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 21 of 85.
“So if the Government were to make known that skilled foreign workers would be maintained and that Singaporeans would be retrenched first, I am afraid companies would start to train more and more foreign workers, so that they can be retained at a cheaper rate when retrenchment comes.”
“There must be other ways of educating our young, rather than resorting to streaming at a very early age. I think streaming has been delayed from the third year to the fourth year. But it is still too early educationally to stream a child. If the Government is not willing to pay money to build libraries in HDB precincts, I think they can get the private sector to do it. If the private sector would like to cooperate with the Government in building more libraries, I think this should be welcomed. Again, I hope the NTUC will push for this step. As regards educational facilities to be built in HDB premises, again, I think this should be looked into seriously by the NTUC. May I make a last comment? I heard from the Minister that if we do have a depression and workers are retrenched, when there is a skilful foreign worker and a Singaporean who has got no skill, the Singaporean will go first. From the point of view of business, of course, this is right. But from the point of view of leaders of a country, I wonder whether we should do something about it. I have, in fact, made a comment that if this were true, I think it could easily lead to abuse. Because I have already heard of cases where companies have employed unskilled foreign workers and used our SDF funds or some kind of funds to train them. In the particular case, I heard that the foreign workers were trained to be crane operators, and they became skilled crane operators. In fact, instead of hiring Singaporean crane operators, they hired foreign crane operators, because they were cheaper.”
“So people who want to impart their skills to others, in fact, it is a charitable act and this cannot be clamoured for by other professions or trade unless they can be proven to be a charity, just like HDB has already made a precedent by giving space for childcare and kindergarten centres operated by some religious bodies. They should also do that by giving space to other Singaporeans who would like to teach some skills to workers. As regards the apprenticeship scheme, in fact, for many centuries already, Europe has built up an apprenticeship scheme, in particular Germany has a very modern one. Germany, as we know, has very skilful workers. In fact, their engineering skills are the best in the world. So perhaps, we could also look into this. And England, of course, has a law to regulate apprentices. Perhaps, we could look into all these schemes in the other countries. In fact, in Italy, they are very good in the crafts and skills. They also have a very good apprenticeship scheme in regard to handicraft. I think we should also look into this. Educationally, telling a child that he is a dud, a failure and that he cannot make it at an early age will in fact ruin the child for the rest of his life. This is probably why BERI reported that the attitude of workers in Singapore is not very good. From very young, we have already put them in a frame of mind that they cannot fit into society and thereafter, in fact, they cannot fit into society, even if you really want to give them all the opportunities because it has already been implanted in their minds. So how can they have the right attitude towards work? How can they be motivated? I think the NTUC should look into this area with the Ministry of Education.”
“They should try to find a way from the many precedents in other parts of the world where apprenticeship schemes are successful. We should try to implement one in Singapore which suits our condition. The other point is that we should scrap early streaming in our schools. This is not a good thing educationally, especially in terms of motivating our future workers when these kids leave school to enter the workforce. We should give the workers' children an equal chance in education. In fact, I have been suggesting for many years that we should build libraries in all HDB precincts. As books are expensive, the children of workers are not exposed to books, so they do not have a chance of learning the reading habit early. So if the workers' children are taught to read from young, we will definitely get a better educated workforce. The other point is perhaps the HDB could help. I have travelled to many countries and in fact, training is done not by the government but by the private enterprise. In the other countries, they have one advantage and that is they have cheap rents. Anyone who has the skill and wants to teach it for a living, he could do so because he could easily rent the premises to do it. But in the Singapore context, rents are very high and so small institutions or schools cannot be started because of the high rents. If HDB could give facilities to Singaporeans who have some skills and who want to teach, we should try to charge them at a lower rent because, in law, education is in fact considered to be charity.”
“As I read the latest copy of the NTUC News, it says that, in fact, 74% of Singapore's workforce in the manufacturing sector are semi-skilled or unskilled and 43% of the workers do not have secondary education. This does not augur well for Singapore to go into the 21st century where technology, as you have heard many speakers say, would be advancing by leaps and bounds. Unless you have a basic secondary education, how are you going to learn all these new skills? As for foreign workers, apparently 93% of them are unskilled, as expected. I do not think the foreign countries would be sending their skilled workers to Singapore. The real big task of the NTUC is to improve the skills and education of the workers and this is not an easy task. This is in fact a tremendous task and is going to cost, as we have heard, about $400-$500 million. So every possible help should be given to Singaporeans, ie, parents, young Singaporeans and workers, to improve their skills. This is a priority of the NTUC. Of course, the other priority would be to improve the attitude of the workers, ie, to motivate them, to want them to work and to learn new skills. I think these are the twin tasks of NTUC. One, train and improve their skills. Two, motivate the workers, change their attitude and make them willing workers. May I make a few suggestions as to how this can be done? I know the NTUC has suggested that the ceiling of the Skills Development Levy be raised from $1,000 to $1,500, to collect more money from the companies to train workers. That is one way. May I suggest other ways? The NTUC should look into an apprenticeship scheme to improve the skills of the workers, to make them skilled and semi-skilled workers, and not only that, perhaps also to craftsmen.”
