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 26 of 85.
“Sir, is the Minister aware that there are cases of flat purchasers who at the time of making a booking for a flat had enough money in the Ordinary Account to purchase the flat and also to pay for subsequent monthly loan instalments but, due to a delay or extended time, by the time they purchase the flat, it has already increased in price, and therefore the savings in the Ordinary Accounts are all exhausted to pay for the flat and the cash in hand is used to renovate the flat? Therefore, they have not enough savings in the Ordinary Account to pay for the monthly loan instalments. So they may need money from the Special Account to tide over, maybe for the first few instalments, so that they could save up enough to pay for subsequent monthly loan instalments.”
“Sir, according to the list of steps the bus company has taken, it would appear that the most important one has been left out. The accidents are caused by human error. Surely they must study why there is such human error. I think that is the most important point, and they do not seem to include such studies whether or not the bus driver was under stress or worried about the family, or whatever factor that causes the human error. They should make a study of it.”
“To allay the fears of bus commuters in Singapore, will the Government take immediate measures to try and cut down this rate of accidents caused by SBS buses? With a view to improving the situation, will the Government ask the bus companies to review the salary of the bus drivers?”
“The Minister has quoted figures to show that Paris and Hong Kong have the worst bus accident records than Singapore. I have two questions. Surely, the important thing is whether or not Paris and Hong Kong have a world-class transport system or have they proclaimed to have one. The second question is: although the Minister says that our figure is quite low (0.96 accidents per 100,000 km), will the Minister say that even such a figure is not acceptable and he will take steps to reduce it, at least to the UK level?”
“May I ask the Minister to clarify certain points, Sir. He says 2,000 units will be built a year. Can I ask the Minister when will the first lot be built and where will it be situated? What sort of tenure do these buildings have? Is it going to be a 99-year lease or less than that? As regards applications, there are a lot of problems in the application of HDB flats. Will it be the same for these Executive Condominiums or will it be on a first-come-first-served basis? If this is so, then you may find long queues overnight. Maybe the Minister can clarify these points.”
“Are there any plans to have intensive developments near or at future stations along the North-East line? If so, which are the stations?”
“Does the Minister agree with me that no model is sacrosanct? It does not mean that we have to apply the Hong Kong model or the Singapore model.”
“First, developing land near MRT stations by the LTA is not to keep the profits, but to keep the fares down. The Minister has said that after developing the North-East line, it will be making a loss for the next four years at, I believe, $250 million a year. If there is development of land by the LTA, such profits can be used to cover the $250 million loss, so that commuters need not bear the brunt of higher fares. At the same time, there will be development of good high-rise buildings. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a good scheme to make sure that fares are kept down? In fact, from what the Minister has said about the Hong Kong case, they can even pay for the capital cost. I think it will be easier if the LTA develops land just to pay for the running cost. Should the Minister not consider this proposal?”
“Sir, I am coming to my question. I think the Government should have a more flexible policy. Would the Government allow the LTA to develop land near MRT stations so that it could have more revenues and source for more funds, not to pay for the capital cost but to pay for the running cost, as the Minister has said that the North-East line would be losing money for the next four years? What is wrong with changing the policy a bit and allow land to be developed? The LTA would get more income and cover up for the losses in the running cost. We leave the capital cost aside. Is the Minister willing to do that? In fact, I believe this is done in Hong Kong. I stand corrected. I believe that this question is a follow up from the last debate when it was mentioned that in Hong Kong, laws were made to allow the company there to develop land, obviously to recover some running cost and capital cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Minister should have a policy that is so rigid. The present policy is that the Government will pay for the capital cost and the replacement and running costs will be the resonsibility of the MRTC. Of course, the capital cost is very high - $5 billion, as the Minister has said.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions to follow up from what the Minister has just said. One, would the Minister not agree with me that if the LTA is allowed to source for new funds through the development of property at or near MRT stations, it would have more income other than running the MRT lines? And it can use this income or profits to keep the fares down. This is one way. As it is, the Minister has said that the commuters of the North-East line are going to pay higher fares. Because for the next four years after development, the SMRT is going to lose money. So if new funds are coming in from the development of land, then the fares could be kept down. This is one question. The other matter is that there is already redevelopment around the Toa Payoh MRT station and I think the Minister is probably looking for other sites where intensive developments can be carried out. Can the Minister tell us which are the possible existing MRT stations where such intensive development could be carried out?”
