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 27 of 85.
“They have to convert their system from the so-called egalitarian system to the free market system. Singapore has a free market system, but we are still evolving. The Government has commenced its privatisation programme. Singapore society is not static. We are changing all the time, hoping to improve ourselves. We have a good thing now but, of course, Singaporeans hope that we will get a better thing. So I think it is the duty not only of the Opposition but of all Singaporeans to be vigilant, to make sure that a good thing does not turn bad. Why? Because, as you know, human beings are greedy. Look at Japan. It has been prosperous for over 40 years. Then what happens? Politicians there in the LDP, which has been the ruling power for over 40 years, I believe, have become greedy. But luckily, in Japan, there are patriotic and good people in the opposition who are ready to take over power and make sure that things do not get too bad for Japan. If we take the example of Japan, Singapore must also put in its place an Opposition, but not any Opposition. Singapore must have a good, responsible and effective Opposition. That is the aim. I think of all responsible people in the Opposition, it is to make sure that Singapore has a good, honest Opposition. To me, Opposition means that we have to be honourable. On the Opposition, we must be honest and not dishonest. To me, the Opposition must be truthful, and not be liars and cheats. Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear!”
“Some people think that the Opposition's duty is to tear down the system and one of the pillars popularly denounced, especially by people like Francis Seow, is the judiciary. I said "no", we should not do it. The SDP, in particular, should not do that. The present system that has been built up over the past 30 years has served Singapore well and Singaporeans have become prosperous. We have a good thing in hand, and I do not think we should destroy it. Our judiciary system is now under attack. As has been mentioned by Members of the House, it has been voted the best in Asia, endowed with integrity, where people can get their case heard with confidence. This assessment is not by Singaporeans. This assessment is by foreigners. If foreigners, who have no particular interest in Singapore, have said that the standard of integrity in our courts is the highest in Asia and is incorruptible, I think Singaporeans have got absolutely no right to denounce our judiciary. Foreigners say so. It is not us. If Singaporeans say so, people might say that we want to praise our own system. But foreigners have got no particular interest and yet they say Singapore's judiciary is honest and incorruptible. And yet some people still deem fit to attack our judiciary. I myself have no doubt that our judiciary is independent and has the highest standard of integrity. But is the Singapore system perfect? Is Singapore's political system perfect and there is no role for the Opposition? The answer, of course, is no. No political system in the world is perfect. Nobody has found a perfect political system yet. The Russians and the Chinese have tried the Communist system. They think it would build utopias, but what happened. They failed miserably.”
“At this juncture, I am not in any way running down the SDP. In fact, that is the party I founded. I am against those who are now in charge of the SDP. They are turning the SDP upside down and making it beyond recognition. When I first started politics in 1976, I said that I would be a constructive, honest and sincere Opposition and I have not, for the last 19 years, deviated from that philosophy. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Would Williams College confer high honours on Mr Goh Chok Tong, if he were not the Prime Minister of Singapore or has not contributed to the economic success of Singapore? I do not think so. But the people at Williams College are no fools. It is precisely that they know Mr Goh Chok Tong, as Prime Minister of Singapore, has in fact contributed to the economic success of Singapore that an honorary doctorate degree was conferred on him. Therefore, it is wrong to say that one can attend and take part in the alternative panel discussion because Goh Chok Tong went there as a private citizen. I have not been consulted by the SDP. If I were consulted, I would have advised them against sending a delegation to attend the alternative panel discussion at Williams College. I give my reasons. One, the SDP does not need such publicity. Two, the fact that the SDP was there, it had already given support to that occasion because the purpose for which the alternative panel discussion was specifically organised was to denounce the honouring of Mr Goh Chok Tong and also to denounce the political system in Singapore which includes, of course, the judiciary. Three, as Singaporeans, we must have human decency, good manners and behave honourably. As Singaporeans, it is really in bad taste to attend a function organised by foreigners to denounce the conferring of high honours on our own Prime Minister. If we, as Singaporeans, do not respect our own Prime Minister, how else do you expect foreigners to respect Singapore's Prime Minister. