Bernard Chen
Singapore
“The increase in health expenditure is as inevitable as the sun rises. The major part of this expenditure is on manpower. Doctors and nurses and other operational staff have to be paid at market level wages. They have to compete with other demands for the scarce labour resources.”
“Question No. 12, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, investigations into the case are still in progress. When investigations are completed, a Coroner's Inquiry will be held during which the full facts of the case will be presented.”
“Question No. 16, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, Police is investigating the incident which occurred outside the Kallang Theatre, not at the Singapore Recreation Club, as stated in the Question. Investigations are in progress.”
“If you can license dogs, what is the difference for licensing cats? Dr John Chen Seow Phun: If something is not necessary, why do you want to create that machinery and system, just to do something which some people want. SINGLE SESSION SECONDARY SCHOOLS (Adjustment to reporting time) 5.”
“Although cat is not my problem, I am asking on behalf of somebody else. If the Minister of State is in agreement that we should control cats, why do you not license them so that at least we do not shoot the wrong cats, to begin with, and whoever is the owner will have a responsibility in making sure that the cat does not stray around, but…”
“I agree with the Minister on the need to retain flexibility. I think we should leave it to the patient. But can the Minister confirm that the rates that the patients are paying to the specialists are, in fact, market rates so that there is no subsidy by the Government on all these consultations and there is no impact on the cost efficienc…”
The complete record
Every one of 363 lines we hold for Bernard Chen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“On the school health programme, early this year the GPC for Health visited the Institute of Health, which implements the school health programme. I must say that we are very impressed by the comprehensive range of services rendered to our school children, especially in respect of preventive health care. I believe that the school health programme is little known to the public outside the schools. The contribution of the staff involved should be properly recognised. I think it will be good if the Minister can give a brief account of the school health programme that is being implemented at the moment and inform our people the good work that is being done.”
“Sir, in the past several years, we have seen an increasing number of specialised medical centres being established. We have now in our midst the National Heart Centre, National Eye Centre, National Skin Centre, the new KK Women and Children's Hospital, just to name a few. There is logic in setting up these centres, as they concentrate specialised expertise under one roof, which should also help to lead to better treatment and facilitate research. There are, however, two effects which need to be addressed. First, how do we reconcile treatment by these centres and those currently done in other general hospitals? While we can say, for instance, that the paediatric cases can be handled by the KK Women and Children's Hospital, how do we deal with specific paediatric cases which have to be handled in the other general hospitals? The same, for example, can go for heart cases, especially when the patient has multiple illnesses and cannot be wheeled from one hospital to another. How do we ration the manpower required to handle the treatment in different places? Second, the standalone facilities with their sparkling new facades and very tasteful designs will give an impression of high cost treatment. In reality, specialist treatment, of course, will cost more. It will be helpful if the Minister can give an explanation on this and assure the public that the treatment costs at these centres are fair and reasonable and, if higher, whether they can be justified by higher value-added service? Sir, can I go on to the next topic?”
“We must increase our threshold of pain to ensure that we can pull through and become fitter and trimmer at the end of these bad times. Given our sound fundamentals, we should be able to achieve this target. By working together, we can face the problems head on and seek strength through unity of purpose. In doing so, there will be those amongst us who are weaker and will need help. We should extend all possible assistance to help them tide over this difficult period. This help should not only come from the Government but also come from those of us who are in a better position to help. I would especially urge our younger Singaporeans, those successful ones, to help our country sail through these difficulties. For those who may be afflicted by the symptoms I have mentioned, I hope there will be a change of mindset so that they can work together with their fellow countrymen. For those who are not, I can only appeal to them to continue their good work and reinforce their fine efforts. In the coming months, we will need to work even closer together and survive the storms that will surely and inevitably sweep our shores. I appeal once again to all our fellow citizens, let us stay tight together and overcome.”
“However, if we are strong and have a higher threshold of pain, we will be able to survive and become stronger. The question now before us is: are we prepared? The sustained economic growth for the past two decades, allowing for the minor setback in 1985, may have lulled our citizens, especially the younger ones among us who have not lived through recessions, into believing that economic prosperity will go on forever. The good times that we have been having have lowered the threshold of pain considerably. Continued success has also bred individualism, selfishness and, worse, greed. We can find examples of these traits in the working places, restaurants, shopping centres and even golf courses. The arrogance with which some young and successful people flaunt their wealth and power is evident in the way they spend and the way they treat those who serve them. I was told of an incident in which a member of an exclusive golf club, when he failed to get satisfactory service from the waiter, reminded the latter in no uncertain terms that he had paid a princely sum to join the golf club and expected that he should be served properly. In another incident, a member of a golf club took legal action to intimidate the club on a very minor disagreement because he thought that it was a "matter of principle." The lower threshold of pain will see our people yelling for blue murder when conditions deteriorate just a little bit. Worse, it may lead to panic and recourse to expedient measures that will not solve the longer term problems. The attitude of "every man for himself" will erode community's ability to fight together. We need to brace ourselves for the difficult times ahead.”
