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 14 of 85.
“Sir, I also hope that the Committee shall recommend to the Ministry to set up a section to monitor the children who have not been attending school to find out their problems and try to assist them to ensure that they do go to school. The mode of operation for this section in the Ministry should be based more on counselling rather than on threats and punishment. Therefore, the Government needs to train good counsellors to deal both with family problems and truancy.”
“I personally favour eight years' compulsory education to let the child stay in school up to age 14. Sir, in 1973, I had the opportunity to teach in a school in London for a very short period of time. I was posted to take care of 15-year olds. At that time, England had a 10-year compulsory education programme. They forced their children to remain in school up to age 16. I can say from experience that 10 years' compulsory education does not work. It is a complete waste of time and money. What happens is that those pupils in their last year of school at age 15 just refuse to learn. They know they want to leave school, but they are not allowed to. They know that they are forced to be in school by law. They are restless. The teacher cannot teach them anything. So they are brought to the hall to watch movies on social issues. But as soon as they return to the class, they are noisy and rowdy. It is difficult to keep them occupied. Maintaining discipline is a problem. We do not want such a situation in Singapore. The Minister has said that a Committee has been set up to look into compulsory education. I hope that the Committee shall not recommend four years but at least six years' compulsory education and eight years, if possible. I believe that eight years of compulsory education is the best because then the children shall be given a real chance to master the basics in reading, writing and arithmetic. For 10 years, I have mentioned the problems. If compulsory education is fixed at only six years, I am afraid that there may be wastage. Money is spent on keeping children in school but they learn nothing when they leave school at the end of the six years in school.”
“Sir, there is a Chinese saying that when drops of water fall on a piece of granite long enough a dent will be made on that granite. Sir, this analogy is like my quest for compulsory education in this House. Members will know that I have brought up this subject of compulsory education year after year during the Budget debate in the Committee of Supply. There is a reporter in the Straits Times who likens me to an old horse that trots old ground all the time. I hope that the reporter has already taken note that the old horse trotting on old ground in regard to compulsory education has been successful. The Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, agrees with me. PM Goh announced last year that Singapore is to have compulsory education. When he made that announcement I was in Parliament and I was really elated. However, I was a little bit disappointed that there was only going to be four years of compulsory education. From an educational point of view, four years' compulsory education is definitely not enough. Most of those skipping school in the first place normally come from poor families or parents who are probably themselves illiterate or lowly educated. Most likely, those children are slow learners or have some kind of a problem. Therefore, four years of compulsory education is not enough. Even the Jesuits require six years to train a child to be what you want the child to be. 2.00 pm Sir, six years of compulsory education would probably be the minimum period to keep a child in school to make sure that he learns the 3Rs. I believe that from the educational point of view, the child is best kept in school for eight years. Eight years would certainly give a better chance for an average or even below average child to learn the 3Rs.”
“Sir, the Minister says that the quality of teachers is most important. Can he just explain what does he mean by a quality teacher? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: In the two minutes I have left, he must have the basic subject knowledge, basic pedagogical knowledge, a love for the subject and be able to communicate with the students.”
“Sir, if the CDCs were set up for cohesion and bonding of residents, why must the head of a CDC be a Mayor? It is such an awesome position. I think it is difficult for people to be close together.”
“Sir, I do not wish to go into an argument with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,023,832,900 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $230,417,400 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head K -”
“I heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that investigations are going on in this matter. I think the woman will be charged for attempted murder, but I think the hospital is equally responsible and they should answer for it.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PA 1500. Sir, I just like to touch on admission fees of Government and restructured hospitals. Although the Minister has said that medical cost is affordable and also accessible, my feedback is that some residents in my constituency say that when they want to get admitted into a hospital, the staff insist that they pay the full cost for both the operation and the ward charges. I do not know whether the hospital staff are over enthusiastic in collecting money first. Sir, I understand why they want to collect the money first. They want to make sure that all the services rendered are fully paid. But this may cause some problems to the poor people, because they are suffering and they may be turned away. They are turned away in the sense that the officers insist that they pay and they feel bad that they cannot pay. So in that sense, they are turned away, and they may really suffer. As far as I know, there are no reported cases of Government or restructured hospitals turning patients away. But the case mentioned by Members of Mount Elizabeth Hospital turning away a Filipino lady in a state of advanced pregnancy, just because she could not pay, she was turned away. Soon after, she gave birth in the toilet and, in despair, she put the baby in the toilet bowl. Fortunately, the baby cried. A nurse heard the cry and saved the baby.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $343,862,420 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $17,654,273,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P -”
“On the point of the levy on HDB flats, did the HDB make known to the purchaser of HDB flats at the point of purchase by saying, "Look here, at a later date, we are going to impose a levy on you." Did they do that? That is my first point. My second part is: is PCF not an educational facility? If it is an educational facility, is it a charity? If it is a charity, the premises must be used for charitable purposes. Can you say that PAP MPs are using those premises only for charitable purposes? The other point is: can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say for sure that if the Opposition do apply, the HDB will have its premises open to them if they can raise $5 million? Can he assure that?”
