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 20 of 85.
“Sir, can I have a clarification? I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that some egg producers claim that their eggs contain low cholesterol. Let me tell you my experience. I bought one of these boxes of eggs, claiming to have low cholesterol. And when the egg was half-boiled, cracked open, I noticed that the yolk of the egg was very large compared to other eggs. To my understanding, all the cholesterol is, in fact, contained in the yolk of the egg, and not the white of the egg. So if this egg has got a larger than normal size yolk, how can the producers claim that it has got low cholesterol?”
“Can I clarify also? I would like to ask the Minister why the HDB has never published the development cost or the cost of building each flat. Will the HDB be willing to publish the cost of building each flat?”
“So we either use one or the other system, otherwise it does not make sense at all.”
“Sir, my cut is on Electronic Road Pricing. It was reported that the Electronic Road Pricing system cameras erected in the ECP, the highways and other roads have shown to be very efficient in detecting those vehicles that cross the gantries. The cameras there can produce very clear pictures of those vehicles who pass that way without an in-vehicle unit or Cashcard. In fact, the system has been described as foolproof by Mr Chin Kian Keong, LTA's Manager for Road Pricing. This means that the Government shall have another efficient means of collecting revenue. In the eyes of the Government, the ERP system is to control vehicle use but from the public's point of view, it is viewed more as a device set up by the Government to collect more revenue. The Government has already set up a quota system. When this quota system was first implemented, it was touted as the ultimate system to control the number of cars on the roads. This means that traffic jams are cut to a minimum and a desired number of cars is only allowed to be used on the roads. Now we have an additional system to regulate the number of vehicles which is only allowed to pass certain points, purportedly which will not cause traffic jams. But in the first place, we have already a system whereby the number of vehicles is controlled to prevent or to cut down traffic jams. So the question is: Will the quota system be eventually scrapped since we have a new system? Otherwise, the quota system does not make sense at all. In the first place, you control the number of cars and the Government says that this is the ultimate number of cars allowed on the roads. Then you have another system to control this number of cars which is supposedly allowed on the roads in the first place.”
“In 1997, the permit to hold a pasar malam was also issued to the CCC. The Potong Pasir Town Council again was denied the opportunity to hold pasar malam that year. I hope ENV would change its rules and allocate permits to hold pasar malams fairly to the Opposition and the PAP-controlled grassroots organisations. Sir, our national pledge says that we believe in justice and equality. But as far as ENV is concerned, they do not believe in justice and equality in the issue of pasar malam permits at Potong Pasir. ENV should respect the elected Member of Parliament for that constituency and at least allocate to him a few days a year for his town council to organise pasar malams. In Potong Pasir, I, as the elected MP, have been ridden roughshod over and pushed aside. I am deprived of organising a pasar malam for three years. Such a situation should be corrected.”
“Sir, my speech is on pasar malam. Sir, pasar malams are part of the way of life in HDB housing estates. The pasar malams are a sort of flea market where residents can browse and buy goods at very reasonable prices. The Ministry of the Environment is the Government body that issues the main permit to hold pasar malams although if cooked foods are sold, a permit is required from the Ministry of Health. Permits to hold pasar malams are issued only to the PAP grassroots organisations and some other charitable organisations. Opposition Members of Parliament have no formal grassroots organisations. They apply for pasar malam permits to hold these fairs in the name of their town council. The Ministry of the Environment recognises this kind of application by the town councils. In the past, the town council at Potong Pasir had no problems getting the necessary permits to organise pasar malams. But commencing 1995, the Potong Pasir Town Council has been completely denied the opportunity to do so. All the quotas to hold pasar malams at Potong Pasir for those three years up to 1997 were allocated to the Potong Pasir CCC instead. Sir, in this sense, the MOE has not been fair in dealing with the allocation of quotas to hold pasar malams at Potong Pasir. First, it changes the rules and, secondly, it has been unfair in implementing the rules. When the Potong Pasir Town Council applied to hold pasar malams in 1995, it was surprised to learn that the CCC had been allocated the quota for two years, that is, the full 32 days to hold a marathon pasar malam for more than one month. Pasar malam permits are normally issued for only one year but for that year, the MOE bent its rules and favoured the CCC and gave it a two-year quota in one year.”
