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 22 of 85.
“The Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious that I cut down more of my community projects and that will of course lessen my chances of getting re-elected. The fact is that we have spent about $300,000 on covered linkaways and we have also spent lots of money on children's playgrounds, upgrading the landscape and all this money comes from our recurrent expenses. We save those recurrent expenses and we use them for the improvement projects. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not suggest to the Minister to release $800,000 to Potong Pasir and we will show them what we can do? Then we will talk of comparisons between constituencies. Otherwise, there is no comparison.”
“Sir, the main point is that the present system is definitely biased against the opposition wards. So my main concern is whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to get his Minister to change this system of allocation of CIPC funds. You must really have an open and transparent system. At the moment, this system that I am saying is biased and biased very badly against the opposition MPs. The amount of money disbursed will tell you so. Over $65 million had been disbursed and, as far as the opposition wards are concerned, even if the little bit that is given out is manifestly too little, and is weighed against the opposition side. So will the Parliamentary Secretary change the system?”
“May I have a clarification, Sir? I purposely left this bit out from my speech. I knew that the Parliamentary Secretary would bring up this matter and say that some monies have been allocated to Potong Pasir. This $7,500 is minuscule compared to the individual PAP MPs who have received the amounts. I have mentioned that it is about $800,000. I would just comment on these five signages and landmarks. Mr Andy Gan is the Advisor to the CCC. If the CCC applies for money, probably from his prodding, how do you think he will advise? It is in fact a very bad example that he has brought up. It is for his own benefit because he lives there and therefore he would have the advantage of these funds personally. And it benefits Sennett Estate which does not have the main population centre in Potong Pasir. What he should have asked is for the advantage of the majority of the residents there and not for a place where he lives and benefits him personally as well.”
“We have not been granted any of such funds for community works. I would say that it is most appropriate to appoint an independent body to receive and approve applications for CIPC funds. Under the present setup, the CCCs are not appropriate bodies to receive and recommend applications for grants for community works. The CCCs are definitely biased against the opposition MPs. The CCCs are known to have close links with PAP Members and, in Potong Pasir, the PAP candidate in the two previous Parliamentary elections has close links with the CCC there. If the present setup for approval of CIPC funds is not changed, it would appear that opposition town councils will not be able to benefit any of the millions of dollars the Government shall be granting for improvements and upgrading of HDB housing estates. I would call on the Government not to maintain the present unfair system for the disbursements of CIPC funds and to have an independent body to decide on which organisation should be granted such funds on an objective basis.”
“Sir, no opposition town council has received any Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds. On the other hand, over $65 million of such funds have been disbursed to all PAP-controlled town councils and other PAP grassroots organisations. On an average, each PAP MP, if he were to control a single constituency, that constituency would have benefited by about $800,000. Compared to the PAP constituencies, the opposition ward is deprived of at least that amount of CIPC funds. The way the Ministry of National Development hands out such funds, which are really public funds, is most unfair. Whatever quota or funds to be disbursed have all been allocated to the PAP town councils and other PAP supported organisations but none to the opposition town councils. It is high time that the MND changed the ground rules in regard to the applications for CIPC funds. At the moment, all applications must go through the Chairman of the CCC. In the case of Potong Pasir, the Advisor to the CCC is the twice-defeated PAP candidate, Mr Andy Gan. How do you think Mr Gan will advise the Chairman of the CCC when I, as the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council, apply for CIPC funds? I think all of you know the answer. Anyway, the Potong Pasir Town Council has so far never been successful in any of its applications for CIPC funds. Mr Jeyeratnam has made several calls to the Government to set up independent bodies to check the Government on Government decisions and he has met with rebuff from the Government. The Government says that as long as you have good men, nothing shall go wrong. There shall also be no abuse of power. But I would say that everything has gone wrong as far as the allocation of CIPC funds to the opposition constituencies is concerned.”
“Sir, I am not saying that the Government should give a full grant to a CCL at Potong Pasir, but maybe a partial grant. The fact is that if the Government is willing to cooperate on this matter, a firm commitment would have already been made.”