“On the whole, our people's tolerance level has also lowered. At the slightest inconvenience, there will be complaints to the MPs and to the press. Increasingly, our people are beginning to think of themselves rather than the community as a whole. Many of our young and successful citizens are coming to the view that it is their right to be rich and powerful, without realising that their ascent to fame and fortune has been helped by the nation's progress with everyone pitching in their effort. More important, just as dinners will not last forever, good times too would not last. We must prepare ourselves for the ups and downs that will inevitably come. Therefore, we should first look at what we ourselves can do rather than just asking the Government for more hand-outs. It would be reasonable for us to do so if we have been responsible for the slowdown as in 1985. The present problems are externally generated and in many instances are out of our control. It comes with the ups and downs of business cycles, although much of the present problems are man made. There is a Chinese saying that "when the horse dies, get off and walk." There is nothing we can do if we stay on the horse, especially if it is a dead one. If we look back the last 30 years, this is precisely what the Government and our people did when we got into trouble. We did not ask for charity. Instead, we adapted ourselves to the situation at hand and made adjustments. There is no running away from the painful effects of a recession. This time round, the recession is going to be painful. Those of us who lived through some recessions can vouch for the fact that in certain cases, the pain can be considerable.”
“In other words, we cannot depend on the region as we did in 1985. Even if we manage to retain and sharpen our fundamental strengths, we cannot escape the adverse effects of recession in the region. Take the simple example of tourism. A great number of tourists originate from the other ASEAN countries. We should be lucky if half the number who visited Singapore show up this year. With recession in these countries and their depreciated currencies, we cannot really blame them for not coming. Tourist arrivals are likely to fall sharply this year, maybe as much as double digit. And if the haze comes a bit earlier this year, the drop may be more precipitous. This will have a rippling effect on the retail sector that depends on tourism, including hotels, restaurants, shopping centres and transport services. Taxi drivers are going to find fewer fares. This fall in demand is not likely to be compensated by Singaporeans who will also tighten their belts. Even if we cut prices for these services, there may not be sufficient customers. The effects of this slowdown will permeate to a wide cross-section of our economy. Everyone will in one way or another be affected. What should be our response then? It is fair to say that we in Singapore have been having it good for many years. High economic growth has translated into rapid rise in real income and better well-being for everyone. The Government has been able to record surpluses every year in the past decade. The times are so good that many Members in this House have remarked that we are making too much money. Our people's expectations have also soared at the same time. HDB flats have now given way to Executive Condominiums and private condominiums in districts 9, 10 and 11. IUPs are not quite enough. Our people want more MUPs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said about the regional currency turmoil that has resulted in the slowdown of economic growth in virtually all the countries in South East Asia. The Finance Minister is prudent to refrain from forecasting growth for Singapore or, for that matter, for other countries in the region. We are, I think, in general agreement, save for a few other Members in this House, that, at best, things are likely to remain bad and they may get worse. There is little doubt in my mind that we are heading for very difficult times for at least the next 1-2 years. The question is not so much whether there is going to be a recession now, but how deep it will be and what our responses should be. The last time we had a recession was in 1985. At that time, the regional economies were growing well. We ourselves were plagued by high costs caused partly by the necessary move to higher technology industries and a tight labour force. Once we have improved our competitiveness and set the fundamentals right, we were able to get out of the recession relatively unscathed. There were no drastic retrenchments and no loss in real income. For the next decade, we were able to capitalise on the boom times in the region, especially with the emergence of China as an economic power and the revival of Vietnam. This time round, the issues are different. The currency turmoil and other difficulties have caused a loss of investor confidence that has affected investment flows into the whole region. Countries have to battle against the difficult task of reviving their economies to create jobs. They also have to tackle the prospect of increasing inflation and for some countries, even shortages of essential foodstuff and materials.”
“Sir, at least we do not have too many wolves in sheep's clothing! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Lim: Sir, I would just like to add on to what Dr Michael Lim and Mr Bernard Chen had said and perhaps also raise one of the concerns that the development of a regional medical hub in Singapore may have. Certainly, it will put a strain on our resources in terms of doctors, nurses and this then leads to concern about whether there will be any adverse impact on the health care for Singapore citizens, whether this will drive down standards or whether this will drive up costs. But having said that, there are a number of reasons why we should pursue this. Certainly, it will help us take advantage of an area that we are very strong in, which is, as Mr Bernard Chen has said, in terms of the brain services. We are already a regional leader in this area and if we do not go into this industry, then others in the region will. Secondly, having a regional hub in Singapore will also help to raise the standard of medical care in Singapore and, in the long term, this will help to drive down costs rather than to drive them up. In so far as the costs for the lower income people are concerned, this can be dealt with as we do so now, in terms of administrative processes and in terms of making sure that subsidies are given to those who need them. At the end of the day, we have got to ask ourselves whether or not we want to develop this industry and whether we are driven by the vision of creating a new industry, a new area where we can create for ourselves better jobs and earn for ourselves a better living. And if so, then we should start off with the vision as the basis and work around the problems. And I hope the Minister will then state what our policy is with regard to the development of the idea of a regional medical hub in Singapore and also tell us about the latest plans.”
“Sir, the Addenda to the Ministry of Health in the President's Speech has mentioned about the development of Singapore into a medical hub. I am not too sure whether Dr Michael Lim's idea of expanding medical service in the region comes within this definition. I will only speak about developing Singapore as a medical hub. The success of this development depends again, as I mentioned earlier, on the kind of doctors we have available and the standard of care that we can provide. Both are not easy to come by. But as distinct from other services, the medical services aimed at developing our medical centre do not seem to be given much, if at all, any incentives. For example, in the manufacturing and financial services, we have, according to the Minister for Trade and Industry, a host of incentives that are too numerous to mention. But I can think of none for the heatlh services. It is understandable perhaps that in the case of health, it is difficult to separate local as against foreign treatment. But the same goes for manufacturing industries, not all the products are consumed as exports, but some are consumed locally. So I would like to just ask the Ministry whether they are working with the Ministry of Finance on possible incentives to help our doctors to develop medical services that cater mainly for foreign patients. Because these are brain services. And if we are supposed to be good in brains, I think we should also develop brains for our medical doctors and nurses. And if we can provide the incentives in various forms, which I am not quite aware of at the moment, perhaps, we can realise this objective soon. Mr David T. E.”