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“This man wants the centre-stage. He wants the centre-stage all the time. I think it is this character which sends him to Williamstown. He thought he could get centre-stage there and he could get some publicity and score some political points. Mr Speaker, Sir, but what is more important that has happened in Williamstown is that there are certain people there who would like to see Singapore being run down and attacked Singapore. The issue here is not just about people like Chee Soon Juan who come and go in any event but about the survival of Singapore. Singapore's survival is at stake because there is an attack on the basic institution of Singapore and on the system of Singapore. And it is the duty of loyal Opposition to defend Singapore. If I were asked: whether I would attend this alternative panel at Williamstown on 15th September, my answer would certainly be "no". I would not have gone even if I were given a free return air ticket. Why not? If you know the motive, the reasons why they want to hold the alternative panel, no decent Singaporean would attend that meeting. The purpose of that meeting was specifically held to denounce our political system and, in particular, our judiciary. I say that it is not right to attend that meeting. In fact, it is very wrong. Any Singaporean with some sense of decency and good manners will tell you that it is wrong to attend. But some will even dare to say, "Well, Mr Goh Chok Tong went to Williams College on a private visit." People who said that are either completely naive or dishonest. I can tell you that those who aspire to win Parliamentary elections are not that naive. Therefore, the people who said that must be completely dishonest.”
“Much obliged, Sir. During the break, I have the opportunity to read the speech of Francis Seow, the famous fugitive from Singapore, who has been making headlines of himself in America. This passage that I have looked into has, in fact, already been read by Mr Chay. But I think there is no harm reading it again because of the serious allegations there. It says here: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Goh Chok Tong the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent IHT libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious allegation of our judiciary and of our courts in Singapore. And what astounds me is that the Secretary-General of the SDP was present there. Instead of saying that he agreed to many of the things spoken by Francis Seow, he should immediately, after the speech, stand up and say that the judiciary in Singapore is not at all like that of what has been made out by Francis Seow. That is the position he should have taken. And it also surprises me that the Leader of the Opposition in this House has not come out with the position in regard to the independence and integrity of the judiciary because he has not taken a stand on what Francis Seow had said in Williamstown. It saddens me that the SDP is now run by a megalomaniac.”
“Sir, while we are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to appear in this House, may I be given leave, Mr Speaker, to join in this debate?”
“Sir, I believe this acute problem of too many foreign workers and the crimes committed by them are due to the acute shortage of accommodation for foreign workers. I have clients who have engaged foreign workers but are unable to get proper accommodation for them. It is probably because workers without proper accommodation have to go from worksite to worksite to get accommodation. The employers are paying large sums of money in terms of foreign worker levy. I would like to know whether the Minister is willing to use some of these levies to provide accommodation for this massive number of foreign workers.”
“Are there other weak stations for the North-East line from the section at World Trade Centre to Little India?”
“Who pays for the deficit at the two weak stations at Marina Bay and Chinese Garden?”
“My point is that the facts are already there and it should be changed now. Is the Minister going to do it? What is he waiting for? The facts are so clear cut.”
“The question is: is it not time to have different categories of COEs for motorcycles?”
“Sir, it would appear to me that it is inequitable since motorcycle prices vary so much, if you buy a 50 cc Honda Cub and you buy a big Harley Davidson costing $40,000-$50,000, and the COE costs $4,000. Do you not think that it is inequitable? The inequity is so clear cut. I do not know the price of a Honda Cub. It is probably under $2,000. If you buy a Harley Davidson, it costs $40,000-$50,000, and you pay $4,000 for the COE. There is an extreme inequity between the people who are buying small motorcycles and the big ones.”
“Sir, the prices of HDB flats have gone up quite high. Do these scale fees cover the sale and purchase of HDB flats?”