“Sir, unlike Mr Goh, in fact I have been asking that a neighbourhood library should be built at Potong Pasir much earlier, when I was first elected in 1984. I am still asking for it. In Potong Pasir's case, we do not want to get a full grant and we are even willing to help out partially so as to get participation from the residents. Sir, I am glad to note that in fact the Government has now built 22 community children's libraries and I think the Government has now realised that it is very important to cater for the very young to get them interested in reading. A library is an educational tool and it will always be relevant to Singapore's educational needs, whether to get the very young to love books and to learn to read at a young age or to teach them to think or to be creative. Money spent on libraries is, of course, an investment and not a consumption item. I notice that the Government shall be spending $170 million this year. In fact, this is doubled the amount last year. The Government can even double this amount for this year because I believe the Government has started at a very low base as far as library services are concerned. I notice that in 1990 the Government only spent $28 million. So the 22 community children's libraries are not enough to cater for the children of 600,000 HDB households.”
“One Singaporean commented that the relief for the aged parents, which has been increased from $3,500 to $4,500, does not impress him. It would not be enough incentive for a person to get his parents to live with him and enjoy the $4,500. So those persons who have parents with them would just enjoy the tax relief as a matter of course. Government pensioners generally are also disappointed with the small increase in the Singapore Allowance. One Government pensioner has written to me to ask the Government to increase the Singapore Allowance. The increase of $10 to him is manifestly too low. The cost of living has gone up and since the introduction of the 3% GST in April 1994, the $10 increase is not enough to cover the rising cost. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider increasing the Singapore Allowance by at least another $10. I am sure the Government can afford this. If we look at the bottom line, in fact, the net receipt by the Government is a whopping $12.6 billion.”
“The Government also earns revenue from other sources other than from tax revenue and the fees it charges. The Government in fact makes huge profits from the sale of land. Land sales are going to net for the Government about $18.5 billion in FY 97. Since the Government is the biggest vendor in the sale of land in Singapore, it is quite natural that the Government wants to maintain high prices of land in Singapore. This would mean that the prices of houses and flats in Singapore will remain high. High land prices will also mean high rentals. And, of course, high rentals would push up costs of doing business, and generally it will raise the cost of living. The Budget has many "give-aways" to HDB flat dwellers. Strictly, as I can see, the only real give-aways are the rebates for the service and conservancy charges which are paid to the Town Councils. Once these rebates are paid to the Town Councils they are paid for good. But as for the rebates for rentals, they are in fact the transferring of money of the Government from one of its pockets to the other, as the HDB is a Government-related body. The Government also shall be giving rebates on public utility bills. Again, there is really no loss to the Government because in the end the Government will be getting back much of the rebates paid out with higher water tariffs. Sir, newspaper reports show that businessmen generally are disappointed with the Budget. They say that there is nothing good for them in this Budget. They are disappointed that the tax rate for both personal and corporate income tax rates were not cut and they remain at 27% and 26% respectively. As for the individual income taxpayers, generally they are not impressed with the tax reliefs.”
“The budget surplus is about $4.1 billion. The Minister says that it is a modest surplus. This does not mean that the Government has collected less money from the people. The budget surplus is modest only because the Government has put large sums aside to embark on substantial capital works such as the North-East MRT line and other capital projects. The question is: can the people of Singapore maintain such a huge budget surplus year after year? It is definitely a burden on the people. Under the recent Constitutional amendments, the accumulation of budget surpluses has to be made. Each succeeding government will have to build up its own reserves, as it cannot use the surpluses accumulated by other governments, unless of course clearance is obtained from the President, and no self-respecting government would want to approach the President to release surpluses accumulated by other governments for its own use. So what are the implications of maintaining huge surpluses year after year? It would mean that costs to Singaporeans would be high. Of course, there will be less money being circulated among the people. Almost every Government department has, by policy, been converted to Autonomous Agencies (AAs). These Autonomous Agencies have to be efficient, not only in the services they provide but also in financial matters. Ultimately, these Autonomous Agencies will have to be financially self-supporting and probably make a profit, if possible. If these AAs want to be financially self-supporting, they have to charge more for their services. This can be seen by the fact that the Government is going to collect $4.1 billion for FY 97 for fees and charges. This is an increase from the last fiscal year by $0.6 billion.”
