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 16 of 85.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. When I listened to the 20-minute speech of the President, somehow the speech sounded empty to me. Something basic was missing despite all the good things said - the Government wanting to be people focused, to promote life-long learning, to encourage a knowledge-based society, so on and so forth. At the end of it all, to me, it was still a PAP programme and not really a nation-building programme. The speech sounded more like a PAP vote-catching exercise, a programme to preserve the PAP and to keep the PAP in power, rather than a programme to prepare Singapore to compete with the industrial western developed nations. There was not a word in the President's Speech which says that his Government was going to promote democracy in Singapore, and to make Singapore a truly democratic country. To me, Singapore has to be a vibrant, dynamic democratic country if we are to enter the league of the advanced industrialised nations, and to make Singapore a truly prosperous country. If the President had only said that Singapore wanted to be a truly democratic nation, then we would all know exactly where Singapore is heading. But at the moment I am still unsure where Singapore is heading. Are we going to have a more open democratic society or continue to have a closed paternalistic society? If the Government is serious on what it says about wanting a more vibrant and dynamic society, wanting the people of Singapore to be creative and innovative and to build a knowledge-based economy in Singapore, then the Government must opt for a truly democratic society. But the Government does not appear to be doing so.”
“Let the Opposition be institutionalised in Singapore. So far, I cannot see such steps being taken. And, therefore, I cannot support the motion.”
“The Opposition so far has not been able to win any GRC seats because they are unable to gather a group of candidates to match that of the PAP's. I believe that this obstacle put up by the PAP shall not last long. The Opposition needs only to capture one GRC and the myth of the invincibility of the GRC shall be demolished after that and more GRCs shall fall to the Opposition. Then the PAP shall have to change the electoral laws again to keep the Opposition at bay. Another device of the PAP to keep the Opposition out of Parliament is to change the electoral boundaries. We have seen that done in many constituencies when the Opposition gets high votes in those constituencies. The constituency of Braddell Heights is a good example. Sin Kek Tong of the Singapore People's Party stood in that constituency in 1988 and 1991. His votes went as high as 48% in 1991. He hoped to win the next GE in 1997. But suddenly that constituency disappeared. Its boundaries were redrawn for it to be included in Marine Parade GRC. The Opposition is thus unable really to prepare the ground for the next election, because the boundaries can suddenly change without prior warning. The Opposition has to hit a moving target. The PAP does not make it easy for the Opposition to win seats in Parliament. If that is really the policy of the PAP Government, how can we say that we have made progress in building a system of parliamentary democracy? We must have greater number of Opposition Members in Parliament to establish more effective checks and balances on the Government. When this is done, then we can really say that we have established true parliamentary democracy. The Government must take steps not to impede the growth of Opposition in Singapore. Let the Opposition grow. Let it take root.”
“But in reality, we do not see it. An important aspect of a democratic society is to have effective Opposition in Parliament. Without this important element in Parliament, a country cannot be said to be democratic. Effective Opposition implies that there must be a core number of Opposition Members in the House. In Singapore, at the moment, there are three Opposition Members - two elected and one NCMP. In our Singapore's context, three Opposition Members in Parliament are not enough, since politicians in Singapore, other than office-bearers, are part-timers. And as such, they cannot devote as much time as they would like to their parliamentary work or to probe or investigate thoroughly into the affairs of a government. In our context, after 34 years of independence, it is sad to see that there are only three Opposition Members in Parliament. I would say that to have an effective Opposition in Parliament today, we must have at least another 12 more Opposition Members. The question is why there is an absence or even a core number of Opposition Members in Parliament. The answer is obvious. The Government's policy is never to encourage more Opposition in Parliament. In fact, the Government is trying hard to keep the Opposition out of Parliament. Look at what happened after Anson in 1981. By-elections were never called again, because normally at by-elections the Opposition has a better chance of winning. Not only by-elections were never called but they are permanently banned in GRCs. The law has been changed to make it unnecessary to hold by-elections in GRCs in case any of their Members leave Parliament for whatever reason. Then, again, there is a change of election laws to bring in GRCs which is a great obstacle for the Opposition to overcome.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, democracy denotes openness, transparency and accountability. An authoritarian system does not have any of these features. I believe that a country must opt for one or the other system, then we know what direction that country is heading. In the case of Singapore, we are uncertain whether we are taking the path towards democracy or towards a more closed authoritarian system. On the one hand, we say that we are working towards a more democratic system as our children are taught in the Pledge which they have to take every day at school. On the other hand, we see that in actuality, we are building a system that is more closed. If we want to have more openness, more transparency, and more accountability, we must have more Opposition in Parliament. If the Opposition is weak, less than 5% representation in Parliament, the Government simply ignores them. The Government's attitude is "what can they do", as there are so few in number. The Government can ride roughshod over a weak Opposition and can get away with it. However, if the Opposition is strong, say, 40% or 45% representation in Parliament, the Government will really have to be on its toes. It shall account for every detail of Government policy when asked to do so by the Opposition, because the Opposition has every chance of winning the next election if the Government does not perform as it is asked to do. For this reason, in all developed countries, the electorate make sure that there is a sizeable Opposition in their parliaments to check on the government and to keep it on its toes and to make sure that it performs well and efficiently and not to waste the country's resources. In Singapore, we pay lip-service to the desire to build a democratic society.”