“I am talking about a private school. It is obviously not registered with the Ministry of Education. There are private law tutors in Singapore and there are certain other private schools that cater for external examinations. They must of course be registered and certified to run a school. But I do not know what he meant by "connected" with the Ministry of Education.”
“In the case where a private student is taking, say, an external examination through a private school, will he get deferment?”
“Sir, one of the grounds for deferment is to take examinations. If a candidate is enroled in a private school and he wants to take examination through a private school, will he get deferment?”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State has said that there are two schools to be built for such children. How many students will each school accommodate?”
“Sir, I support the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill. It is rational of the Government to put all transport matters under the charge of one authority. A Member has said that this Bill is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation so far to be passed by Parliament, as it intends to rationalise and regulate the transport systems in Singapore. The LTA is also poised to become one of the richest statutory boards as it has powers of revenue collection from motorists. One of the main functions of the LTA is to link up the various transportation systems such as MRT, the proposed light rail system, motorcars, buses and taxis. Various suggestions have already been made by Members to improve the transportation system by linking the various transport systems together. I would suggest that the Minister, in addition to the transport systems already suggested, also look into the possibility of providing more facilities for cyclists. The humble bicycle does not seem to stand out as one of the possible means of transportation. In Europe and China, the bicycle is widely used. In Holland and Denmark which I have visited, the bicycle is a common mode of transportation. In Copenhagen, certain parts of the road have been designated and reserved for bicycles only. Bicycle lanes are part of the road system in those countries. I wish the Minister could also introduce bicycle lanes on Singapore roads. I would suggest that perhaps for a start, the Minister could consider a pilot project by constructing bicycle lanes in certain housing estates, with a view to making bicycle lanes widespread in Singapore. I hope the Minister will take up this suggestion.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate?”
“Does the Minister agree that in fact class sizes of 40 to 43 are counter-productive because the teachers in such big classes are overworked. They cannot teach effectively.”
“The Minister has said that Singapore is short of teachers. So the reason for not reducing the class size is in fact the shortage of teachers and probably the shortage of buildings and a lack of other facilities. It is not the educational fact that teachers can in fact teach more effectively in smaller classes.”
“Sir, the Minister said that class size in Japan was large and yet they had good results. Does the Minister realise that they have some kind of force-feed system there? The students are sent to cram classes to force knowledge into them. In Singapore, I think we are getting near to that with the vast increase in private tuition. Is this evidence not an indictment of a large class size?”
“Sir, would the North-East line follow approximately the Serangoon/Upper Serangoon Roads all the way to Punggol?”
“Sir, in fact, there are two pieces of vacant land at Potong Pasir Constituency adjacent to Upper Sera ngoon Road. They are in fact ready for the construction of a station. Does the Minister not think that it would be more feasible to build the station once the line is built rather than to wait later on when prices would have gone up?”
“Sir, why is the proposed station at Potong Pasir considered a "weak" station?”
“All Singaporeans, whether they are supporters of the ruling party or the Opposition, have to be loyal to Singapore and when there is a dispute with a foreign country, they must close ranks with the ruling party and all Singaporeans and stand united. This is the message that Singaporeans must give to all the people of other countries. Having said that, I must clarify that I am not pro-PAP. I am pro-Singapore.”