“Sir, I also believe in tripartism partnership among the Government, employers and workers. But tripartism to me must be real. As I see it in Singapore today, tripartism seems to be dominated by the Government or the PAP. We have a Minister who heads the labour movement and, as I look through the NTUC magazine, I notice that almost all or every one of the unions is headed by an MP or a Minister. As an outsider who looks at the situation today, it would appear that the labour movement is controlled by the PAP. Therefore, under these circumstances, I do not think that there is true tripartism. I hope that the NTUC can be given more independence, let it mature and let it have more leaders coming from the ranks. This in the long term would serve Singapore well because if we have patriotic, honest, good and true union leaders, the workers will surely follow. As I see it, or at least the average Singaporeans seem to see it, the NTUC seems to be more interested in doing business rather than taking care of the workers. The NTUC leaders appear to be entrepreneurs rather than union leaders. So I hope that the union leaders are not too interested in the business aspect of NTUC but concentrate more on the interest of the workers. An important area in which the NTUC can do is to improve the educational level of the workers. The Minister has said just now that the education of the workers has improved. Twenty years ago, 84% of the workers had either primary or lower than primary school education. Today, the figure is about 39%. Probably, this is due to the fact that 89% comprises all the old workers and they are just dropping out of the labour force, and not through the efforts of NTUC.”
“Not Potong Pasir. Will it be last or first? MEASURES TO ADJUST POLICIES ON PROPERTY MARKET (Implementation) 7. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry decided to implement the recently announced measures to adjust policies on the property market because of lobbying by the developer groups.”
“If there is going to be a reduction in upgrading, what is the Government's priority criteria?”
“It means that if the economic situation really becomes bad, there will be no upgrading. So the Government cannot keep its promise then.”
“Is the Government saying that the funds for upgrading are in fact dependent on a year-to-year collection, ie, whether there are surpluses?”
“If there are already funds in hand, why should the Government reduce their upgrading programme from 15 to 10 precincts? We should not be affected by the currency turmoil.”
“Since Singapore is making a loan of $5 billion to Indonesia, will there be a run down of funds and there will not be enough funds for upgrading?”
“How much did the Government spend on upgrading of HDB flats last year ending 31st December?”
“Are the two reported cases of tainted blood not enough to warrant the Government to start an autologous blood bank? Or is the Government just waiving these two reported cases and not take note of them?”
“The Minister noted that a private autologous blood bank has been closed. But in view of the recent report of two cases of tainted blood, is there not probably a need now for this kind of a blood bank?”
“Can the Deputy Prime Minister say who are our partners in this SIP? Is it the central government? We seem to be negotiating with the central government but the municipal government is the one that is giving us problems. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam will know, having visited China, that there are many levels of government and authority in that country and all of them have influence and we require cooperation from all levels in order for our project to succeed. So this is the problem which has to involve many levels and we are starting, including at the top. Of course, it will require the cooperation of the provincial authorities and also the city authorities, but I do not think it is a problem which can be resolved by them alone. That is why we have raised the matter not only in Suzhou but also with the provincial authorities and in Beijing. In fact, the Senior Minister, when he was on his trip in December, raised it with President Jiang Zemin and Vice-Premier Li Lanqing. He raised it with the Party Secretary of the province, Chen Huanyou. He raised it with the Governor of the province, Zheng Silin, and he had raised it also with the Party Secretary of Suzhou city, Yang Xiaotang. So we have covered all bases. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---”
“Is that not non-cooperation on the part of the Suzhou municipal government?”
“What does the Suzhou municipal government expect of the Singapore Government's stand if they are not willing to cooperate? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that they are not willing to cooperate. I said that we went in on certain expectations which have not been entirely fulfilled. So we will be discussing the matter with the Chinese government at the highest level and also at the municipal level and we will work out a fair, rational and transparent solution to this problem.”