“Now that the institution of the Elected President is in place, the Opposition has to make efforts to make sure that the Government abides by the Constitution, and not to ride roughshod over the Presidency. This can easily happen since the Elected President is very much alone. Whereas on the other side, we have an all-powerful, overwhelming Government which could be quite intimidating to the lone elected President. Mr Ong Teng Cheong, the current President, dared to speak up. Many have asked: how come he dares to do so? For the answer, we must look at the man himself. He was a die-hard politician. He has been toughened at the hustings. He was also a trade union man, and not an armchair one at that. I have read that he had led an industrial action once. So he was no pushover. He had guts. He had courage. I believe that it was this nature of Mr Ong which compelled him to speak up to voice his dissatisfaction of the way the Government treated the office of the Elected President. We in the Opposition support Mr Ong's press conference of 16th July. We are happy that he dared to speak out, criticise the Government, and voice his dissatisfaction with the way the Government treated the office of the Presidency. The Elected President has two important custodial powers. One is to oversee new appointments, and the other is to protect the reserves that have been accumulated by previous governments. We in the Opposition shall assist the Elected President to carry out his duties. We shall speak up in Parliament if there is any hint that the Government attempts to block the President's effort to exercise those powers. I support the amended motion.”
“The Opposition in the 1988 general election opposed the introduction of the Elected President. It had good reasons to do so. It persisted that the institution of the Elected President was installed so that it could be used against the Opposition should the Opposition be elected into power. I can see that some of the younger Members are smiling in this House. They think that the Opposition cannot get into power, but the Senior Minister and the older PAP Members think otherwise. In 1981, Anson was lost. Then in the 1984 general elections, not only two seats fell to the Opposition but, more importantly, there was a 12.3% swing of the votes to the Opposition. That massive swing of the pendulum towards the Opposition shocked and angered the Senior Minister, who was then the Prime Minister. Those Members who watched television at 3.00 on the morning after the polling was over in 1984 would remember the grim face of the Senior Minister. That election result shocked him. He knew that if the pendulum swing continued at that rate, the PAP shall be out of office in another two or three general elections. He took the 12.3% swing of the votes to the Opposition seriously. He knew that if nothing was done, the Opposition shall come into power in 10 or 15 years' time. I believe it was the shock of the big swing of the votes to the Opposition in 1984 that got the Senior Minister to moot the idea of the GRCs and the Elected President, purportedly to preserve national wealth. Members know what happened after that. The election laws were drastically changed to prevent further PAP loss at the polls. The Constitution was amended to bring in the institution of the Elected President to protect and preserve the national wealth.”
“I think Mr Jeyaretnam in his reply later on will surely have something to say about the remarks made by Prof. Chin.”
“What I am going to say is that the Opposition has got nothing against Mr Ong personally. Prof. Chin tries to draw a scenario where the Opposition is objecting to Mr Ong personally. We have got nothing to that effect. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung rose ---”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I think it is unfair of Prof. Chin Tet Yung to say that Mr Jeyaretnam has been making deprecatory remarks about the President. The Opposition has got nothing against Mr Ong personally. If you look at the amendment made by Mr Jeyaretnam, he regrets that the Government blocks the President's effort to --- Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung rose ---”
“Sir, I would like to ask a question about the NII. The Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, said that the Government has got enough surpluses to tide over 1998/99 and the NII was held to be past investments from 1992 onwards. But suddenly it has now been changed to present reserves. What is the rationale behind this?”
