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 17 of 85.
“Sir, I do not think he should make fun of me. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not making fun of Mr Chiam.”
“Sir, I mentioned that when a political organisation in the university wishes to issue a statement to give their point of view, they must first get the approval of the university administration. The Minister has not commented on this. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we do not encourage our students to take part in partisan political activities in the universities. In fact, we do encourage our students to read widely, to be interested in current affairs, national affairs, and so forth. But we do want them to concentrate on their studies. We do not want them to be distracted by all kinds of other things which Mr Chiam may be thinking about.”
“We also want to strive towards "Thinking Schools" and the "Desired Outcomes of Education" in the way that teaching and learning are carried out in our schools and universities. With this strategy, we hope to cultivate a climate that would allow us to bring out the best in our students, so that they would not just be prepared to tackle an examination, but be ready to adapt and do well in a rapidly changing society. Before I move on, I forgot to mention this to the other Members who have raised a variety of points. We would take into account the points raised by Mr Loh on music, Mdm Claire Chiang on community involvement, Mr Shriniwas Rai on community and business support for schools, Mr Hawazi on enrichment programmes, Mr Sinnakaruppan and Mr Simon Tay on regional education and other points and suggestions raised thus far by Members. Other points on teachers and air-conditioning of schools, we will deal with them later, if we have time. 5.15 pm”
“The main reason for revising the admission system is not that we have been terribly wrong in selecting students so far. By and large, we have selected students to enter university quite well. Our universities will still continue to take in a large majority of "A" level graduates. The new system, in fact, will by and large admit the same students as under the existing system, but with additional flexibility to take in those with the aptitude for university education who might not have been selected purely on the basis of "A" level results. From the way I look at it, it is not that we are creating extra obstacles, as some Members have expressed the view, but that we are providing more opportunities and a wider way of assessing students. But the most important function of the new admission system lies in the signal it would send throughout the education system, and to the rest of society. Here again, I must stress, I am not talking just about the SAT1 but the ECA, project work part in the admission system. We should look at it from the whole package. As the International Academic Advisory Panel for the universities has put it, having the "A" levels as the sole admission criteria trains students to overcome only one type of obstacle. Having other requirements would signal to our students that they should develop other qualities and skills necessary for their individual as well as our national success in the future. In the final analysis, we are pursuing a two-pronged approach. We want to implement a university admission system that gives the appropriate signal for holistic student development in our schools.”
“This would be similar to the practice in universities of having external examiners assess a sample of students' work. This is one possibility that the Ministry will look into. We are putting in place fairly major changes to the university admission system. Students, teachers and parents will need time to adjust. Members' comments and suggestions will form part of the wider feedback that the University Admission System Committee will continue to study carefully over the next two months as they review and refine their proposals. I expect the Committee to submit its final report to the Government by the end of May, following which the Ministry of Education would study the proposals and put up its recommendations to the Government. An announcement on the new university admission system should therefore be expected by the middle of this year. Mr Loh Meng See and Mr Hawazi have expressed some concern that the year 2002 is too early to implement the new admission system. One idea for the Committee to consider is whether the new admission system should be implemented from 2003, instead of 2002. This would allow the students entering the first year of JC and in particular those doing the three-year Pre-U course in the centralised institutes a little more time to prepare and adjust. The Ministry will certainly consult the Committee, the JCs and the CIs on this matter and we will announce our decision in June. I believe the University Admission System Committee has adopted the right approach in its review and I support their proposals. There is no perfect criterion or measurement of an individual's ability or aptitude to succeed at university or, for that matter, to succeed in life.”
“As someone said, in the normal working environment, if you are assigned a piece of work, the natural tendency is to go and ask your colleagues and so forth how to do it and to work together. But in the school system, that is described as cheating. We do want to encourage students to work together and to learn how to work together. So if we think that this is important and we do want students to do that, and we want to ask the schools to spend some time guiding the students in doing project work properly, as Prof. Chin has pointed out, then we should try and make project work count. I understand that there are some difficulties, but this sort of assessment is not new to our schools. We have various forms of open-ended assessment already. In fact, there are some "A" level subjects which depend on project work for a very significant proportion of their assessment, for example, Computer Studies. Essays are also marked subjectively. But there is a way of devising a reliable system for assessing students. So examiners can devise ways to grade the students in project work consistently. Through regular interaction between teacher and student as well as oral presentations, we should be able to develop a system which is sufficient to actually assess the students' work. But we are giving ourselves a little more time to do that and we are talking about introducing it in the year 2004. Given the benefits to be gained, we should find workable solutions to using project work as one of the means of assessment rather than abandoning the idea. The Committee has recommended that the universities, JCs and the Ministry of Education set up a joint committee to monitor standards across all the schools.”
“Therefore, the Committee has decided to recommend the use of SAT1 for this purpose. Proceeding with the SAT1 in the meantime will give us the experience and help us in devising our own reasoning test in due course. In addition, our university graduates and JC students have often been criticised for not reading widely and not reading beyond their textbooks and so on. If having to take the SAT1 will cause them to start reading more widely from a younger age, it is not such a bad thing after all. In summary, there is no perfect test which will allow us to measure all the desired qualities we want in our young, from intellectual curiosity to leadership and creativity. ECAs have been an integral part of our education system for a long time. I am sure many Members here will attest to the value of active participation in ECA, among them Mr Inderjit Singh and Dr Teo Ho Pin. The issue is how much ECAs should count for. We are making them count now. Having deliberated on it for some time, the Committee has chosen the route of bonus points, as it strikes a good balance between encouraging students to strive for not just passive participation in ECAs but quality participation, and sending a signal that academic potential and achievement, while important for university studies, are not the be-all and end-all of education. The bonus points, despite being called "bonus", do count because a student with bonus points would be more favourably placed than one without. Dr Teo Ho Pin has suggested doing away with the project component due to difficulties in assessment. Prof. Chin has also commented on this. Project work is very beneficial in developing independent learning, critical thinking, resourcefulness, teamwork and so on.”
