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 8 of 15.
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I would like to speak on the upgrading of the Police Force. Sir, last year the GPC, the Ministry and indeed this House were extremely concerned with the manpower shortfalls in the various uniformed law enforcement agencies. Despite this, our officers have not failed us and they have carried out their duties diligently. In spite of their shortage, they also perform the duties of the international police officers by serving as part of the United Nations contingent in Namibia. Sir, the GPC welcomes the range of incentives announced by the Minister on 24th February 1990, to provide for not only better salaries but overall, a more satisfying and rewarding career for all law enforcement officers. The morale of the force today is at its peak. This is testimony to the good work of the Ministry of Home Affairs. In particular, Sir, we welcome the setting up of the General Police Scheme of Service to include officers in the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Prisons Service. Sir, the officers in the Prisons Service deserves special tribute as their task is a most unenviable one. However, Sir, this multi-disciplinary approach to law enforcement now means that the training and career path of the officers has to be carefully thought through. For example, the new recruits will now have to be exposed to a broad base curriculum which should not only include the principles of law enforcement but also the rehabilitation of the offender.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SI 1500 of the Main Estimates. The budget allocated for this item is barely 6.3% higher than in 1989, at $2.16 million. All the increase of this $127,000-odd dollars is accounted for by the increase in salary of the staff. There is no increase in the manpower strength. Very often I hear of the poor constituents who come to complain regarding the unpleasant experience with the Legal Aid Bureau. They can be the poor widow or the single woman separated from the husband. At the same time, I can understand the tight condition that the legal aid Bureau is operating. Why cannot the Minister consider raising the minimum income level for legal aid eligibility and increase the number of legal officers? This would allow more cases to be handled within the Bureau instead of being farmed out to outside lawyers. This can possibly give a more committed and controlled environment for the Bureau's staff in handling the cases of the poor. I believe this action, if taken by the Minister, can be well regarded by the people of limited means and it will reinforce the perception by the people that justice is for all, and that the Government takes this seriously. I am sorry to inform the Minister that presently when people approach the Legal Aid Bureau they approach them in despair rather than in hope. I know of a case in the constituency where the ---”
“Sir, before I withdraw, I would like to clarify one point. When I was speaking about specialisation I was not referring to either a "fused" or a "non-fused" profession. That is best left to the profession. I was thinking in terms of giving lawyers an opportunity to specialise in fields like, say, shipping, building contracts, etc. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. (1) When will our first Senior Counsel be appointed? (2) He mentioned that he would discuss this matter with the Judiciary, Law Society and the Attorney-General. I hope he will not forget the GPC.”
“Sir, on the question of competence of local law firms in complex cases, our local lawyers have made a very reasonable case for themselves. The argument centres along the line of transfer of legal expertise. If a local law firm is given a chance, they would even be willing, I am told, to give an undertaking to the client to engage foreign expertise as consultants. In this way, the local lawyers would gain "hands-on" experience while at the same time building up the local and regional professional reputation, image and credentials of the local profession. If an assignment is given to a foreign lawyer, be it a foreign law firm or a Queen's Counsel, the "transfer of knowledge" element will not be so complete. It has been emphasised to me that the "experience" and "image" factors are important - it will add to the credentials of our local lawyers as they move towards marketing their expertise regionally and globally. Their plea is very simple: "Give us a chance to prove ourselves". They have no objection to the use of QCs or foreign expertise for very complex cases. I hope the Minister will comment on the further upgrading of the legal profession, and the future role of QCs and Senior Counsel. If clear directions are available, the profession can then plan and adjust its human resources management. The undergraduates and the younger lawyers can also then plan their own career development into new fields and specialisation.”
“The question to be addressed is whether the increasing tendency to use QCs for cases which are not complex will impede the development of our legal system. Will our lawyers have the opportunity to mature and improve their stature? Does the present practice conform with the original intent of Parliament when the Legal Profession Act was enacted? Should not Queen's Counsel be restricted to complex cases so as to give our own local lawyers the chance to develop their expertise in advocacy? The whole argument takes on a "chicken and egg" situation. If local lawyers are not give a chance to take on complex cases, how can they then specialise? The engagement of a Queen's Counsel by one party makes it almost binding for the opposing party also to engage a Queen's Counsel. If Queen's Counsels are admitted for cases which the local lawyers feel competent to handle, can specialisation be feasible? This, Sir, is the dilemma that the legal profession is in. However, because of the traditional high ethical standards of the profession and the "hangovers" of the colonial era, not many lawyers would want to address this problem publicly. For this I indeed respect the profession. Nonetheless, I feel that it is incumbent upon us as Parliamentarians to address this crucial problem, if we are to move away from the "crutch" mentality of always having to look to foreigners for a "legal opinion". Admittedly, in the very complex case, expert advice is desirable. We must attempt to strike the correct balance and this will be no easy task. This is a problem that the legal community itself will have to work out together to reach a consensus as to what is best for the profession and the public, ie, their clients.”