“If we could magically solve that problem, I will be the first to do so.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that the paramount interest must be the child? Even if the family is broken up because the state wants the child to be in school and one of the parents says no, does the Minister not think that the interest of the child should come first? If the family is going to be broken up, so be it. But the child must receive an education, otherwise he will be disadvantaged for the whole of his life. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not sure everyone would agree with the Member's assertion that the family must be broken up. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): I was interested to hear the Minister say that the family should not be compelled to send children to school. Is the Minister not aware that in a great many other areas, compulsion is brought on adults to do whatever the Government thinks should be done, for example, topping up Medisave. Licences are not renewed unless people go and top up their Medisave? Is that not a compulsion even when they cannot afford to top up? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in some cases, this will work, but in other cases, it will not. In the case of compulsion to attend school, I do not think it is going to work because it depends on a larger series of things to be in place first. I can compel or I can try to compel children to be in school, but I cannot compel them to be looked after properly when they are at home for 18 hours. A lot of things can happen during that period of time. As I have explained, compulsion to send children to school will not necessarily mean that they will be in school because there will be other issues then, like absenteeism, truancy, and so forth, which will not be solved merely by enacting legislation or putting in place the rule that says that all children must be in school.”
“In fact, what we are doing is quite a sensible and reasonable approach, ie, to encourage as many children as possible to come to school, I think we have achieved quite considerable success.”
“Sir, despite what the Minister has said, I remember not long ago the then Minister for Education said that there were 2,900 students who had not been enrolled in schools but now the Minister has given the figure of 1,500. Why is there this contradiction? That is the first question. The other point is that the Minister says that education is a family responsibility. The fact that the state has educational facilities for these children, does the Minister not think that the state is in fact irresponsible by not getting these children to school? How can a child be thrown into society without learning how to read and write? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I am unable to answer the Member's first question because I do not quite understand it. On the second question that the Member has asked, I have already explained that. There should be a balance of responsibilities between the state and the family. The state provides the places. The families should want to send the children to school. And we take quite extraordinary measures to track them down and encourage them to come to school. While we want all of them to come to school, I do not believe that compulsory education itself is going to solve the problem. What do we do if the parents do not wish to send their children to school for some reason or other? Do we jail them? Do we fine them? I think that will make the problem worse. You break up the family. So while we want to encourage all these children to come to school, we need something which is more than compulsory education. Compulsory education is not a magic bullet which, if we enact, will suddenly see all the children in school miraculously.”
“These efforts have paid off, with more syndicate operations being crippled. For the first half of 1999, 10 trafficking cases were detected at the Woodlands Checkpoint as compared to only one case in the first half of 1998. Third, more and better trained officers deployed at the Checkpoints. SIR and Police have also deployed more and better-trained officers to intensify checks at both the land checkpoints. Lastly, SIR also works with the other Home Team's departments to jointly tackle the illegal immigrant problem. I am sure Members must have read in the papers about the use of SCDF rescue dogs deployed at the Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints to sniff out illegal immigrants concealed in car boots or secret compartments in tourist coaches, lorries, and `Bas Kilang' buses. Sir, in addition to rigorous enforcement, we have also spread deterrent messages to potential illegal immigrants and traffickers. Since April 1998, SIR has been issuing pamphlets in four languages to foreigners at the land checkpoints carrying messages on the tough penalties for immigration offences. SIR has also been applying for deterrent sentences to be meted out when traffickers are prosecuted in court.”
“Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there has been an increase in the number of attempted smuggling of illegal immigrants into Singapore detected at the Woodlands Checkpoint; and what measures have been taken to check this problem. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, more cases involving the smuggling of illegal immigrants into Singapore have been detected at the Woodlands Checkpoint this year. For the first half of 1999, 10 traffickers and 51 illegal immigrants were arrested, as compared to only one trafficker and two illegal immigrants arrested in the corresponding period last year. In the whole of last year, 61 foreigners were arrested at the Woodlands Checkpoint for attempting to enter Singapore illegally. Sir, indeed the numbers have gone up. Last year, more than 14,700 illegal immigrants were caught in Singapore. SIR estimates that about 70% of them came through the Woodlands Checkpoint. This illustrates that illegal entry into Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint is indeed a serious problem. SIR has thus taken a range of measures to check the problem at the Woodlands Checkpoint. What are some of these measures? First, like I have mentioned just now, more intensive checks. SIR has, since the later half of 1998, intensified checks at the checkpoint. From July 1998 to June this year, 19 vehicles were seized and forfeited, as compared to only five vehicles in the 12-month period preceding that. With the recent opening of the New Woodlands Checkpoint, SIR has also started conducting more complete checks on travellers and vehicles. Second, enhanced intelligence capability. SIR has also enhanced its intelligence capability against syndicates trafficking illegal immigrants.”