“In the case of my constituency at Potong Pasir, the HDB has provided Andy Gan, the prospective PAP candidate who is not even an MP. He has a proper office, equipped with air conditioning and computers, to hold his meet-the-people sessions. Whereas I, a duly elected MP, am left in the open to hold my meet-the-people sessions. I hope the HDB should immediately stop its discrimination and bias against the Opposition MPs and provide them the same facilities as those of the PAP MPs at the void decks. Sir, my third cut is on change of HDB rules. The frequent change of rules by the HDB is well known. Lessees of HDB do not mind the frequent changes if the changes of rules do not affect them materially. In one instance, HDB's change of rules in regard to the residence period affected lessees materially. At first, the HDB said that you have to stay five years in a flat before you can sell it in the open market. Then suddenly, the HDB says, "No, you cannot sell the flat after staying for five years. You have now to stay for 10 years before you can sell the flat." Sir, I have known of one case where this couple has purchased a flat and hoping to stay there for five years and after that, to sell it so that they could upgrade to a bigger flat. But before the five years' residence period is up, the HDB changed its rule to make the waiting period to 10 years. In such instances, the HDB, in my view, has acted in bad faith. The HDB, after making a representation to lessees that they can sell their flats after staying in them for five years, is wrong in not allowing them to do so at the end of five years. Sir, I hope that in future, when HDB does make such material change, it should give clear cut-off dates so that the existing lessees do not suffer.”
“If the HDB wants to claim that the flats are subsidised, then the levy should be based on the original subsidised price, and not the appreciated selling price. Sir, my next cut is on HDB's bias against the Opposition. When I was elected into Parliament in 1984, soon after that, the HDB walled up a void deck space for me to use it as my MP's office. In the 1991 general election, a record of four Opposition MPs were elected. Suddenly, the HDB announced that it was not going to provide all MPs with offices in their premises. My MP's office at Potong Pasir was demolished within half a day and the place was restored to its original condition, not a trace of my former MP's office existed. I had no room to hold my weekly meet-the-people session. I had no choice but to hold them at the void deck in the open. I do not mind to meet my residents in the open if the meeting was just for a chit chat, or for a social gathering. But the weekly meet-the-people sessions are for a business purpose, ie, the business of the residents. They have problems which they need to tell their MP and for which they want their MP to help them on those problems. Those problems are often very private matters and are confidential in nature. Therefore, there is a need for privacy when such matters are dealt with. As it now stands, I have to meet the residents to hear their very private problems in the open. The only thing I have is a cloth screen which is not sound proof. I would like to request the HDB again to wall up a space for me in the void deck so as to provide me with an MP's office. Sir, the last time I made the request it was refused. I know the HDB has provided all PAP MPs with proper rooms in the void decks of HDB flats to be used as their MPs' offices.”
“Sir, my first cut is on HDB resale levy. Sir, the HDB imposes a levy on the resale of flats at 20% or 22% depending on the size of the flats. The levy can sometimes amount to $20,000 or $30,000, which are large sums of money. Lessees of HDB flats who sell their flats after staying in them for 10-20 years are angry that the HDB also wants to make part of the money. HDB flats bought in the early years have all greatly appreciated in prices. A 3-room flat bought at, say, $9,500 can be sold 20 years later for at least $130,000. The HDB does not allow the seller to make all the money but imposes a 20% levy, which is about $26,000 for the amount that I have just mentioned for the flat sold. The $26,000, if not deducted as a levy, would have been earned by the seller. Sir, in the example given, the profit of $94,500 with deduction for levy seems a lot of money. But it is not so because prices of HDB flats have risen greatly over the years. In this case, if the seller wants to upgrade himself to buy a 4-room flat, he probably has to pay half of that amount which he has earned as the required 20% down payment and the other half is used for renovation of the newly purchased flat. The net result is that he makes no profit at all. All the profits, minus the levy, are paid back to the HDB when he buys a 4-room flat from the HDB. Sir, the levy imposed by the HDB tantamounts to a capital gains tax. Singapore has no capital gains tax on private properties. Why does the Government allow HDB to impose such a tax in respect of the sale of the flat? I know what the HDB will say. HDB will say that the flats sold are subsidised and it is right for them to impose a levy. My answer is that the levy is in effect a capital gains tax, and it has nothing to do with the subsidy.”
“Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I was cut out the last time. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5200. Sir, may I take all the three cuts together?”
“You can go by objective criteria and not by MPs or what party they belong to. I think when it comes to national policies, you have to judge them objectively, how are you going to carry them out.”
