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 24 of 85.
“When I read in the newspapers, I thought the reason that he returned it was because of this ruling. If it is not, then -- BG Lee Hsien Loong: Are you saying that I should have returned it in the first place, last year?”
“Because yesterday he said clearly that there was no question of illegality or improper behaviour in the two purchases SM and I made. So they were done deals. Full-stop. So he is now saying that from the very start, I should have given the discounts back to the Government.”
“Can I have further clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister? This is with regard to the return of the discounts which he has received. All the time I thought that there was a Government ruling that if Ministers or MPs receive unsolicited gifts in relation to their position, they should return the unsolicited gifts to the Government, and it is for the Government to decide what to do with those gifts. I remember I attended one of the AIPO conferences and we were each given quite a beautiful batik shirt. And we all had to surrender the batik shirts to the Clerk of Parliament and then later on, he told me, "Mr Chiam, this batik is worth $12.", if I remember correctly, and we had to pay for it to get the batik shirt back. So in this particular case, all the time I thought that the return of the discounts was an unsolicited gift and it was in line with this practice. But the point is that Ministers are well known in Singapore. Whatever they do, you cannot say that you are buying as an individual. The fact is that he is a Minister in Singapore, and as HPL's Managing Director has said, I think the words he used were "a big fish"; "illustrious", and something else. The fact is that he knows that he is a Minister coming to buy. So that is the reason why I say probably a precedent has been set and if, in future, Ministers purchase property, and they knowingly get an unsolicited discount, then it is their duty to surrender it to the Government, unless, of course, they are unaware at all that there was a discount. That is what I meant. All the time I have this impression that the discounts returned were an unsolicited gift. And as a Minister, you return it to the Government. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I clarify Mr Chiam's position? This is very important.”
“DPM has talked about me mentioning yesterday that Ministers should not buy properties or something to that effect. But my position is that Ministers should be allowed to buy property freely but with a proviso that they should not purchase property with a view to selling them and making a quick dollar. So my view is that if Ministers want to buy property, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, they should be for long term investment. I think that should be the correct position. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for his very clear clarification and I hope he and his party, and also the Workers' Party (WP), stick to that, at least beyond the general election. As for Opposition duties, it is not for us to lay down in a book what Opposition Members should do and should not do. But I think Mr Chiam has been confused by our practice all these years where the PAP, whenever there has been a delicate, difficult issue, has on its own, and without waiting for any Opposition, brought the matter out, discussed and debated it, and therefore really marginalised and rendered them irrelevant. And as he says: what use is an Opposition? Well, I can only agree.”
“So that is the position amongst the Ministers that they shall not speculate in the property market. Well, I am glad to hear that. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has also mentioned about me and other Opposition Members not asking the Prime Minister to explain the discounts given to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not very sure whether it is our duty to do so. Because the onus of proof is on the Government. I think if the Government has kept quiet, it would be worse for them. But in this particular case, I do not think it is the duty of the Opposition to bring up these questions because the fingers are all pointing at the Senior Minister and DPM. I think the onus is on them to come out forthright and explain, which they have properly done. I do not think they should depend on the Opposition to help them out, or to bail them out on this matter. We do not feel at all guilty about not bringing up this matter in Parliament. If we did, probably we will be accused of trying to make aspersions and insinuations. I think we have taken the wise move and kept quiet about the whole thing. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Chiam has made a fairly serious allegation. Hearing him, I would conclude that he has been thinking that some of our Ministers are in fact doing what he said, ie, speculating.”
“First of all, may I clarify what DPM has said about Ministers buying houses. I am not at all against Ministers buying houses but I think there must be a proviso. I think DPM has mentioned it himself that if there is going to be a ruling with regard to Ministers buying houses, they should not buy them for speculation. I think that is important. If they buy it, as DPM has said, for long term investment, I think that is fair. The Ministers have got privileged information. There is no doubt about that. They cannot join in the crowd and try to make quick money out of purchase and sale of properties, especially in the hot market. If the DPM could tell us whether or not the Government is going to have this kind of a ruling amongst themselves, I will be very glad to hear that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we should keep our thought categories clear. If you buy and sell, and churn the market, that is speculation. It is not illegal. If you use ministerial privileged information , tomorrow I am going to impose a new package of property measures, today I sell Nassim Jade, then I am doing something greatly improper, and probably should go to jail. If I as a Minister spend my time trying to second-guess the property market and buy and sell and trade, and make money, it is not illegal, but I think I should lose my job too. Because it is not my job to go and make money on the property market. It is my job to look after my portfolios and my responsibilities as a Minister. He asks whether it is wise, it is necessary for the rules to say that Ministers shall not speculate in the property market. There are many things Ministers should not do. This is one of them. There is no need to itemise all the foolishness in the world which Ministers should avoid.”