“If it really had insights of our neighbours' character, especially the Filippinos who are so emotional and volatile, it would have set a longer date to hang Flor Contemplacion about 2 1/2 months later. Or at least the Government should have fixed the date for hanging at a later date when the elections in the Philippines have been held and all the election fervour has blown over. After all, the Flor Contemplacion case arose in 1991 and it was a four-year matter. So a delay of another 2 1/2 months would not make any difference to the Government. I say that the Government handled the timing of the execution of Flor Contemplacion very badly. However, the issue of the Government refusing to accommodate President Fidel Ramos' request to postpone the hanging of Flor Contemplacion is a different matter. The Opposition has to be clear in its mind that this is an international matter. It is not a case of the Opposition in Singapore against the Government on a domestic issue. This is a matter between Singapore and a foreign country, in this instance, the Philippines. The Opposition, being loyal to the country, must side our country. I would, therefore, not condemn the Singapore Government for turning down President Ramos' request to delay the hanging of Flor Contemplacion by two weeks. I would not allow the foreign press to use the Opposition as a club to hit at our Government. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I support the first part of the motion. As regards the second part of the motion, I am certain that Flor Contemplacion was given a fair trial. In fact, I read in the papers that she was tried not once, but twice, and was allowed two appeals. She was also allowed to petition for clemency to the President, but that petition was refused. After Flor Contemplacion had exhausted all her remedies of appeal, the Government then proceeded to fix the execution date before the anti-Singapore hysteria in the Philippines arose. The date fixed for the hanging of Flor Contemplacion was 17th March 1995. It was quite obvious that the Government authorities fixed that date in complete ignorance of what was happening in the Philippines. I quote Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Acting Minister for Community Development and Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs: `We thought it was just a very straightforward case of one maid murdering another maid and therefore one maid has got to be punished.' And he said further: `And we really could not understand why this reaction came from the Filipinos. We did not expect it.' I am surprised that the Government which professes always to be on the ball did not see the consequences of executing Flor Contemplacion on a date close to the Philippine elections. Did the officials in the Singapore Embassy in Manila give the Government proper feedback that there was an underlying seething problem in the Philippines due to the inability of the government there to provide jobs for its home citizens and that they have to seek lowly, humiliating jobs abroad? I think the Government has proven that it is not that skilful in relating to our neighbours.”
“I would like to follow up with a supplementary question. The Minister said that it is not incumbent on the Ministry to scan the various courses offered by foreign universities. Will the Minister consider allowing CPF to be used if these part-time courses are offered by recognised local institutions, for example, the National University of Singapore or one of the polytechnics, as it is done with full time studies?”
“Sir, I take up from what the Minister has said. He said that if you have got legal backing the gamblers do not have easy credit. Does the Minister not agree with me that even today there are many loansharks around the coffeeshops and if the legal centres do not give credit, they could easily get loans from the loan sharks and with that money they go and bet? It will in fact make the situation even worse for them because they will then be in the hands of the loan sharks. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I am not quite sure what the Member is suggesting. Is he actually suggesting that we should be providing credit facilities so that people do not go to loan sharks? AREA LICENSING SCHEME IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (Review) 8. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for Communications whether his Ministry has completed its review of the Area Licensing Scheme in the Central Business District and if he will consider ending the operational hours on Saturdays at 10.30 a.m.”
“Can I ask a question, Sir? I notice that this Convention was enacted in 1980. Why is there this long delay of nearly 15 years before Singapore accepts this Convention? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Convention became operational only on 1st January 1988. I think it was wise for Singapore to wait to see how the Convention works, whether it works effectively, and having waited for about seven years now, we are convinced that Singapore would benefit by acceding to the Convention. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. REMUNERATION OF SPEAKER”
“Sir, what is the expected range of prices shopowners have to pay when their shops are upgraded?”
“Clarification from the hon. Minister. Next year when the S-League starts, can I ask what will become of the present football clubs? Will they be absorbed into the regional clubs, or what?”