“Clarification from the Minister. Does he distinguish between party politics and national policies? When a party is elected to be the government, the party acts nationally. Am I correct? It does not mean that if I do not support you, you do not build the roads near my house.”
“He acknowledged that the tax benefits are unimportant because these start-ups are not likely to earn money in the first years but he wanted it for recognition purposes. We are looking at that. I will put it to NSTB, which will be giving an award called the "Phoenix Award" for those companies which have failed before and have risen from the ashes to succeed. We will find some other ways to extend public recognition for those who put in good efforts. Mr Chiam See Tong asked about PUB deposits. Once the retail business is privatised, then the issue of whether deposits are required will be left to the retailers to decide. It is a risk that they may take versus the customer goodwill that they hope to gain. As for past deposits and whether interest should be paid, that is part of the bargain. The result has been lower electricity charges which would, otherwise, be the case. If Singapore Power had given interest, then it would have to balance its books by charging higher prices. But this problem will solve itself once we privatise.”
“Yes. I would like to ask the Minister about the PUB deposits. I believe that there must be at least a few hundred million dollars worth of deposits held by PUB, and now Singapore Power. What is the amount of money held by Singapore Power as deposits? Is Singapore Power willing to pay interest to consumers on those deposits, and whether Power Supply treats the deposits as part of their assets? Also, is Singapore Power willing to reduce the amount of deposits to customers who have not defaulted on their monthly bills for the last 10 years by the interest they would have earned based on 3% per annum? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, for efficiency, I would take the whole lot of additional questions. Prof. Toh asked about the house in Australia next to the Sydney Opera House. I do not think we can protect against the gullibility of such consumers. You buy a house, you part with vast amounts of money, I think it is incumbent upon you to do due diligence, by talking to people who know property in Australia and not just rely upon the beautiful glossy advertisement. I do not think it is possible for us to legislate against such foolishness. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked about the possibility of amending the law to provide a framework for better disclosure. On that, we will raise the matter with the Finance Ministry. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked whether the people mover system in Sentosa will be extended to Sentosa Cove. Right now, it does not appear possible because it is still a long distance from the main beach, pass Beaufort to Sentosa Cove, and may not be cost-effective. However, we are taking a closer look at that because if we intend to do so, then we should announce it before we have a public auction. Mr Leong asked about his proposal yesterday for pioneer status for start-ups.”
“Thank you for allowing me to ask my questions.”
“Sir, I have two cuts. May I get on with these so that the Minister can reply.”
“Contrasted with the civil servants, the people in the private sector must be given top marks. Happily for the complainant, the POSBank and DBS did not charge him the $5 replacement for the reported loss of his ATM card. In fact, the officers of those banks waived the $5 replacement fee when he showed them the police report. Sir, I hope that this matter will be looked into by the Minister.”
“Sir, a Singapore citizen complained in the Straits Times of 14th October last year that his identity card was stolen and he had conclusive evidence of the theft; yet he was made to pay $100 for the replacement of his IC. That incident brings up the following issues. Firstly, it shows that the Government bureaucracy is totally inflexible. In that case, the Police had caught the thief and the thief had admitted that he had disposed of the complainant's IC. There was indisputable evidence that the complainant's IC was stolen and not negligently lost. Yet, he was made to pay $100 for the replacement of his IC. Secondly, the money collected is excessive. If it is a genuine case of having one's identity card stolen, at most the Government should only charge an administrative fee of, say, $5. The local banks only charge that amount for the replacement of lost ATM cards. The amount of $100 for replacement of an IC is definitely not, I believe, to cover for the administrative cost, but as a punishment or a penalty. The end result, of course, is that the Government's coffers will become even more with money. The Government should not ingrain in its civil servants to be so inflexible when it comes to imposing penalties. They should be compassionate. If there is a good explanation or good reason why the IC was lost, they should not blindly just force the complainant to pay $100 but look into his case compassionately. Thirdly, this case shows that if there is no check on the Government's bureaucracy, it can abuse its powers. Not only the bureaucrats in that instance took $100 from the complainant but threatened to charge a further $300 if the next time he lost his IC, although, in the first instance, that person had indisputable proof that his IC was stolen.”
“I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $448,959,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,740,404,200 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head F -”
“Can you imagine if visitors from overseas are brought around to see some of those private housing estates and the beautifully built houses, costing a few million dollars each, with piles and heaps of rubbish left in front of those beautiful houses? The Ministry should do something about rubbish collection in private estates. I still think using standardised rubbish bins like the ones used in Australia would be the best solution. Another problem which I would like to highlight is that I notice nearly all the rubbish collectors do not wear gloves. I do not know whether those rubbish collectors take on second jobs as food handlers at hawker centres. If so, they need a lot of washing of their hands when they take on their second jobs at hawker centres. I think it is good that rubbish collectors be supplied with gloves and to ensure that they wear them. It is also for their own safety. They may sometimes be handling broken bottles or pieces of glass and broken branches with thorns, and they may get hurt. I hope the Ministry shall take note and do something with regard to what I have just pointed out.”