“The economic progress of Singapore due to the low education of the workforce shall in some ways be hindered but, more importantly, a large section of our workers, with hardly any education, shall be condemned forever to a low or no cultural life with no chance of enjoying a richer and more fulfilling life. The Government should once and for all put its mind on this important task to solve the problem of low education among our workers. An educated worker can not only understand new methods of production but is also more disciplined and a better worker and, hence, more productive. I have asked the Government to introduce compulsory education for our school-going children, but the Government thinks that it is not necessary. The Government's reason is that only about 2,900 children each year would be involved. To the Government, this number of school children who do not receive any education at all is small. But actually it is not a small number. It is about 6% of each year's intake of Primary 1 school children. Each cohort of children accepted into Primary 1 is about 46,000 in number. The Government should not take the attitude that since the number of children not attending school at all is only about 2,900, it is not worth enforcing a compulsory education scheme. If this is the approach, then this approach is wrong. It is important to make education compulsory, not because Singapore can afford to maintain such a system but, more importantly, to drive home to parents, especially among the lowly educated Singaporeans, that it is necessary to send their children to school. This is also the only way to stop parents from not sending their children to school. With compulsory education in place, the quality of our workforce shall surely improve with time.”
“Sir, the economy of China is booming and the countries in the region are also making good economic progress. This means that Singapore is facing up to more competition from those countries. The Minister has said that the Government shall be spending more on economic and infrastructural development. There shall be a sizable increase of 68% over last year's spending. No one will quarrel with the Minister over this large additional expenditure to improve Singapore's business environment. This will put Singapore in a better position to meet the challenges from the other countries. But international organisations that report on world business competitiveness do not point to Singapore's infrastructural development as one of its weak points. The weak point in Singapore's economy is the low educational level of Singapore's workers and their low productivity. Singapore workers are the least educated among the so-called four tigers, namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Singapore has a workforce of about 1.8 million and nearly one-half of this workforce comprises workers who have not completed secondary school education. Out of this one-half, nearly 700,000 or about 40% of them have no or very little numeracy and literacy skills. Sir, the low level of education of our workforce is not something new. It has been highlighted for many years, but the Government does not seem to be concerned about this problem. Low education of the workers is not just an economic problem but a problem about Singaporeans.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $82,000,000 for Head W stand part of the Final Supplementary Main Estimates.”
“So this policy of handout to HDB flat dwellers to pay their public utilities bills is in fact a direct contradiction of the Government's policy of conservation of water. The Government is, in fact, taxing Singaporeans for excessive use of water. There is also an announcement that water rates will be increased. So if the HDB flat dwellers know that the Government is going to pay for their water bills, why save? In this sense, the Government is really contradicting itself. But I hope that if the Government believes in the conservation of water, even if it was an election year, they should not give the handouts.”
