the whole picture is clearer regarding public transport before privatizing the MRT? Sir, the Public Sector Divestment Committee recommended four other statutory boards for further study with a view to privatization.”
“This authority will have members drawn from the Ministry of Communications and Information, knowledgeable experts in the field of transportation and representatives from the NTUC and even Town Councils to protect public interests. The operators should not be members of this authority but when disagreements arise (and they will as integration will be an on-going exercise) they can make representations to this authority. This authority will ensure that the process of integration will receive priority and continuing attention. This is crucial as negotiations for routes and fare-sharing are not a one-time decision but require continuing discussion. Sir, in other countries, there are models of such authorities. In Victoria, Australia, there is a Transport Directorate attached to the State Ministry of Transport. This directorate plans and coordinates the work of four authorities covering both the private and public sectors: The Metropolitian Transit Authority (Bus and Rail Services), State Transport (Rail Services), Road Construction and Road Traffic. In Hamburg, Germany, there is integration of three bus operators, the Federal railway, the local railway and 11 ferry routes under a supervisory board called HVV. HVV has established a system of interchangeable tickets and integrated services with an overall passenger information system and even a park and ride scheme. The Hamburg model is one which is being studied by authorities all over the world. Sir, if the Minister will consider the setting up of a permanent public transport authority under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Communications and Information with statutory powers to coordinate services, I will support any increase in budget that will be necessary to oversee this function.”
“Sir, as the bus companies are private companies and it is the intention to privatize the MRT, we must realize that the managements of these companies will have an obligation to their shareholders to show good profits. So we can imagine that in the integration exercise, there will be conflicting interests. The operations of the MRT will mean a scaling down of bus services to reduce wastage. Will all these come about naturally and amicably? Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for not only having built the MRT ahead of schedule and within budget but also for his foresight and insight to the problems that will arise with the MRT coming on-line. Sir, there is now an Integration Committee studying the problems of total integration of bus and rail services. The Committee consists of the three main operators - SBS, MRTC and TIBS and MCI officials. Under this Committee, there is a Technical Sub-Committee and an Integration Task Force. However, Sir, I would like the House to note: 1) That the consumer is not represented on this Committee and this is obviously undesirable; and 2) That the consultants to this project are paid for by the operators. This is also undesirable as the consultants may be in an awkward position of being answerable to three bosses and as the saying goes "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Sir, up to the present time, from what has been announced by the Minister, we can assume that all the operators are cooperating amicably and that public interest has been well guarded. I will, however, feel more comfortable if there is a public transport authority that the operators are held accountable to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I wish to speak, first, on the subject of integration of land transport. Since the 1960s, the bus services have undergone a radical transformation. From inefficient, fragmented bus companies, integration and mergers took place. Today, we have two major bus companies with a modern fleet of buses providing an efficient bus service. This fleet is supplemented by the Scheme B buses. The Minister for Communications and Information has stated in Parliament on 16th March 1987 that unless there is integration of bus and train services, when the MRT comes on-line in December, there will be serious wastage. Total public transport operating costs will go up by about 15% in Phases I and IA and 30% in Phase II of the MRT implementation unless there is integration of the two services. Sir, one million people use the bus services every day. When Phases I and IA are fully operational by April 1988, the MRT is expected to carry about 12.5% of public transport trips. By 1990, the MRT will carry 25% of such trips. Moreover, many of these MRT passengers will be using more than one mode of transport for a trip. Thus, it can be seen that even after the MRT becomes fully operational in 1990, the commuting public will still be heavily dependent on buses. It is important to realize that one of the primary goals of integration must be to see that the viability of both the bus operators and the Singapore MRT Ltd are ensured, while also ensuring that a safe, convenient and affordable transport system is available to the public.”