“Sir, thank you for giving time for this debate. With that, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, we increased the rates effectively on 1st April 1994 together with the introduction of GST. We sent the letter on 4th April 1994. How can the Minister say that he knew about it from the newspapers? It was quite soon after. I think it is quite reasonable even if there was already a publication about that news. Sir, on the point about explaining Government policies, the Government policies can be explained through the newspapers, radio, or TV, and they do not have to get a prospective PAP candidate to explain Government policies to the residents. But in any event, during my time at Potong Pasir, I did not see any of the PAP prospective candidates explaining Government policies to the grassroots. The only time I read in the newspaper that they were there was when they were telling the hawkers there not to increase their prices when GST was introduced. That was the only news I heard of them promoting Government policy. Other than that, what have they done? Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Sir, in a democratic country, any political party can become a ruling party or an opposition party. So, although there is a distinction between the ruling party and the opposition party, their objectives are the same and, that is, to serve the national objective for the well-being of the people, albeit in different ways or perspectives. Any government should treat all Opposition Members of Parliament fairly. In the other constituencies, all advisers are the incumbent Members of Parliament. However, in the Opposition wards, the MPs should also become the advisers to these grassroots organisations. I think there should be equal treatment and this is a fair and universal principle.”
“Yes. I do not deny that the Government's duty is to govern the country. I do not deny that at all. The Government has set up grassroots organisations. I do not deny that they can also set up grassroots organisations. But the point is that - I have to repeat myself - these grassroots organisations are supported by public funds and they are for public good. So the issue now is whether or not an Opposition MP, as an adviser, in contrast with a prospective PAP candidate, would be a better adviser and could serve the purposes of the constituents better. You have got two choices. You can appoint the elected MP and in my case I have nearly 70% support. So straightaway you have already got 70% support for your grassroots organisations if the MP is appointed as the adviser, whereas Mr Andy Gan has got only 30%. So I would like to ask the Minister, on record, who has got better support. 3.15 pm”
“Sir, there are two points. Firstly, the PCF kindergarten at Potong Pasir was closed down because the Town Council at Potong Pasir raised the service and conservancy charges. This is half-truth and not the full truth. We raised it to show the market value of the S&C charges in relation to premises used for kindergartens. The PCF centre is not the only kindergarten in Potong Pasir. There is another kindergarten there run by a church organisation. It is called Kindercare. We did the same thing for them. In all our letters informing them that the S&C charges had to be raised, we enclosed a form. It says they can apply to us, and we will immediately give them up to 90% discount. The other kindergarten said, "All right. We will apply." And immediately they got the discount. So the amount of increase, if I can remember from memory, is only about $35. The PCF centre would also get the same rate. If I remember correctly, it is $15 and $45. But Mr Andy Gan, the adviser to the kindergarten over there, refused to apply. He is too proud to apply to an Opposition MP for a reduction. And that is the reason why he has to proudly bear the full rate. Whose fault is that? We asked them to apply and enclosed a form. They just had to put a signature, and they would get a discount. But he refused. So who is to blame? It is not us. Government has been asking everybody to apply to the CCC for all kinds of approval. I, as an elected MP, have to apply, but I get the thumbs down in regard to CIPC funds. So why can they not? Mr Andy Gan, I think, should learn some humility if he is going to be the next MP. That is the first lesson. That is in regard to the S&C charges that he was talking about. I cannot recall the other point.”
“If that is done, I would imagine the beneficiaries would in the end be the residents themselves, instead of having the prospective PAP candidate leading the so-called grassroots and there is an incumbent MP. Of course, the incumbent MP is there to make sure he gets elected and the oncoming onslaught from the prospective candidate is to make sure that he is removed. So there is already a clash there. How do you resolve this problem? The best solution is to let the incumbent MP do his job, and if he does not do his job, then he gets out-voted.”
“Sir, in the case of Potong Pasir, it is not a question of insufficient space that Opposition activists' children were not admitted to the PCF kindergarten. In fact, two of the kindergartens in Potong Pasir had been closed down. It shows that there are not enough students or whatever reasons. So it is not a question of not enough space. They can easily open them up and put more students in there. But they did not do that. The other point is about Opposition MPs being the advisers of grassroots organisations in their constituencies. I think there is a case for it because these organisations are supported by public funds and, therefore, you cannot say that they belong to the Government. In fact, they belong to the citizens of Singapore. They are set up with taxpayers' money; they are not money from the PAP party that supports them. So I think there is a case for Opposition MPs to be advisers in these organisations. If you really call them "grassroots organisations", then the person who should be guiding them should be the MP who is in charge. If he does not guide them properly and does not do a good job, of course, he will lose his seat as an MP. So he has got an interest. And if you set the rules that there should be no politics, I think it can be done. Just as I have been trying very hard at our town council to make it above politics. But, unfortunately, Mr Andy Gan has not allowed me to do so. He started the ball rolling, putting his photo on the notice board, I can also put my photo on the notice board. So it is a question of tit-for-tat, who starts first. If we set the ground rules, it can be done.”
