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 13 of 85.
“Sir, that is the point. When Singaporeans fly in other airlines, and they start to talk with their fellow passengers, and they found out that we are from Singapore, they would wonder, "How come you never fly your own SIA airline?" What are you going to tell the other person? Tell him that we have to pay more? Does it not sound rather embarrassing for Singaporeans?”
“Sir, but in the case of SIA, Singaporeans prefer to fly by SIA and they are made to pay a higher price. In a way, they are forced to take other airlines. Do you not think there is something wrong there?”
“Does the Minister not think that something is amiss when Singaporeans are made to pay higher prices than foreigners when they buy SIA tickets in Singapore? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, foreigners buying tickets in Singapore pay the same price as any Singaporean. The market forces are at play. There are many airlines operating out of Singapore, and there are many airlines flying the same routes as SIA. So consumers should choose carefully.”
“I am talking about the regular events that we normally have. We have got table tennis, we have got --- Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Chiam says it is regular. I think all of us who work the ground know it, even PAP MPs. You may say it is regular, you may have a schedule, but then nearer the time of the event, you may travel, or you are indisposed. So I think it is only fair to PELU, for you to apply when the event is more certain, and if it falls within the ambit of the Act, and now it has been relaxed, you will get your licence.”
“But is the Minister willing to consider giving the Potong Pasir Town Council one licence for the whole year? Then we do not have to apply again and pay separate fees. Instead, we just pay one fee alone. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think Mr Chiam knows that, first, events may change. You are not sure what you will do nine months down the road. I think Mr Chiam did apply for a licence for a talk in his Potong Pasir Neighbourhood Park, but then there was a last minute change because his organisers said that Mr Chiam could not make it. That happens, you see.”
“Sir, regarding these ad hoc and establishment licences, in the case of Potong Pasir, we have a series of events throughout the year, can we apply for an establishment licence in the sense that we get one licence for the whole year's activities? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is a series of ad hoc events. So it is not like operating a pub or a lounge, that is an establishment licence. So I am afraid Mr Chiam would have to apply, but it is not a problem applying. He has been granted many of these licences.”
“Sir, were the authorities aware that the tenants were in fact foreigners? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, these properties were rented out to companies for the use of their employees but there was a limit on the numbers. The nuisance which was caused by them subsequently was serious enough for residents to lodge complaints and therefore Land Office has done what is right, which is to terminate the Tenancy Agreements of the companies so that the foreigners would leave. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Price) 19. Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Minister for National Development (a) what factors contributed to the lower cost of the Housing and Development Board flats published recently; and (b) whether the price of HDB flats will stabilise at the current levels.”
“It would appear that the Government prefers a single mother to abort the baby rather than to keep her, and even, later on, with the hope of giving the child up for adoption. But does that not go against the policy of the Government to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies?”
“Sir, other than the risks of abortion and the benefits of a family, does the Government give other benefits to the single mother especially?”
“Sir, I notice pre-counselling does not include material benefits, like food or free medical treatment for the child. Are there such benefits after the child is born?”
“Sir, is this number of 450,000 low-skilled foreign workers in Singapore too high already? There is talk of excess in the building trade. What I am saying is that there is a danger of these low-skilled foreign workers taking the jobs of Singaporean workers.”
“Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL Debate resumed.”
“However, I do not agree that the parents should be punished with imprisonment. How can the law force a parent to ensure that his child attends school if the child for some reason refuses to do so, although such cases are few and far between? I think the maximum fine of $2,000 should be sufficient punishment for a parent whose child of compulsory age fails to attend school regularly. The fine of $5,000, in my view, is too excessive. Normally, I would imagine that once a parent has been apprehended by the police and made aware that he has committed an offence by not sending his child to school, the parent would certainly make sure that his child does go to school unless, of course, he is deep in financial difficulty, in which case the MCDS should step in to assist. A hefty fine or a jail sentence would definitely be counter productive. That would only antagonise the parent and make him less cooperative, to the detriment of the interest of the child. The best course is to win over the parent and make him know the benefits of education for his child and induce him, on his own accord, to want to send his child of compulsory school age to school. As regards the madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School, I think the recommendations of the Committee are fair. The pupils of madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School should be made to attend minimum standards for the PSLE. I would like to add that those schools be given five years to upgrade themselves. In that period, they should bring up their standards and be at par with those in the national schools. The Government should give a helping hand in teacher training for these schools. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.08 pm until 3.30 pm.”