“If the LTA is allowed to develop land at or near MRT stations intensively, would the Minister not agree with me that, in fact, massive profits will be made from the development of land, especially if it is intensive development of land? Would the Minister allow the LTA to use the profits to keep MRT fares low, in particular, the new MRT stations on the North-East line.”
“The Minister has said that section 6 of the LTA Act covers areas in which the Minister will assign to the LTA. But does the Minister agree with me that such provisions are too wide? Would it not be necessary to have an amendment to specifically say that the LTA has the authority to develop land near or at MRT stations? At present, if there is any development, it will probably be done by the HDB.”
“Sir, is the redevelopment at the bus interchange near the Toa Payoh MRT station undertaken by the LTA?”
“Yes. But is the tax to cover for the losses which PUB would have made if the tariffs were properly priced?”
“What is the purpose of a tax then? Is it to cover the present tariffs which are not properly worked out? Or is it really for consumption? As the Minister has said, anybody can use any amount of light they like as long as they can pay. An hon. Member: You pay more.”
“Will there be a tax on electricity consumption when SP is finally listed?”
“After hearing what the Minister has said, I must make it clear that I did not mean to insult or belittle the efforts of the professionals who have put up this White Paper. I think I should congratulate them. They have done a very good job. But Mr Mah is a politician and I am a politician. I think I am justified in saying that this White Paper, coming out at this time, is an election ploy. I am not saying anything against the people who put up this paper or, as I say, to belittle them. I think they have done a very good job. But it is the tactic of the PAP. We have seen all this before. So I do not think I am really trying to have some bad motives. Not at all.”
“Sir, I think the word "gimmick" may be a bit strong and I would withdraw it. As for the word "ploy", if you could bring up a proper dictionary, I do not think there is anything sinister about its meaning. We can even now have a look at it.”
“This question on whether or not the White Paper is going to be used as an election strategy has been admitted by many. I think it will be. This is my point. I am not saying anything else. What I am saying is that it is a PAP election strategy. Basically, that is what I am trying to tell the people. Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, as the Chairman of the GPC for Communications, the LTA has briefed us and spent quite a lot of hours telling us about this White Paper. I sincerely believe that the LTA would go through with it if this House accepts the White Paper. I am shocked in a sense that one of my parliamentary colleagues has said that this is an election ploy. A "ploy" means that you put up something and have no intention of doing it. If that is the case, I must say that I have been terribly hoodwinked. So I would really like to find out from him, just as the Minister would like to, whether he really believes that this Government, if after the next election still remains the Government, would not carry this policy out. Let us give him all the latitude possible. I would not say when. I think this is of great importance to the House and, in particular, to the people of Singapore.”
“Much obliged, Sir. As I said, I have clarified myself. I did not mean that the whole thing was a fraud or something untrue. What I mean is that the White Paper comes out at an opportune time in view of the coming elections. And that is basically what the PAP in fact has done before, and I think they are just repeating this kind of election strategy. But I am not saying that the whole thing is not true. I am not saying that at all. Basically, of course, the Government will carry out its transportation plan. But the fact is that the title "World Class Transport System" is used. They could have used many other titles. They could have used "Singapore's comprehensive transport policy". The title used is to catch the eye. What is the purpose of having such a title? Can the Minister explain to me what is a "world class transport system"? Would he say that Zurich's transport system is a world class transport system or is it the system of some European or American country? Do we have to be at par with them and then we are considered world class? What does it mean by world class transport system? At what stage? I can say that we already have a world class transport system, as far as motorists are concerned in Singapore. If you ask motorists, people who can really afford a car, I think they will have no complaints. It is those people who do not own a car and people who have a car but barely can afford it, these are the people who complain. Basically, who are the complainants in Singapore? It is probably the 80% Singaporeans who do not own a car, and also those people who own a car but cannot really afford it.”