“But I think they would also concede that it is not the coaching per se but the discipline and effort needed to study which are important. I am sure that Singaporean students who apply themselves to their work will have little to worry about. The experience in the US is that beyond a certain level, extra coaching and taking the test repeatedly do not improve the score. I think Singaporean students will learn that also quite quickly. A certain amount of preparation for the SAT1 though is needed, but primarily to become familiar with the test format. Obviously, if you do not, when you walk into a test, you do not know what you are going to be tested on and you have never seen such a paper before, you may not do very well. But once you have acquired some familiarity with the test format, further practice and repetition will not cause scores to go up dramatically. So what we are talking about is not two years of study in the JC to prepare for SAT1, but at most several weeks of preparation. Dr Tan also talks about the cost of taking a SAT1 and he went through some very impressive calculations for this. In truth, the cost of taking a SAT1 is about US$38, ie, S$65, and the cost of taking one "A" level subject is about S$70. Those are the comparable costs that we are talking about. Mr Low Thia Khiang has expressed concern about how the SAT1 might be culturally biased and disadvantage those from non-English speaking homes. This is a valid concern which has also been expressed by some parents and students. The Ministry will look into setting up our own reasoning test, but this will take time. Sweden and Israel took many years to set up their own version of SAT. The SAT1 would appear to be the most internationally recognised and accepted test for assessing reasoning skills.”
“I will ask them to take the comments that Members have made into account. But we have to be realistic. If we take into account all the things that Members have suggested, instead of 100%, we will probably end up with 300% of weight. Members have asked what is the value of using SAT1 when we already have the "A" levels. Several Members have asked about the correlation between SAT1 and "A" levels. SAT1 and the "A" levels measure different facets of intellectual ability which a person must possess to benefit from a university education. The "A" levels, being content-based and rigorous, measure mastery of content and skills. The SAT1, which relies less on content and more on generic reasoning in the verbal and quantitative areas, provides a measure of a person's reasoning ability. While we do not have studies on Singapore, data from other countries, for example, US and Israel which have studied this matter extensively, show that a combination of national or school examination result, and a reasoning test gives a better prediction for university performance than either one alone. Prof. Chin and Mr Hawazi have proposed using the SAT1 as an alternative assessment tool for students who may have just fallen short marginally on their "A" level results. I do agree that if we have students who score very highly on the "A" levels and very poorly on the SAT, or who score very highly on the SAT and very poorly on the "A" levels, resulting in their not being able to qualify for university, we should look at these students very carefully and try to decide why that is so and whether they merit a place. It is not surprising that test coaching companies have made claims of immense improvements in scores from coaching. That is what they are in the business for.”
“What we can do is to hope that with the new university admission system, to make the more important attributes count. So while I do agree with Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Loh Meng See that EQ, leadership, creativity, teamwork and personality are important, we should not place the full burden of this on the university admission system. Where relevant, courses such as Medicine, Law and Architecture could stipulate aptitude tests and interviews could take into account things like commitment to the nation and so on, where these things are of particular importance. 5.00 pm Members have raised specific concerns in three areas: SAT1, ECA and project work. Let me first deal with the question of balance among the different elements. There is no magic formula. Some US universities state the elements that go into admission decisions but do not stipulate weights. I do not think in Singapore we are ready for such a system which is not transparent. Most Singaporeans would still prefer a transparent system where the weights and criteria are clearly specified and known to all. Dr Teo Ho Pin thinks ECA is not being given enough weight. I am glad though that he has not suggested that all students must pass a swimming test or a life saving course before entering university. I think we are already taking a big step by enlarging the university admission criteria beyond just the "A" levels. This step alone would already send a strong signal on what we value in education. Before we take any further step, it is better to let the new system run in and, as Prof. Chin has said, let us evaluate what is happening and how the new system works. The Committee chaired by Prof. Shih can certainly revisit the percentages, and make recommendations about future directions, if necessary.”
“The recommendations on the UAS should be seen in that context, and it is part of the larger changes that we are trying to put in place in the whole education system, in the 12 years prior to university, in university and beyond that. And in that regard, I agree completely with Mr Loh Meng See and Mr Davinder Singh who have raised the same matter. The universities are also working towards giving their undergraduates a broader education, within limits, and using open-book examinations and other things while they are in university. But the exit gate itself from the school system and the university system has significance, because what is required of students at this point has a great impact on the motivation, attitude and behaviour all the way down the line. For example, we are focused only on SAT, but there are other aspects to the university admission system, eg, ECA, project work and so on. If we say that leadership, creativity and communications skills are important, and yet we do not make them count in the university admission - some people argue that we should stick with the 'A' levels and nothing else - if we do not make these other things count, then we are really sending a signal that none of these things really count. So, I believe that if want to make them important in the minds of students, we have to make them count. However, at the same time, it is also unrealistic to expect the university admission system to solve all our problems, to choose people who will be successful, without doubt, later on in life and so forth. Many other qualities, including character, motivation, perseverance in the face of adversity, determine success in their later life.”
“RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, perhaps I should address Mr Chiam's point first. NUS and NTU students are free to express themselves in writing in university publications and even to the media. They write regularly to the press, as long as they do so in their personal capacities, and our universities do encourage the students to express themselves. NUS and NTU also believe that students should be prepared to take full responsibility for their views. In NUS and NTU though, the students' articles that are submitted for publication in official student publications, such as those of the students' unions, clubs and societies, are perused as a precaution against any legal infringements. I think, as a lawyer, Mr Chiam would appreciate that. Such a requirement comes from purely a legal perspective, because the university, by its statutes, becomes responsible for what occurs in the university and what is in the publications of the universities, and it is not for a desire to restrain students from freely expressing themselves. Mr Chiam himself has spoken at the university a number of times. So there is no question on that. If you allow me, Sir, to return to the issues on university admissions. First, let me thank Members for their questions and suggestions on the university admission system (UAS). I know this is a topic that is close to the hearts of many university professors, parents, teachers and students. We should not look at the university admission system on its own. As I explained earlier, we should look at it in the context of the entire education system.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on freedom of speech at local universities. The intake of NUS and NTU including post-graduates in FY1999 is expected to be about 25,000 and 14,900 respectively. They are the best and brightest students in our land. The universities' aim is to produce graduates with the necessary skills and knowledge for employment, and promoting research and innovation. But I am told that the universities' administration is rather strict on students when it comes to political matters. The environment in the universities is rather restrictive. I would urge the Minister to make the universities to be places where free expression and inquiry are possible, so as to prepare our graduates to develop the faculty of critical thinking. I do not think that we should train all our graduates to be yes men. We shall stagnate intellectually if we do so. I think Singapore must have a pool of intellectuals who can think independently. Only then can Singapore make a quantum leap into an economy that produces high value added goods. Only then can real prosperity come to Singapore, rather than, like the present time, compete with other neighbours and the rest of the world based mainly on lowering costs. At the moment, I am also told that freedom of expression is curbed in our universities. Apparently, articles printed in students' magazines and in newsletters have to be vetted before they can be published. Also, if political organisations in the universities want to release press statements to express their views on issues, those statements must first be approved by the university authorities. I am further informed that formerly no such restrictions were imposed on university students. Why should the situation be changed now?”
“On top of that, there were hundreds of motorcyclists weaving their way forward between cars and in full throttle with each of the motorcycles emitting thick black smoke. The atmosphere there was filled with black fumes. I pity those two policemen who were on duty there. They were subjected to breathing the unhealthy air filled with smoke. They were breathing without any protection. Their health will surely be affected. Yes, I do think that an MRT line going into Johor is a good thing. It not only helps to solve the constant traffic jams, but it shall surely increase the business between Johor Baru on the one hand and the Woodlands Town Centre and Singapore as a whole on the other. It shall also bring the people of Malaysia and Singapore closer and the relationship between the two countries can further be strengthened. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are steps taken since 1991 to construct the MRT into Johor Baru.”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to give us an update of bringing the Woodlands MRT line to Johor Baru. It was reported in the Straits Times in March 1991 that the Woodlands MRT line was designed to make it easy for the authorities to build an extension to Johor Baru. It was also further reported that the possibility of expanding the MRT from Woodlands to Johor Baru was endorsed and agreed to in principle by Malaysian and Singapore Ministers and the then Johor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. The Woodlands MRT line has since been successfully constructed and has been in operation. I personally think that bringing the MRT line into Johor Baru and beyond, say, to Scudai is a very good idea. If not for anything else, this MRT line shall alleviate the traffic jams at the Johor-Singapore Causeway. The traffic jams at the Causeway of late appear to be on the Singapore side of the Causeway. Last Saturday, 13th March, at about 4.30 pm, I personally was caught in a nasty traffic jam for one-and-a-half hours at the stretch of road from the exit of the BKE to the Singapore Immigration Checkpoint. I noticed that at the Singapore Immigration Checkpoint, only about six or seven booths, out of about 28, were in operation. What astounded me was that, despite the heavy traffic, the Singapore authorities did not deploy enough traffic police to direct the flow of traffic. I saw only two uniformed policemen were on duty at the point of entry into the immigration area. At that point of time, it was utter chaos at that stretch of the road leading to the Immigration Checkpoint. Cars were vying with each other to inch their way forward. Five rows of them were packed on the stretch of road which was only designed for four rows of cars at the most.”
“The Government then passes laws to curb workers' bad habits, like forcing them to flush the toilets after their use, or not to spit in public places, or not to jaywalk. These penal provisions, although mandatory in nature, do have an educative effect and they do raise the cultural level of the workers. Those laws do make people behave more civilly. In Singapore, I think the Government, and perhaps the NTUC, must have a lot to do in raising the cultural level of the workers. There is still a lot of work to be done to get the workers interested in some sports and games or in the theatre and the arts. It is observed that the average worker, other than his work, has no other interests. He is not even interested in his own family. He spends most of his spare time drinking beer at coffeeshops after his working hours. He goes home late, smelling heavily of liquor to the annoyance of course to his wife and children. This type of workers seems completely lost. They have nowhere to go and do not know what to do with their leisure hours. On weekends, they are probably found in the race-course gambling on horses. The Government condones such a situation as both liquor and gambling bring revenue to the coffers of the Government. 3.00 pm But I think the present state of the workers in Singapore does not augur well for the country. Something must be done for the present workers to raise their cultural level. As for the future workers, our education system needs to be revamped to teach our children how to occupy their leisure time meaningfully.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on improving the culture of workers. In 1917, the communists in Russia rose up in revolution against the Czar. They were successful. They overthrew the Czar and took over power. Among the first social reforms they carried out was to improve the cultural level of the workers. The workers were taught how to behave properly. They were told not to behave like country bumpkins. When they attended a ballet performance at the Bolshoi Theatre, they were told not to wear their overcoats into the theatre but to leave them outside with the attendants, especially when their overcoats were covered with snow. Stalin was the second communist ruler in Russia. He built the military might of Russia which defeated Nazi Germany in World War II. Stalin once was asked what he thought were the top three priorities for Russia. He said the top three priorities were, firstly, military matters; secondly, cultural; and thirdly, economic. It is quite surprising to us in Singapore that Stalin should give more importance to culture than to the economy. He was probably of the view that once people became more cultured, they are more disciplined, and would make better soldiers and also would be more responsible and make better citizens. World War II had shown that both the Russians and the Germans were equally good soldiers. Both were very disciplined and they fought bravely, possibly due to their high cultural level. The average German soldier in World War II was highly cultured. He listened to the music of Wagner, Bach and Beethoven. We in Singapore have no educational programmes to raise the cultural level of the workers, except when there is a social necessity to do so.”