“If the Indonesians do care for their good name and reputation as a country that assumes full international responsibilities, then it is incumbent on them to make more stringent laws and take more effective enforcement action to wipe out the haze problem. The haze problem is a serious problem. It is not just a question of smoke being blown from one country to another country. The haze contains tiny harmful pollutants. In addition to some very toxic gases, these tiny pollutants known as respiratory suspended particles (RSPs) cannot be stopped by wearing cloth masks. These pollutants can only be stopped through the wearing of heavy war time type of gas masks. But using such masks is impractical. According to medical sources, the best solution is to move out of the region. This we certainly cannot do. So are we to breathe these harmful pollutants for six to eight months a year depending on the weather? If the haze is not eliminated, we may have a whole nation of sick people in 10 to 15 years' time. This certainly again we do not want. It is therefore important to once and for all resolve the haze problem with the Indonesians. I shall say that if the Minister for the Environment insists on being polite to the Indonesians, then he should consider telling them politely that we shall take them to the International Court if the haze problem is still unresolved. 2.45 pm”
“Sir, my cut is on the topic "Cooperation to solve haze problem". Singapore as a good ASEAN neighbour has tolerated the haze problem for too long. The haze problem has been with us for six years since 1992. ASEAN Environment Ministers have met and discussed the problem but nothing concrete appears to have come out of those meetings. I hope that at the next ASEAN Environment Ministers' meeting, our Minister shall use stronger words to put the message across to the Indonesian Environment Minister. Singapore cannot tolerate the haze problem any longer. The costs are too high. It is not only a big financial loss to Singapore but, more importantly, the haze is a health hazard. It is reported in the Straits Times today that the haze caused Singapore $104 million last year. This amount comprised loss by the tourism industry, $81.8 million, health cost incurred was $12.5 million and the airline industry's loss of business was estimated at $9.7 million. We have just heard Mr Simon Tay that the actual loss may even be more than this amount of $104 million. These monetary losses do not take into account the long-term effects from cancer and other diseases. The price is too high. I would urge our Minister at the next round of the ASEAN Environment Ministers' meeting to put across to the Indonesians the message that the haze problem cannot be tolerated any more by Singaporeans. It is true that the haze problem is an international one. But the Indonesians in the first place must be made responsible for it. The haze originates in their country. International help, however good the intention, from friendly nations or international organisations like UNEP can only go so far. The brunt of eliminating the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the Indonesians themselves.”
“Sir, how many people visit the Chinese and the Japanese Gardens per month?”
“Sir, despite the fact that there is an announcement that the new water agreement will be signed between Singapore and Malaysia in 60 days' time, I still believe that the bottom line in the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia is water. 6.00 pm Malaysia has the water, we do not. I believe the main object of Singapore-Malaysia relationship is to obtain water supply for Singapore on a permanent basis. It is true that we can get our water supply from other sources such as from Indonesia and from desalination plants. But there are hazards and the cost is much higher to get water from Indonesia and from the desalination plants. I believe the best way to ensure the continuous flow of water from Malaysia to Singapore is to have a very close relationship with Malaysia. I believe the closest relationship we can have with Malaysia is to form an economic union with Malaysia. This is not a new idea. Singapore formed a political union, which included an economic union, with Malaysia in 1963, but it failed. An economic union is not a political union. In a political union, Singapore has to give up its sovereignty. But in an economic union, our sovereignty is still intact. I am not proposing an economic union so that Singapore can get richer. If we have this intention in mind, I do not think that the Malaysians would want to have such a union. The economic union must be for the mutual benefit of both countries. Eventually, we hope that Malaysia can be as rich as us, so that the element of envy, now harboured by many Malaysians, can be removed once and for all. I believe only then that Singapore can ensure of a permanent supply of water without paying too high a price for it.”
“I want to clarify on this point. The SDF is not budgeted. It is not in the Budget. It has never gone into the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, it is not Government's money. It is a fund quite separate from Government revenue and Government funds. In that sense, Government has not contributed any money.”
“But money put aside for the retraining of workers is definitely not payment out for welfarism. It is an investment. I would again call on the Government that in these times where retrenchments of workers are on the rise it should give generous releases of funds for the retraining of workers.”
“Sir, my amendment is on the training of manpower. Sir, I hear with great interest what Mr Lim Swee Say has said. In fact, he has brought up many valid points about the retraining of workers. But the only problem of retraining of workers is that it costs a lot of money. In fact, the Secretary-General of NTUC has said that two to three times more money has to be spent on the retraining of workers than what has been done now. Sir, the Government only pays lip service to the retraining of workers. There is no provision for funds anywhere in the Budget which has been set aside for the retraining of workers. Singapore wants to attract high technology industries, but the high technology industries need plenty of trained workers. It was reported that the job growth at 4% in Silicon Valley at California is the highest in America, but the problem there is that there is a great shortage of skilled workers. Singapore shall also suffer the same fate if not enough skilled workers are trained. The wafer fabrication and other high technology industries take in only trained workers. If Singapore does not have enough trained workers, the high technology industries may be reluctant to come and as a consequence our economy shall suffer. In these times of low economic growth and where the private sector is not doing well, the Government must play a bigger part in the retraining of workers. The Government cannot, like in the past, depend only on businesses and the Skills Development Fund to carry the burden of retraining of workers. In these difficult times, the urgency for Government to give financial support for retraining of workers is all the more greater because of rising unemployment. I know the Government's policy is against paying out freely for welfarism.”