“Sir, on professional standards of doctors and nurses, this again relates to the same rising expectations of medical health care because the patients are now better off. They are paying more for medical service and they want higher quality of service, especially the quality time spent on each patient. This demand will continue to increase with better facilities and higher medical charges. I am a bit disturbed by recent cases of negligence in both the private and public sectors. I understand, of course, that the majority of doctors and nurses are providing good service, but there will always be some who do not. And the question arises: how do we police this and to make sure that these so-called black sheep are removed? In a profession like the doctors, we have the Singapore Medical Council who would entertain complaints, address complaints to boards of inquiries, but invariably the majority of these members are also doctors themselves. This is not new in the profession. If you talk about the legal profession, the same thing applies. Indeed, in any other profession, the peers appear to have to judge their own members. I think in order for justice to be seen to be done visibly, we should allow for more open inquiries, drawing more lay people in. I understand that in the proposed Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill coming up, this will be addressed. But this is also part of the way of improving our medical and health care services, because if we can minimize the incidents of malpractice and negligence, then our Singaporeans will have better confidence in the quality of the medical service provided by both our public and private sectors.”
“And what we have seen in Singapore now is an increasing number of nurses from foreign countries. These nurses come from different cultural backgrounds and they have different habits and different values. The way they treat our patients is very different from those of Singaporean nurses, and there have been an increasing number of complaints in both Government and private hospitals that these foreign nurses are not well equipped to handle some of our Singaporean patients. The argument is that because Singaporeans do not want to be nurses, therefore we have to resort to importing them from other countries. But this cannot be completely true because we find a lot of Singaporean nurses working overseas. In fact, quite a number of them work in the Middle East and in other countries. So the question arises as to whether, in fact, we are paying our nurses competitive rates to entice them to stay and work in Singapore. We cannot equate these nurses' remuneration to those of equivalent qualification in other parts of the civil service. Because nursing is actually a vocation. If you want tender loving care, not everybody has that, and money cannot buy that. The person has to feel that she can provide this kind of care. And if she can get a good reward in providing the care, I think she will stay in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister what are we doing for these very important categories of people, doctors and nurses, in particular, nurses. I think many of our troubles in the medical service start with nursing care. The way that we can improve the nursing care will also go towards improving medical health care.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, with the rising expectations of our people, the medical health expectations have also gone up. And with the medical facilities now being upgraded, we are having very new hospitals not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. These hospitals are equipped with more sophisticated diagnostic equipment and other facilities. The private sector has also followed suit with new medical centres. Generally, patients now demand a higher standard of medical care. I have heard of examples of children who suffer from a mild cold, for example, have been asked to be confined to the hospital for two days for observation. The Government has announced that it will increase the intake of medical students to NUS, from 150 to 200 per year. My question is: with this demand of better medical care, whether this is in fact sufficient to meet the needs of both the public and private sectors? One of the factors that will go for better health care could be more quality time spent by doctors in treating the patients. It is not just the number of consultations, but the duration of consultations. And depending on the complexity, this duration can vary from patient to patient, and the lack of attention by consultants, specialists or doctors to these patients will be interpreted as a deterioration of medical service. The other aspect of medical personnel in terms of better health care is even more important. I refer to the nurses. The nurses are the front line for both care during hospitalisation and the post-illness recovery. Although the number of nurses has increased in the last 10 years, there is consistent demand for more nurses.”
“To my fellow Singaporeans, I think we should stop asking: what more can the Government give us? The Government has given you more than enough, quite a fair bit. We should rather ask: what can we do to maintain Singapore as a country that we can be proud of, that we can do business in? It depends on our sense of commitment, our sense of sacrifice and our entrepreneurship in order to tackle the next set of problems. These problems are no longer the same that we faced even five years ago. These are difficult ones and it calls for extra commitment from us. The Minister for Finance has, in his Budget Statement, tried to pass this message across. But as in all budgets, most of the discussion concentrates on the last 10 minutes, the last five pages. But I think the bulk of his message that bears closest scrutiny are the first 20 pages.”
“But even in this case, the Government is concerned enough for the lower income people to pass back the entire amount of increase in utility bills in the form of rebates to those in 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats. I do not think many governments would be in a position to do that. So it is quite obvious that the Government has been looking after the lower income people all these years, and look after them very well, despite what Mr J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Low Thia Khiang have said. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr J B Jeyaretnam's statement could well be true 30 years ago. But in the 30 years since the PAP came to power, I think we have done more than our fair share, much more in looking after the lower income people than any government you can name me in the world. I think there is an increasing mentality in the Singapore people, especially the younger ones now, and it may be our fault, that they have come to expect more and more from the Government. Why doesn't the Government do this for me? Why don't we do that? Why don't you give me this? And it is because for years we have been giving. Rightly so, because of our economic success, which is their effort. But I think it is time for us also to think of the challenges posed by the Minister in his speech. We are facing very difficult times, and normal reaction would not be enough. We ourselves have to do much more, rather than depend on the Government only. If I can refer to the famous saying of Mr J F Kennedy, President of the United States. He said this in 1960 when he became President. This is almost 37 years ago. He finished his speech by saying, "Ask not what the country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I think this statement can well be applied today.”