“Many foreign Caucasians are employed as managers in our local firms or positions where they are responsible for recruitment of new staff. They interview the applicants. If in a group of applicants that are interviewed happens to have Caucasians or ang mohs among them, often than not the Caucasian applications get selected. The Caucasian managers that do the selection often feel that they have the same background and culture as another Caucasian, and probably he can work better with another Caucasian than with a local. In this way, local applications for jobs can be discriminated against. I have known of one case where a Singaporean with an Australian mathematics degree was not selected for a teaching post in a private institution. He informed me that the interviewer was an Australian. The Australian selected a New Zealand applicant in preference to him. This Singaporean is very sore and wants this case to be brought up in Parliament. Perhaps, this may be the type of case that Dr Tan Cheng Bock had in mind when he warned against foreigners taking over jobs which rightly belong to Singaporeans. I support Dr Tan in his call to the Government to think of Singaporeans first in these hard times. He does not want Singaporeans to lose out to foreigners in their applications for jobs. I do not think that Dr Tan intended to do Singapore a disservice when he made that call to the Government the other day in Parliament. I think Dr Tan realises that Singapore also needs plenty of foreign investments and he did not mean to give any wrong signals to foreigners.”
“Sir, in times of high economic growth and full employment, I think it is fair for the Government not to impose a limit on foreign talent. In fact, in 1989, the Government formed the Immigration Affairs Committee (IMAC) with the view to bring in professionals and skilled workers from Hong Kong. The first batch of 25,000 Hongkongers were invited to work in Singapore. Can the Government let us know how many Hongkongers accepted the offer and applied for Singapore PR under that exercise? In March 1991, BG George Yeo, the Chairman of IMAC, in an interview, informed the Berita Harian that there was no cap on foreign talent, including Malay/Muslims who wish to come to Singapore, as long as they can contribute to the country. He said that a ceiling is only appropriate if the number turns out to be too large. I would add that a ceiling should be introduced in times of high unemployment like the present time. In the past, Singapore has used the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce, Mendaki and the two task forces formed by IMAC to attract Malay/Muslims and Indian talents from abroad. In the case of India, advertisements for several jobs in Singapore were made from time to time, and sometimes, like Singapore Airlines, it issued their own advertisements inviting job applications. I would like to ask the Minister whether IMAC or other Government agencies are still actively recruiting foreign talent to Singapore. I wish to quote BG George Yeo. He said, "We cannot invite someone here and find him a job. This is not the way we work. In any case, it is not sustainable." My feedback is that foreign professionals who come here to find work sometimes are selected in preference to local applicants. It happens like this.”
“If the Government wants to be cautious and is not willing to take such a bold step, then I call on the Government to at least suspend the ISA, say, for a period of two years, and if nothing untoward happens in those two years, to suspend it for a further two years and so on, until the day when it can be totally taken off our statute books. On the other hand, if something bad does happen, the Government can easily lift the suspension and make the ISA in force once again. If such a situation does arise, I myself do not think it shall be caused from within but rather from without. As for the feeling of Singaporeans towards the ISA, I believe that the majority of them want the ISA removed. Singaporeans want this troublesome baggage manifested in the ISA be a relic of times gone by, to be left behind as we enter the new millennium.”
“It is a pity that the Government, when it releases detainees under the ISA, still attaches conditions and restrictions on them, which make it difficult for them to seek employment. As an Opposition Member, I am particularly concerned that the ISA should still be strongly entrenched. The very fact of its existence and mere threat of its possible implementation by the Government make very well-meaning professionals from joining the Opposition and take part in the elections on the side of the Opposition. This is a pity, because it will impede the constitutional progress of Singapore. Singapore shall then forever remain a paternalistic authoritarian state where the possibility of stagnation, rather than progress, shall be the order of the day. I believe that Singapore, being an urban society endowed with widespread education and lack of illiteracy and a thick layer of property-owning middle class, perhaps has the greatest chance of succeeding in transforming our society into a western type democratic country with modifications, of course, to suit our local conditions. In such an environment, if it should happen, people can work and live peacefully in a more open political condition where the arts and culture could flourish, and Singaporeans are given opportunities to become more creative and innovative and where our economy would produce goods and services with more value-added due to the added creative element to bring greater profits and income to our people, so that we can maintain a higher standard of living as compared to our neighbours. If the Government's aim is to achieve such a democratic society for Singapore, then it must make up its mind to dismantle the ISA.”
“Sir, I am calling again for the abolition or, if the Government is not willing, then the suspension of the Internal Security Act (ISA). The ISA was introduced by the British first as an emergency 1measure when there was a communist armed uprising in Malaysia in or about 1948, and then it was enacted as a formal law in the 1960s. The ISA was targeted against the communists and their supporters who advocated overthrowing the legitimate government by violent means. There was a justification in maintaining the ISA in the 1950s, the 1960s and even the 1970s. But in the 1980s the social, political and economic situation in Singapore was markedly changed. In the 1980s onwards, the Singapore society was more settled. The problem of race, language, religion, unemployment and housing had been basically solved. There was full employment and Singapore had become a property-owning nation. Under the circumstances, the ISA stands out like a sore thumb, especially today. It is an anomaly in a civil society where the Government is vested with such draconian powers. The ISA gives the power of arbitrary arrests to the Government without the necessity of charging the person arrested or bringing him to a court to be tried. It is a blatant violation of human rights. When we mention the ISA in Singapore, one name comes to mind, and he is Chia Thye Poh, who has been imprisoned for 23 years under the ISA from 1966. Chia was never formally charged or brought to a court for trial. There is only an allegation that he was a communist and that he called for violent overthrow of the elected government of the day, which he persistently denied. Even up till today, I believe Chia has not signed a confession or any statement admitting that he is a communist or advocated violence.”