“After having prefaced that and made myself understood, if I have been misunderstood, then I would withdraw the word "gimmick". But certainly having gone through three successful elections, I do not think that the Minister can deny that this White Paper, published at this opportune time, will be definitely used in the elections. In that sense, it is not a pure effort in trying to tell the people about the Government's plan. But it has some bearing on the elections. So you cannot deny that it is in fact going to be used to the advantage of the PAP. In that sense, I am saying that it is an election ploy. We have seen it before. I have given my reasons for it. This kind of strategy has been used before. Basically, that is what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the PAP is not going to carry out the plans and programmes that are mentioned in the White Paper. But certainly there will be a lot of amendments and reconsiderations and the Government is not going to carry out in detail what is set out in the White Paper. There will certainly be certain amendments.”
“Sir, perhaps I should also take this opportunity to explain what I said in regard to my party. I am not in any way siding the Government when I speak out in respect of certain members of my party. In fact, what I am trying to do is to get the party in order and to improve itself.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? I have not even read one page of the report. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Minister for Communications may not have noted that during the debate in this House, normally Members express their personal views. Sometimes, they may take the stand of their party. I would like to tell this House that the SDP is not the government. So it is not possible for the SDP to give a comprehensive plan because we do not know how much financial resources the Government has. It is only when we become the government then we will be able to put up our plan according to the financial resources available. It is not possible for us to present a more detailed plan or White Paper as it is being done by the PAP Government. What I meant just now was that the White Paper did not spell out the details of implementation. For example, if you want to collect money, how much do you want to collect? You want to have tax deductions, how much? You have not told the people.”
“I think it is pure common sense that priority must be given to a debate of this magnitude which involves a very important subject in Singapore. The Minister has asked me whether I was speaking for myself or for the SDP. I wish to say that these are my own views.”
“I should tell this House that I have got no instructions from the centre of the Party. I have got no communication whatsoever in regard to this debate. And I was not even told that the Chairman was going to be away until I read in the papers that he was in Subic Bay. As I was commenting to some Members in the Members' Room, Subic Bay is no longer the Subic Bay. I understand it is now a big city, or some kind of a city. So I do not know what attractions are there. But in any event, if I were told that the Chairman was going to Subic Bay, I would certainly say that it is not a good time to go because his first priority must be in this House. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Can I clarify the point made by Dr Chen? This is a debate on a very important document, the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" in Singapore. I hope it is not misunderstood that Dr Chen is using part of this debate to show the differences in the SDP. I have got no privy to the thinking of the SDP on the transport system in Singapore, but I believe the Secretary-General of the SDP has written something on it. The Leader of the House has lifted Standing Order No. 1 so that we can go beyond 4.30 pm. So it is still not too late for the SDP to give its views on the transport system in Singapore.”
“I would like to explain to Dr Chen that I am still an SDP member. Let it not be mistaken.”