“Sir, my cut is on refuse collection from residential properties. When the Ministry engages private contractors to collect rubbish from private residential properties, it sends a letter asking private house owners not to use rubbish bins, but to tie up their rubbish in plastic bags and leave them outside their houses early in the morning. Their collection trucks are supposed to come early to collect those rubbish that are left outside in the open. The problems are: 1) The rubbish trucks do not come early as promised but come in the late morning or sometimes past twelve noon. By then, dogs and cats would have torn up those plastic bags to look for food and pieces of fish bones, chicken bones and other perishable materials would be strewn on the road, which are not only very unsightly but also attract flies and other insects; 2) Some householders do not employ maids and cannot get up at 5 am or 6 am to leave the rubbish outside. So they take out the rubbish and leave them outside in the night. That is even worse. The rubbish left out in the night are sure to attract not only dogs and cats, but rats as well. The plastic bags will be torn open and foodstuff and other waste materials would be strewn all over the place. Another complaint is that private houses also have gardens and they often leave cut branches, cut grass, dead branches and other debris outside their houses. For some unknown reasons, the rubbish collectors do not seem anxious to collect them away in a hurry. Such rubbish left outside the nice houses situated in nice estates can be quite an eyesore and do not look well for the general appearance of the estate.”
“I ask the Government not to delay any further but to go ahead and build at least one neighbourhood library in every constituency.”
“Travelling by bus and walking in public roads may be dangerous to unescorted children, especially female children. If they are unlucky, a female child may meet a molester. Children can also be knocked down by careless drivers. Therefore, it is not preferable to ask children to go to a library which may be a long way from their homes. But it is better to bring the library nearer to where the children live. Building of neighbourhood libraries is within the financial means of the Government. The Government enjoys budget surpluses every year and its coffers are bulging with funds. What a neighbourhood library needs is about a floor space of about 3,000 square feet, walled up and tiled at the void deck. There must also be sanitary facility. The rest of the job could be left to the residents of the constituency. I am certain residents in the constituency shall be happy to help out to furnish the library with books and furniture if they are asked to do so. Sir, I am calling not only for such a neighbourhood library to be built in my constituency at Potong Pasir, but in every constituency which does not have one at the moment. Neighbourhood libraries are educational tools. They are necessary to teach children to read at an early age. In this way, more future citizens shall learn to read and be better equipped for the knowledge-based economy. Marine Parade GRC has one such library. I cannot see why the Government cannot provide other constituencies with such facilities. Money is not a problem. In fact, the Government's reluctance to build a neighbourhood library in every constituency is going against its own policy in the Singapore 21 vision and the new economy.”
“Sir, I wish to speak on neighbourhood libraries. I have spoken on this subject before. After I have mooted this idea in Parliament some years back, I noted that not long after, such a library was built in the Prime Minister's constituency at Marine Parade GRC. The point is why such a neighbourhood library can be built in the Prime Minister's constituency but such similar libraries cannot be set up in other constituencies. I hope that it is not a case of favouritism. Is it because Marine Parade is the Prime Minister's constituency that it is given preference of having such a useful facility and other constituencies are deprived of them? Sir, when I brought up this question of building such a library in Potong Pasir, the then Minister, Dr Seet Ai Mee, said that there were libraries already built at Toa Payoh Central and the children in my constituency could take buses to get there. If that is so easy, why build a neighbourhood library at Marine Parade constituency? Why did the Prime Minister accede to the request of the grassroots leaders to build a neighbourhood library in his constituency? Why did he not ask the children there to take a bus to go to the community library or some other library in that area? He did not do that and went ahead to build a neighbourhood library. Because the Prime Minister knows that it is important that libraries must be built close to the homes of the children. The library must be easily accessible and within walking distance of their home. The Prime Minister knows that for young children to take a bus to the central or regional library is time-consuming, and sometimes even risky. The round trip may take about one hour. In that one hour, children can do homework or something useful at home.”
“Singapore must make it clear to Indonesia that it does not want to annex the Riau islands or any of the nearby islands to Singapore. The suggestion is purely a business suggestion which can benefit both parties. The suggestion is as follows: (1) One of the main islands, either Bintan or Batam be leased to Singapore for, say, 99 years or longer at a price to be negotiated or based on a valuation by a firm of land valuers of international repute; (2) Upon leasing the island to Singapore, Singapore shall have the full charge and control over it which includes all security matters; and (3) Indonesian citizens shall be allowed to travel freely in and out of the island so that they shall not be deprived of working there or start business in that island, subject to the right by Singapore to stop criminals or trouble-makers and bad elements from entering the island. I think if such an arrangement can be made, the economic benefits accruing to that island and the ripple effects to the neighbours shall be tremendous. Singapore is a small island and needs more land for its population growth and Indonesia is cash-strapped. The leasing of one island to Singapore is beneficial to both countries and it can be nothing but a win-win situation. The Indonesians must not take the move as Singapore wanting to colonise the Riau Archipelago, or to win concessions from them. But it is a purely business view between two countries and they should take it in that light.”