“The Committee's recommendation of six years compulsory primary education is merely a political expediency to satisfy the needs of the Government's policy as envisioned in Singapore 21, which inter alia says that every Singaporean counts. Under this policy, the Government cannot be seen every year to be abandoning 1,000-odd young Singaporeans who do not attend school at all. Therefore, the Government has to implement Compulsory Education but grudgingly at six years. I say that six years of compulsory attendance in school is not enough. The minimum number of years we should make a pupil attend school is eight years. At eight years of schooling, our pupils would then have a chance to master the core subjects. The Report says that, ideally, a pupil should attend school for 10 years. But 10 years' education, from my own experience, is too long for pupils who show no interest in schooling, and it is a waste of the students' time and State funds. For this reason, many countries implement a nine-year Compulsory Education programme. But I think that in the Singapore context, we can start with eight years' schooling. If it is proven that it is still not sufficient, then the Government should increase it to nine years. I call on the Government to increase the period of Compulsory Education to eight years and not stick to its proposed six years. I think if our Government wants to give our children the best education, then it should make Compulsory Education at eight years rather than just a token six years. The Government is purported to have reserves of $110 billion. Then it should have funds to maintain Compulsory Education at eight years. As regards enforcement, I agree that the parents should be made responsible for ensuring attendance of their child at school.”
“Sir, I have spoken up in Parliament on the need to have Compulsory Education during the debate on the President's Speech in March 1985, and I have followed up that call for Compulsory Education on many other occasions during the debate in Committee at Budget time. Last year, the Government agreed to implement Compulsory Education and appointed a Committee on Compulsory Education to study the issues and prepare a report. The Report has been prepared and presented to the Minister, and the Minister has accepted all the recommendations of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee is the Senior Minister of State, and I note that many of its members comprise PAP Members of Parliament. With such a strong presence of politicians in that Committee, what I am afraid is that the decisions of the Committee may be heavily influenced by politicians, rather than looked at from the educational point of view. This is an educational matter and if the Government wants what is best for our children, then they should leave the decision on Compulsory Education to professional educationists, and not be influenced by politicians. We can see that the decisions of the Committee are not purely based on educational conditions. It was pointed out in the Report that for those countries which have chosen to have Compulsory Education, they have fixed the Compulsory Education period between 9-11 years, while Singapore decides only to have 6 years of Compulsory Education. Six years of compulsory schooling, from the educational point of view, is definitely not enough for a pupil to master the three Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic. In Singapore's context, reading involves the reading of two languages. Therefore, how can six years be enough?”
“Another clarification, Sir. This question is specifically asked when a dinner is organised by a political party. Will the MP be allowed or not allowed to speak? The answer, as I get it, is still no. So, what difference does it make? There is no relaxation of the policy. Although the event is organised by a political party, there is participation by the constituents of my ward. How can you say that it is not a constituency event? It is a constituency event. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: All of us here can see a distinction between an event which is organised, say, by the SPP in a big field where there are 80-100 tables, or more, and not only residents come but SPP supporters come from other wards, and Mr Chiam makes a speech. In an open setting, there may be other members of other Parties present. Then, the potential for law and order problems will still be present which, in the past, the Police have said that they were the reasons why no speeches were allowed in that setting. So the setting is important. On the other hand, if Mr Chiam now organises a children's party at a basketball court. In the past, unless it was organised by the town council, he would not be allowed to speak. But now, if he makes an application, I would expect the Police to say "go ahead and speak". 2.00 pm”
“Sir, can I get further clarification? I still think that there is no change of policy. In other words, if the function is organised by a political party, it will not be allowed, unless it is organised by a grassroots or a community organisation. Am I right? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Right now, if Mr Chiam organises an event, which is not a town council event, it is an event like a magic show, lantern festival or children's party, the current restriction applies to such events. If it is in the open, Mr Chiam, even as an MP, cannot make a speech. Now, there is a relaxation because for these events - I think Members of this House know what we are talking about including Opposition Members, because Mr Low Thia Khiang's Hougang committee has organised many such events, so has Mr Chiam - events in his basketball court, that sort of setting, now if he wants to make a speech as a local MP elected by residents, he should make an application and the Police will assess it. If these criteria are satisfied, I will expect the Police to say "go ahead".”