“You would not even have an airport that has been consistently considered as number one in the world. So let us get first things first. You must make the money and after that, you can think of distributing it. Mr Low Thia Khiang has said that the wool came from the same sheep. Mr Seng said that the wool came from different sheep. Wherever the wool came from, I think the Singapore Government has returned a lot of this wool to whatever sheep of whatever sizes, except the black sheep, I suppose. We all know where the black sheep are. The Government has consistently lowered taxes throughout the years, not only corporate taxes but also personal income taxes. Mr Low Thia Khiang may say that the lower income people do not benefit from this reduction. But he would know that now 70% of our people do not pay taxes. This again has not happened in many countries of the world. Not only that 70% do not pay taxes, whenever the Government has to pass on some benefits back to those people who pay taxes, the Government makes it a point to pass back equal benefits to those who do not pay taxes in terms of rebates on S&C charges, utility bills and so on. So everyone gets back something. We have the asset enhancement schemes, ie, Telecom, Edusave, Medisave, etc. The amounts that are passed back are not in the millions but they are in the billions of dollars. Where did all this money come from? It is not from the people. It is from the surplus generated, and income tax only accounts for a small proportion. And considering the fact that 70% do not pay taxes, obviously, the lower income people would not have contributed to this surplus. In a statement made on Friday, we were told that we have to pay much more for water, four or five times more.”
“But in Singapore, if we were to succeed as well as Hong Kong, I think we must have the same entrepreneurship, the same amount of risk-taking and the same amount of self-sacrifice if we were to carve out a niche in the marketplace. The second point raised by many Members in this House and also outside is the huge surplus that we accumulate every year. In fact, even the Minister for Finance was a bit embarrassed when he said that this year's surplus at $5.7 billion would be less than the $7 billion we had last year. But many of us fail to see that the budget surplus has been used to finance very major development expenditures. Quite apart from the housing that we have to subsidise quite a lot, the three hospitals that we have or are building cost us about $1.5 billion. The Airport terminals will also cost billions of dollars, and the MRT line will cost $5 billion. Where did all these monies come from? Contrary to what Mr Low Thia Khiang had said that it comes from the people, it has not. The surplus did not come from taxes. The surplus came from the operation of the Government. We did not have to raise taxes to finance all these expenditures. We did not even have to borrow externally. In many other countries, you take Taiwan, for example, in order to finance the mass rapid transit system, they have to borrow heavily. In Thailand, they cannot have the MRT system because they have got no money. We are the only country, so far as I know, that can undertake all these development projects without borrowing a single cent. This is what the budget surplus is about. If we did not have this budget surplus, then you can forget about the North-East MRT line, whether it passes through Potong Pasir or not, and you can forget about the hospitals. You can forget about a lot of things.”
“He mentioned quite extensively the longer term prospects of Singapore and the challenges that we face in the coming years. The challenges are real and difficult. Those of us, especially those of us in the business world, will know what it means. We talk about creating a second wing in the region. I think all of us who are doing business in the region will know that it is very difficult doing business, whether it be in China, Russia, or in any other places. Secondly, we ourselves have to protect our own economy because of the challenges posed by the surrounding countries in their attempt to attract investments. The key question is how we react to these challenges. What kind of sacrifice we have to make and what must we do rather than what the Government can do for us. The Government can only do so much. But if we were to secure business opportunities in the region and to increase our competitiveness, we have to play our own part as well and not depend on the Government all the time to hold our hands. So these challenges underline not only this year's Budget Statement but the Statements in the past five years and whatever the Minister has suggested in terms of incentives are meant really to pursue these objectives. Many of our local businessmen, especially in the manufacturing industry, have complained that the Government is not doing enough for them. The Government can only go so far as to provide finance for small businesses, ie, capital assistance scheme. But the Government cannot provide the entrepreneurship which these industries must have to penetrate the region. And this is up to us. And if we take a recent example of Hong Kong and Singapore, Hong Kong succeeds despite the government. There is no government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been reading reports in the press today as to the various reactions to the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance. Everybody seems to think that this Budget is rather dull and no excitement. Even Members of the House were saying that there are not enough goodies for everybody. But if we cast our mind back, this has been the way the Finance Minister has presented the Budget for the last 10-15 years. The Budget has been rather dull every year and the economy kept on going. We get more and more things, tax reductions, and so on. If we look at the other countries, budget time is a time for crisis. There is something always going wrong in the country when the budget is presented and the people always look towards the budget to see whether the government has any solutions to resolve this crisis. You look at the recent budget in Great Britain, the Philippines and a few other countries. We are probably the only country in the world where we have a painless Budget. Members in this House always say that the Budget is painless and the pain comes afterwards. But very few countries in the world can afford this luxury of having a budget that has no excitement. But that is not really the key to the situation. The situation is that the Budget has been painless all these years because the Government has taken pains to make sure that there is no pain. By the time the Budget is presented, the various policies are already in place and under implementation. It is because of the smooth implementation of these Budgets that we do not have the ups and downs and the worries and pains that come along with it. But I think many people in the public, and I must say some Members as well, have missed, one very key point in the Finance Minister's Statement.”
“Opposite the Royal Palace where the emperor used to meet his officials, there was an archway on which was inscribed the four characters: zheng zhi dang ping ( ) which means "upright and stamp out, without fear or favour." These four characters have left a very deep impression on me. At all times and in all countries, of all political systems, this is one basic requirement of a politician, that is, integrity and honesty. I am confident that the Special Select Committee will select a batch of honest people with high integrity to come into this House and fill up the empty seats opposite me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to have Nominated MPs in this Parliament.”