“It is on whether we can teach creativity in our schools. A building is almost completed. The architect and the owner were in the building and they had a problem of putting a lift in the building. Because that was the orthodox thinking and there must be a lift inside the building. Then in came this despatch person who had no training in architecture. He said, "What's the problem? If you can't put a lift inside the building, you just put it outside." And that is how the bubble lift was started. That is what we mean by creativity. We do not need formal training to have creativity. The clarification is whether he agrees that in fact you need rather an environment of freedom and an environment of democracy to have creativity.”
“I would just give this example and ask a clarification from him.”
“All right. I want to challenge him on what he said about teaching creativity to young people. I will give an example on the meaning of creativity.”
“I did not know that I have a new marker who is taking me on. He says that I got it right when I said that we need more creativity and initiative to produce goods that are value added to justify our higher standard of living, compared to the neighbouring countries. And I got it wrong when I said that we need an environment of democracy and freedom to have creativity and initiative. He says that democracy would bring chaos and disturbance. Of course, I certainly did not mean that democracy is freedom to do illegal acts, but it is more a political philosophy. We accept democratic principles and principles of freedom. He further says that we can inculcate and teach our young creativity and we cannot do that for old or mature people, because he says we cannot teach old dogs new tricks. The fact is that if we teach people creativity, it is a contradictory term. The whole idea of having creativity is to have a system that will allow our children to think in unorthodox and unusual ways. If we limit them to certain parameters, we cannot have creativity. That is under an authoritarian system. I will give an example.”
“Sir, may I get a clarification from Dr Wang.”
“Sir, speaking in Singapore's context, I believe Singapore has reached a stage where the people are already educated enough. We have reached a high level of per capita income and I think it is time for us to make a quantum leap to get us to a higher level of development, producing value added goods that are involved with IT, goods that are involved with knowledge and Singapore can then be as rich as one of the western nations, and not competing with Indonesia and the rest of the region.”
“Sir, the hon. Member has taken a pot shot at me. He said that America had a deep recession. That was in 1929-1933. I think we all know about that. Taking the year 1933, it was 66 years ago, and I believe America, being a country where there is freedom, people make studies and come out with all kinds of theories. I think now they understand why there was a recession. With due respect to the Prime Minister, he made a prediction that the bubble will burst. But soon after he made that prediction, the Dow went up 200-over points and now it is in its 92nd month of its uptrend. Of course, anything that goes up will come down. This is easy to say. But the point is that it is still holding strong. And the reason why it can reach that point is because America is so great and because it has creativity. It makes a film and it earns US$500 million. Can Singapore earn that kind of money? Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, the point that we really want to address out of Mr Chiam's statement is: does it mean that democracy will bring more economic growth? I think this is the big issue that we have to look at. I just pointed out about the depression that happened in the US economy. They were a democracy. But why then did this thing happen? So we have got to look at the issue more in depth and not just say because it is Hong Kong or Taiwan with more democracy, therefore the economy is resilient and we are not resilient. I think there is something to it that we must challenge.”
“Sir, I did not say that. I was saying that conditions have changed and the situation has changed now, and we need to change at the same time. I gave the example of Taiwan. Taiwan has changed to more democracy and more freedom, and that is probably why it is so resilient now. It has managed to make things more innovatively that can be sold in America in competition with the other low-wage countries. I am saying that Singapore should also need a qualitative change. Does he agree with me?”
“Mr Chen has accused me of having a shallow thinking. I would like to ask Mr Chen whether or not he thinks that Singapore needs a qualitative change to give its people more political space, more freedom to develop qualities of creativeness, initiative and leadership.”
“In Singapore's case, our Government has accumulated surpluses in its term of office and probably it has nothing to worry. In fact, I say that although the Government's stand is not to overdraw on surpluses, it shall, as I say, do so when the necessity arises. Just like its pronouncement on refusing to cut workers' CPF which eventually it did.”
“In any event, what I am saying is that the official position is that the Government does not encourage welfarism but, in reality, it is practising welfarism in its most raw form, that is, giving away money freely, of course, where it is politically advantageous to the Government. Also, I see the disbursements of money to the HDB flat dwellers in the so-called rebates on the Town Councils' service and conservancy charges and the HDB monthly rentals as outright practices of welfarism. The only difference in the welfarism that is practised in Singapore and those practised in the West is that in Singapore's case, the money given away by the Government is targeted for vote catching, but those in the West are done as a matter of right if one meets the criteria. As regards the amount of rebates given to HDB flat dwellers, I would say that the Government should be more generous. They should, in fact, double it, because I am to a certain extent for welfarism, because you must have compassion for the people. There were about 28,000 of our workers, as reported, who were retrenched last year. I believe it is a further 20,000 this year who will be retrenched. This is my 15th year in Parliament. Year after year, the Government budget shows ever-increasing surpluses. I have spoken out against the policy of ever accumulating more money for the Government which only means that the people shall have less money and consequently less savings. But this year, I see that there is a budget deficit of $5.1 billion in the development account. I do not think that the Government needs to be apologetic or be ashamed of it. Hong Kong, I see this year, also has a deficit account. I believe this is the second year of budget deficit in Hong Kong.”
