Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 85.
“Sir, every child in our schools is born differently. Each has his or her own level of intelligence, but our school system assumes that every child has an IQ of 120. This is the level of IQ which every university graduate is supposed to possess, and it imposes a heavy load of school work on them from primary school onwards and, at the same time, stream them at Primary 4, and again at Primary 6. Primary 6 is the level when they sit for their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Not long ago, I read in the papers that parents complained of the difficulty of the Mathematics and English papers. They said that even adults did not know how to do those papers, how then could the children pass their examinations based on those papers? Not only parents have complained. The Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, himself commented that he was shocked to see from Primary 1, the children are learning words which he would not have known until Primary 4 or 5. It was reported in the Straits Times of 22nd January. The Prime Minister asked the Education Minister, "Is the school system too stressful?" My view is that, for children who do not have particularly high IQ, and for children who are late-developers, the answer, of course, is yes. Our school system, with a heavy curriculum, is too stressful, because there are reports in our local press that our primary school kids are being sent by their parents to psychiatrists for treatment. Parents are worried for their children, because they know that if their children are unable to pass the PSLE, they shall be branded as rejects or failures and streamed to the slow-learner Normal stream.”
“Can we then wonder why the standard of sports in Singapore is so low? I hope the Minister can look into this problem of the two brothers. They have brought honour to Singapore, yet ignored by the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association. I hope the Minister can investigate and get to the bottom of the matter.”
“Sir, if Singapore wants to promote sports, then I think the Government and the people in general must show respect for our sportsmen and sportswomen who have brought honour to Singapore by winning in international competitions. I want to highlight the case of two brothers who represented Singapore in water polo. The two brothers altogether won 11 medals for Singapore, comprising seven golds, three silvers and one bronze at the Asian and SEA Games. They are both Singaporeans. They are born in Singapore and are blue-blooded Singaporeans and not imported ones. They are Mr Gan Eng Guan and his brother. Although they have contributed so much to Singapore, they are shunned and ignored by our sports officials. In 1998, there was a much publicised social function called "Reunion (Water Polo) 1998", organised by the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association, where other prominent past and present water polo players were invited, including some from overseas. But the two prominent brothers who are genuine Singapore products were not invited. They were really outstanding water polo players in the 50s and 60s, and there was no excuse for the officials of the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association not to know them in 1998. Yet, they were not the ones invited as guests. If that is the attitude of our sports officials towards our better known sportsmen, we can then understand why the sports scene in Singapore is in such a sorry state. I can also understand why a female official in the Netball Association said that 95% of the Singapore sports officials should be sacked. Our sportsmen spend many long hours to achieve international standards and bring honour to Singapore. Yet, when they retired, they were thrown into the dust heap and forgotten.”
“Sir, the fish farms that I would like to speak on are ornamental fish farms and not fish farms that rear fish for the table. Singaporeans have a talent for breeding ornamental fish. The rearing of ornamental fish for export has become a big home-grown industry. Singapore has made a name for itself as the ornamental fish capital of the world with a 30% share of the international market. Singapore is the largest exporter of ornamental fish. The total export value of such fish is about $76 million. Sir, therefore, I was a bit surprised that in the Straits Times, there was a report of the Government clearing up many of these fish farms which are in the outlying areas. The report concerns 36 fish farms in Fish Farm Road 1, 2 and 3 of Old Tampines Road. My fear is that with resettlement, these ornamental fish farms may be bogged down by heavy costs when they are resettled in agrotechnology parks and they may not be able to survive. My concern is whether or not the Government should slow down on this resettlement and give them a chance to survive.”
“Not only had such complaints of water seepage and peeling walls been satisfactorily done up by my town council, but other complaints of spalling concrete, choked sewage drains, uneven drains, sunken aprons and water seepage at the ceiling had all been repaired by my town council at great cost. I bring these matters up to highlight the poor workmanship of the HDB and ask the Minister whether the HDB is willing to accept responsibility for the poor workmanship in those flats and whether it is willing to absorb the cost of repairs. After all, HDB is the landlord and it has been 17 years since these flats were built. It is time that HDB spent some money to make good the faults due to poor workmanship. We, at Potong Pasir, do not receive CIPC funds and the HDB should take this into consideration and be more generous on us. Those repairs are necessary. They are not to beautify the flats, but are required to make them livable or tenanted condition.”
“Sir, many of the flats in Potong Pasir estate, which were completed in a hurry in 1984 to be in time for the election that year, were poorly built. The workmanship was sloppy and the materials used were of poor quality. The gable end of the building has two walls. The outside wall comprises fence-faced red bricks and the inner wall is made of cement blocks. What has happened is that over the last ten years or so, rainwater has seeped into the gable end walls and the water gets collected in the space between the two walls. Due to bad workmanship, the water trapped in the space between the two walls is unable to escape. The holes in the lower end of the outside wall are blocked by fallen cement during construction. As a result of poor workmanship, the water in the space between the two walls is unable to escape and got trapped in the space. The water can rise to about five or six feet. The trapped water seeps into the wall in the inside of the rooms and causes them to be very damp. The paint in the wall would peel off, no matter how many times the residents repainted the walls over with a new coat of paint. For this kind of a problem, my town council at Potong Pasir has to break the inner wall, draw the water out, get rid of the fallen cement debris at the bottom of that space. After that, we build the wall and give that wall a fresh coat of paint. We have done this operation for many flats. The operations have taken up a lot of effort and finances on the part of my town council. These repair works need not be necessary if the HDB had, in the first place, done its work properly.”
“Sir, as an Opposition Member, I felt ---”
“Can I make a further clarification, Sir?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister what he means by giving priority to those who actively support the Government?”