“Sir, this is the first time I am having this knowledge. Up to last month, we were refused permission.”
“Sir, is this policy intended to gag the Opposition? The Minister of State mentioned "if it is organised as part of a constituency event .". Of course, the dinner organised by my Party is part of a constituency activity, and yet I was not allowed to speak. Sir, as far as I know, I was not given permission to speak. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, to repeat the answer, the policy has just been changed. But, of course, the Police will have to look at the event. We have said that the event should be a constituency event, in other words, a community event. The idea here is that a local MP who has been elected by his ward's constituents should have enough support so that the potential mischief and law and order problems that in the past have persuaded Police not to grant a permit will not apply. He is a local MP in a local community event - events that those of us on the ground will be quite familiar with, ie, karaoke, magic show, puppet show, etc, and if the local MP wants to speak, the Police will say, "carry on", because he is speaking to his own constituents.”
“I am glad that the Government is taking industrial accidents at building sites very seriously and has put more stringent checks on the detailed structural plans and design calculations of building works. When we think of the need to check detailed structural plans and design calculations of building works, the disaster at Compassvale School quickly comes to mind. In that accident, Sir, as cited by the other two speakers, the roof collapsed and seven workers were killed and others injured. Sir, that accident may have been prevented if this Amendment Bill has been passed earlier before the Compassvale School was built. I support this Bill.”
“Sir, I welcome this Amendment Bill to the Building Control Act. We must do everything we can to ensure the safety of construction workers. It is too often, in the past years, that whenever we opened the morning paper, we read that some accident had happened at a local construction site. If that type of news is allowed to continue, very soon Singaporeans will begin to feel that it is another piece of news. We become used to that kind of news. We become callous and unfeeling. But, in actual fact, lives are lost every time a serious accident takes place at a construction site. Those who have lost their lives are human beings and they are also the husbands or fathers or sons of some foreigners. We must be made to realise that the loss of lives of foreign workers means sadness and hardship inflicted on their loved ones and relatives. I understand that developed countries, like Australia, take the loss of life in the building site very seriously. That was one of the reasons cited why units in high rise flats in the inner city area in Australia are so expensive when compared to landed properties in the suburbs. The developers have to spend extra costs on safety measures to make sure that no accident happens. And if it so happens that one accident takes place, the whole building works have to be stopped. The investigation that follows is normally prolonged and it takes weeks to complete. That would cost the developers a lot of money for the stoppage. Developers in Australia therefore prefer to spend more money on safety measures rather than suffer long stoppages when an accident occurs. Also, if an accident does happen at the site, the developer shall get into the bad books of the authorities and future applications to the authorities may be difficult.”
“This is an observation I note in the difference of attitudes and values between the Singapore Parliament and the English Parliament. In conclusion, I would just like to state what I heard last night at my meet-the-people session. One grassroots member, on hearing the revision of the Ministers' salaries, said, "Wow, can buy a house every year." Another remarked, "Just like striking a lottery each year."”