“So is the Suzhou municipal government in fact reneging on their promises or agreement? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I would not use the phrase which Mr Chiam has used but I would say that the expectations on which we went into the project have not been fulfilled the way we expected them to, and that is why we are discussing the matter now.”
“Sir, at the time of starting the Suzhou Industrial Park, was the Suzhou municipal government also a party to the arrangement? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We discussed it with the Suzhou municipal authorities. We negotiated the agreement with the central government in Beijing and we are aware that the central government made extensive consultations before they committed, and the agreement was signed between the Senior Minister and Vice-Premier Li Lanqing.”
“If we are a member of this international convention, would that not open the floodgates to other contractors coming into Singapore in fierce competition with our own contractors, especially supplying services?”
“Sir, I just want to seek a clarification from the Minister. If this Bill comes about, if we accede to the Agreement on Government Procurement made at Marrakesh on 15th April 1994, what advantage do we have by implementing this Bill to keep in line with the provisions of this Agreement on Government Procurement that is internationally recognised? What are the advantages to us? Is it not our Government itself, without joining this international body agreement, able to maintain a high standard of procurement?”
“Sir, I know of certain cases of residents who oppose en-bloc development. It is not because they do not want the place to be improved, but there are cases of persons who are widows and who are living alone with no relatives. In such cases, it is difficult for them to move out. The Minister spoke about safeguards. Will such persons be taken care of? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Where the minority owners are concerned, we are providing for appeals to, possibly, a board. But because there are so many other factors that may be involved if we go away from what is a "fair price", I think it will be difficult for the board to decide other than that the price is a fair price. I think if Mr Chiam knows the situation, when this arises, it is very often a matter of the majority talking to the minority, and sometimes even talking to the developers, so that the person who does not want to move out, he or she strikes a deal with the developer who is developing the land so that that person will have a first right of refusal for a new unit in the block. 1.30 pm”
“Sir, if the Government is going to amend the law to allow the majority to have their way in en-bloc development, how many per cent of the residents must give consent before this en-bloc development is allowed? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, we are still looking at the figures. Currently, it is 100%. We have examples from other countries. In the examples that I stated, in Ontario and British Columbia in Canada and Hawaii, it ranges from 75-80%, but that is only a guide. We are still looking at the figures to see what percentage will be appropriate to balance the interest of both the majority owners and the minority owners.”
“I read in the papers that the Singapore Customs stepped up their checks for GST purposes. Did that not increase the problem of the jam?”
“Is the Minister saying that because of generosity we are giving such a big loan to Indonesia?”
“I know there are more urgent needs in Singapore for money, especially at Potong Pasir. The Government is refusing even to spend money on building two MRT stations. And here you are making large loans to other countries. Surely I am concerned.”
“There is a difference between buying US bonds and giving a loan to a country which is now in financial trouble.”
“Are you going to say that they are not going to default?”
“The Minister will surely know that buying US bonds is completely different from making a loan to Indonesia which is in financial trouble now. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: What is the difference, in principle? Are you saying that they are going to default?”
“Is there no risk that this loan will be defaulted?”
“If the answer is no, why do we need to give such a large amount?”
“Sir, is this $5 billion loan, $1 billion per year to be specific, significant to prop up the Indonesian economy?”
“I do not know whether the Minister has answered my question. Singapore being such a small country, why is there a necessity for Singapore to give such a big loan to Indonesia?”
“Sir, as regards the 16 Indonesian banks that were asked to be closed by their government, do the Singapore Government and any Singapore Government related companies have an interest in them?”
“Sir, I would like to know who maintains town councils' shelters and whether the cost would be tax exempted. What about the level of protection? If the safety level of these shelters is not adequate, they might give a false sense of security to the citizens. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Let me deal with the question of adequacy of protection. Right now, from what the experts have studied, the level of protection is adequate. As regards town councils' shelters, like any public space, they will have to maintain them. They will have to share the cost with the residents who use the space. It is like any other public space.”
“If the Government does not give such a grant, it would place further financial burden on these town councils because their income is only from the service and conservancy charges, which are just enough to maintain their estates. I would also like to ask about the costs of building these shelters. What is the cost that each house owner has to bear? Perhaps, the Minister could answer this. Would this cost be tax exempted? In the course of building shelters in multi-storey buildings, what is the percentage of the cost of the shelters when compared to the building as a whole?”