“As we move into a developed nation status, and as the globalisation of services assumes increased importance, our legal services will be pushed into this direction. Sir, the appointment of Senior Counsel would have little meaning unless we give tangible and due recognition to such appointees. The persons appointed by the Senate of the Academy should naturally be leaders in their own fields - whether as advocates or solicitors. They should be professionals to whom junior lawyers can look to for inspiration and advice. A system of referrals, and "conjoint management", if I may use the medical term, must develop. Sir, in Singapore the legal profession is a fused profession, ie, our lawyers are both advocates who argue cases in court, and solicitors who do legal work, but who may not plead cases in court. It has been impressed upon me that there is an increasing tendency to use Queen's Counsel to argue cases in court as advocates. The admission of QCs is governed by section 20 of the Legal Profession Act. As the section stands, quite apart from few requirements, the Queen's Counsel must have special qualifications or experience. Over the past 10 year, there is an increase in the number of admissions of QCs to argue cases and appeals in our Courts. This is largely due to: (1) Singapore is entering a vigorous phase of commercial sophistication and development and there is an increase in litigation (including arbitration). (2) The gargantuan nature of claims, and (3) The complexity of some of these cases. The admission of QCs to plead complex cases is complementary to our legal system. The problem is the handling of cases by QCs, which our local lawyers are competent to deal with.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the fiscal year 1989 saw several developments in our legal system; the establishment of the Academy of Law, the development of a legal database for on-line legal research, Legalnet, the computerised land lot registration system, the setting up of a Law Reform Committee, the decision to set up a Centre for Advanced Legal Studies in NUS, and the decision to establish an Arbitration Centre. 1989 was a watershed year for the legal profession. The continuing legal education programmes conducted under the auspices of the Academy and the Law Society are also notable developments. These measures can only spark the independent development of our laws. I am sure that with these measures, our legal profession which is capable and competent can only improve and provide a better and efficient system of administration of justice. We now have in place (since 1989) legislation allowing the appointment by the Senate of the Academy of Law of Senior Counsel by reason of a lawyer's ability, standing at the bar or special knowledge or experience in the law. As yet, there have been no appointments of Senior Counsel save for the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General by virtue of their office. It would be convenient at this stage to ask the Minister what will be the role of Senior Counsel? Would the appointments of Senior Counsel aid the general and overall improvement in skills and competence of our legal profession? The institutionalisation of Senior Counsel appointments raises the larger question of the general direction our legal profession could and should take. Should we move towards specialisation?”
“Parents have many and varied reasons for this and some valid reasons. Perhaps the Minister may like to comment on this or study the problem further. I personally am concerned. Sir, I hope that the Minister will not only inform the House that the implementation of single-session schools is on schedule, but if possible to accelerate the programme. Furthermore, I hope that the diversion of the Ministry's resources to independent schools will not slow down the implementation of single-session schools. Both in my view are complementary, ie, single-session schools and independent schools are needed and we should press on with both with urgency. Finally, Sir, when full-day schools were announced in 1981, the pilot project included two primary schools in addition to three secondary schools. What is the Ministry's thinking now regarding single-session school for primary schools? Are there plans to extend single-session school on a wider scale to primary schools in the near future?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take both cuts together. Sir, in March 1987, the Minister for Education announced that the Government had decided to introduce the single-session school in all schools beginning with the secondary schools. To implement this, the Minister announced that an additional 50 schools over and above the 25 new schools then under construction needed to be built. We were told that "barring mishaps", all students can look to entering single-session schools when they enrol for Secondary 1 in 1994. Sir, may I first ask the Minister whether we are on schedule regarding the implementation of single-session schools. I raise this issue as all parents are anxious to have the "best education" for their children. After much study dating back to 1981 when full-day schools were first conceived, the Ministry is convinced of the advantages. So are parents, and parents are now asking themselves whether their children will have the benefit of single-session schools. Some parents are even planning to send their children overseas for studies at secondary school level, because they want to give their children the best that they can afford, ie, if they see our local system as lacking. With growing affluence, and the small family, this trend may grow. Sir, although these numbers are small now, it is still a cause for concern, as the dislocation from family and nation at such an early age may adversely affect us as a nation and society in the long term. How will the boys integrate back into the society, especially military service, if they have been away from five to maybe 10 years? Will this result in emigration? We must nip in the bud this newly developing trend of sending children away for secondary education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just seek the Minister's clarification on a few points? First, I would like to say that we welcome the Minister's statement on the plans for road development. These plans give us new hope now that we are told that we have not reached the limit as it were for road development with the application of new technology. This is something which is most welcome. My question to the Minister is: how many more cars will the road system be able to accommodate, as a ballpark figure, to be fair to the Minister? Secondly, we welcome the provision to make the MRT stations more user-friendly, to have walkways, pickup points, bicycle parks and especially the park-and-ride scheme. I would also ask the Minister as to where these take place, around which MRT stations and roughly the target dates in which these schemes will be implemented. Thirdly, I welcome the announcement about the semi-expressways. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification about the engineering aspects of these expressways. What type of speed limit will these semi-expressways to be constructed be able to cope with?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three questions. (1) Should the certificate of entitlement be made non-transferable for a certain period within the 6-month validity period, eg, a 3-month period, as I also share the concern of other Members of the House regarding speculation? (2) Will the Minister reconsider the necessity for a quota system if the ERP and other methods of utilisation control and traffic management are successful in controlling traffic congestion? Sir, I ask this question because I support the quota system only as an interim measure. (3) Does the Minister not agree that the quota system is not that fair after all as the payment for vehicle owners is now up-front? The hypothetical examples given may seem reasonable, but it is in fact an upfront payment. This is a cause of concern for those in the lower income group buying motorcycles and for the taxi driver. The taxi driver is in fact paying tax on money yet to be earned, ie, money to be earned for the next 10 years. Will the Minister consider allowing instalment payments for taxi drivers?”