“I think this would improve the quality of our living environment so that our people would not be affected by the noise produced by the heavy traffic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. WORLD CLASS LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM Debate resumed. 3.45 pm”
“Using the cost of usage as the broad principle of traffic control, we should levy the same tax on diesel and petrol, and abolish the present taxi diesel tax. The White Paper mentioned only the vision of a good public transport system. But it has made no mention on the problems that will come about with a more developed transport system. With more cars running on the road, they will certainly contribute to more air pollution as well as noise pollution. So are we going to have more stringent standards on air pollution and noise pollution? When we are heading towards a world class land transport system, can we also have a world class pollution-free and noise-free living environment? With regard to air pollution, at the moment, there has been very strict control on the petrol-propelled cars. In fact, the standard is world class. It is a very high standard. However, much has to be done about the control on diesel-propelled vehicles like the buses and lorries. Perhaps, in the long term, we should try to set a high anti-pollution standard for diesel-propelled vehicles. Many people are very unhappy with the noise produced by motorcycles. I think we should have very strict control on the noise pollution of motorcycles. With the massive construction of roads and rails, we know that many houses and flats are very close to the expressways and the MRT lines and although we do have certain guidelines that a certain distance has to be kept, the noise level is still quite an important factor to consider. We should learn from other countries. Perhaps we should have some noise-absorption boards or reflectors installed at appropriate places.”
“If I drive a car, do I pay the present cost of the car or its future cost when my son drives it in the next generation? However, the White Paper did not say whether this would be applicable to the other public transport system, like buses. Although the lifespan of buses is shorter, if we consider it to be an effective means of public transport, like the MRT, we should also give it equal treatment. Some people say, "Well, we have to wait until the fares are high before we look into the matter." The fact that the present bus fares are low is not a crime. In fact, when the fares are low, it is an illustration of the efficiency and success of the bus operation. So if the concept of letting the present generation pay for the present generation of public transport system, I think the bus service should also be accorded the same treatment so that bus commuters can continue to enjoy low fares. The White Paper makes special mention that the cost of usage per kilometre of a taxi is only 14% of that of a private car. I think this figure is somewhat exaggerated. Actually, the only difference is that diesel attracts a lower tax than petrol. If we add in the taxi diesel tax of $6,600 per year, the figure will not appear to be so frightening. If we take the cost of usage as a reference point for traffic control, we would have to seriously look into the great difference between petrol tax and diesel tax. As we all know, whether it is a petrol-propelled vehicle or a diesel-propelled vehicle, it contributes to traffic congestion. As a matter of fact, the effect of the latter is larger because diesel-engine vehicles are normally bigger in size. So they are contributing more to traffic congestion.”
“The shuttle bus service is a supplement to the scheduled bus service and the reason why we have shuttle bus service is to prevent the scheduled bus from going round and round the housing estates, and to improve its efficiency. So we should not be looking at which service is more lucrative, or considering merging all the shorter routes into a long route. I think that is not the right way to do. Commuters who take the shuttle bus travel the distance of just a few bus stops away. In terms of distance, the fare per kilometre on the shuttle bus is more expensive than the normal scheduled bus routes. Actually, we should charge according to the distance and not in terms of how many times you have to change buses. I think maybe, in the long term, the bus companies should come out with a system to charge the fare according to distance. Then I think it would be fair to the commuters. On the other hand, when we talk about improving the public transport service, there is still much room for improvement to the present system. For example, the present system of paying on the bus either by cash or card is not a good system, particularly during the peak hours. I think the bus companies should come out with some method for the commuters to pay before they board the bus so that they do not have to buy the tickets on board the bus. Then the efficiency will be increased tremendously, particularly during peak hours. The White Paper mentioned that the present generation should pay for the cost of the present generation of public transport vehicles, and that the Government would bear the difference between the cost of the operating assets for the present generation and that of the next generation. I think this is a reasonable and rational decision. The reason is very simple.”
“I agree with the White Paper that we should put in more effort to complete the construction of all the interchanges and multi-tier road system within the next five years as well as all the expressway projects that we have. The Central Business District is a key point in our road system. Now we are using the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) as an artificial means to prevent traffic congestion in the city area. But if we look at the long term, with economic growth, we would have to increase the road capacity in the city area so that we could satisfy the needs of our economic activities. So if we keep on using the ALS mechanism to prevent congestion in the city area, I think it would have a suppressing effect on the growth of our economic activities in the city area. If the Underground Road System can increase the road capacity in the city area by 40%, I think we should actively consider how to have this underground road system ready as soon as possible. We must know that the genuine way of resolving the problem of traffic congestion in the central business district is by increasing its road capacity. ALS only plays a supplementary role to remedy the shortfall in our whole traffic system. It can only play a supporting role and not the main role. Between spending $6 billion on the construction of the MRT North-East Line and the cost of $4.5 billion on this underground road system, I think I would choose to build the underground road system first. The White Paper mentions that the shuttle bus service has not been as lucrative as the main scheduled bus services. Hence, the bus companies are reluctant to provide shuttle bus services and they will have to revise the fares for the shuttle bus service to catch up with that of the scheduled bus service. Actually, this is not correct.”