“If we can get an expert in land transport system to be a Nominated MP, I am sure he or she will contribute substantially to our deliberations on the subject in Parliament. We are now encouraging more students to study engineering. So why do we not get an engineer to be an NMP? We are encouraging our students to be more creative. So why do we not have an expert in critical thinking to be an NMP. Also, on housing, it may be good to have an NMP who is an expert on public housing or town planning. With our regionalization drive, a successful entrepreneur who has ventured overseas may be able to present this House with first-hand views as an NMP. Then, of course, a leader of the trade union movement who understands the urgency of training and retraining would be an ideal candidate as an NMP too. The PAP imposes very strict requirements on its candidates. All its candidates must be of high integrity apart from their talents. I think the opposition parties should also have this sort of quality control on their candidates. As for NMPs, the same principle applies. Sometimes, I feel that integrity is more important than the system itself. A system which is not so perfect, but if it is run by people who are of high integrity, it could be gradually perfected over time. But, if we leave a perfect system to be run by people of doubtful character, it would collapse eventually. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.15 pm Recently, I accompanied the Minister for Information and the Arts on an official visit to Vietnam. We went to an ancient capital city of Vietnam called Hue.”
“However, the results of the general election showed that being an NMP itself does not guarantee that the same person will find his way into Parliament as an elected MP. If he does not have the support of the voters he will not be elected into Parliament. I feel that this Parliament should have Nominated MPs. Apart from this system having been proven to be effective and that it has been accepted by Singaporeans, we actually need people who have constructive and independent views to come into this House. Like what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, in moving the Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Bill in 1989, this is to strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternate views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated. Take the second and third batches of NMPs, for example. They seem to represent the various functional groups such as the women's organizations, the employers' federation and the trade union movement. I feel that when we appoint NMPs to this Parliament, we should also focus on the various functional groups. I am very glad to hear from the Leader of the House that we will be amending the rule so that the various functional groups will be invited to nominate their representatives to be candidates for appointment as NMPs. I think it is a good idea to appoint NMPs according to our needs of the moment for the various projects and policies we are going to launch. Singapore is looking at a world class land transport system. We are extending our MRT network, and are planning to have LRT. We are also going to improve our bus and taxi services.”
“They came here also at their own time and most of them have lost a considerable amount of privacy, which many of us MPs also value. I think their contribution of time and sacrifice should not be ignored and instead of saying that they are taking away the limelight of personalities, we should appreciate their presence here. It is for this reason that I support the Leader of the House's motion to once again introduce NMPs in this House. Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio)( In Mandarin): Sir, in every new Parliament we have to debate on whether there shall be Nominated Members. In the last two Parliaments we heard various views on the pros and cons of Nominated MPs. Personally, I feel that since the introduction of the Nominated MP scheme in 1990, the appointed Nominated MPs have contributed greatly to Parliament. Their collective performance is satisfactory and individually they had outstanding performance, as the Leader of the House pointed out just now. Singaporeans are gradually accepting this concept. I feel that this Parliament should also have Nominated MPs. In the general election held at the beginning of this year, two things concerning Nominated MPs happened. First, one former Nominated MP contested as an independent candidate and lost. Secondly, a candidate for Nominated MP in 1992 who was not appointed, contested this general election as an opposition candidate. These two matters clarified some doubts that some people had about NMPs. Some people deem the NMP scheme as a stepping stone to becoming a Member of Parliament while others are worried that if the Special Select Committee makes a slip and lets in people with ulterior motives to Parliament, the dignity of the House may be undermined.”
“Sir, the objectives of the NMP provision had been debated at length in 1990, both in Parliament and in Select Committee. It would be useful to remind, especially new Members in this House, what were the objectives of the NMP scheme. It is firstly to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation in keeping with an open and consensus building government promoted by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong when he assumed office in 1990. Second, it would also provide more alternative views which are non-Government, non-ruling parties and non-opposition. Third, it is to tap Singaporeans who have no political inclinations but nevertheless could contribute their experience and views on major political issues. Finally, as the Prime Minister put it at that time, the NMP scheme could be a way to appoint office-holders in the longer term, although it was proved not necessary even until now. Members can see that in the seven years these objectives have been more or less achieved. It remains really for us to evaluate whether the NMPs have delivered the goods. As the Leader of the House says, most of them have, although I must add that in addition to making life miserable for Ministers and civil servants, some NMPs even made the Speaker wince by the number of questions that some of them asked, and some of these questions even the PAP MPs would not feel comfortable to ask. But they did make contributions. They had Private Member's Bills. There was one Bill that I almost threw out, much to the annoyance of the NMP concerned. I hope she would forgive me. But there is one aspect that some Members may not appreciate and this is something that I talked to the NMPs when they were here. I think many of these NMPs have also made some sacrifices.”
“You said it. That is why I am asking. An hon. Member: You should withdraw and apologise!”
“Sir, at no time did he say the word "benefit". We all know what "cost benefit" is. What I want to know is what costs are we prepared to bear in improving ties with Malaysia. Mr Chiam thinks that we should be prepared to face to pay all costs. I do not know what they are.”
“Sir, I do not think it is quite enough. We are talking about a very serious issue here. When he said "at all costs", it means at all costs. "Costs" to us, I would like to know what these costs are?”
“Sir, can Mr Chiam elaborate on exactly what he means by "at all costs"? After that, he changed it to "all efforts".”