“What fact? On the two properties or one property he is talking about?”
“No. I did not say that at all. I say that they must have a good living. But people perceive that our Ministers now are the best paid in the world, for such a little island, and compared to the majority of wage-earners in Singapore, Ministers are earning the type of salary from public funds which is way beyond their imagination. Many people perceive that. This is one of the problems.”
“If I were to ask him now, would he be willing to answer? We go one by one, if he wants to. Does he not deny that in fact Ministers do have properties in addition to their own homes? [Interruptions]. So with these high property prices, people would perceive that, in fact, Ministers are not really sacrificing than what is made out to be. So this is the problem. And if Ministers are in that kind of situation, in future, it will be difficult for Singapore to have leaders with that moral authority. This is probably the issue. People feel that Ministers are public figures. They, in fact, should do some sacrifice and not benefit from their positions. Probably that is the reason why there is such a hue and cry and also because of the escalation of property prices. Some of them have missed out on the purchases in which they have intended to get but could not get it.”
“But have they bought properties outside those offers?”
“I have asked the Prime Minister but I did not get the answer. So I cannot reply to him. There are people who say that Ministers own one or two condominium units. Could I ask the Prime Minister now how many Ministers in fact own condominium units, without naming them?”
“We are talking about salaries comparable to the ordinary people of Singapore. I think this is the question. It is very subjective.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I will have to carry on from where I left off. Our leaders need to lead. They can only lead if they have the moral authority to lead. Once the people perceive that that leader has no longer any such authority, they would probably not follow what the leader says. So that is the reason why I think this issue has cropped up. People see the leaders are not sacrificing. The leaders are, in fact, paid well and by buying property, when property prices are going up, they see the leaders getting richer. So if a leader who is earning 100 or 200 times more than the working people, you tell them that they must sacrifice ---”
“Yes, I know now that they buy them for investment. There is no doubt about it. I am quite certain in my mind. Sir, the issue is whether or not Ministers can buy property. Of course, they can buy property. But they have a problem now because Senior Minister and DPM have given back their discounts and so they have set a precedent. They have viewed the discounts as unsolicited gifts. Therefore, they felt that it was not right to have them and handed them over to the Government. But the Prime Minister seems to have a different view. He says that there is nothing wrong and they can keep the discounts. But since they have set this precedent, I think it would be difficult for Ministers in future, when purchasing a property, to knowingly accept a discount.”
“People have this perception. You may not buy them for speculation. But nobody knows, unless you tell them. They have this perception because everybody buys property to speculate and hoping to make a quick buck. An hon. Member: What is your perception of the purchases by SM and DPM?”
“The issue in today's debate is not about the legality or whether Senior Minister and DPM have done anything wrong. I think people perceive that Ministers are already so highly paid and then here comes another second source of income. I am not saying that DPM and SM Lee have purchased the property to speculate. I do not think so.”
“So do we have such people in Singapore to keep Singapore going for the next 100 years? If we just depend on salary alone, this country is going to be like China sooner or later. Everybody just crazed for money. That is my point of view. I have given up my time and energy for 20 years to be in politics, hoping that I can contribute. I think I have contributed something to Singapore. I think I have set an example, hopefully, that others will follow me when they are in the Opposition. We have also to help Singapore grow and be strong. It is not only the duty of the Government. It is also the duty of the Opposition. We are also nation builders.”
“I was a single person at that time, and being a bachelor I did not want to live in a terrace house all by myself. I had to rent it out. I asked myself what would happen if other teachers got to know. You are depriving them of one house. You are buying it to rent it out and they have a family and they do not have a house to stay in. So I gave up that purchase. That is the sort of principle that I have. Because I gave that up, I probably would lose by now over a million dollars. I do not know how much it costs now, but at least over a million dollars. That is the sort of values that I hope can be inculcated among Singaporeans. Sure, we want high salaries. We want a good living. We want money for our children to be educated. But at the same time we must have dedicated and committed people in Singapore. It is not just because of the salaries that I come to serve Singapore. We may differ in our views. Of course, we must give people good salaries and at the same time a decent living. Mr Lee also talks of the British standards. I also admire the British people. I have worked in Malaysia for a while in a rural place. I gave two years of my service to teach in Malaysia with a very low salary. Nobody asked me to go there, but I had my own peace corps values and I went to serve in Malaysia for two years. I discovered that there were old British spinsters who had dedicated their whole life to be, first, a teacher, and then a principal in a rural school. Then I heard that when they retired they went home to England and some old pupils of the schools went to see them. Were they living well off? No, they were living in an old aged home, after serving all their life in Malaysia. This is the sort of dedicated people they have in England that built the British empire.”