“The other issue is: why do our scholars break their bond? As I have mentioned, they are the cream of the population. I would urge the Government to look into our education system and also the Ministers themselves should look at what they have done, whether they have set a high standard for our young people to follow.”
“I want to speak on bond breakers. When I filed this amendment, Sir, I did not realise that this topic will be so hotly debated in this House and I also did not realise that some Members were bond breakers themselves and they seem to have some personal interest in it. We also heard this afternoon a lengthy Ministerial Statement on this issue. The question is: are the bond breakers wrong in doing so? Purely, from the legal point of view, they have committed no wrong. They just have to pay damages, as has been pointed out. Like other Members, I think they do have a moral obligation. They are morally obligated to carry out their bond. On the other hand, I would also stress that, in fact, the bond givers themselves also have a moral responsibility. They should not impose harsh and onerous terms on the scholars. We have heard the hon. Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh that he served 10 years of the bond before he broke it. I take it that the Member's bond lasted longer than 10 years. I think it is utterly wrong to be tied down for 10 years. A 10-year bond is definitely too long. Such a contract is harsh and onerous. Under such circumstances, I can understand why scholars want to break their bonds. It is said that in every action there is a reaction. If harsh and onerous terms were imposed, the reaction of scholars would be to try to get out of the contract at the first opportunity. The givers of scholarship have also to be fair and equitable in their attempts to bind recipients of the scholarship. At one time, a scholar had to serve a bond period equivalent to the number of years he spent overseas to complete his course. I believe this can be a criterion, but subject to not more than four years' bonding of scholars. I think a maximum bond period should not exceed four years.”
“Sir, I was a school teacher for over 10 years. What I learned was that the best way to teach the right values to the students is by example. I think the teachers themselves have to set the example and the tone. I wonder whether our Ministers are setting the right examples and the right tone. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mr Chiam thinks that he can produce a better team of Ministers either in Singapore or anywhere else in the region or in the world, it is up to him to try to do it and convince the population. Anybody whom we bring into the leadership team is somebody whom we believe can make more than that, many times over, outside. We have to bring them in and they have to be willing to serve. And if they were not willing to serve, you could pay them a million dollars and they would not be here today. I think Mr Chiam should stick to his original point. He has been a teacher. He knows that not all his students pass his examinations. But this is a very serious matter and one on which, not just the political leadership, but the administration, the civil service, the teachers and the young people must understand where they stand, and what is right and wrong. SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILLS (Business Motion) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for FY 98/99 and the Supplementary Supply Bill for FY 97/98 may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Main and Development Estimates for FY 98/99. [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS (Business Motion)”
“Sir, I just would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a very broad question. These bond breakers are scholars. They are the cream of the population, and they have undergone perhaps 12 years of our education system. I wonder whether something has gone wrong somewhere in our education system, bringing up end products such as students who blatantly break their bonds. One would imagine that they would have some values, to think the matter over seriously before breaking their bonds. Despite many meetings and warnings, they still break the bonds. It shows clearly that there is something basically wrong with our education system. The right values are not inculcated in our students. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has a valid point, but he overstates it. We have to work harder at national education, moral education, inculcating in our young people, not just facts but values, so that they know what is right and wrong. We have tried hard to do this, especially in recent years. We do not always succeed. There is always a range of responses, and even in the most ideal system, not everybody responds to enlightened precepts, because they just do not sink in. Also, it is the mood of the times. If you are facing a great upheaval and tumult, and your stomach is hungry, as is the case in some countries in this region now, you will not be thinking of doing computer graphics or something like that. You will be thinking of the family back home and how to fend for them, not just family but friends, relatives, your country. We are no longer in that position, but we have to keep these values, the sense of service and moral obligation, so that we can hold together as one nation.”
“We have Roving Ambassadors. Is the Minister suggesting that I should also be a Roving Ambassador for this job?”
“Sir, it would appear that the laws are not properly enforced at all. Now we hear of raging fires.”
“Sir, the Minister says that the chances of preventing the haze coming from Kalimantan to Singapore are slim. I want to know why. Is there not a government there?”