“Sir, can I have a clarification from the Member for Braddell Heights? In my speech, I have, in fact, urged the Minister to get on with construction of SURS (Singapore Underground Road System). But according to Mr Goh, he thinks that it will have negative effect on the environment. Can I get a clarification from him? Since these roads are all underground, how can it affect the environment? Mr Goh Choon Kang( In Mandarin): If Mr Chiam had heard me clearly, what I said was that we should be very cautious in studying the construction work of the underground road network, to see whether there will be any negative effect on our environment. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. In terms of motorised trips made by the public every day, three million passenger-trips are made on buses, 700,000 passenger-trips on the MRT, and the remaining 3.55 million passenger-trips on other modes of transport. From these figures, we can see that every day, more than 90% of our people are using the roads as their means of transport. Even after the completion of the planned extension to the MRT and the LRT totalling 160 km added in, the total number of people using the rails will be about 20%. So if we have to make a choice between the road and rail, in the short term, our emphasis should be on the improvement of the roads. If the road system is good, then it would be able to satisfy the desire of our wealthy Singaporeans to own cars. Moreover, if the roads are free from congestion, our people would be able to utilise the public transport to reach their place of destination much faster and in a more efficient manner. So it will benefit all our people.”
“It is not only very cheap, but it does not take up much space on our roads and, more importantly, it is pollution-free and healthy. I wonder whether the Minister is willing to include bicycle lanes in HDB estates for a start, as part of its world class transport system programme.”
“At the moment, my constituency is in an unhappy position where we have to pay wholly for such linkways, whereas the PAP wards pay only about 25% of the cost. All PAP constituencies get CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) support funds of up to 75% of the cost of such community works. Can the Minister help to change this policy, at least in respect of only covered linkways connecting HDB flats to bus stops, so that Potong Pasir too can play its part in building a world class land transport system? There is another matter which I noted is glaringly missing in the White Paper. This matter has been brought up by me in Parliament before, and that is, the request for construction of bicycle lanes on our roads. I think I shall be too ambitious if I ask the Minister to build bicycle lanes on all our roads, except the highways. I shall not do that, but what I want to ask the Minister is to start building bicycle lanes in all HDB estates, not only Potong Pasir. I am thinking of the children who love to cycle. Children must be protected and they should be given a safe place to enjoy their cycling. Of course, other people can also use those bicycle lanes to commute within the estate, such as going to the shops, market, and also to ride to the MRT stations. I think I am also not asking too much if cyclists take their bicycles to the MRT stations, they must find a sheltered place to put their bicycles. Therefore, perhaps I should also request the Minister in helping to construct bicycle sheds. It does not mean that because Singapore is affluent, we have to abandon the bicycle. I get this feeling when I read the White Paper. There were no provisions recommended in the White Paper for cyclists on our road network system. The bicycle is a good mode of transport.”