“Sir, I have noticed that in the old Woodlands Checkpoint, many of the immigration booths were not opened during peak hours. I do not know whether the Minister has given instructions for all the booths in the new Checkpoint to be opened, especially during the crowded periods. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, like I have said, one of the measures taken to ameliorate the situation arising in the first few days was the opening of more counters. For example, as a quick check, in the old Woodlands Checkpoint, for motorcycles and cars, there were 24 counters. Now, there are 53 counters for motorcycles and cars in the new Woodlands Checkpoint. This is more than double. For buses, at the old Woodlands Checkpoint, there were 10 counters, and now there are 26 counters, including the conversion of some departure counters into arrival counters. Not only has SIR converted one departure lane into an arrival lane so that there is better flow, but for the bus commuters, six of the counters, I understand, have also been so converted to accommodate a faster flow. And lorry counters have been raised from four in the old Woodlands Checkpoint to six. Sir, I take Mr Chiam's point that more counters should and indeed have been opened. I think the basic point is that what can be done have been looked at and have been done. But, of course, like I have said, SIR together with the other agencies is still looking at ways to improve the situation, eg, getting more of the commuters, particularly the bus commuters, to go into the immigration access card system. I understand that since the new Woodlands Checkpoint opened, about 4,000 new cards have been issued. So the situation should further improve. WOODLANDS CHECKPOINT (Smuggling of illegal immigrants) 6.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The first time I met the First Lady was when my wife and I were invited to the Istana to have a popiah party. She was very gracious, a woman without airs and easily approachable. I read in the papers that she carried out her duties very bravely and courageously. No one would know, by looking at her calm and dignified surface, that she was internally in great pain and discomfort. I read also in the papers that President Ong knew the First Lady when he was in school and they courted and carried on their courtship into the university days and I believe when they came back to Singapore, they worked together. They were very close and I believe that they must have been a very loving couple and, therefore, it must have been a great loss to the President on the untimely death of his beloved wife. I extend my deep sympathy and condolences to the President and his family.”
“I do not know whether this matter has gone on appeal. But if it has gone on appeal, it is sub judice. So we should not be discussing the case now.”
“We do not know. But what we do know is that he is not the choice of the voters at Jalan Besar GRC. He is the choice of the PAP. The voters at Jalan Besar GRC must be given their democractic right to choose their own representative in Parliament, not to force one upon them. The PAP should uphold democracy and call a by-election at Jalan Besar. The next general election, if it goes its full-term, is to be held in early 2002. This Parliamentary term has still 2 1/2 years more to go. A by-election should be held at Jalan Besar GRC. I support the motion.”
“That is why the PAP is not willing to announce a by-election there. The Jalan Besar GRC comprises a large part of the former Rochor constituency. The PAP still remembers that they nearly lost in Rochor in 1963. The PAP's Chairman then, Dr Toh Chin Chye, narrowly beat the Barisan Sosialis candidate, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, by less than 100 votes. The PAP old guard shuddered when they talked of the election at Rochor constituency in 1963. They won that election only by the skin of their teeth. After that experience, I do not think that the PAP is going to chance a by-election at Jalan Besar. A mid-term by-election is normally a good time for the people to assess the Government's policies. The last general election was held on 2nd January 1997. At this point of time, it is exactly half way through the term before the next general election is held. So it is a good time for the people to audit what the Government has done up to now, ie, whether the people are happy with the Government's policies such as cost cutting measures and other policies to revive the economy or the Government's handling of Singapore's relations with Malaysia and its other policies. The Government should allow itself to be judged purely on its performance without massive incentives offered to the people like in the last election such as the upgrading of flats. If the PAP really believes in democracy, then it should hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The essence of democracy is representation and choice. The residents at Jalan Besar GRC elected the original four persons to represent them in Parliament. But now the slate of four is left only with three. The PAP has sent a former failed candidate at Hougang, Mr Heng Chee How, to fill in that place of the resigned MP. He may or may not be good.”