“The Government, especially the Ministry of Community Development, can do much towards fostering understanding. I agree with my colleagues that the moral education programme can also do more. When there is an understanding and an acceptance of one another for what the other is, the ground is removed beneath those who stray towards religious extremism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Often they promote a system of ethics or moral values that binds the community together. As such, it complements the goal of politics, namely, to provide a better life for all, to put it very simplistically. Such a complementary relationship can only come about if there is a clear demarcation between religious institutions and the State. Sir, at this point I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on certain details of the Bill. (1) What is the principle that will be followed regarding representation on the Presidential Council? Will it be proportionate to the number of devotees in the population? Or would the aim be to allow a broad spectrum of representation, ie, the smaller groups can also be represented? (2) Will there be a limit to the number of times a prohibition order can be extended? (3) Will a system evolve so that the Minister is also obliged to give reasons if he disregards the advice of the Presidential Council? (4) Will the Minister consider widening the terms of reference of the Presidential Council so that he can take a pro-active role in leading the nation towards greater religious harmony? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that in the last 25 years of independence, we have harped on the theme of religious tolerance. Today, with a better educated nation and the mass media available, we should take another bold step forward towards understanding. The Oxford dictionary defines "tolerance" as "the action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship". There is something unpleasant about it. In understanding intelligence, the capability of judging with knowledge is present in the overtones. And when it comes to the good understanding, the dictionary refers this to as an "amicable or friendly relations between persons".”
“The son's educational performance dropped drastically and he was estranged from his parents and siblings. After much counselling from the extended family of uncles and aunties and with professional help, the son has been rehabilitated. What are the common factors in both these cases? (i) The problem was precipitated by over-zealous religious leaders, that is, extremism; (ii) Families were disrupted; (iii) One child will probably suffer permanent disability; (iv) There was, in my opinion, unnecessarily far suffering for both families. Both families sought help, but refused to make police reports for fear of reprisal and fear of the supernatural. They were indeed distraught. This, I hope, will help to convince those who feel that open court trials would be a better system than that proposed in this Bill. Are these isolated cases? I have spoken to some of my medical colleagues, and they have also had similar cases and experiences. Sir, these are but two examples. There are other incidents which have been enumerated in the White Paper. All of these incidents can only convince me of the need for this legislation and for an Advisory Council. Sir, on to the question of religion and politics. To my mind, that religion and politics should be separate is unarguable. History teaches us this lesson and the Minister has given us many illustrations this afternoon. Religion deals with the deep questions of who am I, what am I, questions of our existence, and existence of the world around us, questions of how we relate to one another as individuals in an ethical sense. Without any intention of offending any particular religious groups, there are as many answers accorded to these questions as there are religious groups.”
“Sir, at this stage, I would like to reaffirm two main points: (i) It is the Government's duty to maintain law and order and, in the final analysis, separation of religion and state; and (ii) This Bill is not against committed believers or against persons who express strong commitment and belief in their faith but against extremism. With your permission, Sir, I would like to relate two experiences. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have changed the scenario, but the basic facts remain so that the families may remain anonymous and to dilute references to any particular religious groups. This was at their request. Nonetheless, they urged me to present their predicament to Parliament. Case one. A family with four children all in their teens. One daughter was influenced by a religious group and subsequently brought his brother along. The parents were very distressed for several reasons. The daughter's academic performance fell drastically. The health of their son was deteriorating rapidly as he was unable to cope with the pressure exerted upon him by the religious group. Within months of contact with the group, he had to be placed under psychiatric care. His personality disintegrated. Until today the boy is still under psychiatric care. However, he has recovered well enough to continue normal schooling after severing ties with the religious group. The son has given all his savings amounting to some $2,000 to the group. Case two. A father noticed that the eldest son in the family of five became increasing rebellious. It came to a point when he could no longer tolerate it. He engaged a private detective to inquire into the child's activities and discovered to his horror that his son was involved in cult-like activities.”
“This spirit of "let us discuss our differences" is the spirit behind the prohibition order. Before the prohibition order is served, the person involved must be put on notice. Another two checks are put into place. The head of the religious group has to be informed and the Presidential Council must also be informed. Some of the religious leaders that I have discussed this Bill and White Paper with, see another positive factor put into place. This factor is accountability. They feel that in addition to their own disciplinary proceedings within their own religious order, this Bill now places on every religious leader an accountability to the authorities and the head of the religious group. It was also pointed out to me that this accountability factor placed on the heads of the religious groups would mean that no head of organisation can now pander to his group. This is important for us all to understand, as in many religious organisations the head is elected into office for a fixed term. This accountability factor is thus a check against the popular vote. Those who have expressed doubts regarding the Bill feel that too much power is being put into the Government's hand. The Minister, I am sure, will also address this point. All I will say at this point is that the Minister must be a very wise and brave man or a very naive man to disregard the views of the Presidential Council as the major religious groups will be represented on the Council. These very members will go back to their own congregations and will have to explain convincingly to their members regarding the Council's decision. If the Minister cannot convince the Council members, can these men of great faith convince their religious followers?”