“We all lose sometimes. But let us not gripe about it. Maybe the next time, in the year 2002, he can try his hand again, and let us hope that we would not hear this thing again if he gets into Parliament as an NCMP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam just now said that our last general election was a sham and Mr Low Thia Khiang also jumped on the bandwagon. Let me jog Mr Jeyaretnam's memory to 15th May 1977 in the place called Tiong Bahru Secondary School, the counting centre for Radin Mas by-election. He and I were there on opposite sides of the election. I think he got 34% of the votes. He did not complain that there was an unfair election. He even shook my hand before he left. Came 1980, before the Anson By-election, the party was spreading the rumour that voting was not secret. Then they discovered that it was working against them because if the votes were not secret then everybody would vote for PAP. He changed tack. We all know that he won the Anson by-election. Did he protest that the election was a sham? Did he offer to resign from there? He did not. In 1991, there was an opportunity for him to come back in the Marine Parade by-election. He abdicated that offer and decided not to contest. Mr Low Thia Khiang was elected in Hougang. This time he was elected with an increased majority. I think the fear that he has mentioned among our voters would not have been so serious, is it not, if he can get an increased majority. I think it all boils down to Mr Jeyaretnam being a very sore loser. That is what he was. Every time he lost, he said the system was unfair. But when he won, he did not make any noise. Why is that? I think Singaporeans have been through so many elections. They are all well-educated now. They can decide for themselves. The decision at Cheng San was a clear demonstration that the voters preferred the team fielded by the PAP. It is as simple as that. So Mr Jeyaretnam will be well advised to respect the wishes of the voters who have made the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the proposal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the privilege of first meeting you exactly 20 years ago in May 1977 when I first entered the House as a new Member. I have also observed you, first, as a Backbencher from May 1977, Deputy Speaker for the period March 1985 to January 1989, and the Speaker of this House since 1989. Through these years, I have come to hold you in high regard and respect for the clarity and conciseness of your speeches and your absolute fairness to all. Much has been said about the Speaker's eyes which we must catch before we are allowed to speak. They range from selective viewing to myopia and sometimes complete closure. I can assure Members, especially those who are new in this House, that the Speaker's eyes are crystal clear at all times. You have given opportunities to all who wish to address the House, be they Ministers, Frontbenchers, Backbenchers, NCMPs and NMPs. I should, however, add my caution to new Members in this House that the Speaker is deadly serious when he said, "Speeches should be short and sweet." You would not want to test his patience unduly. On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I add my congratulations to your re-election.”
“I am of the opinion that if the Bill only provides for the victim to apply for a court order, and the police could intervene only when the victims are subjected to further abuse, then the victims are not really getting the necessary protection. The Government should legislate to set up a Family Crisis Centre. As soon as the victim lodges a complaint, officials from the Centre should immediately visit the family, understand the situation and provide the necessary counselling service. Furthermore, the official should go one step further to help the victim apply for a protetction order from the court, or to render any other form of assistance, if necessary. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.25 pm”
“I have to say here that at least I agree with the NMP in one score that the present Women's Charter is not quite appropriate for the amendments that we are going to introduce because of the inclusion of other parties such as parents and children in the Amendment Bill. But instead of having an all-encompassing family charter incorporating 10 or 15 legislation, I think it would be simpler just to change the name of Women's Charter to Family Charter and we would then have a legislation that we can change from time to time taking into account circumstances which may change in the future. I support the Bill. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main part of this Amendment Bill is to incorporate into the Women's Charter, clauses dealing with the protection of family members, so that when faced with violence, they can have recourse to the court to apply for a protection order. However, the Bill does not specify which Government department should immediately render assistance to the victims upon being informed of the occurrence of such family violence, for example, helping them to apply to the court for a protection order, and to prevent them from being assaulted again the moment they have returned home after obtaining the court order. When family violence occurs, the victim may not know what to do. She may not know how to apply to the court for a protection order, and what evidence she has to produce to the court. Further, it takes time for such orders to be granted from the time of application. Meanwhile, how does the victim protect herself from further abuse and injuries?”
“As I mentioned earlier, we need to ensure that all possible avenues of reconcilation are explored before calling it a day. It would, therefore, be more appropriate to refer such matters to the Family Court and the terms of reference of this Court should take into account the soft approach required to resolve these disputes. The exception would be when physical violence is committed, then the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on the culprit. This reconcilatory approach would enable the parties to come to some compromise and give them sufficient time to have effect, some give and take, and resolve the issues amicably outside the court, if necessary, so that all avenues are explored before the final decision is made. Section 60B also provides for counselling for offenders. In our previous discussion in this House, many Members have expressed reservations on counselling done by the Police, for example, and other people who are not trained. It is vital that this counselling must be done by trained counsellors. I am not too sure about the body the Minister has in mind of appointing in this section: would it be a Government body or a voluntary organisation staffed by professional people, bearing in mind the increasing number of cases to be resolved? We would need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of counsellors, whether they are made available to the Ministries or private organisations, to make sure that the problems are tackled expeditiously, especially in cases where time is of the essence and immediate counselling is required to prevent further violence being perpetuated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that I did not check my speech with my brother before I speak. I support the general provisions of the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. The amendments address the issue relating to family violence and provide some of the solutions to some rather difficult problems faced by all our families in Singapore. I would just like to reiterate some of the points I made in this House when the Family Violence Bill was debated. Dr Soin accused some of the MPs for not keeping their word. I have to assure her that I did not speak on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. So I am not one of the guilty parties. As I said, first, family problems cover a wide range of causes and different parties. They involve abstract concepts of love and trust between spouses, parents and children. Second, these problems are best resolved by the affected parties rather than having the Government step in to force them to come to terms with one another. Third, measures to reduce family violence, such as inculcating family values and promoting filial piety, should start early in the schools, if possible, instead of waiting for the problems to become too serious to handle. The proposed Amendment Bill covers most of these grounds, in particular, the definition of "family violence" is now much tighter as it spells out clearly what is meant by violence. I would like to make the following suggestions. The new section 60B provides for the making of protection orders in respect of family violence and confers on the court wide powers. The normal courts of law give the impression of austerity, more often implying that the parties have reached the point of no return.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head O of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the recent Asia-Europe Summit is undoubtedly a great success. Leaders of Europe and Asia got together for the first time, and gauging from the press reports, it is evident that the ice has been broken. The expected confrontation over sensitive issues did not materialise. Instead, there was consensus on the major issues that affect both Europe and Asia. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister for his initiative to hold this conference. When PM first raised the possibility of this conference last year, there was considerable scepticism that a meeting of such a large number of countries, each with a different agenda, will amount to much. It goes to prove that with the right initiative and commitment, it can be done. We must also give credit to the Foreign Ministry. Led by the Minister, the Ministry was able to provide the Prime Minister the support needed to achieve the targets set by the leaders of both continents. Following the success of the Summit, it will be appropriate for us to ask what is next. The first meeting in Bangkok was aimed at getting the parties together and work out tentative programmes for the future. In this connection, can the Minister brief the House on the future directions of the Asia-Europe Summit, in particular how do we take into account other regional groupings, such as APEC? There were some reservations expressed at the absence of the United States in the Asia-Europe Meeting. Would we be able to coordinate the Asia-Europe Forum with APEC or run the risk of having two major blocs confronting each other?”
“Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC)( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code KA 1500. Sir, since the 60s, National Service has already been accepted by all the male citizens of Singapore as part of their responsibility to the nation. This is the responsibility that they accept and must fulfil. Every year, thousands of young Singaporeans are enlisted to serve the nation in National Service and after their National Service training, they become more rugged and disciplined. Moreover, they become part of our defence system. Current China-Taiwan tensions demonstrate once again the vital importance of defence capability. With rising education standards, the capacity for learning of young people improved. Technological advances have brought about computer-based training and multi-media training. Over the past 20 years, our Basic Military Training (BMT) has not changed much in form and content. In reviewing the form and content of BMT and other training programmes, eg, physical fitness, what progress has been made by the Ministry? How much time will the review take and when will the changes be announced? Next is on the issue of adjustment to be made to the allowances for NSmen. This issue is of great interest not only to the NSmen but also to their parents.”
“Related to the arms acquisition is the security of the Asia-Pacific Rim. In addition to the North and South Korea stand-off, the problem between Korea and Japan, we now have the worsening situation across the Taiwan Strait. The unstable security conditions in the region affect all countries, not just those directly involved in the disputes. While there is much merit in solving all these problems through diplomatic initiatives, it appears that no country wants to be caught unprepared and countries are building their armed forces to face any eventualities. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments, especially on the fact that these developments have major impact on our defence policies and consequently the defence budget that we are now called upon to consider.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, back in the days of the cold war when the two major superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were squaring off against each other, countries all over the world were involved in maintaining their armed forces at a very high state of readiness, in particular, in the Asia-Pacific region, including China, Taiwan, North and South Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. The urge to build up and maintain their armed forces was justifiable. As a result, almost all countries were engaged in buying arms and weaponry, resulting in a so-called arms race. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, the cold war has thawed. Unfortunately, in its wake came the regional conflicts which may not have resulted in war but nevertheless caused tensions to continue. The arms race, far from being aborted, has shown signs of being revived. In the years since the end of the cold war, countries in the region have been acquiring arms and military equipment for their armies, navies and air forces. One common feature of all these purchases is high sophistication and state-of-the-art technology, which translated into common terms also mean they are very expensive. The Singapore Armed Forces have managed in the past to maintain the weaponry and equipment at a level that we can afford. The shortage of manpower is another reason why we need more efficient equipment. In the light of the substantial arms acquisition programmes by the countries in the region, what is SAF's response? Are we being caught up in the relentless current to buy more and more arms and military hardware? What will be the implications of these purchases on our defence budget?”
“Cases of family disputes which have resulted in actual violence are adequately covered by present legislation which can be further improved to take into account new requirements. I am therefore unable to support this Bill.”
“With due respect, as the Minister for Home Affairs said just now, the Police is not trained nor equipped to deal with such problems. This may be true of TV dramas. In real life, the Police's main duty is to maintain law and order. A more fundamental issue is whether such direct intervention by the courts and Police will, in fact, solve the problems. I would suggest that they will make matters worse. It is human nature to resent interference from authorities. Such resentment is more so in Asian societies, where going to the court is often deemed to be bringing shame to the family. It is often the last resort. By the time the courts are enlisted to help, the point of no return is reached and breakup of the family becomes inevitable. The very act of going to the court will break up the family. If we make it easier for everyone to go to the courts, we can expect families to disintegrate with increasing frequency, not only between spouses, but also amongst parents and children. We should not force families to go to the brink by encouraging them to go to the courts or the Police. Rather, we should get them to try other means of reconciliation that will go to preserve the fabrics of family harmony. In the end, family members must themselves try to resolve the problems without government intervention. The Government can only help in clearly defined cases where complainants themselves ask for help and are prepared to accept the consequences that may follow, including the breaking up of families. To conclude, I believe that this Bill would create more problems than it solves. It introduces an unnecessary third party into disputes which can better be resolved amongst the parties themselves. By intervening at the wrong time and place, it will make matters worse.”