“The reason mainly is that the private sector of the same group of persons may not be drawing the same salaries in the following year and also that they are taking bigger risks. A more equitable method is to peg our Ministers' salaries to the world leaders of other countries. A good example is to take the President of the United States as a base for which we can work on. I do not think that our Ministers will complain on that. We should compare the salaries paid to those in the public service in Singapore to those in the public service of other renowned countries and not compare the public sector salary with those in the private sector. The public sector and the private sector cannot be compared because the two are motivated by completely different reasons. One is for public good and the other is purely for profit. The two cannot be reconciled. Therefore, public sector salaries cannot use the private sector salaries as a benchmark. I had read a report in the Hansard where Members of Parliament in England were debating on the increase of Members' allowances. Almost each of the Members there who rose to speak began by saying how embarrassed they were on speaking of the increase of their own remuneration. It can be seen from that debate in England that the values of the English parliamentarians are different from those in Singapore. Over in England, the parliamentarians there were terribly embarrassed when they were speaking on the increase of their own pay. One notes that it is not so in Singapore. The Ministers in Singapore have affirmed confidently that they have a right to be paid the proposed high salaries and are not a bit embarrassed by it.”
“That should be the criterion. We cannot factor in the profit element. The profit element is a private sector practice and should not be followed because the Ministers are not running a private company. They are running a country, a nation, hopefully, in our case. They are leaders of the people and they should lead by example. If our leaders show our people that they are there in public positions and claim for themselves huge profits, the wrong signals shall definitely be sent to all Singaporeans, including our young Singaporeans. They shall become cynical and the only thing that concerns them is money. In fact, if money is the only motivation why one does a certain job, that person shall not do that job well. Look at the great achievers in the world. When asked why they take on that job or do that thing which they are good at, the answers are inevitably not the great amount of money they can earn, but the love of their job or the things they are doing. For example, when Michael Chang and Boris Becker, world famous tennis players from America and Germany respectively, were asked why they devote their lives to playing tennis, they said that they love the game and not the millions of dollars they can earn or have earned. Similarly, if Ministers really love their job and want to serve the people well, they should not be asking for high salaries. By asking for high salaries, they are giving wrong signals to Singaporeans that they do not love their job but for the huge profits that they can earn. Speakers in this debate and the debate on the White Paper in 1994 had commented on the unfairness of pegging the Ministers' salaries to the six highest earners in a selected group of professions in the private sector.”
“There must be something that we can learn from the Americans in regard to the way they reward their President and their Ministers. I hope Singapore and its Ministers shall take note of that. I am not envious of the high salaries paid to the Ministers. My concern is more for the future of Singapore. What sort of values should we set for young Singaporeans? On the one hand, leaders of Singapore urge the people to be more communitarian and not to be so self-centred, individualistic and care only for oneself. But, on the other hand, where the Ministers' salaries are concerned, they do not believe in the communitarian way. The Ministers want their salaries to be pegged to the private sector's high earners. The private sector's motivation is on profit. Private sector earnings and level of salaries are entirely based on profit and earnings. Whereas on the part of Ministers, their motivation is not profit orientated but on nation building. The Ministers then should not be asking for salaries based on high earners in the private sector, but should be based on other principles. I think the fairest way is to ask how much a Minister needs to have a comfortable life. In the debate on the White Paper on Ministers' salaries in 1994, I told the House that I estimated that about $50,000 a month should give a Minister a comfortable living - a bungalow house, servants, two motorcars and with a chauffeur, annual holidays and children's education. I note that NMP Walter Woon in the same debate also proposed a similar figure of about $50,000 a month or $600,000 a year. He said that could be a base on which the Ministers could work. I tend to agree with Dr Woon. I think that as long as the Ministers are given a dignified comfortable standard of living that should be enough.”
“In America, President Clinton is paid about S$630,000 a year, half of what our Ministers get and one-third of that of our Prime Minister. I believe the work of the President of the United States is definitely more difficult and more onerous than that of any of the Ministers and Prime Minister in Singapore. Yet, they can live quite comfortably on a much lower salary than our Ministers and Prime Minister. It is not that America is poorer than Singapore. It is not that it is unable to pay its President well. If they wanted to, the Americans can afford to pay their President three or even four times more than the Prime Minister in Singapore. They certainly can afford to do so, since it is the richest country in the world. In fact, a few of the American companies earn more money a year than the whole of Singapore. Yet, the Americans choose not to pay the President and their Ministers high salaries. The question is: why do Americans choose not to pay their President and the Ministers high salaries, as Singapore is doing? The reason is that the Americans feel that those who aspire to take up public office must have an element of sacrifice. It must be seen that those who take up public office are there to serve the public, and not to make a profit out of that office. The President and his Ministers will then have the moral authority to lead. They are basically there to serve the people and not to make money out of their office. I think the Americans are right on that point. We must not scoff at American values. That country has not only survived over 200 years, over two world wars, but has become the most powerful and the richest nation in the world.”