“Sir, there is no problem in the Indonesia-Singapore relationship. It was just going on fine until we read in the papers that trouble has erupted in Bintan Island where Singaporeans have investments there. Apparently, the problem was the compensation paid to the villagers for their land was not enough. The villagers want more compensation. They rioted and staged sit-ins and threatened that if their demands were not met, some drastic action shall be taken by them. Student leaders from Jakarta took up their cause and helped them organise the sit-ins and their demands for compensation for their land. That incident highlights the serious problem of investing in Bintan and the other islands in the Riau Archipelago. The incident alone highlights the seething problems in Bintan and the other Riau islands. When people's stomachs are empty, there shall always be problems. Future would-be investors may not want to put their money in those islands if the situation in those islands does not improve. It would appear that the situation in the Riau islands shall not improve since the central Government has enough problems in its hands. We have read of the break-away problems in Aceh and other parts of Indonesia. Indonesians appear to have been angry at the Timorese for claiming independence for themselves. But at heart, they may be happier for not having to continue to subsidise that country anymore. It is a great strain on their already scarce financial resources to do so. If such are the circumstances in Indonesia, the Indonesians may be amicable to a suggestion by Singapore to lease to Singapore one of the Riau islands nearest to Singapore. I know this is a very sensitive issue. If wrongly handled, it could cause a lot of problems in Singapore's dealings with Indonesia.”
“I believe that Singapore must use as much of its resources as possible to help Malaysia improve its economy and standard of living. As long as there is a wide disparity of standards of living between the two countries, it is difficult for the two neighbours to live in harmony. Therefore, it is to the interest of Singapore to see that the Malaysian economy improves as fast as that of Singapore's economy.”
“In this way, more economic activities shall be generated with more economic growth for both countries. Both sides shall benefit economically. If an economic union, at this point of time, is too big a step for the Malaysian leaders to take, then I would suggest that the formation of an economic union be put aside for the time being and both sides agree on something smaller. I would suggest that the Singapore and Malaysian governments embark on a joint project, something like the Suzhou Industrial Park in China. I would suggest that the project be sited in Johor because of its close proximity to Singapore and its availability of land. Both sides, I hope, are agreeable in principle and the details can surely be worked out. Another idea which Singapore can cooperate with Malaysia is to extend the MRT line all the way from Woodlands to Senai in Johor, where the Senai Airport is situated. The linking of the Singapore MRT to Johor would certainly boost movements of people from both sides of the Causeway. Increased communication means more business activities. More business activities mean more trade which can be beneficial to both sides. The above suggestions must never, for a moment, be given the wrong impression that Singapore intends to exploit the resources of Malaysia to enrich itself. Genuine cooperation cannot be for one-sided gain. It must be for mutual benefit. I hope both the Malaysian and Singaporean leaders are big hearted and go for something big to build a genuine cooperation and friendship between the two countries. The present outstanding issues like the water agreements and the CLOB issue shall then look insignificant. They may not even surface as issues when real cooperation has been established between the two countries.”
“"So near, yet so far." This saying perhaps sums up the Singapore-Malaysia relationship. Singapore and Malaysia are next door neighbours. In fact, we are like Siamese twins linked together physically by a causeway and a bridge. Yet, our two countries' relationship in recent times has been drifting further and further apart. I sincerely hope that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia shall not drift even further apart. We have drifted apart far enough. It is time for the two nations to sincerely seek ways and means to come closer together for the mutual benefit of both countries. Politicians on both sides of the Causeway must come out openly and declare that they want the two countries to cooperate and be friends. The leaders of both countries have talked enough. It is time for both sides generally to show that they want to cooperate and be friends. For this, both countries must commit themselves on something concrete. I have, at one of the Budget debates, suggested that an economic union be established between Singapore and Malaysia. The Sun, a newspaper published in Petaling Jaya, Selangor, picked up my suggestion and ran two articles. The Sun's report showed that, while university lecturers, academics and businessmen in Malaysia favoured the idea of an economic union, the Malaysian politicians were strongly against the idea. I do not know if the Malaysian politicians may have wrongly mistaken an economic union for a political union. An economic union does not involve the independent sovereignty of each state. Each state maintains its sovereignty. The economic union envisages a lowering or doing away with tariffs. There shall be a free movement of goods, services and people within the territories of the union.”