“Under this head of "Public Relations", does "public relations" mean only giving refunds to HDB citizens who are dwelling in 1-, 2-, 3- and even 4- and 5-room HDB flats? As regards handouts, Sir, to me this is an out-and-out handout of $78 million to citizens who are residing in HDB flats, and we are repeatedly told by the Government that it does not believe in handouts. I believe the story has always been told that you should not give a Singaporean a fish which will only fill his stomach for one day, or less than a day, but give him a fishing rod, teach him how to fish and that will serve him for life. I wonder why is the Government now contradicting itself by giving handouts. But we also note that the handouts are very clinical in nature, very specific and not a general handout. We note that, of course, last year was an election year and such big handouts were given. I would ask the Government that instead of giving a fish for one day, just like these handouts, it should, with this money, give the citizens a more permanent benefit. Give every HDB precinct a neighbourhood library, an educational tool which they can use and train themselves for life, and perhaps more recreational and cultural facilities in HDB neighbourhoods. I have always advocated a smaller class size and money could also be allocated to the schools to reduce the class size. Give them a better education, train them and they can use it for life. I notice that this money is handed out for public utilities. Public utilities mean electricity and water. Government is taxing on these two items and we have even heard since 1992 that water conservation is an important factor in Singapore.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 2000. Sir, this House is asked by the Minister to approve an additional supplementary sum of $78 million to provide for rebates on utilities for citizens living in 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-room HDB flats. The Code under which this allocation is made is 2000, Other Operating Expenditure. I looked up last year's Budget which was presented to Parliament under Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996 and there are several subheads. But I believe that the subhead in which this particular allocation is being asked for comes under subhead 2400, Public Relations. Sir, anyone looking at this subhead will notice the tremendous increase of funds allocated from FY 94 to FY 96. In fact, in 1994, the sum actually used up for this particular subcode on "Public Relations" was only $755,000, and the estimated sum for last year jumped to $23 million. This is a huge jump, Sir, for Public Relations. We are being asked in this House today to add to this $23 million an additional sum of $78 million. Sir, the question I would like to ask the Minister is: at the time when this estimate was made in 1996, did he realise that there would be a requirement of an additional $78 million? This is over three times more. If he knew, Sir, then the estimate should have been more correctly put in place rather than giving such a low figure. On the other hand, was this additional $78 million a last minute after-thought? It was felt that it was necessary to have this amount because it was an election year and therefore the money was spent. Sir, these are the questions we would like to ask the Minister. Sir, another question we would like to ask the Minister is this.”
“Sir, would the Minister be willing to compensate those owners who have purchased flats in the lower floors and yet paid the same price by giving them a discount when they buy a newer flat in the upper floors?”
“I am really surprised at what Mr Chng is saying. Malaysia is a country of standing. You are insinuating that Malaysia will breach an international agreement. Are you saying that? I do not think we should say such things. There is no inkling of Malaysia trying to breach an international agreement. If you suggest that, I think it is very bad for Singapore, not only for the Government, even for Singapore, to suggest a very friendly country that they intend to breach an international agreement. I have no fear that they will. They will never breach such an agreement.”
“Unfortunately, Mr Chen is dealing with a lawyer and not a layman. I think he has flogged the issue too far.”
“I have clarified myself. There is nothing to apologise and I would not apologise for it, because I have explained what I said. That is quite clear.”
“Mr Bernard Chen reminds me of a lawyer in court, trying to cross-examine and get somebody to say something which he does not say.”
“I think Mr Chen is trying to flog the issue a bit too far. I have already stressed that there must be mutual benefits to both sides. There is no other way to have a lasting relationship if it only benefits one side, and that is very clear. There must be reciprocity of benefits. So if it benefits them, it must also benefit us. If we are trying to get one over them, as somebody said, if there is going be an abang adik, then it would not work. There must be an equal relationship for mutual benefit. The relationship must benefit both sides. I think I have made myself quite clear on this point.”
“I have already clarified myself. To show the urgency that we should have closer relationship. It may be a slip of the tongue, but the point is that we should make all efforts to have a closer and real bonding relationship with Malaysia.”
“Of course, there must be mutuality. On our relationship with Malaysia, I think we should teach our children that we should have special relationship with them. Even Singapore was built up by Malaysians. In fact, the whole first generation of the Cabinet were Malaysians, except for Mr Lee. So I think we have a special position. I do not think that we should try in any way flame up or try to increase what has already been a bad situation. Singapore should show responsibility, restraint, and we should not at all times, as Mr Goh Choon Kang has said, reciprocate resentment with resentment. I think that is very good. We should do something, in fact, to reciprocate resentment with something to really cool them down and show them their mistakes.”
“At all costs, in the sense that all efforts must be made to have friendly relations with Malaysia. There can be no other way. An hon. Member: One sided?”