“Sir, I am much obliged to you for allowing me to join in the debate. Yesterday, we debated on the disparity of incomes of Singaporeans. The lowest 10% of our workers were reported to be earning as low as $133 a month. The Minister said that the Straits Times had made a mistake in its report. Assuming that there were mistakes in that report and we correct it by doubling the reported wage of $133 to $266 a month, then rounding it off to $300 a month. Even at $300 a month, that is a very low income. A man can barely survive on $300 a month these days. Sir, I am certain that Ministers must be aware that there are Singaporeans who are barely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make a living. Does it not prick their conscience then when they themselves ask for high salaries at over a million dollars a year? If we take the average worker's wages at $2,000 a month or $24,000 a year, and the Minister's salary at $1.4 million a year, then the Minister is earning something like 60 times more than an average worker in Singapore. It means that for a Minister to work for one year, the average worker in Singapore has to slog for his lifetime for 60 years. This, to me, somehow does not look right. Ministers are supposed to be servants of the people. They are to take care of the people and to give public service to lead the people, particularly by example. How can our Ministers have the moral authority when they take their posts purely on the profit motive by asking such high salaries? At the moment, our Ministers are paid the highest salaries in the world, more than Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of other bigger and richer countries than Singapore.”
“If you go to our universities, polytechnics and even our ITEs today, the level of equipment, the facilities which are available to students are something unimaginable 10-20 years ago, and this attests to the emphasis this Government has put on education. The younger ones, we can solve. Those who are coming up, we make sure that from kindergarten onwards, they learn computers. They play games at first, Internet access, by primary five do web pages. They are off. But those who are already in the system who were educated during colonial days and the early years of independence, we should try our best to help them and in the past we had, and we still have, programmes like BEST and WISE, but there is only so much we can do because for many skills, if you do not acquire them when you are young when their minds are plastic and malleable, it is very difficult to acquire them when you are older. I have met workers who have gone through BEST and WISE and watched them struggle with square roots and so on. It is tough. They should try, and the skills should as far as possible be practice-oriented, but that historical legacy will remain with us for many more years to come and we have got to take that into account in all our programmes and policies.”
“I am asking the Government whether it is willing to tackle the problem at its source, ie, to amend or change our education programme because it is too inflexible at the moment and those slow learners will always be left behind and probably will be unable to cope and may give up altogether. They end up by not being even able to read or write and how are we going to train these workers if they cannot even have the basic literacy and numeracy skills? So I am asking the Government whether it wants to tackle the problem at its source by changing the education system to make it more flexible to cater for the slow learners. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for his comments. He is right that the root problem is education. If we look at Singaporeans above the age of 40, less than one in two have more than six years of education. When the PAP Government came into power, we introduced mass education and the result has been a sharply increased educational profile of the population. Our educational profile of those above the age of 40 is basically a third-world educational profile and many of them will continue to be with us for a long time to come. We have got to find ways and means to help them, retrain them, upgrade their skills, and so on. Among those who are younger, aged 35 and below, our educational profile is first-class and many of the good things which Mr Chiam talked about are precisely the elements which are built into our educational system of providing for slow learners, or going faster for fast learners, and so on.”
“Sir, I am still surprised to learn that in Singapore, people are still earning only $133 per month. I believe this is due to an educational problem. There are many workers in the workforce who are unable to read or write.”