“This should be done when all members of the family are on good terms. They can then discuss logically and objectively and not be clouded by selfish desires and personal gains. This, I believe and agree with the Minister, is the correct time to discuss the issue of religious harmony. Sir, by introducing this White Paper and Bill, the Government is unequivocally stating that (i) it is not anti-religion; (ii) it believes in a secular state; and (iii) it believes that religious harmony should not be taken for granted. I believe in these aims. One should differentiate between religious extremism and sincere committed believers of any faith. I believe that the majority of our religious leaders are virtuous men of great faith who are also responsible citizens, that is, they would not want to see strife and bloodshed in Singapore in the name of religion or for any other cause. Sir, because of this faith in our religious leaders, I support this middle-of-the-road approach of this legislation. To use the Penal Code, Sedition Act, or the ISA is too extreme. It is much better that the authorities seek clarification from the religious leaders regarding their acts or speeches, so that any miscommunication or misunderstanding of motives can be clarified. Sir, on two separate occasions I had informal discussions with two different religious leaders regarding their publications which were of concern to the authorities. Both these religious leaders were surprised that the authorities had interpreted political implications into their writings. After this was explained to them, they gave perfectly acceptable explanations as to their intentions. They subsequently desisted from their trends. Today, both of them are respected leaders in their community.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the interests of national security, law and order, the Government has been in discussion regarding this Bill for more than two years. It opted for the presentation of a White Paper after the consultative process. The views of religious leaders and others were incorporated into the White Paper. The White Paper also included a security perspective giving instances of inter-religious tensions, intra-religious tensions, mixing of religion and politics, and religion and subversion. More dialogues followed subsequently. After this debate, the Bill goes to a Select Committee. I am confident that after this exercise, this Bill will indeed be one that will lay the foundation to ensuring the maintenance of religious harmony for generations to come. I hope that this Bill will unite our nation further, not divide it. Sir, some of the incidents quoted in the White Paper in the security section were unknown even to us, as Members of Parliament. Many members of the public were surprised that these incidents had occurred. It is good that the White Paper has been candid in its presentation of the security perspective. Now all of us, regardless of faith, can see the potential explosiveness of each of the illustrations given. However, there are some who have expressed that the Government, in wanting to remain secular, is anti-religion. This is a misconception, and it is essential that in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, the Government must remain secular and not be partisan. Mr Speaker, Sir, on an issue as sensitive as religion, I feel that, difficult as it is, we need to address it now - at a time when we are enjoying a harmonious relationship. It is like a large wealthy extended family which has to discuss and plan for the distribution of wealth.”
“I am not as pessimistic as some of the other Members and I have more faith in the Ministry of Communications and Information in that I feel that they will be able to come up with a good system of electronic road pricing. At this point of time, whilst awaiting the implementation of the ERP, we need to address ourselves to the other recommendations of the Select Committee, such as improving the feeder system and the integration of the BUS/MRT Service. Buses can be upgraded and we should take a relook into the role of taxis as an integral part of the public transport system. Paper 25, presented by my colleague, Mr Lew Syn Pau, submitted by NTUC Comfort, deserves further thought and study. The paper has made up a case that taxis should not be treated on par with private cars and made to bear the full cost of ARF and road tax. In his submission and oral presentations, Mr Lew has explained to the Committee the difficulty of running a cost effective feeder system using taxis. If the operating cost of taxis can be reduced, then taxis can be made use as part of the feeder system as has been looked into by the Select Committee. Enough has been said by both protagonists and antagonists to the quota system, and I will not add to it. I urge the Minister and the House to give due consideration to the other suggestions made in the submissions to the Select Committee. One cardinal principle must be borne in mind in the implementation of any transport policy, ie, all measures implemented must be equitable to all Singaporeans. We must provide them with a measure of choice and, most importantly, it must give them some hope.”
“We cannot deny the social convenience that a car provides. In summary here, the element of choice must be made for our young people and those who intend to go into the car market. Sir, as national leaders, we owe it to our next generation to act responsibly. My belief is that the Government must now clearly chart the path upon which we will address the problem of traffic congestion to ensure that our quality of life, as mentioned by the Minister, is not compromised. The cost of car ownership and utilisation today is by no means cheap. Despite this, the aspiration to own a car has not been dampened. Why is this so? Let us recognise that this, in my opinion, will not change. But what we can change and persuade is the utilisation of cars. We must not heap cost upon cost to frustrate this desire. It will not do us any good. Let us state clearly that there is hope for all who want to own a car. But that the car must be used judiciously and responsibly so as to minimise traffic congestion. I reiterate my belief that if the cost of car ownership is made more reasonable, this coupled with a good public transport system will convince the rational Singapore car owner that it makes sense to have a car but not to use it to add to the peak hour congestion. As I have mentioned before, if the cost of car ownership is so great that it will not make any sense to leave the car at home, then no one will use the public transport system. But if the cost of car ownership is realistic and it makes good sense to use the public transport system to offset travel, then it will be done. Sir, I feel that the electronic road pricing is still a good alternative to car ownership restraint.”
“This paper also emphasises that usage measures are better than ownership ones. The author states that "the present mix of measures for cars are heavily weighted towards discouraging ownership rather than usage." The author also stresses that "the more severe the usage measures, the greater the number of people who can own cars." I believe that the Chairman of the Select Committee has also made this statement and is in agreement with this. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has always exhorted our people to work hard. Singaporeans have worked very hard in the last 25 years. In the recession of 1985, they have sacrificed much to help pull the nation out of recession. Today we are all working harder and upgrading our skills. Sir, as Singaporeans become better educated and more affluent, the desire to be to able to choose their own life style and priorities in life becomes more important to them, especially the younger generation. Having worked hard, served the nation in national service, and reaching the stage where they have enough disposable income to set their own priorities, we in the Government must try to help them reap the rewards of their labour. Choice is very important in their life. They are, I believe, responsible and mature adults who will not make foolish choices. To many, the priorities appear to centre upon the family, ie, owning a home, starting a family, and also owning a car. Owning a car to some may be a luxury, whilst to others may be an economic necessity. I cannot disagree more with my colleague, Mr Chng Hee Kok, who calls this an incorrigible desire for car ownership. Car ownership, to some, is an important economic necessity. Car ownership is both a social and an economic desire, and not an incorrigible desire.”