“If too many meets are not practical, I would certainly suggest that the meeting of Members of Parliament between the two countries be revived. Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, the subject of our relations with Malaysia is often discussed and debated in this Parliament. In the short time as a Member of this House, I have witnessed the many high points and low points in our relations with Malaysia. Whatever it is, I recognise that the destinies of the two countries are intertwined. We have close physical proximity with each other and we have a common cultural heritage. The reality is that we cannot choose to walk away but to learn to live with one another. I notice that our relationship with Malaysia in recent months has once again been on the upswing. This is evidenced by the exchanges of visits by Ministers on both sides of the Causeway. Like my colleagues before me, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us an update on the relationship with Malaysia, and if we are in any way closer to resolving the outstanding bilateral issues between us.”
“The relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has its ups and downs. With the recent visit of the Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, to Singapore, the relationship between the two countries has taken a notch up. I am certain that with more visits of officials of one country to the other, the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia can be better improved. So far, we can see that the visits are only made by the very top officials of one country to the other. The Senior Minister visited Malaysia last year and this year, the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister reciprocated the visit to Singapore. Sir, there are seven MPs who are speaking on this amendment on Singapore and Malaysia relations and I am certain that all the points that I shall be speaking on this amendment shall be covered by the other speakers. So I shall only use this opportunity to make one proposal to advance the cause of Singapore-Malaysia relations. I would like to propose that our Government approach the Malaysian counterparts to arrange on a regular basis, say, annually, friendly visits and friendly games between the officials of the Government institutions, departments and statutory boards and Members of Parliament of the two countries. This proposal is nothing new. Amongst the lawyers, lawyers and judges of our two countries have already had regular annual friendly games for many years. Our Members of Parliament had, in fact, several years ago, as I remember, friendly games meet with Members of the Malaysian Parliament. I do not know why that friendly games meet was not continued. I hope that it shall be revived. Sir, I also heard just now that the ASEAN Ministers often hold retreats. I think the more meetings would only augur for the better.”
“Sir, before I begin, can I ask a clarification from the Minister? He says that there are 500,000 foreign workers. Does that number include the 140,000 domestic maids?”
“Sir, last November, the Minister said that he shall review the foreign workers and foreign domestic maids levies, depending on the economic climate this year. By the generous give-away and the cut on tax rate, the Government, has, in fact, signalled that there may be an economic downturn this year. So, it is also not wrong for the Minister to think likewise and cut the levy rates. The current levy rates for workers range from $30-$470 per month. The levy for maids stands at $345 per month. These rates are a burden on the SMEs and on the housewives. There has been much talk of our SMEs finding it tough to do business, partly due to the high fees and levies imposed by the Government. The Minister should review the workers levy and see whether he can reduce them to help our SMEs tide over this lull period. As for the working mothers, the Minister without Portfolio said that they enjoy double tax reliefs, which can be offset by domestic maid levy. But, unfortunately, this relief is not enjoyed by single fathers, and I believe, also single mothers. Sir, there shall be a surplus and I do not see why the Government is not in a position to reduce these levies. Sir, in particular, the maid levy is a hardship for working mothers. Many working mothers go out to work, not out of choice, but are forced to do so because of the high cost of living. They have to work to supplement the household income, otherwise, they cannot make ends meet. Sir, I would also ask the Minister to review whether tax relief on maid levy can be given to single working mothers.”
“I think announcing the election date is nothing new. This has been announced in almost all other countries, and I think the Americans have fixed the date of 4th November as the election date. On the deposit, I think it should be reduced by one-half. I believe at the moment, it is $8,000. It should be reduced to $4,000. There is no reason to fix or peg the election deposit so high as to keep a lot of people away from taking part in a democratic process. Lastly, Sir, I think this GRC is definitely incongruous as far as elections are concerned. You are having four, five or six candidates all at one go, and a voter will have to vote six candidates. He might like only two of them and he is forced to cast his vote for the other four. This is very undemocratic, because he does not want the other four to represent him and yet he is forced to vote them in. Also, GRCs are very communal in nature. I think it should not be continued. At every election, the ethnic candidate will have to go and declare himself before an Election Committee whether he is an Indian or a Malay. This is very demeaning to our Singaporeans. If he is a Singaporean, why should he declare himself a Malay or an Indian before he can take part in an election? He should just simply say, "I am a Singaporean. I have a right to take part." But he has got no such rights in a GRC. Sir, the element of surprise on the Opposition should be removed. If the Government has done its work properly, as it claims it has, then it should be confident of itself and there is no need to spring surprises on the Opposition. I assume at this election, there should be no surprises sprang on the Opposition.”
“Sir, there was a call for more women MPs in Parliament, but I hope that there should be an equally strong call for more Opposition MPs in Parliament. Sir, there are no Queensberry rules in our elections, neither is there a level playing field. The Opposition's greatest fear is the practice of gerrymandering. The Opposition may work hard between the elections. All their efforts come to nought if at the last minute, the constituency they have been concentrating all their effort on is suddenly taken away. An example in point is the single-seat constituency of Braddell Heights. In the general elections of 1991, the Opposition obtained about 48% of the valid votes cast in that constituency. Suddenly, in the 1997 general elections, Braddell Heights' boundary was redrawn to make it part of Marine Parade GRC, which has no common boundary with Braddell Heights. So that is how gerrymandering works. Sir, if we want to have a fair and democratic election, the present rules should be either altered or changed. I want to suggest that should the Government intend to change the boundary lines of any constituency, they should give at least one year's notice, so as to give time for the Opposition to organise themselves. Sir, broadcasting time should also be given to every political party that takes part in an election, rather than by number. I believe currently it is half-a-minute for every eight candidates. But many of the Opposition parties do not even have that number and are deprived of broadcast time. So I think every party that takes part in an election should be given maybe half a minute of broadcast time. Sir, the election date also should be announced at least two months before the elections, rather than to keep everybody guessing.”
“I think this must be the experiences of many other Singaporeans. So, emotionally, if this is not the picture that I had in my mind as a child, it is certainly hard to relate to that place. It is just like any other place in the world. If Singapore is to have democracy, I think more people should be allowed to take part in politics. I say this because of the youngsters interviewed, one said that he could not relate to the beautiful airport that was built at Changi, because he said that he did not have a say in the building of that airport or had nothing to do with the building of the airport. My point is that Singaporeans should be given a chance to take part in politics. As it is, even if they want to take part in politics, it is becoming more and more difficult. We have very high deposits and we also have the GRCs which make it almost impossible for Singaporeans to take part in politics and have a say in what is going on in the country. As for the landscape, Singapore is developing so rapidly that now we cannot use the landscape to create emotional ties with the country. The old buildings that we know so well have all been torn down and made way for so-called progress.”