“Can I get a further clarification? He does not seem to give me an answer. I would like to ask him: how does giving more money to the CDCs help retrenched workers? That is my point. Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: I do not think he got my point. I was saying that the CDCs could help in terms of monitoring and also coordinating the programmes. To do that, they will also need some funds. But the actual programme of helping retrenched workers will come through SRP, retraining and upgrading of their skills. That was also tackled in my speech.”
“Can I get a clarification from Mr Zainul? If I heard him correctly, he says that, as regards retrenchment, he wants the Government to fund CDCs and coordinate at grassroots level. I would like to ask him how does funding of the CDCs help workers who are retrenched.”
“The income tax rebate this year is only 5% compared to the previous year's when 10% rebate was given. Although the personal income tax rate this year has not increased, the net effect is that Singaporeans are paying more income tax due to the fact that rebates have been sliced by one-half. The 10% rebate should have been maintained because only a small proportion of the population is carrying the bulk of the tax burden. Since there are no tax reliefs this year, the Minister should maintain the 10% rebate. The rebates and grants given to HDB flat dwellers in the 1-room to 4-room flats should be increased by at least one-half. The Government is spending $72 million on these grants and rebates, which is only about 2.7% of the expected accumulated surplus. The Government should double this spending because, firstly, many of the HDB flat dwellers or members of their families may be retrenched. Secondly, these grants and rebates are only sufficient to cover for the increased charges in S&C and the increase in electricity and water conservation rates. The HDB flat dwellers at most shall be put in a neutral position as regards payments for the utilities and S&C charges. They shall not gain by these grants and rebates. If the Government really wants to ease the hardship of HDB flat dwellers, especially the 1-, 2- and 3-roomers, it should double the amount allocated.”
“" What is surprising is that the Government does not have enough funds in its coffers, yet it made a bold election promise to the people. Indeed, the Finance Minister in his Budget Statement does not think that the upgrading of HDB flats is a priority. The Budget does make special provision for education, defence, economic infrastructure like the reclamation of land at Jurong island, but there is no mention at all of HDB flats to be upgraded on a priority basis, although an election promise was made. The other point is that the Budget also has not mentioned about retraining of retrenched workers. In fact, the Government only spends money on pre-employment training in schools and vocational institutes. The only source of funds for worker retraining is from the Skills Development Fund, which are contributed by employers. The Budget this year has not specifically put any money aside for retraining of retrenched workers. This only shows how caring the Government is for the plight of retrenched workers. I know it is not right to pamper our workers unnecessarily. But in times of economic difficulties, the Government must show some compassion to take care of our workers who are out of job and not rely entirely on the business concerns to retrain our workers. Business people are never altruistic. They are only profit-motivated. As such, they may even take advantage of the economic downturn and use the attract foreign talent policy to employ cheap foreign labour and to train them with skills so that they can take over jobs from Singaporeans. In the end, many of the top-paying jobs in our workforce may be taken over by foreigners - a situation where Singapore workers cannot accept.”
“Another 22% of the workers interviewed said that their savings could last only up to six months. The survey also revealed that most of these workers have low education and they are employed as blue-collar workers. Sir, most of these workers are also not young. There is merit for the Government to allow CPF savings to be drawn out by retrenched workers, especially if there are sufficient funds in their CPF accounts. After all, it is the workers' own money and they should be allowed to use it when they are out of a job and they are unable to find alternative employment or they have dependants to support. It has been announced that the Government is not going to fully keep its election promise to upgrade HDB flats since there is going to be a downturn in the economy. The upgrading of HDB flats programme is going to be slashed down this year from 15 to 10 precincts. The question is: should the economy get worse next year, is the Government going to further cut down on the HDB upgrading programme? I would think so. We have seen the Government going back on its promise before. The problem is that in the last election, the Government thought that the Singapore economy shall be forever on the upward trend, accumulating surpluses year after year, more than $5 billion each year. Under such an illusion, it promised voters that the Government shall carry out upgrading of their flats should they support the Government policies, ie, in plain language, vote the PAP. Well, they have voted the PAP and returned all PAP candidates to Parliament except two. What happens now? One-third of the voters may have to wait a very long time for their flats to be upgraded. The Government tells them now, "The economy is bad. We do not have enough funds.”