“I think the main leaders from across the Causeway, the people who are in the know, will never say such a thing. It is a very serious threat. There is a question: what is my stand on Malaysia? My stand is that Malaysia holds a special position as far as Singapore is concerned. I have already stated that. We have got all kinds of historical, political, social, ethnic language ties, whatever you name it. We are very close to each other, and we have a special position in regard to Malaysia. I think if there is going to be National Education and it is going to be taught seriously in our schools, one of the subjects is that we should at all costs build up friendly relations with Malaysia. An hon. Member: At what costs?”
“I do not know who are the MPs. I have not read in the papers about MPs threatening. Perhaps Mr Chng can supply their names. As far as I know, no responsible leaders from across the Causeway have threatened to cut off water supply to Singapore. This issue of water supply is a very serious issue. It is not a case of cutting off water supply and we have to sacrifice our opportunity to bathe. It is a bigger issue than that. It is our life blood. Cutting water supply to Singapore means that you are trying to stop all activities in Singapore. It is not only to keep us alive by drinking water, our industries will be affected. Even our garden city, there will be no water to water the plants. This is a very serious issue. It is like declaring war on Singapore if they cut off our water supply. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, I am much obliged. As regards the point by Mr Chng Hee Kok who says that some MPs have threatened to terminate the supply of water to Singapore, I would say that those MPs are irresponsible in saying that. They are irresponsible MPs over the other end. An hon. Member: Who are they?”
“I am really surprised that Mr Chng, a very senior Member of Parliament, should be saying that. He knows that all these threats come from, as the Malay calls it, kucing kurap, and none from their leaders at all. I think we should be responsible in what we say.”
“Sir, clarification from Mr Peh. I do not know whether I was mistaken. He said that Malaysia can cut off the water any time. I believe this is not a very true statement. It is alarmist and I do not think it is being fair to our neighbour who is, in fact, very friendly to us and we have close ties with them. I do not think that the position is true that Malaysia can cut off water supply at any time. We have got two agreements, one expiring in, I believe, 2011, and the other is 2061. The matter could be brought up to the international court to be resolved if they attempt to cut off water. I believe that they will abide by the international court's decision. So I do not think it would be good to play up on this line and being alarmist and say that they can cut off water at any time. It will only flame and make the situation worse in the relationship between Malaysia and ourselves. I think we should encourage and try to cool the matter down, instead of trying to increase the flames by making statements that are not true.”
“Anybody could make a suggestion to have a union between SPP and PAP but he must give very good reasons for that. I am not saying that it cannot be possible. But he must give his reasons and not just come up with a suggestion that may or may not work. But as regards an economic union with Malaysia, I am saying in fact, we should all work for it. And as regards Mr Yatiman's point of perception and reality, how do you distinguish perception and reality? Today, it is perception. Tomorrow, it is reality. So perception can become a reality very quickly. I was in Iran in August 1974. At that time, the Shah of Iran was all powerful. Everywhere you went in town, you could see his photograph. And there was no inkling at all if anybody said that he would be overthrown within two years' time. So the reality at that time was the Shah was the absolute ruler. And yet, within two years' time, he was overthrown. Nobody could see that. If you say that to have an economic union with Malaysia is only a perception, I do not agree with you. It can become a reality maybe in a few years' time or maybe longer. I do not know. But the fact is that we must pursue it because I believe that Singapore's position, in the long-term, must be with Malaysia as an economic entity. Whether we can do it sooner or later, I think we should try. That we are stuck together in a geographical unit and the alternative to unity and cooperation, I do not like to think about it.”
“Sir, is he asking me this question about a union between the SPP and the PAP? Which party is he referring to? SPP or SDP? An hon. Member: What is your party now?”
“I think, on the contrary, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not learned from history. It is not me. Because history has shown that nothing is static. So the prospect is a good prospect if we can have an economic union with Malaysia. Does he not agree with me? I did not say in my speech yesterday that it was going to be easy. To climb Mount Everest is never easy. But even then, Singaporeans are trying to do so. I think we should not brush aside that because the prospect is difficult, that we should tell our youngsters not to attempt it at all. Then we better not attempt Mount Everest.”