“Singapore is basically a good place for business. The Government has put in place all the necessary infrastructure - the hardware, so to say. We have buildings for offices, buildings for factories, buildings for schools and hospitals, and a good network of road system and other facilities. All these things are necessary to foreigners to come to invest their money here and to do business and give Singapore economic growth every year. All the things are of course necessary in nation building. Without food, clothing, housing, hospitals, schools, there is nothing to talk about nation building. Singapore has achieved much in terms of physical infrastructure, in nation building, but rather lacking in the software part - the emotions that Singaporeans can identify with Singapore. Many of the young people recently interviewed find it hard to say that they can be proud to be a Singaporean. They appear to have no emotional attachments to Singapore. Emotionally, they cannot relate to Singapore. Sir, from my own experience, when I came back from overseas, I felt a strong emotion for Singapore, and of course also to see my parents, and I longed to see the places which were very familiar to me during my childhood days. I was saddened to see that my old house, which I had lived for many years as a child, had been sold and pulled down by the developers, and it was no longer there. I had lived in the Orchard Road area as a boy. The old wet market there which was so familiar had been torn down. As a boy I also cycled with other friends to eat ice kachang at the shop behind the wet market. That shop and all the rows of shophouses along Orchard Road had been demolished to give way to high-rise shopping centres. The picture of Singapore I knew as a boy had all disappeared.”
“If this is true, I would like to know why. I would think that members of the Malay community should be allowed to do their NS in the Singapore Air Force as well as the other branches of the armed services. The existence of Special Assistance Plan Schools is something which also causes discomfort to the Malays in Singapore. I think that the Government should take note of that and have another look at the SAP schools. When our Malay brethrens say that they want to be integrated into the other communities, I believe that they do not want to be branded as an ethnic group or a minority group. While it is true that they comprise only 15% to 18% of our population, I believe they do not want to be treated as a separate and distinct ethnic group. Each Malay wants to be treated as just another Singaporean. Each Malay today wants only to be known as a Singaporean and not as a Malay Singaporean. I think that the Government should take note of what they want. If Singapore is to become a truly multi-racial country, then we should at least listen to our Malay brothers in respect of their problems concerning their integration into the other communities and their other problems, and their plea for acceptance in the Singapore Air Force. I should also add that the formation of the GRC is an identity problem to both the Malays and the Indians where they are forever branded as ethnic races. The Malays have come a long way since Singapore's independence in 1965 and I believe they want to move along together with the mainstream Singaporeans as Singaporeans. Sir, may I take my next cut?”
“Sir, the Prime Minister on 21st January this year made a speech in which he cited vast amounts of statistics to show that the Singapore Malays have made marked progress in education, occupation, income, and the quality of life. The statistics cited by the Prime Minister showed that Malay children not only make improvements in both the Primary School Leaving Examinations but also the secondary school examinations, and also more Malays are getting admitted to both secondary schools, institutions and the universities. As for occupations, the Malays are also getting more managerial and professional jobs. The percentage increase in those jobs is from 12% to 23% over the period of 1990 to 2000. Incomes of the Malays have also shown an equal increase. For the median resident Malay household incomes, the increase from 1990 to 2000 was $1,800 to about $2,700. After PM Goh's speech, the Malay MPs in Parliament were quick to point out that the Malays in Singapore are not marginalised and the meritocracy system does not work against the Malay community. I agree with the Malay Members of Parliament. While we laud the progress made by the Malays in Singapore in the areas mentioned above, there are other areas in which the Malays are not particularly happy and they want them changed. The Malays in Singapore want to be integrated with the other communities. They do not want to be isolated, like in the self-help groups. Also, they want to be treated like other Singaporeans. They say that they are loyal Singaporeans and want to be accepted in the Singapore Air Force. Malay youths today have to do national service, just like any other Singaporean youths. But they can only do national service in the Army, Navy and Police Force, but not in the Singapore Air Force.”
“Sir, I have a cut which I have just missed. Can I go ahead with my first cut on the progress of the Malays? The Chairman: You have missed your turn. But, all right, make your points very quickly.”
“In the light of what is happening so far, including the threatening remarks made by Abdurrahman Wahid, the Indonesian President, after his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur, the Government has announced that the long-term solution to Singapore's water problem is to make use of recycled water, which also includes recycled sewage water. I would like to ask whether such recycled water is only for industrial use, and that only water obtained from the desalination plant is for human consumption. Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, I made the cut on the same point as Mr Chiam's, to try to reduce our dependency on Malaysia for water. My tack, however, is quite different. I believe it should not be a trump card for Malaysia or any other country to hold over our heads. Moreover, in the future, studies suggest that Malaysia and indeed the whole region will be facing shortages of water of sufficient quantity and quality. As such, I would urge the Ministry to look more closely at desalination, recycling and efficiency. These should be our watchwords and should be on stream earlier. Possible measures should include water use audits, incentives for households and the design of facilities. Tapping rainwater should also be improved in Singapore. With these improvements, we should develop more security in meeting our water needs. Consequently, I would urge the Ministry that we can and should be more realistic in our negotiations with Malaysia on this issue. The agreements last until 2062. We need not and cannot expect guarantees of water that extend well beyond the lifetimes of most Singaporeans. It may not be possible and may not be realistic, given the future contingencies for Malaysia's own needs.”