“I will discuss this matter with my colleagues in our Government Parliamentary Committee and also with the local journalists and I hope that the local journalists will then speak out. The Committee will then make a report. Sir, when our Committee scouted around for journalists to sit in our resource panel, many journalists declined. Why did they decline? They very, very professionally pointed out to me that for them to sit on the resource panel would mean a loss of objectivity. Although it will be prestigious, it would be a loss of objectivity. And here they suggested that perhaps management staff of the papers could sit. And here we will take up their suggestion. This is what I call good, objective professionalism and I am proud of our local press corps. Sir, our press corps must not be deterred. They must continue steadfastly in what they are doing for what they are doing is the right thing. They must not emulate the Western press, as has been pointed out by the Minister for Communications and Information. I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“He is offended that his five-minute speech has not been printed. What about us PAP Backbenchers? I am sure that percentage-wise, one out of 79, he has been over-reported. The fact that our local papers can choose who to report, what they want to report, how they want to report it, has much to say about press freedom in Singapore today. I encourage our local press to adhere to their present policy steadfastly regardless of all these criticisms. More seriously, the Member for Potong Pasir has not made one criticism against the Asian Wall Street Journal but he has much to complain about the local newspapers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Government Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Information supports him. Sir, we are indeed fortunate to have a sensible and responsible local press corps. However, because of this very attitude of theirs, they have come under very severe criticisms. Members will remember the very sarcastic and caustic remarks made against the local press by the former Member for Anson. What was the reply of the press corps then? They considered it, and I discussed this with them, and their reaction was that they would not make any reply. Why did they choose not to reply? They felt that it was unprofessional of them to use their own columns to defend themselves. This is what I call professionalism. The Member for Potong Pasir now has also joined in the criticism against the local press.”
“Sir, I have gone into this in some detail to demonstrate clearly that in dealing with the AWSJ, we may be dealing with people with different values, different sense of responsibility, different sense of honour, and different sense of shame. These are people who have no respect for truth, who have no hesitation to distort and to malign. And they have the means; they have the mass media at their disposal to do so. I would like to ask the Minister how his Ministry intends to monitor the situation and educate Singaporeans so that we can be better prepared for such assaults by the Western media and how we can educate our people to understand how the media can be used against us.”
“However, in a letter to subscribers dated 20th February 1987, for which they paid some $11,000 to have it displayed in a full-page advertisement in the Straits Times on 24th February 1987, the AWSJ back-tracked. They claimed, and I quote from the letter: 'Reluctantly we have concluded that we cannot bring such a challenge. Our attorneys in Singapore and London advise us that although reasonable grounds exist for challenging the ban as well as the underlying law, such a challenge can be brought only by a Singapore citizen and not The Asian Wall Street Journal itself.' The Attorney-General has confirmed that Singapore law makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in this respect. In Singapore, the right to sue or to defend oneself is not dependent on one's citizenship or nationality. In a letter to the AWSJ dated 25th February 1987, the Government invited the paper to "reconsider its decision not to take legal action". Again, absolute silence from the AWSJ. The AWSJ backed down yet again. Clearly, they could not sue the Government because they had no case. The entire threat of legal action against the Government was one big bluff. Seventhly, Ambassador Tommy Koh in his letter to the Wall Street Journal and Asian Wall Street Journal pointed out all the falsehoods contained in the editorials of 12th February 1987. The WSJ and AWSJ have not replied to this. Again, on 4th March 1987, Ambassador Koh wrote back to the WSJ and AWSJ to ask, and I quote from his letter which was published in the Straits Times of 6th March 1987: 'You also did not respond to any of the substantive points in my letter. Do you not wish to dispute them?' Again, dead silence from WSJ and AWSJ.”
“Mr Darlin's inability to understand relative prices reduces the credibility of his argument.' So much for AWSJ's claim of not publishing such letters. Fifthly, AWSJ took out a full-page advertisement in the Straits Times to profess that "many of Singapore's most important businesses are telling us that lack of access to the AWSJ is making their operations more difficult." It offered to distribute free copies to its existing subscribers. When the offer was accepted subject to the advertisements being removed from the paper, AWSJ backed down, pleading the lame excuse of "additional mechanical costs". This turned out to be US 7 cents per copy. To prove the insincerity of AWSJ's concern for their subscribers, the Government offered to "share and bear half of the additional mechanical costs involved in producing a special edition" of the paper without advertisements. The AWSJ backed down yet again. It would seem that their concern for the "many Singapore businesses that depend on the AWSJ for reliable information from around the world and who are being greatly inconvenienced by lack of access to the newspaper" is nothing but a sham. US 3 1/2 cents per copy is too high a price for AWSJ to pay in their desire to serve their subscribers and to uphold their position as the professed champion of the free flow of information. The truth, we all know, is plain and simple. Its "concern" is nothing but a cover for its desire to make money, to get back the advertising revenue severely eroded by the restriction in circulation. Sixthly, the AWSJ claimed in a letter to Singapore subscribers dated 9th February 1987 that they were considering a legal challenge to the Government's action.”