“Business people and their Chambers of Commerce should be given lots of leeway to take the lead in identifying the problems affecting the economy of the country and be allowed to form public committees to deliberate entirely on their own and to put forward recommendations rather than, like the present time, the Government appears to be the only one who is taking the lead and business people meekly agreeing and following what the Government has recommended. I know Ministers will definitely rebut what I say but the fact is that whatever participation business people in Singapore seems to be involved in, the Government always has full control of the proceedings of whatever public committees and has the final say. Allow me to touch on another area. The Government, in every Budget Statement, does not fail to preach against welfarism. The Budget Statement this year specifically states "We must resist the temptation to allow ourselves to succumb to the lure of welfarism." On the one hand, the Government warns us against succumbing to practices of welfarism but, on the other hand, at the constituency level it is doing the opposite. At Potong Pasir, Mr Andy Gan, the prospective PAP candidate goes from house to house handing out sums of $200 to each family in cases where the head of the family is out of job for at least one month. He also hands out $5 vouchers to families to purchase grocery. Mr Andy Gan is acting like a Father Christmas, going from household to household, handing out public funds. He says that the funds are from the Potong Pasir Community Development Council (CDC). I presume that it must be either taxpayers' money or money contributed by the public.”
“Whereas in Singapore, our business people, though through long years of paternalistic Government, are like lumbering dinosaurs waiting for the Government organisations like the EDB, TDB and other trade bodies to get things done for them. Our business people lack the individual courage, drive and initiative on their own to push and seek out markets for themselves. They appear to be waiting for the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister or DPM Lee to show the way for them through their visits overseas. In normal times, our style of doing business seems all right. But as the world gets more competitive, and at times like this when the recession sets in, it is the extra quality that our business people should have but are lacking which will make the difference. What I want to advocate to the Government again is that the political style of governing Singapore needs to be changed. The people must be given more political space to develop. The people must be given more freedom to develop their leadership and entrepreneurship qualities and need to be given a bigger say. For a start, the Government should consciously tell Ministers and Members of Parliament not to take part or lead in any public committees, for example, the cost-cutting committee. Allow the business people to deliberate on their own and make their own recommendations without Ministers or Members of Parliament overseeing them.”
“Then a legitimate Government can be elected with a mandate to carry out the measures to restore the economy. We in Singapore wish Indonesia and its people well. We all hope that Indonesia can get its politics in order and that peace is once again restored to that country and its people be given an opportunity to rebuild its economy. The stark reality of this recession is that it has taught Singaporeans a valuable lesson, ie, relying only on traditional methods of overcoming the recession do not work. Cost-cutting to make Singapore more competitive and pump-priming in the past were able to get Singapore out of the recession. But this time round those methods alone are not able to solve the problem. This recession also saw the drastic drop in value of the East-Asian currencies against the American dollar. Goods and services appeared to be oversupplied. However, it is observed that despite these problems, Taiwan's economy is not affected to the extent as other East-Asian economies are affected. The difference between Taiwan and the other East-Asian countries is that Taiwan has embarked on a programme of giving its people more democracy and more freedom. That, I believe, is the key to its resilience against this round of recession. That country is able to show a high level of creativity, innovativeness and initiative. Taiwan is able to produce the goods that despite the competitive market is able to sell those goods in America. Its business people are also dynamic. The people there have leadership qualities and are able to build a network and break into the American market and push the sale of their goods.”
“Sir, the Budget this year has been described by the press as a non-event. I think the press looks to it as a non-event because of the lack of measures that were needed to give a stimulus to the economy. That has been done in the two cost-cutting measures. The first was the $2 billion package announced by the Minister in June 1998, and the second was introduced in November that year when a $10.5 billion package was presented in Parliament by DPM Lee. Those cost-cutting measures and the measures announced in the Budget are not expected to give a boost to the economy to any significant recovery. The prediction is that GDP for FY99 shall either have a growth of only plus one percent or a shrinkage of minus one percent. The situation of the economic downturn is not expected to improve markedly because the problem is not internal but external. Internally, Singapore is said to have done whatever it needs to be done. In the 1985 recession, what Singapore needed to turn the economy around was simply to cut down costs and the following year and subsequent years saw business picking up. Foreign investments also started to flow back to Singapore. But this time round the recession is not due to our lack of competitiveness but due to external factors, one of which is the collapse of the economy of the countries in the region. Even should Indonesia be able to get its economic infrastructure in order, business may not pick up because of the serious social and political problems there. Indonesia is supposed to hold its general election in June this year, but it may be postponed. Civil unrest is still rife in that country. Every country in this region hopes that the June election will be held as planned and goes on smoothly.”
“Sir, I think it is unfair of the Minister to make that statement.”
“Sir, I think the Minister for Finance has made a very stinging statement about the Opposition. It does not mean that whenever the Opposition asks awkward questions, it is done for a political reason. We are here to ask questions and the Minister should thank the Opposition Members for asking awkward questions so that all these issues can be cleared up. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, what is your supplementary question on this subject?”
“I am saying that the Minister has the last say. The Minister may, from time to time, prescribe a minimum amount of the service and conservancy charges which are paid, or are due and payable, or both, to a Town Council under section 38. So the amount is actually determined by the Minister. The Minister will say, "Look, you cannot charge at this rate. You must charge at another rate." because he feels that that is the minimum rate he should charge. So the S&CC is finally the Minister's decision. It is not the Town Council, unless I am wrong.”