“This is surely not a healthy situation. Our Government should try to get more of our local workers to be trained as skilled construction workers by giving attractive subsidies for the training. At this time, it is perhaps a good time to do so when the construction industry is in the doldrums. 2.27 pm”
“The Government must make up its mind to put a stop to this kind of a school system. Otherwise, the continuing growth in the number of illiterate amongst our workforce can never be stopped. At one time, the Government blamed the large number of uneducated amongst our workforce on the previous government, ie, before the PAP took power. But now we see workers above 40 years old who are not properly educated. All these workers have gone through the PAP system of education, and 42% of them are not properly educated and not fit for the new economy. The only solution is that the Government must have a political will to improve our education system. For this, the Government must release surpluses to spend on building more schools and recruit more teachers. I estimate that the Government should spend an additional $780 million more each year to really give effective teaching in our schools, especially the neighbourhood schools, to make sure, for a start, that all pupils at least learn to read and write the English language by the time they leave school. I recommend an additional sum of $780 million to be spent to reduce the class size by one quarter of its pupils. I believe that with a smaller class size, the teaching can be infinitely more effective. I have been informed that there is a sizable number of students studying in HDB neighbourhood schools who do not manage to read and write the English language at all when they leave school. If this is true, then something drastic must be done to our school system. Another area that I feel the budget surpluses can be beneficially used is to train more of our local workers to become skilled construction workers. It is noted that almost all construction workers at our construction sites are foreigners.”
“It is time to release some of those monies back to the people for their benefit, in particular, to benefit people in education and training. Money spent on the people's education is not wasted. It is not a consumption but an investment. The Government tells the people of Singapore that we are embarking on a knowledge-based economy, and the majority of Singaporeans agree with the Government that we should build a knowledge-based economy. For a knowledge-based economy to succeed, there is a presumption that the majority of our workers have attained their basic education and they are conversant with the three Rs. The truth is that the majority of our workers are poorly educated and poorly trained. Since I came to Parliament more than 10 years ago, I have been hearing that our workers should be further trained and retrained. But as far as I know, no real success in this respect is in sight. Even today, the Budget Statement says: 'Less than half of our workforce above the age of 40 has secondary and higher education. We need to level up this group of workers numbering some 834,000 or 42% of our workforce through training and retraining to help them cope with the new economy.' What I suspect is that those 800,000-odd workers may not be able even to read and write English at all, because our school system has automatic promotion. Those who fail in primary one are automatically promoted to primary two. They fail at primary two and they are pushed up to primary three and so on. They finally fail primary six and they are put in 'N' classes in secondary schools. And after one or two years in secondary school 'N' level classes, they just simply drop out of school, and they join the pool of almost illiterate workers.”
“The residents of HDB flats were made to understand that if they do not vote for the PAP, their flats shall be upgraded last. The upgrading of HDB flats was a major strategy of the PAP to win votes in the 1997 general elections. The budget surpluses of the following year were to be used for the upgrading programme of HDB flats. As it turned out, 1998 was the worst recession year and the Government had to announce a scaling down of the upgrading programme promised by the PAP the previous year. The budget surpluses that were used for the upgrading of HDB flats after the 1997 general elections were clear evidence of the use of surpluses by the Government for a political motive. Sir, in this year's Budget, the surplus is shown as $2.45 billion. This surplus is only the surplus of income over expenditure. The actual receipts or the money which shall be collected by the Government is actually about $3.41 billion. This sum takes into account what the Government receives from its investments and sale of land. When we talk of budget surpluses, we are only referring to part of the money to be made by the Government. The budget surplus this year only shows $2.24 billion but actually the net receipt of the Government is $3.41 billion. The statistics which only show budget surpluses each year of the Government do not show a true picture of the receipts of the Government, which are more than the budget surplus for each year. It is touted that the Government has $150 billion in reserves. I do not see the rationale for accumulating so much money, other than the political benefits from it by the party in power. The Government wants to awe the people that it has so much money. I think the Government should not continue to accumulate so much money.”
“The employment of a foreign maid is a necessity for many families in Singapore. Therefore, no matter how high the Government raises the levy, the families that need some domestic help to look after their children and aged parents shall somehow find ways and means to employ a foreign maid, either by changing jobs for higher paid ones or to work longer hours to pay for the increased levy. The policy of high levies shall never be a deterrent for Singaporeans who have to employ foreign maids. What is going to happen is that Singaporeans shall seek cheaper maids or employment agents shall force foreign maids to accept lower pay, which shall also not be a good thing because Singaporeans shall then get poorer quality maids. The Government should lower the foreign maid levy by, say, $45, to $300 per maid per month, for a start. This shall be a great relief to many working Singaporean couples. I have spoken on many Budget debates and highlighted the visibly large surpluses accumulated by the Government each year. The people of Singapore are beginning to feel that these accrued budget surpluses are, in fact, not the people's money, but exclusively the money of the Government, although the Government always says that they hold it in trust for the people. Much of these surpluses is collected from the people. The opposition suspects that the policy to accumulate massive amounts of funds by the Government is not exclusively for economic reasons, but for political ones. We have seen that in the 1997 general elections, the Government made it clear that it shall only upgrade HDB flats in precincts that supported Government policies. The words "support Government policies" are an euphemism for the words "vote for the PAP".”