“If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary holds the view that trying to teach our young children the prospect of forming an economic union with Malaysia is naive thinking, I am afraid that they will teach the wrong things to our youngsters. Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): This is just to show that the Member for Potong Pasir has not learned from history.”
“Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not know that, in fact, nothing is static in life, especially political events and the relations between nations? We have seen in Europe, France and Germany were bitter enemies. They had fought several wars. Thousands of their citizens had been killed. And yet today, they are members of a common economic union. Singapore and Malaysia have not fought any war and we have not killed each other yet. So the situation is much, much better than between France and Germany. So why is it not possible? Is it still a naive thinking? Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): Of course, history is evolving all the time. The situation is changing all the time. But we are talking about foreign relations, we are talking about the situation at this moment and also our understanding of our own history. So we have to look at these two perspectives. We have to learn from history and be inspired by that.”
“Sir, I would ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether or not he knows that when the PAP was canvassing to get into Malaysia, one of the PAP's high officials had said that an independent Singapore was a political joke. That was the thinking at that time. But now it has been proven that he was wrong and, in fact, Singapore is a prosperous independent country. So, at that time, it was even thought that an independent Singapore was a political joke. Now, do you still maintain that there is no possibility of Singapore forming an economic union with Malaysia? Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): In the present circumstances, I agree with the author that to build up an economic union with Malaysia is a naive thinking. This is my opinion.”
“Sir, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he shares the views of the editorial of the Lianhe Zaobao when it says that my proposal of an economic union with Malaysia is naive thinking. Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I quoted the comment to emphasise the point I wanted to make with regard to National Education. National Education is to educate our people, for our students to know how our nation was built up. So when I read the commentary that Mr Chiam's idea was not only a wishful thinking but was very naive indeed, I agree with him. In fact, he said many other things about Mr Chiam which I agree. He said that if a person who has been in Parliament for many years, a veteran Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong, has not fully understood the history of Singapore and what we had faced when we were in Malaysia, then all the more we should educate our students on the history of Singapore.”
“I think it is true that at that particular point of time, they had control of much of our activities in Singapore, including investments. Would the Leader not agree with me that we would have grown, if taking aside the fact that they were impeding us? Assuming you minus that, our economy would have grown tremendously. Would you not agree with that? So we do not want to repeat that situation again. As regards trading with the rest of the world, this is a necessity for Singapore. We have got no other way. Just imagine, we have to go all the way to China to invest $20 billion or so. If you can invest that across in Johor, or somewhere else nearby, where labour is still abundant and both sides can benefit from such hefty investments, they will grow and we will also grow. So I do not think we should belittle this suggestion. In fact, there should be greater efforts by the Government to always diligently seek markets from all over the world. We should also try this line. If the present leadership is unable to do, I think the next echelon of leaders should give it a go.”
“Much obliged, Sir. When I made my speech, I do not know whether the Leader of the House was in the Chamber. Because I did clarify that I do not want to be misunderstood as saying that we want to have a political union with Malaysia. I am only envisaging an economic union. In other words, our sovereignty is still intact. All the portfolios in the Ministries are controlled by Singapore. We are not surrendering any of our powers of state. This is purely an economic union and basically lowering of tariffs and increasing the market size. Of course, other factors will have to be worked out. So basically it is only for economic purposes. What the Leader of the House is saying is that at that particular point of time we had a full merger, political as well as economic. And Singapore, I believe, as he correctly said, only had control on labour and education, and everything else was in the hands of the central government. We do not want to go into that situation again.”
“Well, I speak from memory. And if my memory serves me right, there was this Malaysia thing going on all the time. Over the radio, over the TV, all kinds of jingles were being sung. I believe it was during the period when we were in Malaysia where our market was much bigger. With roughly a market of 2.5 million at that time, I do not think it was easy to attract the multi-nationals here. But because we had an assured market of 10 million or more at that time, I believe it was during those periods that we attracted a lot of investments from abroad. But, of course, you can check that out. But, again, I would stress that this is a serious proposal and I hope that the Member for Marine Parade would take it seriously.”