“Sir, just as the Senior Minister, I am also concerned about the survival of Singapore. My perception is that salary cannot be everything. We want good men. Sure, we want honest people. I know it is difficult to get them. I also have had bitter experience in dealing with people in my Party. With due respect to the Senior Minister, he is certainly the George Washington of Singapore, he has built up Singapore. But people do change, and great leaders do change with times. I was wondering whether if we just concentrate on the incentive of high salaries, without hoping that people would also have values with them, even without the high salary, that they can still work for Singapore. I think that would be the ideal. Because you are also talking about the long-term interest and survival of Singapore. I am also talking about the long-term survival of Singapore. If we depend entirely on the incentive of money, my view is that in the long-term of Singapore we may not succeed, with due respect to the Senior Minister. I have my own ideals. We talk of property. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asks whether I would be willing to declare. Sure, I would be willing to declare what properties I bought. I will tell Members of one incident. I was a school teacher. In the 1960s, I was in the Singapore Teachers Union. I came to know that there was this Teachers' Housing Estate project. They built terrace houses especially for teachers. I booked a corner unit. It was a very good unit, with a basement below. I arranged with the principal for a loan. I put out some money and I was successful in purchasing that property. But at that time I already had two flats. I was living in one and renting out the other.”
“Ministers are dealing with millions and sometimes billions of dollars and they forget what the ground is thinking, what they are looking at. Everybody seems to be making a fast buck, good money, in property speculation. It is called a property casino now in Singapore. And suddenly now we read Ministers are also playing in the casino. This kind of a thing will definitely bring up discontent.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. There was a big fuss just because the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister purchased properties. I am trying to fathom what this fuss is about and what are the real issues. I think most people in Singapore - I should say most thinking people and people who are in the know - and as a newspaper editor has mentioned, there is no question of illegality or improper behaviour by the two Ministers. As I can see it, the problem probably relates to the income of Ministers. I think these two issues are tied together. Because, last year, when we debated on the increase of Ministers' income, there was talk of Singapore Ministers not receiving any other income except their salaries. And therefore they are justified in pegging their salaries to the highest officers in the private sector. It was also mentioned that although other Ministers in the region received smaller salaries than Singapore's, they benefit from side incomes, perks and other favours and they live a good life. So after the PAP Government has given to the people this kind of a mindset, now suddenly it was revealed that Ministers are given preference to buy properties, especially in this hot property market and they make big profits. Everybody is calculating, "Oh, 12% discount, property is $3 million, $360,000, just with a stroke of a pen, just to sign the agreement." This kind of a thing stirs up people. They say that $360,000 is a lot of money, seeing that the average worker earns only about $2,000 a month in Singapore. It is going to take him 20 years or so to earn that sort of money. So if we do not lose touch of the ground, this is how the men-in-the-street will react.”
“Sir, other than the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, have other Ministers declared to him purchases of properties at a discount?”
“Sir, there were nine bus accidents which took place in the last two months and I would like to highlight only one of them which involved a SBS double decker bus. That accident was vividly captured in a photograph published in the Straits Times. The bus had collided head-on into a mature tree. It was badly damaged. When I looked at the photograph of that damaged bus, it reminded me of buses which had suffered terrorist attacks in London and Jerusalem. In that SBS bus accident, many passengers were injured and one of them was a housewife. It was reported that her leg was trapped and could not be dislodged. I am not certain whether the rescuers had to amputate her leg to save her life. But I do know that the housewife's leg was finally amputated as a result of that accident. It was really a terrible accident. The accident raises many issues. (1) Have the bus companies, due to their near monopolistic position, become complacent due to a lack of competition? (2) Has the aim to improve productivity compromised their safety standards? (3) Has the Government's supervision of bus companies become lax? (4) Are the requirements for training of bus drivers stringent enough? If Singapore wants to achieve a world class transport system, which we welcome, we can only hope that under this system, there shall be provisions for close and stringent supervision on public buses so that the type of accidents mentioned above shall not happen again.”
“I have been informed that originally Tanjong Pagar MRT Station was named Maxwell Station and Bugis Station was called Victoria Station. But there were objections because the names "Maxwell" and "Victoria" were too colonial. Later, the names "Tanjong Pagar" and "Bugis" were preferred, and rightly so. At Potong Pasir, we have a similar situation. I hope the present MRT stations naming committee has the same sense of historical perspective as its predecessor and not adopt a colonial name in preference to the local indigenous name for the MRT station. The Chairman: Order. Mr Chiam, you have exceeded the time. Please return to your seat.”