“6% growth, the Government went back on its word and allowed the employers' component of the CPF to be reduced by a hefty 15 percentage points, from 25% to 10%. Sir, with such a precedent, I believe that workers are worried today. Despite the fact that flexi-wage system has been introduced, they are still worried that the Government shall allow the CPF rate again to be slashed downwards. Doubtless, should the CPF rate be reduced again, the workers shall suffer greater hardship this round because HDB flat prices have risen much higher than those in the 1985-87 period. The financing of these flats is higher today and HDB flat purchasers have to pay much higher monthly loan instalments. I urge the Government to do everything possible and prevent the recurrence of another CPF cut. Sir, another aspect of the CPF is that the Government should allow retrenched workers to draw on their own CPF. I remember that in the 1985-87 recession, the hon. Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Yatiman Yusof, called on the Government to allow a retrenched worker to withdraw $200 per month from his CPF account. I would now suggest that the Government allow retrenched workers to draw up to $300 per month from his CPF savings subject to, of course, the amount of CPF he has in his account. The Government should look into this proposal seriously because the number of retrenched workers shall increase. The expected number of workers retrenched is to be about 15,000 workers and some expect this number to increase to as high as the 1985-87 level of 20,000. Further, a survey recently carried out by two international consultancy firms showed that 62% of our workers' savings cannot last them more than three months should they be out of a job.”
“Sir, this year, the budget surplus has shrunk to about $2.7 billion, showing that business shall be bad again this year. Last year, all sectors showed a decline, the stock market plummeted, the finance, property, tourism, manufacturing, retail sectors, all declined. Despite the poor business showing, the Government refused to lower corporate tax by one or two percentage points. At the moment, the corporate tax is about 26%. Businessmen expected the Government to reduce the corporate tax by at least one percentage point to 25%. But that expectation was not met. The excuse given by the Government was that it already had reduced the tax low enough and that if the corporate tax were reduced to 25%, Singapore shall be deemed to be a tax haven. I say these are all lame excuses. I think the true reason is that the Government is waiting for the 5-year moratorium for the Goods and Services Tax at 3% to expire next year, and then we will see the reduction of corporate tax. But, of course, we expect an increase in the GST from next year onwards. With the shrinkage of the budget surplus, the Government shall have less money to be transferred to the Edusave account and to Medifund. I hope with this transfer of less money to these two funds, the Government shall not hold back disbursements on these funds, especially to needy pupils and the people who need them. Sir, I can remember that in 1984-85, the opposition were calling for the employees' CPF contributions to be reduced so that they could have a bigger take-home pay. But at that time the Government asserted that the CPF contributions are sacrosanct. They are the workers' salary. They belong to the workers. They cannot be cut. But when the economy went really bad, to a minus 1.”
“I am sorry that the NMP has to ask me to clarify. The best thing is actually for him to take part in an election. Then he will know the difficulties as regards election rallies, putting up election posters, party broadcast time, and as regards the Police who are always about. There are many things that he does not know and I think it is best for him to stand in an election. Then let him say whether we have the most fair elections in the world.”
“The Government, under the new section 2(3), is allowed to broadcast party political films through the mass media because the purpose of which is purportedly the reporting of current events. Therefore, at election time, under this section, the Government can report all their members' election speeches and election activities through the local television and radio as current events. At the same time, opposition members shall not benefit from such wide coverage unless, of course, the news are bad about the opposition. By this Bill, the playing field is further tilted to the advantage of the PAP in coming elections. The fifth reason for not allowing the banning of party political films is that it is one more step to discourage political awareness among Singaporeans. The Bill also further gives an impression to our young citizens that discussing opposition politics is something to be avoided because normally a government would only ban something which is bad for the people. And by banning party political films which is really aimed at the opposition, the people of Singapore will also have the impression that films made by the opposition must be bad. They are to be lumped together with obscene films. Obscene films are actually worlds apart from party political films. Yet they are lumped together in this Bill. I strongly object to the passing of this Bill banning party political films. On record, by the votes cast at the last general elections, there are almost 50% of those who voted shall be against this Bill as it stands. On this line, I would say that there are very good grounds to send this Bill to a Select Committee and I call upon the Minister to do so.”
“The Government should have no fear because the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the defamatory and sedition laws are still all in place and the Internal Security Act has not yet been abolished. The only harm that can be done by the opposition or Singaporeans generally using party political films is to the PAP and not to Singapore. I hasten to say that the PAP is not Singapore. If the opposition is given a climate whereby they can grow and attract good men, in time they too can be just as good as the ruling party. But with this kind of a Bill that is before us, such a climate I speak of shall never come about. The third reason why party political films should be allowed is because there are vast numbers of Singaporeans who shall oppose this Bill. There are already two opposition-held constituencies at Hougang and Potong Pasir. The majority of people at these two constituencies shall surely oppose this Bill since they have already voted for the opposition. In many of the constituencies that were contested, the votes polled by the opposition were over 40%. Generally, we can safely say that about 40% of the voters in Singapore would definitely oppose the banning of party political films since they are not against the opposition. In the results at the first poll for the Elected President, there were about 40% of the voters who did not vote for the Government candidate. I would think that they too would be against this move to ban party political films. Indeed, if those parts of the Bill concerning banning party political films were to be put to a referendum, my view is that the Government may just not get what it wants. The fourth reason why party political films should not be banned is because the Government is setting double standards by implementing this Bill.”