“I would like to ask whether he was confused concerning the growth of the Jurong Industrial Estate which grew rapidly after 1965 and with the period before 1965. From what I recall, whatever he said was more in relation with the growth in the Jurong Industrial Estate after Malaysia, and not when we were in Malaysia.”
“As far as I know, when Singapore had a common market with Malaysia, our investors were coming in droves because of the larger market. And every other night TV was showing some new factories being opened by Dr Goh Keng Swee. That speaks for itself that there should have been economic growth with so much investments coming in. So I do not know how the economy arrived at minus 2.7 %. But in any event, I would say again that if not for Malaysia, we could have slid down even more. The other point about asking me to approach the Malaysian authorities is a serious matter and, of course, if they do want to have a dialogue with me, I shall be most glad to find out what is their feeling with regard to the economic union with Malaysia. All the basics are right, as far as I am concerned, about this formation with Malaysia, and you cannot fault this proposal. Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not trying to find fault with Mr Chiam's suggestion. I am only saying that the basis that he used to compare the period between September 1963 and August 1965 when the Malaysian association was formed with Singapore, until Singapore left Malaysia, we had one full year, that is, 1964, and just in that year we experienced negative economic growth. I am not denying Mr Chiam's idea. He should look into it in greater detail and see whether he is alone in this or whether there are other parties which are also interested, because we cannot be alone in our ideas, we need both parties. I also recall Mr Chiam saying that Singapore grew very rapidly when we were in the union and many factories were officially opened by Dr Goh Keng Swee.”
“My answer is that Singapore's economy could have been worse.”
“Sorry. Minus 2% that he speaks of, was in 1964 or 1965?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Member for Marine Parade for giving way. This 2.7% that he speaks of in 1964 --- Some hon. Members: Minus 2%.”
“Intelligence, managing information and acquiring knowhow are more important than sheer sweat and effort. This may mean high productivity workers with higher paid jobs, but less of them. This matter will, of course, need special attention in the future so as not to create a group of dissatisfied citizens. The second is that care must be taken to control the reliance on information technology. Too much information technology can be de-humanising. To give a trifling example, we will all shudder if the idea of social conversation is reduced to people whipping out their wallet PCs to determine who has the latest information. If we ask a casual question, "Is it going to rain?", I do not think that we expect an answer from the other party whipping out his wallet PC to access some weather report, when all that is needed is for both parties to cast their eyes sky-ward to see what the weather is like. In the final analysis, Sir, the duty of every teaching institution, every teacher, is to ensure that every child or young person leaving the institution be equipped with not just knowledge, but with the relevant IT competencies to make their way in the world. These competencies are how to obtain access to information, what to do with the information, how to make the information useful to others, and how to re-educate oneself. Sir, the President has in his Address indicated that we can be confident, and should not be complacent. I am confident, having heard his Address and read the Addenda, that Singaporeans can indeed look forward to making Singapore the best home for ourselves and our children. Sir, I support the motion.”
“According to David Puttnam, who is the Chairman of the National Film and Television School in England, but who is perhaps better known as a film director for such films as "Chariots of Fire" and "The Killing Fields", Hollywood talent agents have reportedly informed him that "within ten years the highest paid performers in the industry would not be conventional movie stars . but an as yet undiscovered generation of educational presenters." In tandem with the development of such an industry, it is necessary to foster an interest among the young people in the arts in the interest of education. The role of the arts is to provide a means of communication and identity, something that is vitally important particularly in the light of our National Education programme. Literature and art can be the mediums through which our people, young and old, can be inspired, and can learn about our past in a most entertaining, yet meaningful way. Sir, it may be that in the not too distant future, a "public education" TV channel could be dedicated for the purposes of National Education, as well as for providing an avenue for the creative talent in Singapore to showcase their talents. Such a TV channel can also be used for the purposes of standardising teaching materials; all schools will have access through TVs and computers to such programmes. The channel can also be used for the purposes of "skills upgrading" and further education, which is an essential consequence of the information age. Sir, I should like to mention two cautionary points. The first is that there is likely in future to be two categories of workers - those who embrace IT and can use it effectively, and those who cannot. Technological change favours brains to brawn.”