“Sir, my cut is on water. Without adequate water supplies, Singapore cannot survive. Water is the key to Singapore's survival. Therefore, the importance of sufficient water supply cannot be over emphasised. The bulk of our water supply is from another jurisdiction - Johor. Singapore has invested large sums of money to build the Linggui catchment area in Johor, which has sufficient water and a water processing plant, to give a constant supply of processed water to Singapore. From time to time, we hear of disturbing news from across the Causeway. Threats are made by political groups over there calling on their government to cut off water supply to Singapore. Last year, the Johor government announced that they shall be requiring much of the water supplied to Singapore for their own use, and that they shall be building water processing plants themselves. All those news make Singaporeans very uneasy. The older generation Singaporeans can still remember that when the Japanese Imperial Army early in 1942 reached Johor Bahru, they cut off the water supply to Singapore, and quickened the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese Imperial Army on 15th February 1942. There are two water treaties with Johor. One expires in about 2011 and the other sometime in 2062. Singaporeans know very little of the contents of these two agreements. Can the Minister give the salient points in respect of these two water agreements? Is it possible for the Malaysian Government, under these two agreements, to restrict or even stop the supply of water to Singapore? There seems to be a lot of uncertainties regarding the supply of water to Singapore from Malaysia.”
“That is the problem of a large number of our workforce today. They lack a working knowledge of English and, for that reason, the great efforts put in by the Government and the NTUC seem to be getting very little results. If we want Singapore to go into the ranks of the developed countries, both in terms of per capita income and in social ranking, we must make sure that every one of our workers is properly educated. I say that it is worthwhile for us to use our accumulated surpluses for that purpose.”
“8 billion handout, it is hoped that much of it shall be spent in the local HDB shops, to give those shops some business to keep them alive and the ability to pay their HDB shop rentals. Those rentals shall largely be returning to the Government kitty in any event. The recession came in 1997. The following year, the Government put in place cost-cutting measures. The cost-cutting measures comprise mainly cutting the workers' salary in the form of CPF and the flexi component part of the workers' pay. The reduction in wage was mainly responsible for keeping the economy afloat. Singapore's economy pulled through the recession and recovered. Last year, it had a surplus of about $4.36 billion, after the deduction of $1.85 billion for the special transfers. Almost every year, Singapore has a surplus in its Budget. All surpluses are transferred to the reserves and invested. Those reserves are not used up for the benefit of the people. Dr Kanwaljit Soin, the NMP, in 1996, during the Budget debate, suggested that the budget surpluses be used in accordance with a framework she proposed. The Minister, of course, refused and said that the proposal of using the budget according to a framework was too rigid. I would suggest that more money be released from the surpluses, say, about $2 billion for a start, to make our education system the best in the world. In the initial year, more money is needed to build more schools to keep the class size small. My hope is that every Singaporean, by the time he leaves school, shall be equipped with the English Language. He must be able to understand, to read and to write properly that language. Without a working knowledge of English, our workers shall not be able to be trained to keep up with the knowledge-based economy.”
“Sir, in 1996, we had an election budget. That year was an election year. This time round, again, we have essentially an election budget. It is quite foreseeable that the general election shall be held either this year or early next year, before the next Budget Day. The Minister this year has been much more generous than in 1996. With the election year in mind, the benefits have been mainly aimed at the individual, such as the tax reduction, rebates in service and conservancy charges, rentals and utilities. Although the tax breaks may not be really beneficial as about 71% of the workers are not paying income tax at all, there are good reasons for the Minister to be generous. The workers have given their full cooperation in the 1998 cost-cutting measures to revive the economy, after it was hit by the Asian crisis. Singapore suffered two years of recession, beginning about July 1997. In respect of the cost-cutting measures, the workers were at the forefront in those steps taken to cut costs. They sacrificed a 10-percentage point cut in their CPF. Even up till today, full restoration of their CPF has not come about yet. Despite the generosity of the Minister, workers have given up more of their pay in terms of their CPF cut than what they shall be receiving in the Budget handouts. The workers therefore deserve this generous budget. Up till now, each of the workers has put in his national sacrifice and he suffers in silence. There are forecasts that, this year, the Singapore economy shall be slowing down. It is therefore good to put more money in the hands of the HDB flat dwellers. I am thinking of the poor state of the retail business in the HDB heartland, as mentioned recently by Dr Lily Neo, the hon. Member for Kreta Ayer-Tanglin GRC. With the $1.”
“The people there realise the seriousness of this problem and have taken steps to stop smoking and cut down on their meat diet and replace it with more vegetables. Many have even gone on to be vegetarians. In Singapore, the main killer is cancer. Cancer is a diet-related disease. I should like to see the Government allocate more funds to the Health Promotion Board to investigate and do research on our local food to see if there is something in our food we eat which causes cancer in our population, for example, like monosodium glutamate (MSG) which is widely used as a cheap addictive by our restaurants and hawkers to enhance the taste of their food. The other thing I would like to see the Board do is to give more dental aid not only to school children but also to adult Singaporeans. I see that there are many polyclinics where adult Singaporeans can see a doctor at a subsidised rate. The Government should do the same for dental treatment. At the moment, there appears to be not enough Government dental clinics. The waiting time for a dental appointment at a Government dental clinic is about three months. I think this is too long. A worker cannot be expected to visit a private dentist because the charges are beyond him. As a result, I see too many Singaporeans with bad teeth. Without a reasonable availability of subsidised dental treatments, we shall see more and more of our Singaporeans with bad teeth. I hope that the Government can provide affordable dental treatments widely to our workers.”
“Sir, I support the Bill in principle. I hope that this new Board can do a better job than its five other predecessors, namely, the National Health Education Department, Department of Nutrition, School Health Service, School Dental Service and Health Promotion Division (Administration). The functions of the five mentioned departments, I suppose, are basically also to promote good health and healthy lifestyles among the people of Singapore. But they do not appear to have done a particularly good job. Take, for example, the campaign against smoking. Smoking is something bad. It causes lung cancer and increases the chances of smokers having heart problems. Many public policies have been implemented to reduce or eliminate smoking among Singaporeans. Yet, we read in the press that smoking is on the rise among our young Singaporeans, especially young female Singaporeans. I hope that this newly-formed Health Promotion Board can do a better job than its predecessors and reduce the number of smokers in Singapore. The Government has been promoting good health and healthy lifestyles among Singaporeans for many years but somehow major diseases like cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, have been on the rise. Cancer has now become the number one killer in Singapore. It has edged out coronary heart disease to take the number one spot among the major killer diseases. Diabetes, although it is the sixth leading cause of death in Singapore in 1999, can be very debilitating for those who suffer from it. I hope the Health Promotion Board can promote better healthy lifestyles to reduce the incidence of this dreadful disease among Singaporeans. In America, one of the main killers is coronary disease.”