“It is high time that the Government opened up and allowed more than one point of view. Singaporeans should be given an opportunity to hear not one or two points of views, but a diversity of views. I believe Singaporeans are intelligent and mature enough to know what is good for Singapore. They are discerning people and can accept the point of view that is best for Singapore and for them. It has been said that with party political films, the opposition can give wrong information or misinformation. If they really do that, they will in fact be shooting their own feet with a gun. Because if they are found out, their whole credibility will go and they will never get elected again. So I do not think that they will dare to be so irresponsible. There should be no fear of allowing Singaporeans to watch and hear party political films. If Singaporeans are forced to hear and accept only one point of view, very soon an absolute tyranny will develop in Singapore. Further, the PAP is not always right. The stop-at-two policy is a glaring example. Secondly, it is a shame if new technologies cannot be used to the fullest. Singapore encourages its people to be creative and innovative. It would appear that the mood now is that should any more new technologies be invented, they cannot be used by the opposition to their advantage, but only by the PAP. This kind of values promulgated by the PAP is definitely retrogressive and unfair. This Bill only retards the growth of creativity and innovativeness. Politics is not something dirty like obscene films, and Singapore should be given a free rein to indulge in politics using new technologies.”
“There is in fact no need to impose such heavy fines and jail sentences for offenders of party political films. A fine of $2,000 or a jail sentence of six months would suffice. Since the whole matter is political, the intention of this part of the Bill is for the Government to neutralise the opposition parties. This can be achieved by stopping opposition members from taking part in elections by fining them just a mere $2,000 or six months' jail, if they are caught involved in dealing with party political films. Under the Singapore Constitution, once a person is fined $2,000 or jailed six months, he is banned from taking part in any parliamentary elections for a period of five years. So a fine of $2,000 or a jail of six months is a sufficient deterrent in regard to party political films. The present punishment is out of proportion and is really uncalled for. These heavy fines and jail sentences only indicate that the ruling party suffers real weaknesses. They think that if the opposition have a chance to use party political films they can win even more seats in Parliament or even topple the PAP if such new technologies can be exploited by the opposition to the fullest. That is why draconian punishments are meted out to completely deprive the opposition of using new technologies to advance their cause. Is the use of new technologies by the opposition something bad? I do not think so. I can think of at least five reasons why party political films should be allowed. Firstly, the public will have the advantage of more than one point of view. Every day, for 365 days a year, and year after year, from one general election to the next and continued non-stop, Singaporeans are bombarded with PAP news.”
“As for the Kite Flying Day, there are usually about 200 to 250 persons who come to join in this very delightful activity. None of these activities organised at Potong Pasir over the last 12 years have been reported in the local press or over television. Now there are new technologies like the videos and the CD-ROMs which can give a chance for the opposition to make known their views and activities, but the Government, with this Bill, is quick to clamp down on the use of this new technology by the opposition. Any progressive Singaporean would welcome all new technologies and make use of them to the fullest advantage. But in Singapore the situation is different. New technologies are only good if they are to advance the cause of the PAP and not the opposition. This message is loud and clear with the implementation of this Bill when it becomes law. There is no half measure as far as the Government is concerned. They want to make sure that the opposition is completely deprived of new technologies to advance their cause. The punishment meted out for disobeying the law is a very heavy penalty of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This punishment is even more onerous than the ones meted out for first time aggravated offence in connection with dealings in obscene films where children and young persons are involved. For the first timers of aggravated offences involving children and young persons, the upper limit of the fine is only $80,000, and the maximum prison sentence is 12 months. As compared to the first time offenders in relation to party political films, the maximum fine is $100,000. As I said, the maximum jail is two years.”