“It is for these reasons that the Government went ahead recently to build the Kranji and Yew Tee Stations, although the surrounding areas are now quite undeveloped. Also, the potential for development near an MRT station is great and in no time, the Government shall recoup its outlay. For the above given reasons, I urge the Minister not to delay the construction of the Sennett Station. Perhaps I should also mention another reason. Another important reason why the Sennett Station should be built immediately is that the Government has asked many of the residents to move out. They shall be making big sacrifices as their houses, businesses and livelihood shall be taken away from them. And it is only fair for the Government to build the Sennett Station together with the MRT line. Otherwise, there shall be a situation where all the residents, whose houses have been acquired, have moved out and the Sennett Station is still left unbuilt. The third issue I shall raise concerns the naming of the Sennett Station. Many residents have said that Potong Pasir is a more appropriate name than Sennett. The reasons are as follows: (1) There is already another area in East Coast named Sennett and people can easily get confused. Whereas the name "Potong Pasir" is exclusively used for one area in Singapore. (2) The name "Sennett" is colonial. On the other hand, the name "Potong Pasir" is indigenous or local, and one which has been customarily used since before the war for that area. The fact is that the site of Sennet Estate was formerly called Alkaff Gardens. Sennett Estate was only developed in the 50s. Historically, the name "Alkaff" had a greater precedence over "Sennett". And, of course, the name "Potong Pasir" has even higher precedence over "Alkaff". Some hon. Members: No.”
“The reason given by the Minister is that there is not enough ridership at the moment and the catchment area is small. These arguments can be refuted easily. More compelling reasons can be raised for a case that the Sennett Station should be built immediately. The reasons are as follows: (1) There is enough ridership. There are at least 13,500 people residing in Potong Pasir estate. There is also a major school in that estate with about 1,700 pupils who shall be using the MRT station if it is built there. There are also several more thousands of people who live in Sennett Estate and its vicinity. Then there are the industrial areas next to Sennett Estate. The factories and workshops there employ thousands of workers. Anyone travelling along Upper Serangoon Road will know that this stretch of road is always overcrowded with traffic. The Minister has himself inspected that stretch of road and admitted that it was jammed with traffic and decided to construct a four-tier by-pass at the junction not far from the Sennett and Woodleigh Stations. The traffic there is always very heavy. 3.45 pm There are a few MRT stations with less ridership and much smaller catchment areas, yet they were constructed together with the MRT line. They are the Chinese Garden, Lakeside, Kranji and Yew Tee stations. (2) It would not be cost effective to delay the building of the Sennett station. If the Government waits till a later date, cost of materials shall surely escalate. The contractors would certainly prefer the stations to be built together with the MRT lines, and it would make more sense. Even if there is a clause in the agreement for them to hold back the building of the Sennett Station, they will want to be compensated for the delay, because of the increase in price of materials.”
“(4) When will the notices to quit be served on all the land owners? The land owners want to know when they are to move out. Will the residents be given priority to apply for HDB flats or executive condominiums? Can shop owners be given priority to apply for HDB flats? (5) Many of the houses acquired are pre-war houses and they come under the provisions of the Control of Rent Act. Will the compensation paid to the owners of these houses be on a basis that they are controlled premises or decontrolled premises? (6) In one case, the owner of a house made a written application to renovate the house. The Planning Department approved her application last November. She went ahead with the renovations and spent a sizeable sum of money. Then in early March this year, she received a notice that her house has been acquired. The question is: Will she get full compensation for all the renovations? Her contention is that if the Government knew that it was going to acquire her property, it should not have granted her permission to renovate it in the first place. Now that she had done it, she wants compensation for the money spent on the renovations. (7) I have read a report in the New Paper of 15th March 1996 that Mr Andy Gan told residents whose lands are to be acquired that he would approach the authorities to change the acquisition plans so that the residents need not move though he admitted that it would be difficult. My query on this point is: Will the Government change its acquisition plans? The second issue I would like to raise with the Minister is the announcement about the delay in the construction of the Sennett Station. This news has been received by the residents in Potong Pasir with disbelief.”
“Sir, I also have a cut on the North-East Line. The North-East MRT line shall be passing through Potong Pasir and there shall be two stations sited there. I have three issues to raise. The first issue concerns the compulsory acquisition of land at or near the two stations, ie, Sennett and Woodleigh. The second issue is about the delay in the construction of the Sennett Station and the third issue is in respect of the choice of name for the Sennett Station. As regards the first issue, the Government has acquired a large number of properties near the two stations, namely, 240 houses, units of apartments and shops, one private hospital, one privatised printing works, one private school, two timber yards, two petrol stations, one restaurant and one 24-hour food court. I would like to ask the Minister some questions concerning the acquisition of these properties. (1) What are the lands near the two stations, ie, Sennett and Woodleigh, acquired for? (2) Are they acquired for the construction of the MRT line, or for the purpose of comprehensive development? If the land is acquired for the construction of the MRT line, can they be returned to the owners once the construction has been completed since the MRT line shall be underground and the surface above it shall not be affected? On the other hand, if the land is only required for comprehensive development, will the Minister allow all the land owners to cooperatively embark on a joint venture with other companies to develop the land in accordance with Government's guidelines and plans? (3) In addition to the compensation given in accordance with the law, will the owners be paid ex-gratia payments since their land has become very valuable with the siting of the two MRT stations nearby?”