“The White Paper also does not throw much light on it except that it is 20 km long. At this stage, perhaps it is a good time for the Minister to give more details about the North-East line. In particular, when will it be built and when is its expected completion date? What route it would take and the names of all the stations along the route. It is not me who wants the information. People who are living in the North-East corridor are the most interested people to know the answers. Now is as good a time as any for the Minister to give the answers, and I hope the Minister shall not disappoint them. The Government intends to build a world class transport system. In fact, for motorists in this country, they deserve a world class road network system now, because they are paying not world class prices for their motorcars but super world class prices for them. What we pay for one car in Singapore can be used to purchase three equivalent capacity cars in America. The car prices in Singapore may be the highest, or if not the highest in the world. Motorists in Singapore can justly claim for a world class road network now. In view of the higher cost of motoring and the vast amounts of taxes collected from motorists, the Government should proceed to construct the SURS now and not drag its feet any longer. There is one matter which appears unrelated, but I would like to bring it up with the Minister, and this concerns commuter facilities. I refer to the covered linkways from HDB flats to bus stops. In the LTA's implementation of its vision of a world class transport system, I would like to know who would pay for such linkways � the bus operators, the Government, or the Town Councils?”
“With the ERP in place, usage of motor cars can be really expensive. The White Paper should have given some indication of the charges that shall be levied on motorists when the ERP is in place. If usage of roads is going to be jacked up, will the cost of motor cars become lower? The Minister should clarify on these points. Another matter which needs clarification is the term "A World Class Transport System". What does a world class transport system constitute? The White Paper says that it must provide commuters with highly efficient, comfortable and convenient rides in a free-flowing traffic. But in practical terms, what does it mean? What I want to know is at what level of infrastructural development of Singapore's transport system can it be said that Singapore has achieved a world class transport system. The White Paper gives plans of building a network of road systems involving the Singapore Underground Road System (SURS) and the MRT and LRT lines. How much of this vision as set out in the White Paper has to be completed before Singapore can be said to have a world class transport system? Is it half of the programme or is it fully? If the whole programme as laid out in the White Paper has to be completed before Singapore can be said to have a world class transport system, then I do not think that the 10-15 years' time-table mentioned in the White Paper is a realistic time frame. I think it would take longer than that. I would say at least 18 years or more. Perhaps the Minister can give us a time-table of completion dates of the road network, SURS, the Kallang and Northshore lines and the LRT system. I believe this has been requested for by the previous speaker. As regards the North-East line, the Minister has put all his cards very close to his chest.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. As an Opposition Member, I look at the White Paper in a slightly different light. Is the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" an election ploy? I think partly it is, after all this is an election year. In my view, the White Paper shall surely become part of the PAP election strategy. This kind of election strategy is not new. We have seen it done before. In the 1988 General Elections, the Government came up with the vision of making Singapore a world class city and to achieve the Swiss standard of living in 1997. The PAP used that vision of achieving the Swiss standard of living in Singapore as its election manifesto in 1988. To respond to what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, in yesterday's Straits Times, I read that the OECD has changed its mind and decided that Singapore is not a developed country after all. If we are not developed, I do not know whether we have reached the Swiss standard of living. In the 1991 General Election, the Government published its grand vision for Singapore in a book entitled The Next Lap. That book was again used by the PAP as its election platform in that general election. In this year's general election, I shall not be surprised at all if the PAP uses the proposals in the White Paper on a world class land transport system for its election purposes. I have read the White Paper and I find it too general. No specific information such as when the North-East MRT line shall be built is given. Another matter is the ERP which concerns many motorists. The White Paper only says that the ERP shall be in operation in 1997, but it does not say how much it is going to cost motorists. I believe this concern has been expressed in correspondence in the press.”
“Sir, a further clarification. I think the Minister has not clarified the point where a Judge's appointment has already expired or terminated. He delivers the judgment after he has left the service. Then there is an appeal on his judgment. By this time, he is already out of the service. Has he got to come back and write his grounds of decision for the purposes of appeal?”
“As to whether there will be provision for appeal on the reserved judgment, I am sure that the judiciary will provide for that kind of situation. As regards a Judicial Commissioner sitting as a Judge, this is also for avoidance of any doubt and you will find similar provisions elsewhere. I think there is such a provision even in the Constitution which clarifies the matter. The question of pay, of course, is not addressed here and that has to be dealt with separately elsewhere.”