“There may be a case for persons who own big pieces of land, say, 10,000 sq ft and above. But for persons who own small plots of land, it is not right to ask them to put aside part of it for a shelter which they may never use in their lifetime. What the Government should do is to build more communal shelters in private housing estates so that these shelters can be used by private house owners. Of course, if the private house owners want privacy, they can on their own build shelters on their land. I would propose that the Government build more communal shelters on public land rather than try to construct shelters in houses and buildings. These communal shelters could all be built underground so that the surface land above the shelters can be gainfully used. Sir, the Bill does not state the specifications of the shelters. I am curious to know what level of safety these shelters are supposed to give to the people who seek refuge there. Are these shelters strong enough for only civil commotions and emergencies? Or are they built for conventional wars? Are these shelters supposed to be built to withstand nuclear wars? Are these shelters built to protect Singaporeans when there is a nuclear attack? If there is a nuclear attack, are these shelters built to the specifications to withstand only low tonnage nuclear bombs? Or are they also built to withstand higher tonnage nuclear bombs? I would like the Minister to clarify. I note that town councils have to maintain such shelters if they are built on common property. In this respect, is the Government going to give a grant to the town councils to maintain the shelters built on common property under their charge?”
“Sir, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hong Kah has said, the Opposition do appreciate that adequate provisions must be made for the defence of our country. Sir, I suppose the building of Civil Defence shelters in new houses, new flats and other buildings must be part of the Total Defence strategy of this country. I am in agreement that Civil Defence shelters must be built. But I do not agree with some parts of the Bill. The widespread building of CD shelters to meet emergency needs is something new to Singaporeans. As the Minister has said, this is not new in some countries, in particular, Switzerland. I believe that, in Switzerland, they have been building CD shelters even before World War II. Probably, due to their thorough preparedness, that was a contributory reason for the country not being devastated like the other European countries in World War II. Singapore is a small country with densely built-up areas. In times of war, the civilian population has nowhere to run to unlike other countries with a big land mass, for example, Russia. When the Germans attacked Russia in 1942, the civilian population could retreat with the army to its vast hinterland and the army could fight back from there. Singapore has no such hinterland. The civilian population, in times of war, has no countryside to run to. They can only hide in the CD shelters if there are enough of them. Now, I would like to touch on the Bill. Sir, I do not agree with clause 3(1) which imposes a duty on new house owners to provide household shelters in accordance with the specifications. Land is very scarce and expensive in Singapore and it is not fair to make a land owner to sacrifice part of it for a shelter, if the piece of land is really small.”
“Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that feeder bus services can apply to run shuttle services. They have to comply with certain criteria. As regards fares/charges, is it one of the criteria? How much more than the existing fare are they allowed to charge? What is the percentage?”
“Sir, I have done many cases concerning valuation of HDB flats and all these valuations are for purposes of raising mortgage loans. Therefore, they do not reflect the open market price of the flat. It is only about 80%, because HDB only gives a loan of about 80% of the open market price. So the valuation report as it is does not reflect the open market price of the flat. It is about 20% less. Even if you sell at valuation, it is already 20% less than the open market value.”
“Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that, in fact, valuation reports are made for the purposes of getting loans and the reports do not reflect the open market value? The valuation report is about 20% less than the market value. If the sale is below the valuation report, then it will be greater than 20%.”
“Sir, last year was an election year and it was not a good time to get accurate answers from the Minister in regard to the North East line. Now, the dust stirred up by the last election has all settled down. I hope to get better answers this time. I have five specific questions to ask the Minister. (1) Do the funds set aside in the budget include funds for the building of the two MRT stations at Woodsville and Sennett? (2) Will the two MRT stations at Woodsville and Sennett be constructed in this North East MRT project? (3) When will the houses and shops along Upper Serangoon Road, Pheng Gek Avenue and Tai Thong Crescent be demolished? (4) Will any blocks of HDB flats in Potong Pasir Estate be compulsorily acquired in relation to the construction of the Sennett MRT station? (5) Has the Minister already decided on the rate of fares for commuters of the North East MRT line, and whether, in principle, those commuters will be charged more than travelling in other MRT lines?”
“Sir, I had gone to see all this rubbish clearance myself and I noticed that the chamber door is rather smallish. They have to crouch and then drag the whole rubbish bin out. They should be a bit larger, in a standing position, and perhaps have safety devices to cover from rubbish being thrown down when they are clearing. All these things should have been thought out by HDB. If they have got a think-tank on this problem, they should let us know the solutions that they have.”
“Point of clarification from the Minister, Sir. As regards clearing of rubbish, I was hoping that the Minister could give us some of the research on clearing of rubbish, especially on mechanisation. At the moment, even in the old flats, the rubbish chute chamber is a bit too small. I think it should have been enlarged so that the rubbish bins could be taken out easily and loaded onto trolleys. In this way, there must be some kind of improvement. I am not suggesting that we should seal up all the rubbish chambers. If the HDB has not even done any research on improving the present clearance of rubbish, then he should tell us, rather than give us a rude answer.”