“More importantly, the fact that the Government has a policy of compulsory education does send a strong signal to all parents that education is important, even to the small minority. And Singapore being what it is, any child who is not going to school will easily be reported. News spread very fast in Singapore. So with regard to policing and enforcement, I do not think the Government has to spend much money. Enforcement should not be a problem, if the policy is made known to all Singapore citizens. Sir, I would again urge the Government to consider having a policy of compulsory education. And for the long term, it will also help our workforce. Speakers have again and again pointed out that our workforce is very lowly educated. Many of them have only primary education and many are also illiterate. This springs directly from the fact that we have no compulsory education. And it is high time we implemented a policy of compulsory education in our schools.”
“The time spent in marking those extra books could be spent on giving individual attention to pupils, and thus improve the quality of her teaching. 2.15 pm Obviously, teaching in our schools is not very effective. Because, I understand, that the failure rate in the English language is fairly high among the neighbourhood schools. It is something like 30%. Also, the fact that so many tuition centres have sprung up show that the teaching in our schools is not effective. I have even heard people saying that teachers advise their pupils to take private tuition. There is a proliferation of private tutors in Singapore. In fact, private tuition has become an industry itself. This clearly proves that the teaching in our schools is not effective. I hope the Minister will remedy this. It can be immediately remedied if the Ministry spends enough money to increase the facilities, schools and teachers by another 25%. This is to reduce the class size to about 30 pupils. Sir, I go on to my other topic on compulsory education. Singapore is supposed to be a developed country. This is only because it has attained more than US$16,600 per capita of GDP. But as far as education is concerned, Singapore is far from being a developed country. I think most developed countries have got compulsory education. The last time I brought up this matter, the Minister said that only about 2,900 students were affected. I think this is a bad approach to the problem. We cannot just ignore the small percentage of children who have got no education at all, because we cater for the majority of the pupils. I think this is not a good approach to this problem.”
“For many years now, I have advocated that schools should have smaller class size. At the moment, the class size in our neighbourhood schools is about 40 to 44 pupils in one class. I have advocated that the class size be reduced by one quarter to about 30 pupils. The Minister has spoken on the neighbourhood schools and I have listened to him carefully. He said that the Ministry is paying utmost attention to the neighbourhood schools and they are equally well provided for. They have also been physically upgraded and about $536 million has been spent for their improvements and 31 of these neighbourhood schools have benefited from that sum of money. Also, there is a good distribution of teachers and principals among the neighbourhood schools, in particular, teachers who are good in teaching the average pupils. In this sense, there is no discrimination against the neighbourhood schools. But I think there is still a discrimination against the neighbourhood schools in regard to the number of pupils in each class. The better and independent schools have smaller class size. They have an average of about 30 pupils or even less. What the Minister has said in regard to the neighbourhood schools is laudable. But they are in fact peripheral in respect of educational value. What the school should aim for is quality teaching. The teaching must be effective and it can only be done if the class size is manageable. Imagine a teacher teaching English in a class size of 40 or 44 pupils as against one of only 30 pupils. If she teaches five classes, that means something like 50 additional books to mark for each essay, as against a class of only 30.”
“Sir, I have two cuts, one is on smaller class size and the other is on compulsory education. Can I take them together?”
“If there are such schools, I am certain parents of talented children in sports will not mind sending their children to such schools. In time to come, we shall see world beaters from Singapore. I hope the Government can take up this suggestion.”
“Sir, I think I express the sentiments of all Singaporean sports enthusiasts when I say that it is time for Singapore to win medals not only at the SEA games but also at the Asian, Commonwealth and even Olympic and World games. Singaporeans have the talent and the will to win at world class sporting meets. But before they can do so, they must have the means to prepare themselves to do so. This reminds me of the call made by Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of England, to the Americans during the intense stage of World War II. Churchill said: "Give us the weapons and we will finish the job." This is also what sportsmen in Singapore are calling the Government to do. They are saying, "Give us the facilities, the means, the financial support and we will bring the medals from world class sporting meets home to Singapore." I know they can do it. Dr Ben Tan has already shown the way in the last Asian Games held in Japan. Other sportsmen, I am certain, given the opportunity, can do the same. World sporting standards nowadays have reached a very high standard. Medals cannot be won just by raw talent. They need years of training. Unless the Government or business concern gives substantial sustained support, it is difficult for local sportsmen to achieve world standards. For Singapore, because of our high education standards, talented Singapore youngsters are not willing to commit themselves to full-time training unless assistance is given to them in their studies. In order to achieve this, I suggest to the Government to build, for a start, one specialist school to admit only talented children in sports. They could be coached in sports as well as in their studies in such schools.”