“(c) Priority for public transport and pedestrians in the central area coupled with restraint of car traffic. (d) Maximisation of public transport accessibility to all users. (e) Protection of the environment from the negative impact of traffic. Sir, these are very sound principles on which to base the land transport policy and they should be studied further. This study by academicians from the Nanyang Technological Institute also emphasised that "no urban transportation system anywhere in the world is designed to be free of congestions at all times." That is, there will always be peak hour traffic congestion. This is relevant especially in our context of land scarce Singapore where optimal use must be made of all land, including land for roads. The aim emphasised is for optimal utilisation and not for "free-flowing traffic all the time in urban land transport planning." The question, of course, that needs to be addressed by Ministry officials is: what is the acceptable tolerance level? Even if we turn to bicycles, there will be peak hour bicycle traffic congestion. The paper also addresses Car Usage. The authors note that the Electronic Road Pricing is "more equitable" than increasing charges on car ownership, petrol tax, or imposing kilometre tax." I totally agree with them on this. Next, Sir, Paper 55. This paper, in mathematical terms, has shown that "price and cost elements exert marginal influences on car ownership as compared with other variables such as income." The authors also emphasised the importance of improving the efficiency of the public transport system. Here, I am in complete agreement with the Select Committee that the public transport system must be better improved. Turning to Paper 59.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to say that I feel very reassured from the Minister's statement that he would study the document further and that there would be no hasty decisions, and that he would take into account Members' views and that equity would take an important part in his consideration of the future transport scene. Sir, in the last year we have had the half-tank Bill, had the caning Bill, and today I think we have the great debate on the quota Bill. The Report of the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy is an invaluable document. I must commend those who have taken the time to share their views with the Committee, and the Committee for its detailed study. Sir, I would first like to highlight some of the representations which I feel are worthy of mention and of further study. I hope that the First Deputy Prime Minister would be convinced that with the good quality presentations made in this Select Committee, that there is no need for NMPs, non-elected MPs. The importance of the submissions and recommendations have been side tracked by the controversy of the quota system, and thus in the process confusing everyone, leading to the self-fulfilling prophecy of increasing car sales. This morning I was told that today one is unable to buy a scrap car and the price of second-hand cars has already gone up. Sir, with your permission, I would like to draw attention to three papers. First, Paper No. 30. This paper has made sensible recommendations as to what our land transportation policy should emphasise on: (a) Emphasis on restraint of car usage rather than car ownership. (b) Control of car ownership (as the last resort) through pricing and not through the quota system.”
“Sir, fundamental to democracy is the process of election. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Yes, I will strongly support it. As long as the new Member, whatever name you call him, goes through the democratic process of election. And that is democracy.”
“He has answered the question perfectly. The NCMP has got the mandate because he has gone through the electoral process. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, but under the system, it is the first man past the post. And you change it to bring him in. Why can we not modify, remodel our democracy to strengthen our system?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Dr John Chen what does he mean when he says that it is not undemocratic when the NMP in actuality has got no mandate to speak in Parliament. From where do we all get our mandate to speak?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I rise on a point of clarification?”
“However, as a PAP Backbencher, I say this again, like my colleagues, well realising that I will be subjected to the Party Whip. This is the constraint upon us, and I guess we will have to continue to live a "schizophrenic" political life - speaking against, yet voting for a Bill. Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister summarised the three objectives of the Bill as: the building of consensus, contribution to good Government and to accommodate alternative views. I strongly feel that there is no need for this Bill to achieve these three objectives. What needs to be done is to give us all much more flexibility in this House. And, of course, there will have to be a change in the attitude of the Frontbench towards the Backbench so that there can be much more dialogue and in this way to satisfy the needs of people inside and outside this House.”
“The people feel that we cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct in that? If this is so, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, then it must be removed. How do we get this removed? We should start now. Even on this Bill, some of my colleagues feel that it is against their conscience to speak against the Bill, then vote for the Bill, because the Whip is not lifted. Let a clear signal be given to all by lifting the Whip on this Bill. This will send a message, loud and clear, to all that discussion and even disagreements are encouraged, so that the decisions that will be ultimately taken in this House will work towards Singapore's good. Sir, what the people want is not more NMPs. What they want is a government that is listening, what they want is a government that is receptive and is willing to accept alternative views. Sir, with all due respect to the First Deputy Prime Minister, may I suggest that he consider the following options: 1. That he withdraws the Bill. 2. That he lifts the Whip. 3. That he defers this Bill till after next year's budget session so as to allow all of us in this House to "buck up" since there is a perception that we are not doing well enough. Should he be satisfied with the standard of debate, then there is no need for this Bill. If he is still not satisfied, then a Constitutional Commission should be formed, and a referendum conducted. If the recommendations are accepted by the electorate, then all of us in this House are bound to accept it. The First Deputy Prime Minister is well known to us as "the tall man". I am sure he will now become a very "big man" if he can accept any one of these three options. Sir, I cannot support this Bill.”