“Under the GRC system, legally, there is no need to hold a by-election when one of the component MPs in the GRC drops out, either by resignation or whatever reason. There shall only be a by-election in the GRC when all its MPs are no longer Members of Parliament. It is almost impossible for this kind of situation to happen after the election laws were amended at the beginning of 1988. After the amendments, the GRCs currrently are made up of four, five or six MPs in a GRC. It is difficult therefore to envisage a situation when all four, five or six MPs in one GRC completely leave Parliament. In these days, the new MPs are in their 30s. They are well-fed, strong and healthy. I cannot see any one of them falling ill and opting out of Parliament. Besides, I cannot see young MPs, with so much to look ahead, voluntarily resigning unless they are forced to do so like Choo Wee Khiang's case at Jalan Besar GRC this year. The purpose of the GRC scheme is aimed at wiping out by-elections. It is noted that the Prime Minister did not use the legal reason for not wanting to hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC, but instead use an economic reason. If the Prime Minister has said that he need not hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC because the law does not require him to do so, the people will be quick to point out that he held one at his own constituency in Marine Parade GRC in December 1992. A precedent has been set at Marine Parade GRC that if he wanted to, he could call a by-election despite the fact that the law did not require him to do so. In Marine Parade's case, it was obvious to the PAP that they would win that by-election because it was the Prime Minister's ward and he was an incumbent MP for many years. As regards Jalan Besar, it is no sure winner.”
“If there are no by-elections, there shall be no defeat for the PAP. It is as simple as that. There were vacant seats after 1981. One was at Havelock when the then Minister for Finance Hon Sui Sen died in office and later Anson itself became vacant due to the ouster of its incumbent MP from Parliament. For those two vacant constituencies, their terms were not ended and, yet, by-elections were not called for. The Government gave the lame excuse that the Constitution did not state a time frame within which by-elections have to be called. Normally, if no time limit is given for doing an act in the statute, then the court would normally interpret it as an act to be done within a reasonable time. The common law therefore states that a by-election at Havelock and Anson should have been held within a reasonable time of becoming vacant. I would say that within three months would be a reasonable time. Yet, by-elections were not held in those two constituencies. The PAP knew that if they maintained only single seat constituencies, inevitably in mid-term, there shall be by-elections. For example, there were four vacant wards in 1979 and, before the 1984 elections, there were two vacant wards but no by-elections were held. After Anson, I would say that the Opposition had a good chance of winning the by-elections. The people know for sure that the Government is already firmly in place and it cannot be toppled by a by-election. For this reason, Singaporeans are more amenable to vote the Opposition at a by-election and the PAP knows that. That is why the PAP invented the concept of GRCs and keep the number of single seat constituencies to a minimum. Currently, there are only nine single seats, down from 22 out of 83 elected seats in Parliament.”
“Sir, the opposition is the voice of the people. Presently, the people want a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The opposition must voice their desire in Parliament. But the Government has a contrary view. It says that there is no need to have a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. If a by-election is held in Jalan Besar GRC, it shall distract the people from the Government's effort in turning the economy around. The Government's excuse is of course unacceptable. It is a lame excuse. How can a by-election in one GRC suddenly stop all economic activities in Singapore, stop foreign investors from wanting to invest in Singapore or stop their investments from coming into Singapore? At one time, I remember in the late 1970s, the Government said that should one Opposition Member be elected into Parliament, it would drive the foreign investors away from Singapore. Since then, more than one Member of the Opposition has been elected to Parliament, and yet Singapore has prospered. The economy has done so well that the Government is able to reap unprecedented surpluses each year. In similar vein, the excuse that one by-election in Jalan Besar GRC will distract the Government from its efforts to turn the economy around is one that cannot be accepted by the people. The real reason is of course the memory of Anson. It was at Anson, in 1981, that the PAP suffered its first defeat after 15 years of one-party rule. Mr Jeyaretnam of the Workers' Party broke the one-party rule by winning the by-election in that constituency. The defeat jolted the PAP. The PAP machinery quickly started to work and find ways and means to stop another Anson from happening. The best solution of course is to do away with by-elections altogether. This solution is 100% foolproof.”
“Three more supplementary questions, Sir. First, when will these residents have to move out? Second, for the point block flats, will HDB review their compensation rate? And third, I believe in the last general elections, the residents there were promised upgrading. Did HDB inform the PAP candidate there that there would be upgrading? 1.30 pm”
“I have a question, Sir. I would like to ask when would these buildings be demolished. I just want another clarification. He said that the floor area would be bigger. Is this in respect of the new flats that they are moving to or the ones that are going to be rebuilt? If they are going to be for the rebuilt flats, it does not benefit the residents there now.”
“Sir, as far as we know, most of these residents at the point block flats are unhappy because their compensation is only $300,000 and many of them bought at the resale value of $360,000 for a start. They already lose $60,000.”
“Sir, I do not know how the Minister arrived at this 70% approval. But from our own research, we found that almost everyone we approached was not happy about moving out from these point block flats. They stand to lose an average ---”
“My question is, in view of the fact that HDB is going to use the land at Hillview Estate intensively and that these point block flats are already an intensive use of the land, why can they not be left alone?”