“The question is: has the Government made known its policy to `A' level students or their parents so that they could make alternative plans for their children's future university education?”
“The second issue I would like to take up with the Minister concerns foreign students studying in our local universities. Can the Minister tell us what is the percentage of our university enrolment which comprises foreign students. In absolute numbers, how many of the students in our universities are from abroad? Are the foreign students being admitted to choice faculties and thereby depriving local students of places in these faculties? Where are these foreign students from and do they pay the same fees as local students? It is only natural for Singaporean parents to be worried if they have university-going children. They are fearful that foreign students will deprive their children of places in the local universities. Therefore, building another university would solve this kind of problem. There shall be more university places, both for the local students as well as for foreign students, especially those from the ASEAN region. It is a good thing to encourage students from the region to study in our universities. There is no better way to build a comprehensive network of friends and supporters of Singapore than by allowing as many students as possible from the neighbouring region to study in our universities, provided, of course, we make sufficient places available for them as well as for our local students. 5.45 pm Another grouse among parents is that their children, having worked hard and scored straight "As", were unable to get into the faculty of their choice. I am certain MPs in this House have received complaints from distraught parents of children who have excellent `A' level results and yet they were rejected by the faculty of their choice. The Government appears now to have a policy of deciding for students which subject they should pursue in the university.”
“Sir, I also have a cut on tertiary institutions. I have three issues to bring up. The first issue is on the establishment of a third university. The second issue concerns the number of foreign students in our universities. And the third issue is on students who qualify for university places but are not allowed to take the subjects of their choice. As regards the first issue, I would like to mention that Australia and New Zealand are developed countries and they have an average of one university per 500,000 population. Singapore is also a developed country and by Australia's and New Zealand's standard, Singapore should have at least five universities. But we have only two universities. By a developed country's standard, Singapore is far below the average in terms of the number of universities. At the moment, about 12,500 Singaporean students are studying abroad. The 12,500 Singaporean students could easily fill up the third university, if it were built. I believe the majority of Singaporean students go abroad to study because they either cannot get into the local universities, although they have the grades, or they cannot take the subjects they wanted to. Not every Singaporean parent is rich. Many of them have to make big sacrifices to send their child or children abroad to get a tertiary education. It is not cheap to send children overseas to study. It can cost between $20,000-$30,000 a year or more for a child to study abroad, depending on which university he is attending and the courses that he is taking. There is a demand for a third university in Singapore and the Government should consider building one. If a third university is built, it would certainly lessen the financial burden of many parents.”
“The employer and employee shall contribute equally at 20% each; (2) The 38% rate shall apply to workers who are above 35 years and below 45 years. The employer shall contribute 19% and the employee does likewise; and (3) As regards the 35% contribution rate, it shall be paid by workers who are 45 years and above. The employer and employee shall contribute 17.5% each. There are many advantages for the lowering of CPF contribution rates. It cuts down business costs and it makes doing business in Singapore more competitive. It releases funds to the workers at the time when they need the cash most. At 35 years and above, the workers' children are older and the need for maintenance of them will be higher. And also with more take-home pay, workers can spend more money in the shops and thus giving a boost to the lethargic retail trade. The suggestions are not radical and certain workers and business people shall welcome them. And I hope the Minister shall also give his support.”
“Sir, I have a cut on Central Provident Fund. I have read the Central Provident Fund Board 1994 Annual Report and noticed that in 1993, the annual CPF withdrawals were more than the contributions received. The contributions received that year were $10.427 billion and the amount withdrawn was $10.944 billion. The amount paid out in excess of receipts was $517 million. Can the Minister explain how such a situation came about? Would the Minister please explain whether in future, due to our aging population, there shall come a time when the CPF withdrawals shall exceed the contributions? At the moment, the CPF contribution rate is fixed at 40 percentage points - 20% contribution from the employer and the other 20% from the employee. There is evidence that 40% of CPF savings appear to be high. The bulk of the CPF savings is used for the purchase of HDB flats and other landed properties. Many CPF members, after paying for their monthly housing mortgage loans, still have excess CPF savings which are used in a variety of ways, such as investments in shares, gold, approved investment schemes, tertiary education, insurance and also topping-up of the parents' retirement account. The fact that there are excess savings in CPF accounts, where members can use them to dabble in shares and gold, shows that the CPF rate is pegged at a point where savings can cover more than just housing and old-age needs. I am not suggesting drastic cuts in our CPF contribution rate. But I would like to see some changes to it. May I suggest that there be three CPF contribution rates at 40%, 38% and 35%, instead of the present situation where there is only one. In the suggested new system: (1) 40% of the rate of contribution shall be for members who are up to the age of 35 years.”