“You do that just because you are speculative of what will happen. But the point is that the number will be specifically confined to 20 or 30. As long as that number is limited there, I do not think there will be any problems with the permit. But as soon as it exceeds that number, the Police can immediately disperse the crowd and say, "Look here. That is the end of your demonstration. That is the end of your event.", because you break the conditions of the permit. And if they do not break up, you can start the arrest. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the law says that if five or more people gather, you will need a permit under the law. But 30 is neither here nor there because six, seven or eight people can also cause problems. So it is not so much the numbers per se. Police looks at it professionally, looks at the nature of the event and assesses whether or not there would be potential law and order problem, and then it decides accordingly.”
“Sir, Singapore has started a Free Trade Agreement with countries far away from Singapore, notwithstanding AFTA. Why has Singapore not opened up Free Trade Agreement negotiations with Malaysia who is our immediate neighbour and what are the problems, if any, notwithstanding AFTA? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Notwithstanding AFTA? Mr Speaker, Sir, AFTA means that we do have a Free Trade Agreement with Malaysia and with all the other countries of ASEAN. There is a schedule. Apart from automobiles for which the Malaysians had sought a delay in the schedule of inclusion, with the permission of the Thais, virtually all goods are now in and by the end of next year, I believe the tariff lines for all goods will be down to between 0% and 5%. In effect, we do have an FTA with Malaysia and last year Malaysia became our number one trading partner again, overtaking the US.”
“Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“So the choice of the word by the legal draftsman is quite appropriate. I have already explained the advisory council. We intend to bring in people from the different sectors, so that we get a very good and comprehensive feedback, and also objective evaluation. The funds are mostly going to be disbursed by way of support for specific programmes. Let me assure all Members that good ideas will not be overlooked. If Members have any specific ideas about how they and their community organisations can play a part in promoting lifelong learning and provide their constituents with more skill upgrading opportunities, please put your ideas to us and we will have them examined by the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund advisory council. And if the idea is sound, we will definitely help you to put these ideas to work. Sir, I think Mr Chiam missed my Second Reading speech, because he asked about the amount of the capital money. The Bill does not say anything about the actual sum, but the Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech last year, said that the Fund will be started with an initial contribution of $500 million from the Government, and the objective is to build it up over the years - of course, the good years when we have budget surpluses - to a target amount of $5 billion. The expected revenue from $5 billion Endowment Fund should be about $200 million. And I think with $200 million, we can do quite a lot in terms of promoting and supporting lifelong learning. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered the questions that have been raised. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].”
“So I do not see why he should object to it. This is actually Government's budget surplus. So the Government has to be responsible for it, as a trustee for the members of the public, the people of Singapore. He wants an independent body to administer and disburse the Fund. Why is that necessary? The Fund, of course, will be audited and proper accounts will be provided. The Ministry of Finance will be the first to want to know if, in fact, the Fund has not been properly administered, and somebody will be held responsible. In this case, if that happens, the Minister for Manpower will be held responsible. He expressed his concern that the Fund should only support activities on merit, because he talked about the Fund disbursing payments to individuals or persons. He even objected to the word "person". A person can be a worker. What do you call somebody who is unemployed? Is he a worker? How about a housewife who wants to go back into the workforce? Do you call her a worker too? Sir, I think he is becoming too narrow if he says that we should only use the word "worker" and not "person". The word "person" is a wider term. From my perspective, it appropriately covers everybody who needs training in order to help him to enhance his employability. I am looking at housewives, for instance, who have left the job market for 10 years and now want to return to work, but they need some training and new skills which they did not have. So should we include or exclude them? By his definition, if we were to say that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund has got to be focused on workers, then this group will not be eligible. Is that good? I do not think so. I think we should extend support to women who want to re-enter the workforce.”
“We will have industry groups represented there and, of course, also Government agencies that are participating in skills upgrading and also steering the economy. So, the advisory council will represent a very wide cross-section of interests and concerns in the labour market and the type of skills that are required by the labour market. In this way, we can have good feedback, good effective evaluation of the programmes that should be supported under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I just want to add another point at this juncture. We also welcome proposals and initiatives from community organisations that want to come forward to join us in this effort to reach out to Singaporeans in helping them to upgrade themselves. I think that leaves only Mr Chiam who queried why is it that only the Minister is responsible for the administration of the Fund and not some independent organisation. This is an Endowment Fund set up by the Government specifically to provide resources for training and skills upgrading for Singaporeans. The Ministry of Manpower is responsible for manpower development. That is why the responsibility is placed with the Ministry of Manpower and the Minister is made responsible for the administration of the Fund. It does not mean that the Minister himself is going to individually sign every cheque or approve every single payment. The Minister will have, of course, under the normal operation, to delegate the duties that will set up the administration framework to monitor the returns and disbursements of all the money under the Fund. I think this is no different from the other endowment funds, whether it is Edusave or MediFund, or as Mr Lim Hng Kiang mentioned earlier, the Eldercare Endowment Fund. This is a fairly standard provision.”