“I have been told that the foreign maid levy is higher than the salaries received by the maids themselves. My feedback is that, generally, a Filipino maid receives $350 per month, an Indonesian maid receives about $240 a month, and a Sri Lankan maid receives about $200 per month. The Government makes the most money when a foreign maid is employed in a household in Singapore. Yet, the Government has not provided any services to the foreign maids. The Government has not provided training for them to be good housekeepers or child minders. The only thing the Government does is to allow them to work here and impose a heavy levy on them. The foreign maid levy, to me, is nothing more than a tax imposed on the maids. The Government says that the rationale for such a high rate of levy or tax is to prevent Singapore from being flooded with foreign maids. With such a high levy, the great number of foreign maids wanting to work in Singapore has not diminished, but still continues to increase. As we have heard on the sitting of 22nd February 2000 in this House, the Minister for Manpower said that there were about 100,000 foreign maids employed in Singapore. So, the number of foreign maids working in Singapore has not abated, but it is increasing despite the imposition of the high rate of levy. The fact is that there shall always be families wanting to employ foreign maids, as both spouses have to go to work. The cost of living is so high that families generally cannot depend on the income of one breadwinner to support the whole family. As a result, when both spouses are required to seek employment, a foreign maid has to be employed, primarily to look after their children and aged parents, and to cook for them.”
“The countries in the region have all recovered from the recession and are showing positive growth too. For Singapore, the NUS Economic Studies Unit predicted that its GDP shall be 7.9% this year. It can be seen that the world, the region and Singapore's economic prospects are not that bad. Therefore, there is no reason for the Government for not increasing the employer's CPF rate by another 2 percentage points. At the moment, there is already a restoration of 2 percentage points of the employer's CPF to take effect on 1st April this year. I do not think that that is enough. With the high cost of living, workers in Singapore are generally living from hand to mouth and any cut in the CPF shall certainly cause hardship among them, as happened in 1998. On the other hand, an increment of the CPF rate contribution, even if it is only 2 percentage points more, shall be a great help to the workers as most workers have to pay their HDB monthly loans through their CPF. It is really a sad day for the workers on Budget day not to have any restoration of the said employer's CPF contribution rate. So much for the gratefulness of the Government, for the sacrifices made by the workers. When times were bad, the Government called upon the workers to accept a lowering of the CPF contributions, to tighten their belts, to accept pay cuts. The workers responded positively. There were no strikes, no trouble given to the Government. Yet, when times are good again, the Government appears to have forgotten the sacrifices made by the workers. Other than the two percentage points which the Government has restored to the workers, the other thing that the Government could do is to lower the foreign maid levy, which now stands at $345 per month per maid.”
“Sir, this year's Budget is an inconsequential one. The workers have not been given any significant benefits, neither has the business community. The real beneficiary is the Government, as usual ending up with hefty surpluses. Firstly, let us look at the position of the workers. For two years, our workers were at the forefront in the fight against the recession which has gripped this country and the region since July 1997. The workers were the first to suffer. Their casualties include massive retrenchments, pay-cuts and lowering of the employer's CPF by 10 percentage points. Our workers have suffered. They were the ones who were affected most by the cost-cutting measures, to hold back the recession and not let it get worse. Yet, at this time, when the economy has basically recovered, what do we see? No rewards for the workers, only pittance of small rebates of service and conservancy and other charges for HDB flat dwellers. Those rebates are less than the ones given last year. The two years' recession has left the workers worse off this year. Last year, many of the workers still had some savings to rely on but after two years of recession, all their savings have dried up. And this year, they are in a worse position than last year. They should be given more benefits this year. I think the Minister should have been more generous and reward the workers. The employer's component of the CPF should have been restored at least by a further 2 percentage points, if not more. I do not think that the economy shall be adversely affected if 2 percentage points of the employer's CPF contribution are restored. The economy of America is strong. So too is that of the EU. Japan's economy is said to have bottomed out in 1999 and it is on the road to recovery.”
“Sir, does the Ministry think that because the accident rate is only 0.1%, he says that there is no safety problem? But I think in such accident cases involving school children, you should look at the absolute numbers rather than the figures.”