“Sir, I must first question the sweeping statement of the NMP when he said that Singapore has the fairest election in the world. I wonder whether he has stood in any of the elections in Singapore, especially on the opposition side. Standing as a bystander and observing from the outside, surely he cannot get the full picture. Until he has stood in an election, he has got no right to make such a sweeping statement. Sir, I cannot support this Bill because the part on banning party political films is purely political. It has got nothing to do with public good or the public interest. Its purpose is to give more advantage to the ruling party at the elections and to ensure that the PAP shall never lose its majority in every election. I can support the part of the Bill disallowing the exhibition and trade in obscene films as they tend to deprave and corrupt members of the public, especially young Singaporeans. Therefore, banning of obscene films is for the public good and the public interest is served. I support that part of the Bill. But banning party political films is another matter altogether. How does banning party political films help to promote public good or public interest? In fact, it is just the opposite. The public, especially in Singapore, hardly know anything about the opposition. They only see and hear and read PAP news. Anyone who turns on the news on our local television cannot fail to see and hear anything but PAP news. PAP Ministers' and Members' public activities are prominently broadcast. Anyone watching local television would think that there are no activities organised by the opposition MPs at all. At Potong Pasir, I organise between five and seven public activities every year. Our Lantern Festival attracts about 1,000 participants every year.”
“I wish to clarify. I have got no CCC at Potong Pasir. I am talking about the only CCC that is existing in Potong Pasir and whether they have put in a request for funds. Because I know they have circulated notices asking whether they will get the support of the residents there. I imagine that they would be putting in their case.”
“At Potong Pasir. I am only interested in Potong Pasir. I understand that they have been applying for CIPC funds for two covered linkways. Is it still on?”
“I understand that the CCC has been applying for CIPC funds.”
“Does it also include the control of editorial policies?”
“What does the Minister mean by "golden share"?”
“The Minister has mentioned that the Government has still got some residual control of SPH. Can I know what sort of control?”
“Instead the task of raising the issue in Parliament and debating it, explaining it and reflecting people's views and concerns has been left to PAP MPs and Nominated MPs. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's only contribution to this debate has been to cut political salaries by 25% and he had the honour and the courtesy to remind us that in fact it was an old record from 1985 which he was rehashing again. It is a meaningless populist gimmick. If everybody has to tighten belts, then naturally Ministers and MPs should also do so.”
“It said: `Singapore was the only Southeast Asian country which had a correct currency policy, one sensitive to global financial dynamics with practically no barriers to trade and capital flows and because it uses currency to check imported inflation, Singapore's policy is aligned to the global inflation profile. Of the region's central banks, only the MAS has its currency policy in tune with the underlying `fair' value.' So whatever Mr Jeyaretnam says about inflation and the state of the economy, the analysts know the true state. What has made this difference? Clean, competent Government. Why do you think we have a financial system which has been tightly supervised, a property market where the incipient bubble was pricked in time and a prudent budget surplus with no foreign borrowing? By chance? Because of the quality of the NCMP in the House? No. Because there have been capable committed men in the Government who will pursue sound policies, anticipate problems and find solutions to them in good time. We have been able to deliver this quality of Government precisely because we have paid Ministers and civil servants properly. We did this, opposed by opposition MPs like Mr Jeyaretnam at every step. But the policy has worked and it has made Singapore different. Now that we face a major regional crisis, what has the opposition done? Has it called on Singaporeans to close ranks and work together? No. Has it produced any useful ideas to tackle the problems? Neither. No opposition MP has filed any questions in Parliament on this momentous development, except to query the constitutionality of the Government's actions on totally spurious grounds, and then failed to follow up in the courts when challenged to do so.”
“The Singapore Government is, meanwhile, moving to widen the competitiveness gap its neighbours had been closing before the crisis began. Singapore . has pressed on with plans to open up. Economists say foreign investors cannot help but be impressed.' This is the Financial Times reprinted in the Straits Times. The New York Times, also not an admirer of ours, Thomas Friedman writing in an Op-Ed column earlier this month about the crisis in an article entitled "Good governance only protection" said: `Of those Asian nations who were fully plugged into the market, those with the most non-corrupt, transparent and accountable financial systems Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore have been hurt the least.' That is in the New York Times. Analysts write us up. They have to tell as it is because otherwise nobody will read them. Independent Strategy is one of them and last year in July it reported on emerging markets and the title was: "Singapore Sun-drenched in a grey sea". They gave the reasons why this was so: `Singapore does stand out in the continuing Asian currency crisis. It runs a surplus when other countries run deficits. Singapore's balance sheet with the rest of the world is also super strong. Nor does Singapore have an asset bubble or any sign of a major overhang of unproductive capital as in most other Asian countries.' That was in July. Come October, Jardine Fleming Research published two reports. One said: "Singapore Distinct from the ASEAN-4" and the other one said, "Singapore's monetary policy is different".”