“AWSJ has been shown up time and again to have to eat its own words, not once, not twice, not three times, but as many as seven times. Let me illustrate. Firstly, AWSJ claimed that the article on Sesdaq was "true and accurate". The letters and reports published to-date clearly show that the article was biased and contained errors of fact. Secondly, AWSJ claimed that "a company controlled by Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, an investment arm of the Government, was ordered by Temasek to prepare for an immediate listing, even though the concern merchant banker recommended delaying as much as a year." No such company exists. Today, three months after being challenged to give the name of this company, the vast investigative resources of the WSJ and the AWSJ have failed to produce the name. Thirdly, AWSJ claimed that Mr Koh Beng Seng's first letter was defamatory. Again, three months after being challenged, they are unable to state which portion of the letter was defamatory and how it was defamatory. The letter has now been published. AWSJ has not sued the Singapore Government nor the newspaper that carried the letter. Fourthly, AWSJ claimed that it could not publish Mr Koh's letter because it was a letter "attacking a staff member for unprofessional conduct, of which the staffer wasn't guilty, and alleging errors of fact that didn't exist." Yet, on 3rd March 1987, AWSJ carried a letter by a Mr McCornac and a Mr Copeland replying to AWSJ's article of 18th February 1987, entitled "Tokyo Stuns Visitors with Soaring Prices." I quote two paragraphs from the letter attacking Mr Damon Darlin, AWSJ's correspondent: '... he seriously misleads the uninformed reader with irresponsible reportage and a complete disregard for basic economic principles.' Second quotation: '...”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, I wish to focus my attention here on the Asian Wall Street Journal and to state the views of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications and Information on this subject. Sir, in this respect, I wish to inform the House that I have also written to the Asian Wall Street Journal on 20th February 1987 and followed up with another letter on 9th March 1987. To-date, I have not received any reply nor has the letter been published in the Asian Wall Street Journal. A copy of the letter is circulated for Members' information. Shortly after the GPC on Communications and Information was formed, the Government gazetted the Asian Wall Street Journal and restricted its circulation in Singapore to 400 copies per issue. The details of this case have been widely publicized. My Committee and I have followed the progress of this case closely. It has astonished us that an international newspaper of some repute could indulge in such unscrupulous and malicious reporting with allegations that they are unable to substantiate. No wonder in the United States, the term "wordsmith" has been applied to some journalists. Like the blacksmith, they fire up their words to red heat, then beat, twist and turn these hot words to suit their purpose, as in the case of the Asian Wall Street Journal. Having followed all the correspondence and reports by both the Government and AWSJ, we cannot but conclude that we are not only dealing with wordsmiths but word-eaters also, ie, people accomplished in the art of eating their own words.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Minister for his clarification regarding the role of principals. Would the Minister care to clarify about the role of the board of governors as he perceives it?”
“We are finding that when we talk with parents/taxpayers about better learning for their children each unto his own, religious and political differences give way to thinking together about how all can move towards the goal of improving learning in the daily ongoing classroom.' Sir, I believe that the Ministry of Education is on the right path and that Singaporeans have the will and the verve and want to see these changes implemented so that we can really achieve excellence in our schools and also have schooling for individual excellence.”
“Parker, printed in 1963, it discusses many of the problems that we as a nation are now addressing in our educational system. The problem is well described in this anecdote. The scene is set in a shoeshop: 'First customer: I like to see a pair of shoes in size 7 for my son Adrian. Salesman: Size 7, I am sorry, Sir, we carry only size 5. Second customer: I like to see a pair of shoes in size 3 for my son Lawrence. Salesman: Size 3, I am sorry, Sir, we carry only size 5.' The author comments, "Could clothing business survive misfitting two-thirds of its customers?" Can schools? Can our country survive giving two-thirds of its children a misfit education? Can any nation? Yet everyday in school rooms throughout our nation, we tell millions of children, "We are sorry. We only carry grade 5," when many an individual child actually wears only a grade 3. Just as bad is our response to another fifth grade child who needs a grade 7 when we try to cramp his superior learning ability into grade 5 with learning limitations. In a chapter entitled "Change in the Making", the author states positively his belief that things can change for the better. He cites an example of change that took place in Long Island, New York. I present three quotes from the author: '1. Curriculum change can take place in a relatively short time when the people of the community want it. 2. There are many controversial religious and political elements in each community which the school must deal. As each of us knows only too well, trying to satisfy all of them often leads to an impasse or even a stalemate to curriculum change. 3.”