“Sir, I am not bringing up this issue of neighbourhood library to score a political point. I am talking strictly from the educational point of view. Has the Ministry discovered from the educational point of view whether there is a need to establish libraries that are close by and accessible to pre-schoolers to teach them to read? Is there such a finding? Secondly, I understand that many children from non English-speaking families still do not master the English language at the end of their education in school. So this is a problem. Has the Ministry found out such a problem?”
“Sir, with regard to pre-school education, has the Ministry found the need to establish neighbourhood libraries for pre-schoolers to teach them to read at an early age? Secondly, is there a problem in the teaching of English to children from non-English speaking families?”
“If the Minister is not going to do anything concrete, maybe I would ask the Minister to provide the information kit and the video that he talks about to Town Councils so that Town Council staff could study or look at them, and maybe pass the message over to the residents.”
“I understand that there are about 50,000 maids in Singapore and that 86% of Singaporeans live in highrise flats and many of them employ foreign maids. I would think that probably, taken from just pure statistics, there will be one or two more maids falling from the windows. Under what sort of circumstances will the Minister do something concrete for maids?”
“Sir, could the Minister ask his Ministry to think over and implement the use of a safety harness for foreign maids when they clean windows? Instead of giving them a false security, in fact, it will make both the employers and the maids aware that it is a dangerous task and to take precautions. The fact that a safety harness is to be used, they will probably be aware of the danger at that point of time. As regards criminal law, as far as I know, no employer has been prosecuted for criminal negligence for asking the maid to clean windows. I am not aware of any case where an employer had asked his maid to climb out of the windows. Normally, they clean the windows at the edge. Do they require the maids to climb out of the window? If an employer requires his maid to climb out of the window, then there is probably a case of criminal negligence.”
“The information kit highlighted the employers' role and responsibility and includes a training checklist for employers to discuss potential safety hazards that the foreign domestic workers may encounter while performing household chores. My Ministry has also produced an orientation video for new foreign domestic workers coming to Singapore for the first time. Amongst other things, the video advises foreign domestic workers to lock the window grilles before cleaning high-rise windows, and not to climb out of the window to clean the windows or to retrieve objects that may have fallen onto the window ledge. We will continue to educate and raise the awareness of employers and their foreign domestic workers. The Work Permit Department is currently working on a new information kit that will be issued to foreign domestic workers in their own language. The kit will also draw the attention of the foreign domestic workers to the precautionary measures that need to be taken when they perform various domestic chores. We believe that our effort will minimise risk and accidents involving foreign domestic workers.”
“The requirement for the use of a safety harness is also not a fail-safe measure as evidenced by the number of construction workers who suffered injuries or died from falls. A safety harness must be worn and secured properly in order to be effective. Employers and foreign domestic workers, unfamiliar with the use of safety harnesses, may endanger themselves. In fact, its use may create a false sense of security with more employers asking their foreign domestic workers to do dangerous work leading to accidents. Sir, the problem is best addressed through proper public education and raising awareness among employers and their foreign domestic workers of the danger of cleaning windows in high-rise buildings. Most foreign domestic workers come from rural areas and are thus not familiar with working and living in an urban environment. Employers should ensure that their foreign domestic workers are properly oriented and trained when performing household duties. Singaporeans who employ foreign domestic workers have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that their foreign domestic workers work safely and securely in their homes, free from unnecessary risks, harassment or physical abuse. Employers should not compromise on the safety and welfare of their foreign domestic workers. Sir, to help raise the awareness of our employers of the likely hazards of household work, my Ministry had in October last year, sent a circular to all employers of foreign domestic workers to remind them to exercise greater care when assigning household cleaning duties to their foreign domestic workers. Early last year, we had issued an information kit to all employers of foreign domestic workers.”
“All right. Did the Police advise the commercial firm causing these problems to change their method of distribution of the Hello Kitty dolls to prevent breach of peace and injury to members of the public? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in fact, this is what exactly happened. It was because of Police's consultation and advice that the final launch on the 3rd of February was done differently. Otherwise, it would have been done the same way and there would have been problems. FOREIGN MAIDS (Provision of safety harness) 4. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the many fatal accidents happening to foreign maids, whether he will consider making it compulsory for employers to provide safety harness, similar to that worn by construction workers, when the maids are asked to do cleaning work in high-rise buildings. The Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, my Ministry had studied various options to check the spate of accidents involving foreign domestic workers (FDWs) falling from high-rise windows. While the use of safety harness was a possibility, we concluded that it is not the best way to resolve the problem of foreign domestic workers falling while cleaning windows in high-rise buildings. Safety harnesses are used when workers have no option but to work in places where there are no secure foothold or handhold and the risk of falling is high. Foreign domestic workers should not be required to carry out any work under such risky conditions at all. If they are required to clean windows, they should use appropriate cleaning equipment with extended handles to reach the difficult spots. They do not have to stand on chairs or stools or climb out of the building to clean windows.”