“Can the husband's refusal to talk to the wife be considered as harassment as it causes anguish to the wife? In the same token, does the wife's constant nagging constitute harassment? Clause 3(d) defines wrongful restraining or confining a family member against his will. How will the Court decide a case where a teenager accuses his parents for not letting him out at night for a variety of reasons? It could well be that when my son is stopped from going to see midnight shows by me or by the mother, he can actually sue us under the Family Violence Bill, and why not in the NPP. Finally, how do we treat the case where a family member accuses the other of compelling him/her by force to engage in any sexual act or conduct? Who is going to be the arbiter in such intimate relations between husband and wife? Definitely, not the Government. In all these cases, the introduction of a third party, a stranger to all the family members, is going to make matters worse. It forces everyone to take a defensive stance and abandon the better expedient of give-and-take. It will further reinforce fighting among the families and breakdown in discipline, leading to more family violence. I find it difficult to support these definitions. One purpose of the Bill is to put the onus on the courts to decide on issuing Protection Orders. Further, the courts are asked to decide in cases where there is a "balance of probabilities that family violence has been or is likely to be committed". This is a tall order for the courts, given the myriad of scenarios that lead to family disputes which may or may not end up in violence. The Bill further requires the Police to play a much more direct role in dealing with family disputes, including providing assistance to seek alternative residence or shelter.”
“To the parties in dispute, they are more acceptable as they are not as heavy handed and final as the government. Religious organisations can also be enlisted to help. All religions subscribe to family harmony. While we have to watch out for religious sensitivities, much can be achieved if these organisations can provide conduits for the resolution of such disputes. The fact is that all these programmes are now in place, under various Ministries and organisations. We have to see that they are pursued with earnestness and those doing the jobs are given the resources and training to do so. Having said all these, we have not come to the core of the problem, how to tackle the issue of "love" and the lack of it that would eventually lead to family problems. My parish priest, who is now 82 years old, often said to newly-wed couples in the church that marriage is no joke. Before marriage, he says, pimples become dimples. After marriage, dimples become pimples. How to make dimples stay as dimples is, I submit, not the job of the government, but the participants themselves, whether they are spouses, parents or children. Let me now come to the Family Violence Bill tabled by the Nominated Member of Parliament. Clause 3 of the Bill gives the definition of "hurt" or what constitutes as family violence. I find the definition to be too wide and general. For example, "attempting to place a family in fear or hurt". What constitutes "attempt" and "fear"? The Bill puts the onus on the court to decide. How would the Court decide, without having to spend considerable time to delve into the complicated details? The definition in clause 3(e) on "harassment" is another. What constitutes "harassment" and the "anguish" caused?”
“At what point should the government intervene, if at all, at the dispute stage or when such disputes erupt in physical violence or unbearable mental torture? A key question to address is: if love is the basis of marriage and when such love is lost, can government force the parties together by way of legislation? Again, in the case of disputes between parents and children, without a good understanding of the forces at work, can government resolve the problems to the satisfaction of all and not risk making the problems worse by such intervention? Conventional wisdom suggests that legislation is not the answer and government should stay out of these frays because it is not equipped to solve the problems satisfactorily. In the cases of family disputes, I have come across as an MP, I feel more often than not helpless in finding solutions that would resolve the problems that can satisfy all. The exception is when actual physical violence occurs or about to be inflicted. Existing legislation have adequately covered such cases and, if need be, as the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out just now, these legislation can be tightened to make them more effective. This does not mean, however, that we should not do anything. On the contrary, much can be done by other indirect means. For example, we can start at the schools and work on the young people before they enter marriage. We can promote the concept of filial piety among our children. We can also persuade our elderly that love and respect is a two-way traffic. They must be able to give as well as receive. Another way is to get the voluntary organisations to be more involved, as stated by many Members just now. They are better trained to handle the problems.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me at the outset state that, just like any other Members of this House, we are well aware of the problems facing families. In my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, I have conducted 15,000 meet-the-people cases, like many of you, and I have come across innumerable family disputes, between husbands and wives, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. There were of course the usual problems between in-laws. These disputes came in all shapes and sizes and there cannot be a definition that can encompass all of them. Suffice to say that most of them are extremely complicated and difficult to resolve. Second, as a Roman Catholic, I am a firm believer in upholding family values and the preservation of family harmony. The Catholic faith, as in most other religions, believes that family is the core of society. Without family peace, there can be no peace in the society at large. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all of us to nurture and promote family harmony for the good of society. Unfortunately, however, the problems of family are non-exact. They arise from a wide range of causes and different parties. Complicating these problems is the abstract concept of love and trust between spouses, parents and children. There are also all kinds of pressures from within the families, heightened by pressures from outside. This explains why in centuries past, whether in Asia, Europe or America, family disputes have persisted and no government has yet been able to put this problem to rest. It is quite likely that for centuries to come, we will continue to grapple with these problems. The difficulty lies in how much and how far should government get involved in the resolution of such disputes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the operative word was "family" and the Minister has said that the amendment to the Women's Charter will include situations involving the family. So I would imagine that it is quite fair to include the Family Violence Bill. The Member has said that the Women's Charter is for women. I would agree if, in her Bill, we can also include crimes by women against men.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer the House to the comments made by the Acting Minister for Community Development just now. He has said that we are going to amend the Women's Charter and among one of the major provisions would be family violence. Is this House going to be asked to debate on two pieces of legislation which sound the same? Would it not be a waste of resources?”
“Mr Ling just said that he knows the report is bizarre, far-fetched, and he said, "How can I tell all these to President Ramos in my letter?" He knows what are the facts. He chose not to put them in. Now could he tell me what is wrong with getting the bizarre and strange facts to President Ramos if he believes in it? The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Sir, may I ask Mr Ling one question? He said that he did not put all these adjectives in the letter because it was at the height of the Philippine elections and so on. Now that the situation is cooling down and we are getting things back on an even keel, will he now write another letter to President Ramos stating SDP's true stand on the Gancayco Commission report?”