“Thank you, Sir. I am much reassured and I am much cheered by the First Deputy Prime Minister's words. However, I am still not able to accept that direct-entry MPs can fulfil a role that elected MPs cannot. Sir, if we need more "brains" or "views" on any issue, there are many avenues that have already been mentioned. I will not bore you again, Sir. The problem is that too often decisions are made prior to dialogue and so the grassroots leaders become disillusioned and decide to keep quiet. This view was reinforced to me in a "Contact-Y" dialogue which I had with an audience chosen by SBC - not by myself - entitled "Are we a nation of followers." Sir, at this point, I would like to qualify the statement by putting on record that it is my view that there is today significantly more dialogue than one year ago. But as in all things, there is room for improvement. However, all this has happened without nominated MPs. Sir, the success of the Economic Committee in the 1985 recession under the able chairmanship of the Minister for Trade and Industry is an example to us of how the best "brains" can be mobilised without interfering in the electoral process. After the Economic Committee completed its report, the House then debated it. This goes to show that talent, whether inside or outside the House, is always available to the Government - provided it is willing to be receptive. Sir, let us be frank. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that PAP MPs cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct?”
“Can the addition of six more persons then make the House all representative? We have heard the argument that we want the House to be more representative. But can the addition of six more Members make it much more representative? Dr Aline Wong has already mentioned and given us statistics on this. What is the objective of this exercise? The First Deputy Prime Minister has said "to strengthen the political system". I am not convinced. I am not able to accept that. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose -”
“This label should rightfully now be transferred to the NMP as he does not have the mandate of the people to speak and he has no accountability to the electorate. They are more akin to "illegal immigrants" in Parliament than a "back-door" or "second-class" MP. The NMP is very different and not an extension of the NCMP scheme. I beg to differ from the First Deputy Prime Minister. In this Bill, the ground rules are now changed. The electoral process is by-passed. This Bill is asking this House to give itself the power to nominate six MPs. The Special Select Committee which will choose the six comprise Members of this House. We, in the PAP, form the overwhelming majority in this House. We should exert self-discipline when it comes to vesting power to ourselves. We have a moral obligation to check ourselves. It is my view that to vest unto ourselves the power to nominate MPs who will legislate is fundamentally objectionable. Mr Bernard Chen said that nothing harmful can come out of this Bill. I beg to differ. Something very fundamental is being done in this Bill, and it can be harmful. Mr Peh Chin Hua has said that we should be more broad-minded. I think there is no question of being broad-minded or narrow-minded when one talks of something as fundamental as the electoral process. Sir, we next need to ask ourselves why we need NMPs. Is it the view of the Frontbench that the Backbench and Opposition are not fulfilling their role? I surmise this from the speech by the First Deputy Prime Minister. If this is the case, in my mind, it is also a reflection on the Frontbench. Why? Because the performance of the House is the result of an interaction between the Frontbench and the Backbench. What we can do, what we cannot do, is also imposed on us by the Frontbench.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a Bill which deals with the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy. Our system of parliamentary democracy has served us well and brought us peace, progress and prosperity for the last 25 years. Admittedly, as in all things, it is not perfect. However, a very radical and fundamental change is being proposed in this Bill. A Member of Parliament will be nominated and he will not be elected by the people. The First Deputy Prime Minister has circulated a list of 20 countries where there are nominated Members. I am not sure whether we want to belong to this list of 20 countries. Sir, a Member of Parliament, as we know him or her, is elected by the people to represent them in this House. The mandate is given to him to speak for his voters. He is accountable to his voters for his words and his actions. There are two important words - mandate and accountability - both of which a nominated MP does not have. The Cabinet is chosen from the MPs, and thus have the mandate of the people to govern. I am glad to hear of the reassurance from the First Deputy Prime Minister that the NMP would not hold a Government post. I am indeed relieved. Sir, in the past, when amendments were made to the electoral process, there were good reasons for it. For example, the Non-Constituency MP Bill provided for a system of checks and balances. The GRC Bill provided for minority representation. However, in both these Bills, the process of election through the one-man-one-vote system remained intact. There were some Members of the House who had some reservations on the NCMP Bill. However, the NCMP has credibility as he went through, the electoral process. Some called the NCMP a "back-door" or "second-class" MP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Ministry assist the independent schools which want to start scholarship and welfare funds to obtain IPC status quickly, so that these funds can be available by the time the new term starts?”
“We should not discard it just because it is hard to swallow by aboloshing the Confucial Ethics as a curriculum subject. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give furhter and deeper consideration to my suggestion before abolishing Confucian Ethics as a subject in the schools.”
“The Ministry of Education's attitude and careful manner in dealing with this matter should win our accolades. It has been lauded also by many International Confucian Scholars. Confucian Ethics as a subject has also been adopted by many schools, about one-fifth of our Secondary 3 and 4 students have opted for this subject. Although Confucianism originated from China, but it does not mean that it is a Chinese thought. Much of the teaching is universal. Its promotion are also very popular in other countries such as Japan and South Korea, not just confined to China or Taiwan. There are many Confucian scholars, even among western countries. So now if you take away Confucian teaching from the schools, treating it as a religious subject to be abolished together, it would be a retrogressive action. The more sensible way for the Ministry to do is to treat Confucian Ethics teaching as the subject Civics, teaching morals, and not regard it as a RK subject. So, we should continue with and strengthen the teaching of Confucian Ethics as a curriculum subject in schools to fill up the vacuum left by the abolition of Religious Knowledge. Since Confucianism has been a subject of study internationally, it is also a subject good for all non-Chinese students in Singapore, whatever race they are. Because in the teaching of Confucianism there are such teachings on how cultivate oneself, form one's character and how to have proper relationship with other people. All students, whatever their race, will have life-long benefit from the learning of these teachings. If the text of Confucian Ethics had been too hard to compre- hend, as alleged by the Member for Ayer Rajah, we could ask the CDIS to amend it.”