“The land is under our jurisdiction. The land is part of the common property in which we have control and we have management of it. Therefore, if anyone wants to put anything on that land, he should seek our permission. But in the case of HDB and CDC, they did not bother. They brushed us aside and went ahead and put it up. The next morning we saw a strange board there. Naturally, we took it down. We even have a by-law to say that if anybody wants to put anything on the land under our control, he should seek our permission.”
“If the amendment is to be allowed at all, it should be left to the Town Council to have the last say and not the Minister. It is cronyism because, under section 3 of the Town Councils Act, it allows the Town Council only to spend money to maintain, manage common property. But now this amendment is going to allow the Town Council to manage and pay out of Town Councils' funds for properties which are not in the common areas. I would like to also comment on clause 4 of the Bill. Since the Town Councils Act was formed about 10 years ago, the Town Councils have always levied service and conservancy charges at one rate for one type of flats, shops or stalls. This is pursuant to the present section 38 of the Town Councils Act which clearly states that the Town Council can levy different rates for different types of residential, commercial property and stalls and also in respect of their uses. Now all this seemingly is to be changed. If I read the amendment correctly, the Town Councils are allowed, after this amendment, to charge different rates for, say, 3-room or 4-room flats. The amendment also mentions something new, that is, a class of owners. Nowhere in the main Act does it mention the class of owners of flats. This is appearing in the new subsection (10A): "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (10), a Town Council may differentiate the rates of charges to take into account any grants-in-aid made under section 41 which are expressed to be for the benefit of any class of owners of flats." This is something new. Because this new class of owners of flats is never mentioned in the Town Councils Act. So really this amendment is not very clear to me. Maybe the Minister can explain further.”
“The only problem is that the majority of people who pay for the GST are HDB residents. They comprise 85% of Singaporeans. They pay taxes out of their pockets on the one hand for goods and services they consume and, on the other hand, they get back in terms of S&CC subsidies. The only problem is that, on average, an HDB resident shall get back less than what he pays out in GST. It would appear to me that the amendment under clause 3(d) is a conflict with section 3 of the Town Councils Act (Chapter 329A). Under that section, the Town Councils are constituted to control, manage, maintain and improve the common property of residential property in HDB housing estates. The amendment allows the Town Council to pay for improvements which are not in the common property. In principle, this is wrong. What I was going to say is: why should the majority of residents pay to improve the property of a citizen who may or may not be a resident in HDB flats for his sole benefit? But now I am told that what the Government wants is for the Town Council to pay for facilities that are put up through CIPC funds by the CCC. Again, I think that is wrong. If the CCC can put up any facility or any community works, then, I think it is up to the CCC to maintain it. Of course, if the Town Councils were told and if they agree to put up those facilities, maybe there is a moral duty to pay. But if the CCC puts up such facilities, like in our Potong Pasir Town Council, they put up some signages in Sennett Estate, which we were never told, I do not think the Town Council at Potong Pasir should be made liable to maintain those facilities. If this amendment is allowed, there shall be a loophole for favouritism and even cronyism. I do not think that this is a good amendment.”
“In the case of HDB flats, when this amendment is passed, ultimately it is the lessees who shall pay for the insurance premium for the common property. The lessees are not the owners of that property. The Government now wants HDB residents who are not owners of the common property to bear responsibility of that property which is not theirs. The HDB, as owner of the common property, is shamelessly shirking its responsibility. When it comes to claiming its right over the common property, the HDB is doubly fast in doing so. But when it comes to bearing the responsibility as to the liabilities, such as paying for insurance premium, the HDB is now passing the duty to the residents. Is this the sort of example the Government wants to set for the people of Singapore? To tell the people of Singapore - you can enjoy the benefits but abandon the responsibilities and liabilities. As regards clause 3(b), I would say that the determination of the rates of the conservancy and service charges should be left to the Town Council and not to the Minister. The way I see it, the Government wants a hand in it. Because, as regards the service and conservancy charges, the Government wants to squeeze as much political advantage out of them as possible. With this amendment, the Government can control how much the residents should pay for their S&CC. The Government subsidises the S&CC of the HDB residents out of the goods and services tax (GST). The Government knows how much GST it has collected and how much of it can be disbursed so as to achieve a position of revenue neutral, as far as the GST is concerned. It is all a clever juggling of money. The Government collects from the people. It collects the GST on the one hand and disburses them as subsidies to the HDB flat dwellers on the other.”
“For any other body which does that, that party would have to seek our Town Council's permission and obtain a TOL for doing so. But when the HDB and the Potong Pasir CDC put up such a notice board, they blatantly bypassed us with arrogance, because they did not even, as a matter of courtesy, inform the Town Council of what they were doing. The Potong Pasir Town Council, of course, took the notice board down. But soon after, we received a threatening letter from the HDB claiming that it is the owner of the land and has the right to erect a notice board on that land. The Potong Pasir Town Council did not want to confront the HDB in court again, so we re-erected the notice board at its original place, which is land under our care and management. As regards the amendment under clause 2, the HDB now wants the Town Council to pay for premiums for the insurance it takes up for fire risk in relation to the common property. No doubt, under the Town Councils Act, all common properties at HDB estates are under the control and management of the Town Councils, but still the HDB is the owner of those common properties, as it has claimed whenever its rights of ownership are infringed. Normally, it is the owner of the building that takes up the insurance policy against fire risk. And even under the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Chapter 158), which is the equivalent law, it is the management corporation, comprising subsidiary proprietors, which is the required body to insure the subdivided buildings which in part form the common property. The main difference between the requirement to insure under the Land Titles (Strata) Act and this amendment is that under the former law, it is the owner of the property or the subsidiary proprietors which are required to insure the property.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must first of all declare my interest in this Bill. I am the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council. Sir, the amendments to the Town Councils Act contain in this Bill are controversial. The Government seems to be blowing hot and cold at the same time. I would like to cite examples of what happened at Potong Pasir. Whenever the Potong Pasir Town Council attempts to install a new facility in a building or do anything on the land, the HDB shall step in and refuse to give its consent on grounds that it is the owner of all HDB buildings and lands on which those buildings are sited. The true situation in Potong Pasir Constituency is that the Town Council there cannot even knock a single nail in any building in an HDB estate without first getting permission from the HDB. The question therefore we ask is: what is the status of Town Councils? Do we have the right to do things independently? The answer is yes and no. As far as the day-to-day running of the Town Council is concerned, we have some measure of independence of action, but even that is whittled down by the amendment that is before us. Basically, as I see it, the Town Councils are nothing more than agents of the HDB. We are cleaning and property managing agents. That is what we are, although we are given a glorified name of a Town Council. The Potong Pasir Town Council has taken the HDB to court on the interpretation of section 19 of the Town Councils Act, and the court ruled that the HDB is the property owner and we need to seek its permission to install new facilities. Only recently, the HDB and the Potong Pasir CDC jointly put up a notice board on a land under the jurisdiction of the Potong Pasir Town Council.”