“Sir, these three blocks of flats are point block flats. They have 25 levels each and are densely occupied. Also, Sir, there are precedents in other places, which have been compulsorily acquired, where the point block flats are left alone. For example, at Depot Road and Teochew Street, the point block flats which are densely occupied are not demolished. Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you proceed with your question?”
“Sir, I just want to inform the Member that we have no compulsory education in Singapore.”
“As for workers training, it is obvious that the Government has taken every effort through the NTUC's SRP to ensure that those who did not avail themselves of the opportunity to receive a decent education be given a second chance to upgrade themselves to get the skills required to be world ready, and to be ready for the knowledge-based economy which is coming. I think the onus is on the workers to avail themselves of the opportunities. Recently, PM Goh, in the May Day Rally, further committed to workers training by giving more money to NTUC so that they can run more of the SRP programmes to reach out to more workers. I think the Government has done their fair share to ensure that all Singaporeans have enough opportunities. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, move on to my main point.”
“Had Mr Chiam been vigilant and open to Minister Teo's request for feedback, he would have submitted a report and his name would have appeared in it and he would not have criticised the report altogether. He raised several other points regarding voting overseas and compulsory education. I think we have to bear in mind that at the end of the day when we solicit feedback, it does not necessarily mean that all feedback must be implemented. It is true, as RAdm Teo has mentioned in his interview, that there were heated discussions in the subject committees about overseas voting and other feedback that we have received. But in the end, what was important was that we arrived at a position as a Committee, not as a Government, that this is not something which is desirable. If someone truly has a stake in Singapore, he would come back and vote in Singapore and not overseas. He talked about "Every Singaporean matters" and it is time for us to show respect to every individual and he wants the Government to provide the lead. This is very unusual. He has always asked the Government not to intervene but, in this instance, he wants the Government to intervene. I think we have done our best through the campaigns that we have started. MITA has a movement called the "Small Kindness Movement" to ensure that in the interaction between members of the public and the public sector, kindness, graciousness and courteous behaviour are shown towards our public. I think the movement is quite successful.”
“They wanted to continue their studies but just could not find a Government school that will take in over-aged students. They could enrol in a privately run school, but the fees were rather high. I believe that the Government should revive the night schools to cater for over-aged persons to further their secondary education. Whatever it is, the Government must make available real opportunities to all Singaporeans to train themselves to the fullest of their ability, especially to the older Singaporeans who, for whatever reasons, have missed the opportunity to complete their secondary education the first time round. A second, or even a third chance should be made available to them. Whilst the Government wants to promote a knowledge-based economy, there is a proportionately large number of our workers who still do not have secondary education. This anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb. The Government should solve this problem. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications (Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, Mr Chiam has, usual to his characteristic style of taking a swipe at the report, started very well by commenting on the coloured pictures and the double spacing. To suggest that the report is another piece of Government publication is to insult all Singaporeans who have contributed to the report. I think he owes an apology to the Singaporean public because this report is a culmination of all the efforts that we have put together for the last year and a half to cull feedback and opinions on how Singapore's future should be. We also asked all Singaporeans, including the Opposition Members, to provide their responses and feedback. In fact, Mr Low Thia Khiang did submit a report and his name appears in the report.”
“A few years back, I asked the former Minister for Education to implement compulsory education in our educational system. He refused to do so. His excuse was that every year, only about 2,900 children do not attend school at all out of a cohort of about 50,000 children. The Minister said that it was not worth the Government's while to have a whole section in the Ministry of Education to police and enforce a policy of compulsory education for those children. If the Singapore Government really cares for every Singaporean, then it will not abandon nearly 6% of our school children who do not attend school. I am a staunch believer that every Singaporean counts. If the Government believes that too, then it must immediately implement the policy of compulsory education in our school system. With regard to "Every Singaporean matters", I agree with the subject committee's call to the Government to lead the way. The Government must call upon all its employees, whether in the Government departments, polyclinics, hospitals or the police force, to show respect for every individual. Only by taking this attitude can the Government demonstrate to the people that it really believes in "Every Singaporean matters". In Singapore, despite the fact that it has invested a large part of its budget in education, there are still about 700,000 of its workforce who do not have secondary education. If Singapore is going to be a land where opportunities are available to all, the Government must make available the opportunities to workers who have missed their secondary education to complete their secondary education. I have seen two cases at my meet-the-people session where Singaporean adults have only primary six education.”