“The special upgrading works are special works which are over and above the existing standard package of the MUP. Town councils are not involved in this. So far as the THO scheme is concerned, whether it should be expanded to other activities, in my answer just now, I did allude to the fact that this is already being done. HDB allows for other activities, like allowing people to work from home if they are using their phone, fax and modem, whether they are architects or whether they are draughtsmen, that is perfectly all right. And indeed, there are many other activities that are carried out in the HDB flats which, so long as they do not cause nuisance to their neighbours, are not disallowed. If you go around your block visits, from time to time, you will come across homes where they bring back work to do, whether it is sewing, or other small cottage type industries to assembly at home. That is already practised and HDB does not say no to that. The only distinction that they make is that when you indulge in such activities, you do not cause nuisance to your neighbours. If your neighbours find that you are operating a factory in your flat, no matter how productive they are, we will come down on them. 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. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Two o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to clarify two points with the Minister? What is the rationale for making the town councils pay for the special upgrading works? Under the statutory duties of the Town Councils, we are only asked to maintain the common property. Sir, in the case of the opposition town councils, we do not receive any CIPC fund and, if we are made to pay more contributions through all these upgrading works, we will be at a disadvantage compared to the PAP-controlled town councils. The other point that I would like to raise with the Minister is that, at first, I was quite elated that they are going to allow HDB flats to be used for business purposes. But now, as it is, it is only confined to IT start-up companies. Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister is willing to expand this usage of HDB flats to other business activities as long as they do not create a nuisance. Sir, 80% or more of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats. At the moment, all these flats are only for residential purposes and, as such, they are only used for consumption. If you allow them to be used for other business purposes, they will be converted to productive use. Our national income would increase significantly if these flats were allowed to be converted for business use as long as they do not create a nuisance. Like in Hong Kong and other places, they have been used for making artificial flowers, assembling of wrist watches and taking parts from the government factories to do them at home. There are so many uses which are being carried out. It will be beneficial to Singapore economically. Mr Mah Bow Tan: Let me take the easy one first. Mr Chiam is under the wrong impression that town councils have to pay for the special upgrading works. No, they do not have to pay.”
“Sir, people are asking why there is such a big differential rate. When you pay by GIRO, it is only $75 and when you pay by cash, it is $105. So they are asking: as far as the registration of business firms is concerned, cash payment does not have the same value as paying by GIRO.”
“Sir, on the one hand, the Government tells the people of Singapore that gambling is anti-social, it is bad for the family. On the other hand, it is making it more convenient, opening more outlets for people to gamble. How does the Government reconcile the two?”
“Sir, by opening 50 more outlets, is that not a signal to the people of Singapore that it is all right to gamble or to condone gambling?”
“Sir, the opposition would demand for complete transparency, as far as this point is concerned.”
“I do not know how the Minister has plucked this figure from the air. I do not know on what basis this figure of $5,000 has been decided. I would suggest that anonymous donations be allowed up to the limit of at least $23,000, which is about half the amount of election expenses allowed under the Parliamentary Elections Act for Potong Pasir constituency, which is the smallest constituency in Singapore. I think that is a fair basis to take, half of the election expenses which is allowed for Potong Pasir constituency. I think that cannot probably even support two candidates. So what harm can it do? The next provision I would like to comment is on clause 12 - annual donation report. Sir, this is important. I heard from the Minister that it cannot be divulged to members of the public. If it cannot be divulged to members of the public, it must at least be divulged to the opposition. Sir, the PAP is the Government. It can, at any time, see the political donations report. Is the Registrar of Political Donations going to swear under a statutory declaration that he will not show those reports to anyone, even to members of the Government? Sir, on this point, I think the Government must be transparent. If the Government is not transparent, I am certain that people will believe that the Government can have a chance to peep at those reports but no one else can. In other words, Sir, this is like playing cards where I show you all my cards, but you keep your cards only to your chest. I think members of the public would like to know who are the people who donate to the PAP, even if it is their members or the Ministers themselves. I think this must be seen to be transparent. If it is not, I am afraid the Political Donations Bill will have no credibility at all.”