“On a point of clarification on what Mr Chiam said. I did not make that statement. I asked the question for the Minister's clarification. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for Education has said in his statement and also as reflected by the various Members of Parliament the question as to whether we should retain or do away with the Religious Knowledge subject, everybody has his own reason and justification for saying so. But since the Government has already balanced the pros and cons of this subject and has made the decision to abolish RK as a compulsory subject, I think we should only hope that this decision is a correct one. Sir, what I am concerned is that this decision will cause the subject of Confucian Ethics to be the victim of abolition of RK subject. By name or by connotation Confucian Ethics, is a kind of ethics, a philosophy. It is not a religion. So, it should not be mentioned in the same breath and treated as a Religious Knowledge subject and subject to the same fate, being abolished together. I remember that when the subject of Confucian Ethics was being prepared, the Ministry of Education had taken the trouble to recruit Confucian specialists and scholars to come to Singapore as consultants to help in compiling teaching materials and texts for the teaching of this subject. There have been many forums and seminars and studies to collect views on this subject. Finally, there was a systematic compilation of Confucian teaching taken from "The Four Books" into textbooks in both English and Chinese versions as a subject to be taught in schools. Singapore's effort is the first ever in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion and to seek clarifications from the Minister. The Minister has stated that in Government institutions or Government-supported institutions, the Government must be seen to be scrupulously neutral. In this connection, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification regarding, firstly, Government-aided or mission schools and, secondly, the tertiary institutions, the polytechnics and the universities. Sir, firstly, with regard to Government-aided or mission schools, will they be allowed to propagate their beliefs? Will chapel classes, for example, be allowed? Will these schools still be allowed to appoint chaplains who are church ministers? Will religious groups be allowed to meet in mission or Government-aided schools, outside curriculum hours? Sir, regarding the tertiary institutions, practically all the major religions have student groups meeting in these institutions. Will these student groups be allowed to meet and be recognised by the authorities so that they can, for example, continue to use certain lecture halls or rooms for meetings? Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Chandra Das, that it is time that the Government further elaborated on what are the ground rules regarding the State and religion.”
“Sir, my colleagues in my GPC will present their own views and perspective of this Bill as opinions are varied. 1.45 pm”
“My argument is that under present constraints, the first amendment in January, unpleasant as it is, uncomfortable as we may be with it, was not wrong, is not wrong, especially when two amnesties have been given. There are still others who go so far as to say that both Bills are wrong and should be withdrawn. That is, no more caning in this issue. Some feel that for the Singaporean a hefty fine and a jail sentence would be deterrent enough. Sir, as the Minister has highlighted, two important safeguards have been built into this Bill regarding caning. (1) The onus of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove actual knowledge. (2) The employer must have at the same time employed more than five persons, that is, at the same time the raid is made five illegals are found. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the intention to break the law. Sir, as regards the caning of traffickers, I am in full agreement, as these vultures who live on human misery deserve absolutely no compassion. In summary, Sir, I wish to state that it is with much discomfort that I support this Bill. Those of us who have supported the earlier Bill are now in a position where we must be ready to say that all men are equal. So the maxim of law of equal punishment for the same offence of illegal immigrants must hold. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. However, in an ever-changing and rapidly changing social, political, and economic milieu of this world and our region in particular, it is my hope that the day will soon come when both Bills can be repealed. I again urge the Minister for Labour to review the work permit policy to help alleviate the problem. I will support his review, hopefully not with discomfort but with the greatest of pleasure.”
“I am not saying for one moment that it is right to break the law. All I am saying is: let us ask ourselves why they break the law. They are, so to speak, placed between the devil and the deep blue sea. Sir, for some it is a matter of survival and may mean losing a life-time investment. Sir, in summary, the socio-economic fact of today is that there are just not enough workers to go around, and that for the more unpleasant jobs, Singaporeans will not take it as they have alternatives in a full-employment situation. It is a fact that there are certain jobs that just do not appeal to the Singaporean. These jobs require special attention from the Ministry of Labour. I am sure that my colleagues involved in the running of town councils will testify to the problem of getting workers for the provision of cleaning services. The Minister for National Development has this morning just mentioned that there is a shortage of workers for the Central Expressway. Finally, Sir, we have to address the unpleasant issue of punishment, viz. mandatory caning for the employer. When I spoke on the Bill in January, I called it an agonizing Bill. This Bill is equally agonizing. From a sampling of views received, some have said that they are simply against caning for non-violent offences. Others have said that if the Singaporean wants to stand tall and upright in the international community, having adopted caning for illegal overstayers, we must now show that we are willing to apply the same standards to our own citizens. That is, show the international community that we do not practise double standards. I believe that this is a rational stand. Some may say that two wrongs do not make a right.”