“The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund's focus must be on employability. We must focus on skills and knowledge that are relevant to the needs of the labour market. As the economy transits into a knowledge-based economy, we must increasingly focus on the skills and knowledge that can help a worker hold and do a productive job in such an economy. And I think that should remain our focus. Mr Seng Han Thong also asked how the Fund would cooperate with grassroots organisations such as the CCs, RCs and community clubs which want to set up training facilities. This is an area which we should leave it to the advisory council to consider when they deliberate on the programme that should be supported. There will certainly be some support, because we understand that if you, for instance, want to introduce training under the national IT literacy programme, you, in fact, have to invest in computers and softwares. You have to set up some small computer training facilities. You may need two or three dozen computers. And who is going to finance this? We will look into how, under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, we can jointly support such projects. We could work with the community organisations to establish such training centres. But, of course, somebody else mentioned that we should avoid duplication. We should make sure that resources are not just wastefully duplicated. Here, I just want to add one point, as I forgot to respond to Mr Hawazi about the advisory council. Our intention is to make the advisory council an all-embracing council in terms of composition. We will bring in the trade union representatives. We will have employers represented there. We will also have community organisations represented there.”
“And in the course of trying to learn something new, from time to time, we are bound to make some mistakes. My response would be that employers must understand this human nature, and in the way that they manage their older workers and in the way they motivate and encourage their older workers to go for training, they must always be patient; they must always be sympathetic and understanding, especially when an older worker, in the course of training, were to make mistakes. In fact, he learns through making mistakes. Because he has made the mistake, he learns not to do it again, and he will learn how to improve his performance at work. So employers should be more sympathetic and understand that older workers have this special need to upgrade. And in the training course, they may occasionally make some mistakes. Mr Seng Han Thong asked whether the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund would also support knowledge acquisition. I made it quite clear in my Second Reading speech that what we are looking for is both knowledge and skills. The word may not have appeared in the text, but I have made it quite clear that the spirit is to help Singaporeans to embark on this lifelong journey to acquire higher knowledge and better skills, so that we can be more competitive and more proficient in the new economy. With regard to social and personal needs, I think this is a separate area, whether young Singaporeans grow up into balanced, mature adults and know all their responsibilities and obligations as an adult. This is a separate area of education. This is something that they would have received good preparation during their schooling years. And, in some cases, through some other kind of social interaction, they should acquire such skills.”
“With that training allowance, we could help to defray some of the expenditure that the unemployed worker would need to incur. We cannot provide huge allowances which would make it so attractive just to become a trainee, but we can help workers who are out of job with some out-of-pocket expenses, so that during that period they would not be in too great a financial distress. But it still depends on the worker making the effort to come forward, sign up for the programme and to diligently attend the training course to qualify for his higher skill qualification. Mr Matthias Yao also talked about the special needs for the training of adults. This is, in fact, one of the areas that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will be looking at. We understand that training adults is quite different from training the school-going cohort. When we started the Bukit Merah Skill Development Centre, we were quite conscious of this. And one of the things was that if you look at the training manuals used by the Bukit Merah Skill Development Centre, all the prints are extra large, much bigger than you would find in any textbook. The reason is simple, because older workers have difficulty reading fine print. So we had to have special instruction manuals printed with huge print to make it easier for older workers to read. We are, in fact, quite conscious of this. With the establishment of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, we now have resources to even better study the training methods that will be most suitable for older workers. His third point is that many workers, especially the older workers, fear making mistakes during the training courses. I think it is human nature to fear mistakes. But if we do not make the effort to learn, then we will never make any progress.”
“Mr Matthias Yao has given us a graphic account of how workers see lifelong learning and the kind of problems that they face. He mentioned three points, the first point is that there is an obstacle confronting workers who want to go for skills upgrading. There is this concern about loss of income. Many of our skills upgrading programmes are developed with this concern in mind. If you take the SRP, for instance, we provide up to 85% absentee payroll subsidy and up to 100% course fee subsidy, depending on the age of the workers. For older workers, we contribute more. This is to help employers to put their workers up for this kind of programmes and not having to bear all the costs. I understand that if a worker is unemployed, then of course it is even more difficult for him to go for such skills upgrading because he had already lost his job and he has no income. It is precisely because of this concern that we have set up programmes with self-help groups like SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC to identify these self-help groups as surrogate employers. We have also identified other organisations or associations as SRP facilitators. These are people who can help the unemployed by sponsoring them for training under the SRP and we will then provide them with both the course fee subsidy and the training allowances. For instance, up to now, about 7,000 low-income workers who have lost their jobs, particularly during the downturn of 1998, had managed to acquire better skills, qualifications, and also had their skills upgraded under the SRP through the surrogate employers scheme. Under that scheme, we actually provide them with training, subsidise their course fee and also a training allowance up to a maximum of about $500.”
“Once you have a diminution in the capital sum and you do not make up for it, the question is: should the current group of workers suffer or future workers suffer? Our view is that we should try as fast as possible to make up for the losses in capital and then we resume funding programmes so that future workers do not have to suffer the losses. I think this is a wiser and more prudent approach over the long-term because the intention of setting up an Endowment Fund is to make sure that there is a continuing stream of income, which hopefully, over the years, will grow and we can continue to support lifelong learning activities. If you allow the funds to run down by not making up for any capital losses, you are diminishing this return and, in the long run, that would not be good for the workers. He also mentioned about a skills-save account and whether we could consider this under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. Let me point out that, as I have indicated in my Second Reading speech, the estimated income from the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund in the initial years may only be $20 million to start with, and even if we reach a target of $5 billion, we only have $200 million. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund is perhaps not the best means to go about setting up the individual learning accounts for the workers because if we were to distribute this amount of money to all the workers, we will probably end up with each one getting less than $200 a year which will not make an impact. And by distributing this resource, we may not be able to focus on much needed programmes to upgrade the skills of workers who are most vulnerable to retrenchment. So we should actually harness this resource to selectively help workers who are in greater risks.”