“Sir, last year, I heard of Singapore 21 being mentioned, but did not really know what it was all about until I received a copy of the glossy Singapore 21 Committee Report, with plenty of coloured pictures and printed words with double spacing, which makes them easy reading. I notice that the Singapore 21 Committee was initiated by the Prime Minister and was headed by a Minister. The five subject sub-committees were all having co-Chairmen who were all PAP MPs, except for two who were NMPs. It is copyrighted by the Government of Singapore. My reaction to the report is that it is another piece of government publication to make the Government look good. The five subject sub-committees have approached some 6,000 people and must have collected a lot of feedback but I believe no Opposition members or representatives were interviewed. Some of these feedback must have been quite controversial because the government is not willing to accept them, for example, the voting rights of Singaporeans when they are abroad. The Government refuses to accept the feedback which calls on it to allow Singaporeans who are abroad to vote at the General Election. Obviously, the Government views this kind of suggestion as not being advantageous to it. For those who are abroad, my feeling is that, given a chance to vote, they shall probably vote against the government. On the one hand, the Government tells the people that "Every Singaporean Matters" and wants Singaporeans to believe that. But, in reality, the Government refuses to implement a policy to show that "Every Singaporean matters". I cite another example to show that the Government does not care for the minority or marginalised people.”
“A shop that is placed at the road front is certainly worth more than one which is tucked away in a fine corner of a building. Since the amendment already gives power to the Board to call for a valuation report under section 84A(4), why not make it mandatory for the parties to decide on the mode of distribution and incorporate it into the in-principle sale and purchase agreement? The mode of distribution can be based on the average price of two valuation reports aforesaid. This will stop any dispute right from the start on the issue of distribution, thus saving cost and time. I hope the Minister would consider this proposal. It was pointed out to me that under the Fourth Schedule, subsidiary proprietors can only take a vote for en-bloc sale in an extraordinary meeting. Would the Minister consider amending clause 1(a) in the Fourth Schedule to include Annual General Meeting. If that amendment is made, the first line of that clause 1(a) would then read, "consider the collective sale at an annual general meeting or extraordinary meeting held in accordance with the Act". I hope the Minister has no objection to this proposal because sometimes it is difficult to convene an EOGM.”
“Section 84A(1) requires that there must be an in-principle sale and purchase agreement which specifies the proposed method of distribution of the sale proceeds. I would like now to propose that the compensation prices for each unit must be determined by taking the average price of two valuation prices of recognised valuers. Anyway, I note that when there is a dispute, the provisions in the Bill require the parties to mediate and the Board has powers to call for a valuation report. In the courts where there are disputes concerning the division of proceeds of sale of properties, for example, in divorce cases, valuation reports are inevitably called for. Presently, I believe that the suggested way for the division of proceeds of sale is by the quantum of share values. In my view, that form of distribution of proceeds of sale by share values is not satisfactory. The share value pegged to a unit or flat is tied to the land which the block or blocks of flats or shops are built. Theoretically, should the building be destroyed, each of the subsidiary proprietors would still own a portion of the land proportionate to his share value. The share value of each flat or unit is not directly linked to the market value of the flat. Each subsidiary proprietor should be compensated based upon the open value of his property. The worth of a residential unit compared to a similar size flat, in my view, should be on the open market sale and amongst the factors by which it is determined, ie, its position, the view it commands, whether it is sited in a sunset position, and so forth. As for a commercial unit of a similar size, its commercial worth depends largely on where it is sited in the building.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the right of ownership of land in Singapore is no longer sacrosanct. First, we have the Land Acquisition Act which allows the Government to compulsorily acquire land for general development which, amongst other things, could mean that the Government can take your land and plant a few roadside trees on it. Now we have the amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act where under the law, the majority of subsidiary proprietors can vote to sell the whole development. It would appear that there is no longer any permanency of residence in Singapore. I wonder how this kind of situation squares up with the call by the Government to make Singapore a better home. To me, a home is a place where you can live in comfort for as long as you like, and not to be tossed out against your wishes. Sir, having spoken my feelings in regard to the amendments in the Bill, I would like now to make some comments on it. I have read the Bill and agree that the minority subsidiary proprietors' interest must be protected. There should be no conflict of interest and of collusion in the en bloc sale. I think section 84A(1) is fair. I agree that there must be a majority of 90% or 80% share value consent level before an en bloc sale can be carried out for a building less than 10 years old and more than 10 years old respectively. I hope the Government shall stick to this majority of share values and not lower the percentages to allow en-bloc sale. It is right that the Strata Titles Board should not take an interventionist role. In this respect, I note that the issue of distribution of the proceeds of sale is still largely unresolved.”