“But the point is that the standard has been set by the Ministers themselves. If this standard is to be adhered to, then if the salaries of the top earners of the private sector have gone down, the Ministers' salaries should drop accordingly. I would like the Minister to let us know whether or not Ministers' salaries have been scaled down. If so, when and by how much? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what we are facing is not an ordinary cyclical downturn in the economy. This is the most serious crisis which the region has faced since at least the 1960s. One country after another has succumbed to the contagion, starting with Thailand, then Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea and Hong Kong. The country now facing the most serious situation, whose well-being will affect the region and Singapore the most profoundly, is Indonesia. We have fully discussed this earlier. Singapore has been lucky to be spared the worst of this crisis. But it has not just been luck. We are different, and people have recognised that we are different. And if Members read articles in the foreign media who are not by any means uncritical admirers of Singapore, they will see that they have recognised this. I just cite you four examples.. One in the Financial Times earlier this month, an article entitled: "Singapore's strengths protect it from turmoil" by Sheila McNutty. She wrote: `In spite of its sound economic fundamental, Singapore's exposure to the region is dragging it into the turmoil. But the very strengths that put the city-state ahead of its neighbours before the crisis began its eagerness to adjust to changes in the world around it have convinced economists it will emerge even further in front when it ends.”
“Sir, the point I was trying to raise has already been mentioned by the Nominated Member. Ministers' salaries are in fact pegged to the top earners of the six professions in the private sector and if the private sector is doing well, I believe Ministers' salaries will go up and if the private sector is not doing well when there is an economic downturn, accordingly the salaries of Ministers will also go down. As we know, there is now a downturn in our economy. In fact, we have heard just now from Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee, that the banks' business had dipped 30%. We have also read in the papers that about 200 lawyers have left the profession. Probably those who have left were doing conveyancing and conveyancing is rather slow these days. We also see that there are in fact retrenchments in the electronics sector. We have heard that the retail trade is down and that the stock market is also not doing that well. Definitely, there is evidence that businesses are going down. If that is so, I would imagine that the salaries of the top earners in the private sector would also drop accordingly. If indeed the salaries of top people in the private sector have dropped, then the Ministers' salaries should accordingly be scaled down. The question is this: Have Ministers' salaries been scaled down? If they have been, how much? If not, why? Ministers cannot give an excuse and say that their salaries need not be scaled down because it makes no difference to the economy or that they have done a good job and Singapore has weathered the currency turmoil relatively well compared to other countries in the region or that our currency has not been devalued as much as the others vis-a-vis the US dollar or that Ministers' salaries comprise only a small percentage of the GDP.”
“Sir, I have looked through all the holidays and you will notice that most of the holidays are religious-biased, or in terms of National Day, it is specially set aside for patriotism, especially for the country. We do not have any one day which is for the people themselves to be reminded that we are multi-cultural. I think this is important. In Japan, they have got its Cultural Day. The reason why they want to have a Cultural Day is to emphasise that culture is important in the country. I think the Minister, instead of just brushing it off, should give his serious consideration. I hope he will say that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Anyway, Sir, this is not under the Ministry of Law. The number of public holidays is actually determined by the Ministry of Labour. But in any case, I think the last time this matter was brought up, Members also suggested other holidays, such as a Women's Day. So where do you draw the line? If you want non-religious festivals also to be made public holidays, of course besides National Day which is now the one event that straddles all religions and festivities, I think we should be careful. We can practise it. I think that is important. But to have a public holiday to remind us about so many things in Singapore, such as a Save Water Day, I think we should be careful. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.45 pm”
“The example he is giving is way out. There is no comparison between this tripartism and members of the family. As the mother ---”
“Sir, I want the speakers to see whether or not what I said is correct.”
“Much obliged, Sir. I regret that the Member for Cheng San GRC should be bringing religion into this matter that I spoke. He says that this is the month of Ramadan and therefore he is more tolerant, otherwise his criticism of me will be more severe, if I have got him right. I must inform the Member for Cheng San that I am not a new MP. If I had been taken in by criticism, I would not be in this House. This is my fourth term. So he can criticise me as he likes, whether it is Ramadan or not. A clarification, Sir, in regard to this tripartism which I have attracted criticisms from the last four speakers. To me, probably to any ordinary person in Singapore, you have a Minister from the political party, who is also the head of the trade union movement, how can there be true tripartism if, in fact, the trade union is controlled by a Minister? A Minister must abide by Cabinet's collective decision. You cannot stray away from it. So if the political party has made a policy, when this Minister goes to sit as the head of the trade union movement, he must abide by the decision of the Cabinet. And, therefore, if you look at it truly, this is not tripartism under this system, although it works well. Whether it works well is another issue. What I am talking about is just looking at it, whether it is tripartism or, in fact, it is dualism, I would say. It is not true tripartism.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have a clarification on the speech by the Member for Cheng San GRC?”