“There is a shortage of office and clerical staff, not to mention production workers. The HDB shop operator, be it a hawker, restaurant, barber or hairdresser, is desperate for labour. Here, Sir, I would like to highlight an anomaly in restaurants. If a restaurant is sited in an HDB estate, that restaurant is not allowed to employ foreign workers. But if that restaurant is big enough or rich enough to be sited in a hotel, that restaurant can have foreign workers. We know that the Minister is a careful and cautious man. The Prime Minister has reminded us so recently. On this occasion I urge him to continue to be careful and cautious, but please reconsider carefully and quickly, so that flexibility can be introduced soon to alleviate the situation albeit even if this be temporary. None of us in this House would want the Singaporean worker to be disadvantaged, and the foreign workers levy is one way to ensure this . My learned colleagues from the Unions may have other suggestions to offer. I am hopeful that the Minister for Labour will be sympathetic. In 1987, as Chairman of Communications and Information, I brought up to him the problems of shortage of workers in the stevedoring industry. He was quick to respond. I am glad, and I hope that he will likewise look into the present problems that I have brought up this morning. Sir, small operators may well want to employ Singaporeans, if they are available. But they are not. If we have more flexibility in the work permit policy, perhaps the situation can be alleviated. If we look at it from the point of view of the small or medium- sized operator, he may well be asking himself: If I do not have workers, will I go bust? Then perhaps we can understand why they resort to employing illegal immigrants.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in considering this Bill, we must take into account three factors. This Bill must not be considered in isolation. Firstly, the amendment of the Immigration Act in January this year. Secondly, the severity of any punishment must reflect the severity of the crime. Thirdly, the socio-economic milieu in which we are in. Sir, in January in this House, when we were discussing the problem of how to contain the problem of illegal immigrants, I said that the GPC supported the Bill on two grounds. One facet of the problem was that of organized trafficking of illegal immigrants which undermines our economic policy and also poses a threat to our national security. Secondly, we could offer no alternative to stamping out the problem as both hefty fines and jail sentences were no effective deterrents. However, Sir, when we consider the Singaporean employer, do the same arguments stand? Let us examine this. Firstly, the Immigration Department have reason to believe that there are employers who are employing illegals to avoid the foreign workers' levy. Yes, for this group of people I believe that enhanced punishment is justified. As the Minister has mentioned, this is the hardcore group. Secondly, we have to ask ourselves why others are employing illegals. The answer here is the strict criteria of the Ministry of Labour regarding work permits. Except for the Shipbuilding, Construction, Manufacturing and Hotel Industry, and Foreign Maids, others are not allowed (with some exceptions). In the tight labour market situation today many of the small and medium-sized industries are still unable to get enough local labour. There is a shortage of labour in kindergartens and Day Care Centres.”
“City life in Singapore shines only on those who would wander in legitimate business. Many a tourist and expatriate have testified to how safe they are in our country. Of course, it will be very simplistic to say that the CLTPA brought all this about and that without the CLTPA we would not have this. Credit must be given to the vigilant Police Force, an upright civil service, a Government with a political will to ensure public safety and a people willing and have made sacrifices that has led to our success and our secure society today. But the CLTPA was and is part of our internal vigilance system. It stands as a pillar against the few but powerful criminal forces that if left unchecked could intimidate a whole nation. We sleep easy because we know that the criminals in heart and mind do not under the CLTPA. I move even to say that the CLTPA is an integral part of our system of law enforcement and justice. It provides the freedom for our shopkeepers to thrive, for the hawker to sell his food, for the businessman to run his dreams, for the nation to fuel its hopes based on the rule of law and not the barrel of the gun and the two-edged sword. All these within a framework where protection is not an euphemism but a right under law which is controlled, policed and governed. Today, in place of the triads of the past, we face the invidious influence of drugs. We fight now against drug traffickers whose network crosses national boundaries and whose tenacity knows no limits. As the Minister has earlier pointed out, the CLPTA is an indispensable tool in this fight. The CLPTA has served us well. We still need it and the feeling of our GPC is that we will continue to need it. Let us keep it for the next five years and longer, if necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC gives its full support to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. Sir, having heard the last two speakers, one point stands out very clearly. Firstly, why is the Act called "temporary"? It has been in existence for more than 30 years and now the Minister comes to the House asking for a further extension. I agree with them that the term "temporary" may be a misnomer. Indeed, the GPC discussed this matter with the Minister and we tried to urge the Minister to make this a permanent Act. Why do we say that this Act should be permanent? This Act should be permanent because essentially human beings will not change. Society can change, but the basic fears will not change. The fear of being victimized by big-time gangsters, secret societies, the fear of complainants to complain, the fear of witnesses to testify, will always be there. The Minister here is more hopeful than the GPC and he is much more optimistic. We are more pessimistic. I am sure that up till today many people do not want to tangle with the secret societies, to be complainants or witnesses. But the Police need witnesses and the courts also need witnesses for the judge to come to a logical conclusion of the case. Based on these grounds, I feel that the CLTPA still has a role. A whole generation grew and prospered under it. Because of the CLTPA, we know little of the triads, secret societies and the like. We do not experience the terrors of organized crimes. For most, walking in the city is simply that of a mechanical movement from point A to point B, uninterrupted by the flash of a switchblade and unhindered by a dense of bullies within our city limits. We do not fear the coming of darkness daily for there is no menace in it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how does a patient make a request?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I first declare my pecuniary interest as a GP. May I ask the Minister why is it that when a patient is referred by a GP to the Specialist unit, he must be considered as a 'B2' or 'B1' patient or an 'A' patient, and not a 'C' class patient? He may well be present to the GP as having a stomach ache, diagnosed as an appendicitis. Just because he goes through a GP, why should he be classified as a higher class patient and be asked to pay more? Or would the Minister prefer that these cases be referred to a Government outpatient clinic, waste the outpatient clinic's time and also endanger the life of the patient?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one final clarification. Does it then mean that for an appendicectomy to be met at full cost, it will be more than $2,670?”
“Does the Minister then mean that the full cost for an appendicectomy is reflected by the NUH cost of $2,670? Or is it the private hospital's cost of $4,300 which, I assume, would include profits of the private hospital and the doctors? So what does he mean by "full cost"?”