“Thank you, Sir. About three weeks ago, a lady residing in Potong Pasir estate came to see me in my meet-the-people session. She brought along a piece of concrete, about 15 cm by 10 cm, which has fallen from the ceiling above her toilet. The piece of fallen concrete which fell from the ceiling was caused by spalling of the ceiling. That lady said that she would have been badly injured or even killed if that piece of concrete had fallen on her head. Fortunately, for that lady, she left the toilet a couple of minutes earlier. Spalling concrete is a prevalent problem in Potong Pasir estate. It is caused by poor workmanship. Therefore, it has also an inherent problem. I believe the HDB, as the owner of the buildings, should be held responsible and be liable to make good such inherent faults. The HDB, in fact, has recognised its responsibility and has undertaken to repair spalling ceilings. But unfortunately, Sir, that programme was halted in about December 1992. After that date, the HDB refused to entertain any more complaints of spalling concrete. I think the HDB should not shirk its responsibility. Since falling concrete is caused by inherent problems and poor workmanship, the HDB, as owner, should be held liable and should continue to carry out the programme of repairing spalling ceilings. I know I have not heard of anyone getting killed by a piece of concrete falling from the ceiling but I hope that the HDB would take some action before something serious happens. Of course, I am concerned.”
“Sir, clearing of rubbish is one of the main tasks of the Town Councils. The design of rubbish chutes in HDB flats and the manner in which rubbish is cleared from those flats have changed very little in the past 30 years. Basically, rubbish is thrown from an opening in each flat into the rubbish chute. At the bottom of the chute, there is a rubbish bin to collect all the rubbish. Workers have to physically remove the rubbish every day. On special occasions like the Chinese New Year season, of course, the rubbish piles up and it has to be cleared at least twice a day. Whatever it is, Sir, the clearing of rubbish is very labour intensive. At Potong Pasir my experience is that whenever there is a change of cleaning contractors or the contractors have some problems with their workers, and some of them do not turn up for work, the rubbish cannot be cleared in time and they are piled up which caused smell and hygienic problems. Sir, all these problems can be avoided and cost of clearing the rubbish can also be lowered if the system of clearing rubbish from HDB flats can be improved. The solution is really to design a rubbish disposal system where there is optimum mechanisation. The usage of manpower must be reduced as much as possible, Sir. I hope that the HDB can improve on its rubbish clearing system and introduce more mechanisation in the clearing of rubbish. Sir, I have another amendment. Can I continue?”
“Sir, I brought up this separate issue only because I say that even for a small room of less than 100 square feet, the HDB is not willing to hand it over to us. So how can the HDB approve $800,000 or more to the Potong Pasir Town Council? That is the only reason why I brought it up. I was not trying to canvass this issue in Parliament. I think we will deal with it through the normal way. Sir, the point is that the system is definitely biased - I would not repeat myself again - and whether or not you can make the system less biased. That is all that we ask for - equality. We ask for equality of treatment to all Members of Parliament.”
“Sir, everything has been weighted against Potong Pasir. Even the latest episode which the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of. We were forced to take over the EMSU, and even a small room of less than 100 square feet was not allocated to us by the HDB. How is the HDB going to give us $800,000 when it is not even willing to allocate a small room to the Potong Pasir Town Council to house a very important unit - the EMSU is a very important emergency unit - for our lift rescue workers there? Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, he is moving away from CIPC funding to something else. Since he has raised it, I want to tell him that he is a squatter in the office that is in a market. Mr Chiam has planted his EMSU in a room in a market, and he has written to me through the HDB to ask me to formalise or legalise it. As a lawyer, he should know that this is not possible, because he is a squatter. He should be evicted immediately. Instead, every time he writes in, I say, "OK, let him stay on for three months." For every void deck, every open space, every room in every estate, there is a designated long-term use. Just because you see an open space, you cannot plonk yourself there. I think after this, I will have to ask to look at the legal issues and if need be evict him. Because the longer he stays there, he will invoke the adverse possession rule. In this case, I will be contesting his occupation of the site.”
“Sir, as I said - I have got to repeat myself - this system is very biased. The Advisor to the CCC is Mr Andy Gan and he has an opposite interest to me. He wants to get elected. How can he advise his Chairman, "All right, when Mr Chiam applies, you approve every one of them?" Will he do that? You just ask Mr Andy Gan. An hon. Member: Why don't you ask him?”