“In determining our needs for the next century, it is important to realise that physical facilities such as classrooms may eventually not be as important as communication lines between students and teachers. As information now becomes a matter of access rather than something that must be remembered by each pupil, there must also be a change in the ways in which children are taught in our schools. Indeed, the National Council for Educational Technology in England coined the phrase, that a teacher should now be "a manager rather than the deliverer of learning". The availability of computers means that students can become more independent in their approach, more creative and can acquire research skills early on in their school days. The changes can be fundamental, particularly in the mindsets of teachers and students. It is aptly illustrated by the Director of the Media Lab in MIT, Nicholas Negroponte, when he gave the example that with the computer, children now need not learn about a frog by dissecting one; they can build their own frogs through computer simulation. Why dissect a real frog when you can learn more by building one yourself? Learning by doing is an important principle as is learning by teamwork. Turning to the teaching side, it is imperative that Singapore should invest heavily on what is a relatively new industry, namely, electronic educational publishing. In the US and Britain, it is recognised that the need for software and support materials for educational institutions is growing at a phenomenal rate. There is one trend that needs to be emphasised, ie, the increasing convergence between education and entertainment.”
“This means investing heavily in education, training teachers and pupils in the use of Information Technology tools. Sir, parents must have been reassured to hear that "every child will have access to computers" whether the parents can afford one or not, and that the quality of education will be raised across the board and not restricted to a few schools. The benefits will be widespread and there will be equal opportunity for all to acquire IT skills. The impact of Information Technology in this decade has been compared to that of the invention of printing in Europe in the 15th century which eventually led to a cultural revolution known as the Reformation. The inventing of printing released the privilege of knowledge from the elite few to the ordinary people. The computer and Internet have similarly done the same for all those who know how to use a computer. The Internet has made us all citizens of the world, or "Netizens" as we are sometimes called. Information that used to be in the hands of rich organisations or governments can now be available to anyone who is adept at surfing the Net. Citizens can now make more informed decisions and can give feedback more quickly and efficiently. Both government and citizens can be more responsive and, I hope, responsible. Sir, there is little doubt that there have to be important changes made to the education system if it is to remain relevant in the Information Age. Information now comes to the user. In the past, students went to schools, to libraries, to museums, to universities to be educated. Now, the materials come to them. Virtual libraries, museums and schools in time may become more important than the existing physical institutions housing libraries and museums.”
“The President reminded us that we have enjoyed political and social stability since independence - which is over 30 years of stability. Many Singaporeans now take such a state of affairs for granted. But it is important to realise that this is not an immutable fact of nature. This point was forcefully brought home to me today when I read in the papers about the developments in Sierra Leone. In March, I was in a conference with a number of Commonwealth Parliamentarians. Among them was a very able MP from Sierra Leone. An eloquent speaker, he gave an impassioned speech on the problems besetting his country and asked for help from his fellow Parliamentarians in maintaining parliamentary democracy and civilian rule in Sierra Leone. Today, Sierra Leone is in the hands of the military; and several neighbouring countries are sending forces into the country to re-establish civilian rule. Sir, this event brought home to me that stability is indeed a fragile thing. In contrast, because of the period of stability, Singapore has progressed. We have done so well that the Director of the Swiss institute in charge of the World Competitiveness Project in today's paper was reported as saying that the Republic rightly deserves a place in the industrialised nations. This is because our per capita GDP is set to exceed the US$30,000 mark this year. All this would not have been possible without the stability during which time the Government was able to implement its policies to good effect. Looking to the future, the President has warned that Singaporeans will be facing a formidable challenge in the years to come, and that we must be prepared for hard times ahead. One of the key pillars to prepare for such times is "to invest in the young".”