“In the future, when the budget allocations for the Skills Redevelopment Programme and the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme run down, we can then use the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund's stream of income to continue to sustain this programme so that lifelong efforts will continue unabated. Mr Thomas also raised a specific point concerning clause 4(5) where it states that if there is a reduction in the capital sum in the Fund, then before we spend any of the future income, we should make good this loss. He also said that if we do so, we should not do it at the expense of the workers, because of two possible scenarios - a loss in capital sum can happen in case of a bad investment decision or in a general economic downturn. I agree with him that yes, this is a possibility. We cannot dismiss it. At some point in the future, from time to time, the Endowment Fund might actually suffer a capital loss. Should we make good the capital loss before we start to spend the future revenues that come later on? I think the spirit of this clause is that we should make this effort before we start to spend future revenues. Let me explain why. If we do not make up for the losses in the capital sum, over several cycles of losses over a period of time, we could seriously diminish the amount of capital sum available and future incomes would also diminish. Although we understand why in a downturn workers need more training and therefore we should actually spend more money and not spend less, if we were to do it, we will, in effect, be depriving future workers of opportunities for training. In any event, the workers are going to suffer.”
“Member himself stated, the priority should be with the lower educated and the less skilled workers because they are the most vulnerable group now. Mr Thomas Thomas has expressed concern whether, with the establishment of a Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, it would shift the responsibility of skills upgrading and training to the workers and relieve the employers of their traditional responsibility of training their workers. Let me assure him that this should not be the case. I agree that employer-based training is, in fact, the most important and effective form of skills upgrading because training provided by the employers will definitely be relevant to their jobs and the skills much needed in the marketplace. We will continue to emphasise the importance of employer-based training in the programmes which we will develop and evolve for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I would like to assure the hon. Member that it is not our intention to undermine this nexus between employers and employees in terms of training and skills upgrading, but our intention is to supplement and strengthen this relationship so that more and more employers will be willing to go out of their way, if necessary, to provide training and skills upgrading to their employees. In doing so, the programmes that we will craft for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will, as I mentioned in response to Mr Hawazi, complement the existing Skills Development Fund programme and the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme, and because of the additional resources that are now available, we will open up more opportunities for the workers.”
“So there will be more opportunities made available for this group of workers. But as a principle, Government's support for the higher educated group would have to be focused on specific areas of critical industry and skills requirement, rather than just broad-based support, such as fee subsidy or allowance for them to sign up for all kinds of postgraduate courses. We have to be very selective because these are people who have already benefited from a high level of Government subsidy in their tertiary education and for an additional upgrading to a higher degree, we have to be very selective. Only when we are sure that this will make a significant difference to our economic competitiveness will we be able to provide some form of support. What we are doing is that we are currently working towards increasing the capacity or opportunities for continuing education and training for the diploma and degree holders. But it would have to be in very selective and economically critical disciplines and courses which can be made available at our universities and polytechnics and also the ITE. If you have read today's newspapers, there is also a possibility of having a fourth university. If that comes about, it would make it even easier for polytechnic diploma holders who want to upgrade themselves. They will have access to a fourth university, which will offer affordable courses for them to upgrade. They do not have to either go overseas to upgrade or try to find one of the limited places in NUS or NTU. Let me assure him that we will also consider how we can extend the assistance to the better educated in this process of lifelong learning. But at the end of the day, we must have our priority, and as the hon.”
“We persuade employers, who are in the process of having to downsize, to send their workers for such training long before they actually have to be retrenched, which means that they will be given an opportunity to acquire a new skill or to upgrade their old skills so that it is easier for them, when it comes to the actual day of retrenchment, to go out there to look for a new job. The encouragement that we give to the employers is a very substantial cash subsidy, the absentee payroll, while their workers are sent away for training and we also bear up to almost all of the training costs, depending on the age of the workers. As for workers who are better educated, such as polytechnic and university graduates, they have already enjoyed a headstart in the skills race, compared to the older lower educated workers. They have also received substantial Government subsidy in their higher education, so they should therefore take a higher responsibility and a higher proportion of the cost of upgrading their skills. Of course, in this context, many employers are also continuing to provide their better educated workers with employer-based upgrading and training. We have also raised the skills development levy ceiling from $1,000 to $1,500 in July last year and we will continue to gradually adjust this ceiling up to $2,000. By raising the skills development levy ceiling, we are, in fact, enabling the Skills Development Fund to collect more money which can then be used to provide more training opportunities. As the ceiling has been raised from $1,000 to $1,500, and progressively to $2,000, we will be able to extend more training support and assistance to even polytechnic graduates who are presently not fully covered under the skills development levy.”
“I note that Mr Hawazi emphasised that the priority for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should still remain with the lower-skilled because this is the group that is most vulnerable, although he also mentioned that we should not overlook the needs of the better-skilled, who will also face the danger of retrenchments in an economic downturn. I agree with him. We will continue to focus our efforts and our resources on the lower-educated, lower-skilled Singaporeans, particularly the older workers. For this group, we already have a very wide range of training courses available under different programmes, such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, the National Skills Recognition System, Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme, etc. For instance, under the SRP, we have more than 20 industry sectors covered where we are actually offering training for workers in these sectors. These include electronics, hotel, marine, telecommunications, taxi, healthcare, insurance, cleaning and even childcare. We will continue to expand the list so that more and more industry sectors are covered and the needs of workers in each of these sectors will be catered to. He also asked that employers should be encouraged to put workers who are at risk of being retrenched or have been retrenched on to programmes such as the SRP and for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund to support these workers and their employers. This is, in fact, one of the ways in which we are encouraging employers to take advantage or to make full use of the SRP in helping workers who are vulnerable to retrenchment.”
“These are suggestions and issues which will certainly be taken into consideration when the Advisory Council is convened to study various proposals for the use of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I will respond to the various comments as they were made. First, Mr Hawazi suggested that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should work together with the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) and the Skills Development Fund (SDF), and not to compete with them but, rather, to complement what is already being done through the SRP and SDF. I agree with him. That is in fact the intention of setting up a Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund: to provide more resources which could be used to complement the budget allocations for programmes such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, and also to provide additional support for the Skills Development Fund in providing training and skills upgrading opportunities for workers. Mr Hawazi also suggested that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should provide support for CCCs or community clubs and maybe even Community Development Council-initiated programmes for skills upgrading. I agree with him. This is one of the things that we will be looking into, how to work with community organisations that want to play a very active role in offering skills upgrading opportunities to the people. In fact, a project that I mentioned in my Second Reading speech - the National IT Literacy Programme - is something that was conceived along this line where the Government, through the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, would work together with community groups to offer basic IT skills and Internet skills training to people who lack such skills. So we are in fact going to work closely with various community organisations.”