“Sir, I understand that the World Health Organisation recommends that mothers should breast feed their babies at least for the first four months from birth. Does the Singapore Government make the same recommendation?”
“BUS LANE ENFORCEMENT CAMERA SYSTEM (Implementation) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ong Ah Heng - 15. To ask the Minister for Communications since the implementation of the Bus Lane Enforcement Camera System (Buscam) for 9 route services in February 1999, (a) how many motorists have been booked as at 31st March 1999; and (b) whether the Buscam has been effective in assisting the public buses to provide a smooth and punctual service during peak hours and, if so, whether his Ministry will consider implementing it to all services. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): Question No. 15, Sir.”
“My Ministry is considering further extension of the coverage to workers engaged in maintenance work on the MRT and LRT, ie, repair or maintenance work carried out on any rail, track, including viaducts and tunnels. However, there is a limit to which the Factories Act can be extended, beyond which the term "factories" would become meaningless. My Ministry is currently reviewing the safety health legislation to ensure that workers, including knowledge workers of the future, will be adequately protected at work. New legislation on Occupational Safety and Health may be required to cover such workplaces and to promote greater self-regulation by employers and manufacturers of machinery, equipment and work tools. PROTECTION OF PASSENGERS ON AEROPLANES FROM ACTS OF AIR RAGE 14. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Communications if he will consider amending the law so as to protect passengers on aeroplanes from acts of air rage. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications (Dr Yaacob Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Mr Rai that air rage is a menace, which needs to be dealt with firmly. Under our laws, it is already an offence for an individual to imperil the safety of an aircraft or any person on board by any disorderly conduct. Such an offender passenger, if convicted, is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to an imprisonment term of one year or both. Criminal acts carried out on board a Singapore aircraft can also be prosecuted under our Penal Code. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Communications is now reviewing the legislation, including the penalties, to see how these can be made more effective in curbing air rage.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered the question. They want to issue those statements, but are these statements vetted by the university authorities? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, for the benefit of Mr Chiam, I will repeat my answer. Our universities do not prohibit students from expressing their views on various issues, including those of public interest. Indeed, students have conveyed their views on various matters through the media in their personal capacities. From time to time, student organisations have done so too. FACTORIES ACT (Review) 13. Mr Cyrille Tan asked the Minister for Manpower, with the growth in the chemical, electronics, financial and information technology industries and the effect on workers' health from waste and chemical disposal giving rise to the risk of chemical contamination and leakage as well as from prolonged working hours on the computers, what measures are being taken by his Ministry to review the Factories Act to make it a more broad-based legislation. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, the current Factories Act in Singapore provides for the safety, health and welfare of persons working in premises defined as "factories". Factories within the chemical and electronics industries are therefore covered under the Factories Act. The workers in the financial and information technology industries including those who have to work with computers are not presently covered under the Act. The workforce covered by the Act is about 700,000, which is about one-third of the total workforce. Since its enactment in 1958, the Factories Act has been amended several times. The last amendment in 1995 extended the coverage of the Act to premises such as laboratories, warehouses and aircraft parking bays.”
“Sir, does intensive development mean building condominiums there?”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered the other parts of my question, ie, (b) what was the basis of the quantum of compensation; (c) what is the purpose of acquiring those flats; and (d) when did the HDB decide to acquire those flats. I have got a further supplementary question. Will the HDB consider giving a waiver for third-time buyers of HDB flats requiring them to borrow at market interest rates?”
“Is the Government willing to call for all hands on deck if there is a congestion as far as the manning of the immigration booths is concerned?”
“Sir, I am happy to hear that the Government is making improvements to reduce the congestion at the Woodlands Checkpoint. My experience is that sometimes there are not enough staff at the immigration booths. On one occasion, I was stuck there for over an hour.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the PAP Town Councils have given a waiver of service and conservancy charges to all stalls selling pork. I would like to report to this House that the Potong Pasir Town Council has done likewise.”
“Sir, they want to make a public statement on some issues to express their point of view. If they want to make a statement, do they need first to get the approval of the university administration? That is my question. Yes or no? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have explained, I read on a regular basis views expressed by students in the newspapers, and so on. I am really quite surprised. I do not think they really need Mr Chiam to speak up for them. If I may move on to the points raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang on the SAT and `A' levels. I did not quite understand the first point on streaming.”