“The rationale was that the skill learned in construction sites could also come in handy for civil defence work. Can the Minister tell us what has happened to that scheme? Is the Government going to do anything to reduce the ratio of foreign workers at our construction sites? The Government should make attempts to encourage more Singapore workers to take over the work done by foreign workers, otherwise they shall not enjoy high wages as the low wages paid to foreign workers shall always dampen the wages paid to local workers.”
“I also have an amendment on foreign workers. 20% of the workforce of 1.7 million comprise foreign workers. Foreign workers now number about 340,000 in our workforce. Soon it shall rise to as high as 425,000, which is about 25% of the workforce. The Singapore economy is apparently dependent on foreign workers, especially in the shipyards and construction sites. The shipbuilding industry and the construction industry would come to a standstill if there were no foreign workers. The dependency ratio is one local worker to three foreign workers in the former industry and one local worker to five foreign workers in the latter industry. The Government puts a stiff monthly levy on employment of foreign workers from $250 to $450 per worker, depending upon the level of skill of the foreign workers and the percentage of foreign workers employed by each company. The Government earns about $1.6 billion a year from the levies imposed on foreign workers. I would like to raise various concerns in relation to the high number of foreign workers employed in Singapore. I think the concern is more evident if we note the high dependency rate of some industries on foreign workers. I would like to highlight the construction industry. The Government should do something to reduce the dependency of foreign workers in the construction industry. Something like 80% of workers in the construction sites are foreign workers. This number may even be higher as contractors do employ large numbers of illegal workers who are not registered and are excluded from the data compiled by the Government. At one time the Government had a scheme to train our NS boys to do work in the construction industry.”
“I want to ask the Minister whether this is true. If not, please give his reasons why the premises at Potong Pasir were taken away. I see from the budget that the number of children in Government kindergartens has dropped from 7,054 in FY91 to 4,200 this year. Can it be that this drop is due to the very low cost recovery rate of these kindergartens and that the Government is losing money? On the other hand, the enrolment in Government childcare centres has increased steadily since FY91, from 985 children to 1,330 children for FY96. Can the increased enrolment in childcare centres be due to the fact that the Government is not losing money in running these child care centres? The cost recovery rate is expected to be 105% for this fiscal year. With a population of about three million people, the enrolment of 1,330 children in Government childcare centres appears to be low. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC has highlighted that the demand for child care centres shall increase from the present 7% level. Has the Government any plans to increase the number of childcare centres? Also, has the Government explored the possible building or assist in the setting up of childcare centres near or at the workplaces of mothers, such as in factories and even in hospitals?”
“Sir, I have a cut on child care centres. Children are our most precious asset for the future of Singapore. We must ensure that the best possible care be given to them. The best possible care given to children is, of course, by the mothers themselves. But in the majority of cases in Singapore, this is not possible because most mothers are working full time. Mothers have to get someone else to look after the children for them. Some children are even reported to be locked up in the flats while the mothers go out to work. This, of course, is a very unhappy situation. For working mothers, the care of the children is indeed a worry for them. The often asked question is: is the Government doing enough for working mothers? The Government should give as much aid as possible, especially to mothers in the lower-income groups. We want all our children to grow up to be well schooled, well adjusted and be good citizens, and not to be misfits. In fact, we have read in the papers that juvenile delinquency, bad discipline in schools and drug addiction among the young are serious problems in present day Singapore. These problems among the young can be traced to the poor upbringing of the children when they were very young. When children are very young and are not taken care of properly, they usually grow up to be problem kids. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government is building enough childcare centres. I know, of course, of one built-up area in Potong Pasir, which was originally earmarked for a childcare centre, was taken back by the Government and used to house mental patients instead. From this experience, it would appear that the interest of people with psychiatric problems is more important than the upbringing of our younger children.”
“Under the new ground rules, we are shut out forever. The Minister has not given us an assurance. He says that everybody gets the same chance. But it is not like that when it is worked out.”