“The opposition says that there is no need for such a law at this point in time. The only reason for wanting this law is to curb the opposition further. People who give money to the ruling party do not mind revealing their names. But in the context of Singapore today, in our culture, people are still generally fearful of being seen to be supporting the opposition. For this very reason, I think this law is a great disadvantage to the opposition. Sir, it will leave the opposition parties with a lot of problems in raising funds. Any political party which cannot account for large sums of money it receives can easily be discredited. So there is no need actually for this law. In the past, there was a case when a Minister in the ruling party accepted money from the Americans. This has been mentioned. His name is Chew Swee Kee. When he was found out, the PAP relished at it. The PAP, at that time, was in the opposition. It publicised the fact and helped the PAP to win the elections in 1959. The point is that if any political party is found to have received money from abroad, it will definitely be discredited. Any party which wants to accept money from foreign sources will have to think twice before it does so. Because, once it is found out, the political effect will be disastrous. People will wonder whether that party is working for the interest of Singapore or for some foreign powers or foreigners. A party that accepts money from foreign sources will be seen as a tool of foreigners and cannot be trusted. As this is a very important Bill, I would also support that it be sent to a Select Committee for further deliberations. Sir, I have just got two more points to raise in regard to the provisions of the Bill. I think the $5,000 limit for anonymous donations is definitely too low.”
“As far as I know, opposition candidates have never exceeded that limit set down by the law. I, for myself, have always spent very little money. When I first started in 1976, I spent only $3,500 per election. And at the last general elections, I spent not more than $10,000. But then again, my constituency of Potong Pasir is the smallest in Singapore. It has only 19,000 voters. It can therefore be seen that there is no need to spend lots of money to win an election, but only plenty of time and sweat. Therefore, we ask again: what is the necessity to enact this law? Why does the Government suddenly want political parties and also other organised bodies, whose main activity is in politics, to declare donations given to them? In any event, the law already requires all candidates in elections to declare the amount of money they spend on each election. I am just wondering whether the Government has introduced this Bill as it envisages that there is a possibility of candidates advertising themselves on TV. When that comes, of course, I say lots of money will be needed. Like in America, the cost of election campaigning escalates dramatically. In the Presidential elections, I believe that each candidate can spend up to $200 million. But, in Singapore, as there is no election campaigning through the TV media, I do not think there is a need for large sums of money. At the moment, of course, candidates are only allowed party political broadcast for a few minutes over the local TV. The time allowed depends on the number of candidates and, of course, this is very unfair to the opposition parties, because many of the opposition parties fielded less than six candidates and are not allowed even the 21/2 minutes broadcast.”
“1972. I am much obliged. Of course, he was roundly sued by the Workers' Party for defamation and the PAP candidate was unable to prove that the Workers' Party took any money at all from a foreign source but, nevertheless, he won the case based on technicalities. The fact that remains till today is that neither the ruling party nor the opposition parties indulge in any form of money politics. I believe the Government is very proud of that fact and has said so many times. In that case, I thought that the status quo would remain. This Political Donations Bill therefore comes as a surprise to me. Money politics has not been part of the political culture of Singapore. As far as I know, all opposition candidates who took part in the election run their election campaigns on a shoestring budget. I believe that generally, the PAP candidates spend more on the elections than the opposition candidates. We can see that the PAP election rallies are much more posh than the opposition ones. We also notice that in some PAP election rallies, at least at the ones held in Potong Pasir, the PAP spent money on hiring huge buses to ferry supporters, especially old folks, to attend the election rallies held there. The opposition, as far as I know, has not spent any money to transport any supporters to their election rallies. The people just come spontaneously to attend opposition rallies. Therefore, the opposition, up to today, has not spent much money and certainly has not received any money from foreign sources. For that reason, I wonder why this Bill is necessary. Sir, in Singapore there is also a cap on election spending. Candidates are limited at one time to only 50 cents per voter. But now, the Parliamentary Elections Act has been amended to allow a candidate to spend $2.50 per voter.”
“Sir, I would say that, at this point of time, this Bill is quite unnecessary. The Government has always boasted that in Singapore, we do not indulge in money politics. As far as I know, there have been no reported cases in any election since Singapore became independent in 1965 of candidates wanting to buy votes or to spend large sums of money to influence voters. So why the necessity for this Bill at this point of time? Mr Jeyaretnam has a point when he wants to know the rationale and the reason for this Bill. I think the Minister should oblige. The only case I know of was in the 1976 elections, although Mr Jeyaretnam said it was 1972 when a PAP candidate who was returned to Parliament accused the Workers' Party of accepting $600,000 from a foreign source.”