“' In the same paragraph, it is stated: 'It was more a question of the governing body, having selected a head, giving him the necessary support to do a good job and to get on with it, rather than place obstructions in his path and slow down the pace for him to operate.' Sir, I am concerned with the principals' perception of the role of the governing body, namely, only to appoint or select the principals. Further, I am sure much as principals want their schools to excel, so do members of the governing body or the Board of Governors. I see no reason why the Board of Governors of a school would want to obstruct or slow down the principal unless the Board has good reasons to do so. What may be regarded as obstruction by the principals may be regarded as checks on the system. If one is even more open-minded, one could regard this as consultative management. The closing sentence of this paragraph reads: 'In such circumstances, the head could grow further in his role and give expression to his own brand of education.' While I agree that autonomy for schools and independent school is good, I am apprehensive regarding this reference to the headmaster being given the latitude to practise his own brand of education. To allay the fears of the teachers and parents, I hope that the Minister for Education will explain the role and authority that will be vested in principals as we move towards excellence in schools. I hope that in the future, parents and teachers will continue to select schools and not select the principals instead. Sir, if it is any comfort to us, the question of excellence in schools is not a new one. In a book entitled "Schooling for Individual Excellence" by an American author, Don H.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the discussion on independent schools. I wish, first, to deal with the question of the authority to be vested in the principals. Sir, I support the comments of the Member for Moulmein in this area. The Report, Towards Excellence In Schools, was prepared by a group of 12 principals. I cannot but ask myself whether the Report would have taken a different form if the report had been made by senior teachers instead of principals. Sir, in Singapore, the trend is towards a more consultative form of government and in management of HDB new towns, there will be more consultation and also involvement of residents in the town councils. Thus, it is not surprising to me that some teachers and parents look upon with alarm at the role that is envisaged for principals. Some teachers have even stated that they would prefer not to teach in independent schools because of the perceived over-domineering role of the principal. This is understandable because, in the Report, extensive powers will be vested in the principals, including the power to choose their own teachers. This, by implication, means also that they will be vested with powers to terminate the service of a teacher. In the Report by the principals, it is stated that only the governing body can terminate service. But who will it be that will put the teacher's report to the governing body? The principal, of course. Under the heading of Authority of the Headmaster, the Report reads, I quote: 'The headmaster might have been appointed by the governing body of the school and therefore accountable to it, but once appointed he carried its confidence and trust and was left to run the school as he saw fit.”
“I also hope that the Minister will reconsider the quantum of relief for the first and second child. This is very important for the young couple because before one can have the stamina to reach No. 3, one first has to survive Nos. 1 and 2, Mr Minister, Sir. If the experience of the first two is less painful, perhaps one can then reach No. 3 and enjoy the incentives. 3.28 pm”
“Our national defence capability should never be compromised. It takes years to equip, train and organize a unit into an effective combat force. Thus, it is reassuring to note that despite the economic slowdown, the provision for the Ministry of Defence has not been scuttled. There is a 4.5% increase in recurrent expenditure and 12.5% increase in development expenditure over FY 86. There must be no letdown in the build-up of our defence capability. Our national security must not be taken for granted, as recent events have shown. Our water supply has been repeatedly threatened by many groups, including some eminent statesmen in Malaysia. However, we are gratified that there has been reassurance by the Government of Malaysia that this is not the official stand. I am not advocating an arms race in our region but we must be ever-vigilant. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to turn to the procreation policy. However attractive though the incentives are, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, many have missed the boat. I join my colleagues in urging the Minister to make the tax incentive for the third child applicable retrospectively. The Acting Minister for Health has asked his officers to study the problem of reversal of ligation. I congratulate the Minister on this. He has decided to meet this problem face on, and this is good. Many had ligations done because of the disincentives in the population policy at that time. They were victims of circumstances and to help them now is right and noble. I hope that a serious study will be done and that it may mean the setting up of a special unit in Kandang Kerbau Hospital for the reversal of ligation. We must be prepared for this.”