“Now the ground rules have been changed. A permit for two years is given at once. In the past, it was a yearly affair. So every time one of the PAP grassroots organisations has applied, they get two years' quota at a stretch. If they are given two years' quota every time, the town council will not have a chance to hold any pasar malam at all. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: As I have explained, the processing of the applications is done in the same way for all the constituencies. The way I look at it is that the interests of the residents have to be looked after. The interests of the shopkeepers and stallholders in the constituency have to be looked after. That seems to me to be more important than the perspective which Mr Chiam is taking, which is, the interest of his Town Council must be looked after. It seems a rather strange perspective to take.”
“Clarification from the Minister. The new point that I have raised is the fear that with a change of ground rules, my Town Council shall be shut out from holding pasar malams. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not happen? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I do not quite understand this issue about town councils being shut out. The residents in every constituency have the same opportunities. Each constituency has 16 days in which they can have a major fair. So the residents in every constituency enjoy the same opportunity to have a 16-day fair. So I really do not understand Mr Chiam's point.”
“So, where is the equality? If the full quota is given, the Government side will get two and three-quarter times more in number of days than the opposition. Perhaps the Minister could explain. The other point I would like to bring up is with regard to application for future permits. The Minister has said that applications are open two months before 1st July 1997. Does it mean that the organisations will have to queue up the whole night before 31st May, just to be first in the queue? Perhaps the Minister can explain this point. The Minister is fearful that there is a proliferation of pasar malams in housing estates. But I can assure the Minister, as far as the Potong Pasir Town Council is concerned, we have done it very responsibly. In fact, before a pasar malam is organised, we send men to go round and get clearance from the shopkeepers first. And if we are told that certain items cannot be sold, we will make sure that the pasar malam contractors are banned from selling those items, just like pillow cases and plastic pails. As far as abusing the system is concerned, we can assure the Minister that we have never been guilty of that. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that this is not the latest move to cut out the town council from ever holding a pasar malam.”
“Sir, I have a cut on pasar malams. Sir, pasar malams have been organised by the Potong Pasir Town Council for several years now. And as far as I am aware, for the past few years, the Potong Pasir Town Council has not taken more than eight days per year to hold its pasar malam. Because the pasar malams are organised at two places - one at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, and the other at Potong Pasir Estate. In July 1995, we were taken by surprise when the CCC suddenly used up two years' pasar malam quota, up to 1st July 1997. We were taken by surprise for two reasons. Firstly, it would appear that the ground rules have suddenly changed for issuing permits for pasar malams. Normally, the permit is given for only one year at a time. But this time, suddenly two years' permit was given to the CCC, thus cutting out completely the Potong Pasir Town Council's chance of holding pasar malams for the next two years. More importantly, if the ground rules are changed, there is a fear that pasar malams, which are a source of revenue, will not be available to the town council forever, just like CIPC funds which are not made available to the town council. The Minister has said that the principle of allotting permits for pasar malam is based on equality. I want the Minister to clarify this point. As far as I know, there are four RC zones in Potong Pasir, a CCC and a CCMC. Under the present rules, it would appear that if all these bodies were given permits to hold pasar malams for one year, they would be allotted 44 days. Three days for each RC zone, making it 12 days, 16 days for the CCC and 16 days for the CCMC. All these add up to 44 days. Whereas for the opposition, we only have one organisation applying for pasar malam permit, ie, the town council. And we can only get 16 days for one year.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that I mentioned the word "run-down" for blocks of flats. I wish to clarify that the flats are not run-down due to neglect by the residents, but by sheer age. Therefore, we are not going to encourage people to run-down their flats to have them upgraded. Assuming that the flats are old and the fact that they are old and run-down, is that not a criterion for upgrading? Take the case of Forfar House. It is old. It is run-down. The pipes are all leaking and not working. Should the Minister not consider this as a priority for upgrading? Or is it because of the fact that it is not situated somewhere else?”
“My question to the Minister is: with all this upgrading of the whole estate, like Toa Payoh, and en-bloc redevelopment of older blocks of flats, does the sum of $15 billion put aside include all the other upgrading which I have just mentioned? Or is there going to be a separate budget for them? Of course, en-bloc redevelopment shall not be a loss to the HDB. In fact, I believe the HDB shall be making some money on it. Therefore, if there is any excess from the $15 billion, will some of it be taken away? 12.45 pm I have complained of this before. At Potong Pasir, Toa Payoh Estate, there are widespread sunken apron problems. I note that the hon. Member for West Coast also has similar problems. The problem of sunken aprons is due to bad workmanship. If there were proper piling, the aprons would not sink with the sinking soil. The HDB should make good these sunken aprons. Can the Minister treat the repair of these sunken aprons as part of the HDB's upgrading programme and get them repaired as part of the Interim Upgrading Programme in respect of the problems at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh?”