“The Town Council at Potong Pasir, which is opposition-controlled, has not been given one cent of the CIPC funds, although it has requested for it many times. Similarly, my fear is that the Endowment Fund, which is a public fund, without independent control, shall be made use of mainly for the benefit of the PAP rather than for the general good of the country. Clause 5(1) states the objects for which the income of the Endowment Fund shall be used. They are to benefit only "persons". I wonder why the word "persons" is used and not "workers". This gives the impression that the Endowment Fund does not want to benefit the workers but rather is confined to certain hand-picked persons only. The word "workers" should be substituted for the word "persons". Clause 6 concerns the Advisory Council. I notice that very little is said of the Advisory Council. Nothing is mentioned of its number or composition. I hope, like the CIPC, the Advisory Council is not going to be packed with PAP MPs. Clause 4 of the Bill talks about the capital money of the Endowment Fund but there is no mention of a fixed amount that is to be placed as capital in the Endowment Fund. Can the Minister please give an indication as to the amount to be allocated as capital for this Endowment Fund? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first I would like to thank Mr Hawazi and the other hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill, including, I notice, Mr Chiam See Tong, who expressed his in-principle support although he raised several questions. I also wish to thank the Members for making various suggestions, particularly about the type of training or the nature of training and the way to deliver training to the older workers.”
“Sir, in principle, I support the Bill, but I have many concerns in regard to the provisions in the Bill. Under clause 3(2), it is noted that "The Minister shall be responsible for the administration of the Endowment Fund and that the Fund shall be regarded as a Government Fund". One would think that since the Fund shall comprise mainly taxpayers' money and public donations, there should be complete accountability and transparency in respect of the administration of the Fund. This can be achieved only if the administration of the Fund can be carried out by an independent body. As the Bill now stands, all payments out of the Fund is dependent only on the decision of one man - the Minister - who is a PAP member. I think that this kind of administration of the Fund is not satisfactory. I propose that it be administered by an independent body, which, I suggest, can comprise respectable and well-known people in our community without any political affiliations. The duty of this independent body shall be to disburse the income of the Fund based entirely on merit and not on any political preferences. Unfortunately, I note that there is nowhere in the Bill that says that the income of the Endowment Fund shall be paid out based entirely on the merits of the applicants. As the Bill now stands, what is there to stop the income of the Fund from being distributed to only people who support the PAP? Supporters of the opposition, I think, shall have no ghost of a chance to enjoy any of the benefits of the Endowment Fund. The administration of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds readily comes to mind. Taxpayers' money that is controlled by the CIPC has, in the main, only been disbursed to PAP-controlled constituencies.”
“The incident on 19th November 2000 was the first time that a loss of train detection occurred. If the correct procedure had been followed, the automatic train protection feature in the system would have functioned as designed, and the trains would not have collided. This fundamental and key safety feature of the system has been designed to very high standards, and has been checked and verified as working properly at all times. With regard to safety tests on the system, extensive tests on all parts of the LRT system were conducted in simulated local environment conditions prior to system operation. Verification tests to ensure that the system met safety criteria were conducted on such items as the signalling system, the vehicle detection system, the vehicle and the wayside automatic train protection system. The tests undertaken showed that all safety requirements identified by the hazard analyses were met in the Singapore environment. The tests and the results were reviewed and confirmed acceptable by an independent third party System Safety Certification Consultant.”
“This translates to a total delay of only 6 minutes in a 20-hour daily service. The delay is not just by one car, we are talking about the delay accumulated over all the cars in the 20-hour daily service. This availability compares favourably, if not better than other similar systems around the world. Following the LRT vehicle collision that occurred on 19th November, a Committee of Investigation was appointed by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to investigate the collision. The Committee completed its investigation last month. It found that the incident was caused entirely by a procedural error by the train controller. The Committee also found that the train safety system had worked as designed. Therefore, there was no system failure. Arising from this incident, LTA has directed the operator, SLRT Pte Ltd, to retrain all its staff to enhance their knowledge of the system and procedures, and to do so on a continuing basis. LTA reports that the company has already put in place measures to tighten its operating and safety procedures, as well as to raise training standards for its railway staff. LTA will also work with the operator to implement other measures to further strengthen the LRT operations and procedures. With regard to Dr Teo's third question, I would like to reiterate that there was no failure or problem on the part of the system hardware or software. The system responded as designed. When the system did not detect the particular LRT train, it placed an electronic shield in the last known position of the vehicle. This is to prevent any other vehicle from coming into the shielded area and, hence, prevent a collision. The train controller had not followed proper procedures when he reset the system without establishing the position of the lost train.”
“Has Power Supply taken steps to refund the consumers whom they have wrongly billed? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, of course, and as quickly as possible. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 17. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (a) how many times has the LRT system broken down since its operations in November 1999; (b) has the Ministry identified and adequately addressed the system failure that led to the human error causing the train collision in November 2000; (c) why were the trains allowed to operate notwithstanding the fact that "missing trains" had been detected a number of times; and (d) what were the safety tests conducted on the LRT system under Singapore's climatic conditions prior to its operations. The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bukit Panjang LRT commenced operations on 6th November 1999. Since the start of operations, there have been 42 cases of disruptions, where each disruption exceeded 20 minutes. 32 of them occurred during the first six months of operation when the system was `bedding-in'. It is normal for minor operational problems to occur in the initial months of operation of a complicated system like the BP LRT. Even though key members of the operational personnel had brought along with them significant experience in the MRT system, they still had to gain experience in operating and maintaining the LRT system. I am glad to inform Members that after the initial period of bedding-in the system, the availability of the LRT has improved steadily to its current commendable level. The LRT system now has an availability of above 99.5%.”
“Sir, I have got one question for the Minister. He says that the number of applicants seeking aid has increased. May I know what is the increase in the number of applicants?”