“Sir, I wish to get some clarifications from the Minister. I wonder why is it necessary to have clause 3 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. Have there been cases where a Judge has failed to deliver his reserved judgment at a later date after his appointment had expired or terminated? Following on that, is the Judge also required to prepare his notes of evidence and grounds of decision if there were an appeal on his judgment after he has left the service? On the definition of "Judge", it includes a Judicial Commissioner being a person appointed to exercise the powers of a Judge. Just a clarification. Do Judicial Commissioners get the same salary although they are not Judges? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, in answer to his first question, as far as I can recall, there were at least one or two instances where a situation did occur that a Judge did not finally render his judgment before his termination or expiry of his term of appointment. I think such instances will be very rare. But to provide for that eventuality, this amendment is necessary. I am sure that in the present-day context, it is unlikely that this situation will arise. But if it does arise, I think we must provide that in that case, it will be permissible for the Judge to give his judgment, which has been reserved, at a later date. I understand that in one or two instances which happened previously, an option was given to the parties concerned that they could either agree to another Judge arriving at a decision based on the transcripts of the notes or to have the matter tried de novo, all over again. So it is to save time and effort that this provision is included.”
“I just want to know what is the percentage of pay increases based on their current pay.”
“At these promotion exercises, what are the benefits they would get if they were promoted? Are the benefits given in terms of ranking or pay increases? If so, how much?”
“In actuality, there were 5,000 teachers who were promoted, and not 7,500.”
“I understand that the first batch was mainly for Principals and Vice-Principals, and not for teachers.”
“The Minister said that 7,500 teachers were promoted in the last exercise. Were they promoted in the first batch or second batch of the exercise?”
“When I vote for the motion, I am not voting against the SDP. I am voting for the long-term interest of the SDP. If the SDP, which is now run by people who do not take a stand on this issue and say categorically that the judiciary is independent and has the highest integrity, then I think the SDP has got no future. What is the SDP trying to achieve? Is it just trying to be one of those irresponsible opposition parties that have come and gone? Or is it really going to contribute to making Singapore a success? I have said many a time that the Opposition must in fact be better than the PAP. We have to contribute as much, if not more than, the PAP in terms of nation building. The Oppositon has got a responsibility. The Government has a duty in nation building. So has the Opposition. And there are many issues in which the Opposition can enter into for the good of the people. I think my stand in the Opposition has been very very clear. But unfortunately, there are others who are very ambitious. They come into politics at 30 years old and they hope to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore at 34. Singapore has a viable system and I do not think that any Opposition should try to sing to the tune of people outside Singapore, whose intentions are in fact questionable in regard to the prosperity and success of Singapore. [Applause].”
“A lot of talk has been made about the free air ticket. Apparently, it was paid for by students. But if I were asked for my view on this air ticket, I would say that they should not have accepted it. It is given by students who are not working. If I have already started work, I should pay for my own ticket. Why get it from the poor students? I think, in principle, it is just not honourable. It is not right to get students who are not working to pay for you when you are working and you have an income. What does it show? It just reflects the character of the man. Whatever he can get, he gets, whether it is $100 or $200! There was also a serious attack on the Chief Justice - a crony of Lee Kuan Yew. If I were there, I would have rebutted and said that there is no such thing. It is a very serious thing to say that the Chief Justice is a crony of the Senior Minister. He cannot just stand there and do nothing. I do not know whether Mr Yong Pung How and Mr Lee Kuan Yew are good friends, because they were students together. But I know for sure that they do have high respect for each other. And they both feel that they have responsibilities towards Singapore and contribute in their own way. The Leader of the Opposition has already given his reasons for the way he would vote. But to me, this is an important issue which the Opposition must take a stand. For me, I will vote for the motion. I will support it. An hon. Member: That is right.”
“To me, above all, in the Opposition, we must be good and patriotic Singaporeans. We must not go around the world denouncing Singapore. Some hon. Members: Yes.”