“Sir, has the HDB re-vested any flat whose owner had committed the offence of killer litter? Can the Minister also tell this House whether the flat belonging to the owner whose flower pot had fallen and killed a girl recently has been forfeited?”
“Sir, my arithmetic was not quite correct, but I was looking at the wrong column. Some hon. Members: Wrong row!”
“Sir, as I look at the number of illegal immigrants here, there are 28,000. Of course, if we add the overstayers, it will be about 32,000. Compared to the number of foreigners here, this is a small percentage. But, in absolute numbers, this is quite large because, at the moment, there are 28,000 illegal immigrants in Singapore. And even if two of them stay in one household, there are 14,000 households at risk at the moment. This is quite serious to landlords and people who allow illegal immigrants to stay here. Sir, I am wondering how did so many of them slip through our immigration checkpoints and get into Singapore? As regards overstayers, I understand. Of course, they came in legally but overstayed, and then they became illegal immigrants. But for first-time illegal immigrants, how did 28,000 slip through our immigration checkpoints?”
“Sir, it took 19 months for the DBS/POSB to charge $2. How long will this $2 minimum charge be maintained before the full cost of the service is charged? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I do not know. This is a matter for DBS to decide.”
“However, like all weapons of mass destruction, they still do not discriminate between soldiers who are the actual combatants and the civilian population. When they are used, they kill every one. Some chemical weapons are designed to kill plants such as the agent orange chemical that was used in Vietnam to destroy vast areas of foliage instantly. The main use of the chemical agent orange was deployed mainly to kill plants and trees but it was also harmful to human beings who came in contact with it. Those who came in contact with that chemical later suffered from sickness and disabilities. Sir, it is right that we should have this law to prohibit chemical weapons in Singapore and give effect to Singapore's obligation under the Convention. I support the Bill.”
“Sir, it is morally right for Singapore to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on 14th January 1993 and ratifying the Convention on 21st October 1995. Sir, my sincere hope is that Singapore shall never support any form of weapons of mass destruction in war and, in peacetime, to prevent their proliferation, manufacture, stockpiling and take a stand for their destruction. All forms of mass destruction, be it nuclear, biological or chemical are inhuman. When they are used, they destroy both combatants and non-combatants. In a war, when conventional weapons are used, it is the civilian population that really suffers and when weapons of mass destruction are used, the civilian population suffers even more. Sir, I visited Hiroshima in 1998 and I visited the museum which told the story of the dropping of the atomic bomb on that city. All inhabitants of that city within range of the bomb died. The atomic bomb, which is a weapon of mass destruction, killed every one in its path. It did not discriminate whether a person is a soldier, a woman or a child. It just simply wiped out every one. In the case of Hiroshima, the inhabitants on 6th August 1945 suffered a terrible death. The inhabitants were seared by heat of 4000 degrees Celsius. Then there were strong winds of intense heat followed by acid rain. Finally, those who were still alive suffered radiation which destroyed their immune system. Many later died of leukemia and related diseases. The mass destruction done by chemical weapons is equally bad. The difference between chemical weapons and nuclear weapons is that the former destroy only living things. They do not destroy physical properties, such as houses and other buildings.”
“Sir, since there are no qualified privileges and the defamation law will be enforced, will there be tape recorders around to tape every word that a speaker says?”
“Sir, one of the kindergartens in Potong Pasir was closed, but that is a different issue. But in this particular case I am referring to ---”
“I have told the House that one of my grassroots helper's child was not allowed to study for the second year in the Potong Pasir Kindergarten. After the first year, he was not allowed to study there in the second year. Dr Aline Wong: Sir, may I inform Mr Chiam that this is actually not under the purview of MOE. PCF is an independent charitable organisation. But as far as I remember, I think there was a time when a PCF kindergarten had to close because of its own reasons. Therefore, that child was informed that he could not carry on, because the centre would not be opened.”