“And this balanced approach is the provision of full opportunity to learn English as the first language and the mother tongue (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil) as a second language to satisfy their cultural, language and heritage requirements. It is not easy to produce an efficient bilingualist. Mr Goh Choon Kang has explained that efficient bilingualism can only be practised by a small section of our community. To be efficiently bilingual, one not only can fluently speak the language, ie, speak in both languages but, at the same time, is able to think quickly in both languages and is able to relate on matters of in-depth cultural heritage. Such efficient bilingualists are able to understand the deep, intricate philosophical issues in two languages as well. That is why they are rare a breed of people and because of this, professionalism in the study of language, as proposed by DPM, is the best way out and should be supported. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am happy that the bilingualism policy gives equal opportunity to learn not only Mandarin, but Malay and Tamil as well, through what they call, the possibility of E/ML2, E/ML2B, TL2 and TL2B, and in this connection, I understand the problem has not arisen yet. The results of Malay language students show that Malay students have got a good command and performance of their language compared to the other students. At the same time, there are already increased signs of problems facing the second and third generation of the Malay community and this trend is also at present faced by the Chinese community. In future, it is better that we have flexibility for Malay and Tamil students as well. Sir, I support the statement by the DPM. 5.30 pm”
“The language policy of 1959 and its emphasis was meant to achieve political objective as part of our merger plan with Malaysia and in 1965 when we got out from Malaysia, we changed the language policy because Singapore would have to face reality as an independent state. We introduced the bilingualism policy in order to achieve a city state of excellence and at the same time, created our own special identity. As a country in the East, we use the English language as the working language and mother tongue as a bridge to our cultural values. This is important because we do not want to be like the people in the Caribbean or in South Africa where English is the main language - an important language in the countries and that their local culture and language ties are completely removed. Singapore learns from the experience of these foreign communities and we are confident that we can always avoid this division of monolingualism becoming relative by upholding the policy of bilingualism. Our problem now is not only to cater for the different abilities to learn the language among the children in schools, but to fulfil our aspirations and to encourage efforts from parents and the community at large. We have to accept the different attitudes towards and the ability to learn the language. And I see the statement by the DPM as the way to achieve this basic objective - a community that is multi-racial yet united, one that can understand the situation surrounding ourselves and, at the same time, able to acquire the latest technology. The stress on such a policy is a practical way in securing our economic interest, and we have got an excellent and balanced approach.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, after listening to the speeches on the Chinese language in Singapore, and the supportive speeches made by my friends in this House, I would like to contribute my views. Mr Speaker, the question of language is important because it is a matter related to the teaching, absorption and efforts to learn a language. It is important because language is an important factor in developing the mind. It is important because our attitude towards language will help the development of our community - either it is very close in its outlook or very open. Thirdly, the question of language policy requires long-term consideration. An example is when we introduced the multi-lingual policy in 1959, where the schools were encouraged to teach in various languages - Malay, Tamil, English and Chinese - it produced people like Mr Opposition here and myself. As a result of this multi-lingual education system, we have Singaporeans with different viewpoints but at the same time sharing what is fundamental to Singapore. The question of language is important in that it is closely related to the thinking process and culture. Language taught us the norms and what is culturally acceptable. Our ability to command a language will reflect our views on development from the perspective of the culture of our upbringing. That is why we should find ways now to provide the solutions to questions of language that we face in schools. We have, at some early time, introduced a language policy.”
“And when she took Chinese, there was no problem. Maybe she is a female, I do not know. Anyway, she got through her Chinese and she did rather well at it, and she is also learning French and other languages. I think it is the motivation. As for myself, I was in school when Singapore was still a colony and I went to a well-known mission school which did not seem to encourage the study of Chinese. In fact, it was not prestigious at all when I was in school to study Chinese. It was more prestigious to study Latin and of course I managed to get through Latin which I am very proud. But if I had spent the same time and effort studying Chinese, I think I would be very much better off. Being a monolingual person, I do not think that is a very good thing. We should study Chinese and being in a multi-lingual place like Singapore, our children should also be encouraged to study Malay. I know DPM has said that our brain is finite and we cannot study too many languages, but if it is possible, we should master a little bit of Malay. I am surprised that when young Singaporeans today, going across the Causeway, see a notice in Malay, they are completely at a loss. They cannot recognise even a few words. That is very bad. If we are serious about promoting the Chinese language, I agree with Mr Ang Mong Seng who said that we should have another university, a Chinese university. If that is not possible, then we should enlarge the Chinese Department at NUS, make it a bigger department to train the necessary journalists, teachers, broadcasters and the like. I think these are all the points I want to make.”