“They started it, we follow. So that is fair. All right, let us play the game.”
“Sir, I have also anticipated that question. We in the Potong Pasir Town Council have not bothered to slap a fee on the RCs or try to take their notice boards down. But we will just treat it as a tit-for-tat. If they can do it now, we can do it too. I am glad the Minister has answered in the manner that he has answered. So at least we play on an even level field.”
“Much obliged, Sir. The most recent rampant example of promoting a PAP prospective candidate is the highlighting of his news and pictures in all the notice boards at Potong Pasir. That is a fairly strong example. Of course, the other example is his frequent walkabouts and everybody knows that. These are examples of promoting the interest of the PAP prospective candidate. Notice boards should be confined to social, cultural, educational, recreational or sporting activities, and not to highlight the sayings and interviews of the prospective candidate. What is the purpose of this? It is quite obvious.”
“45 pm Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): I am also going to deal with the question of Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) and Residents' Committees (RCs). I would like to raise three points with the Minister: (1) It should be clearly stipulated that MPs should automatically become the advisers of RCs and CCCs. (2) It should be clearly stipulated that the CCC and RC members must not belong to any political party. They should have no political affiliation. (3) It should clearly be stipulated that members of a CCC must be residents in the constituency. On the first point, I feel that if MPs are automatically made advisers to CCCs and RCs, then it will be in keeping with the wishes of the voters and the principles of democracy. On the second point, if the members of CCCs and RCs do not belong to any political party, it would cut down the political colour of these two organisations and to make sure that there is a balance in these organisations. On the third point, I feel that if members of the CCCs are local residents, they will have a better understanding of the local conditions. I discover that in Bukit Gombak, Potong Pasir and Nee Soon Central, the members of the CCCs have refused to endorse the funding of covered linkways for these three constituencies. I wonder if they really understand the needs of the local residents. I am beginning to doubt. I do not think any local resident will refuse to have more covered linkways in their constituency. If the Minister can adopt my three points, then he will be able to pacify the heat over the controversy for the CIPC funding.”
“In fact, they would encourage these grassroots organisations to support them in their politically motivated activities. In fact, I have observed that this has been done. Instead of these grassroots organisations concentrating their efforts in non-political activities, they are to some extent promoting the interest of the PAP prospective candidates. For example, I have already mentioned that these PAP prospective candidates, of course, would not advise their CCCs to support applications for CIPC funds by the Opposition held town councils. These grassroots organisations often do not recommend. I have known of cases where they do not recommend children of Opposition activists to get into the PCF kindergartens or to get promotion. These grassroots members often are also seen accompanying the prospective PAP candidates in their walkabouts. What does this show? It shows that these grassroots organisations are partisan. They are not neutral. And if they are partisan, I am sad to say that they will soon lose their credibility. Why? Because they will not be recognised as grassroots organisations, but people will say that they are PAP organisations. This is sad, because these grassroots organisations are supported by public funds. On balance, I would urge the Minister really to rethink again and get incumbent MPs, even in Opposition wards, to be advisers. And I am certain that these Opposition MPs, because they are MPs, will have better or more interest in the constituents than the PAP prospective candidates who are not MPs. And the public funds that are allocated for these grassroots organisations, I am sure, will be better used. 2.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JE 1500. Sir, CCCs and RCs are grassroots organisations. They are set up by the Government with taxpayers' money. The purposes for which they are set up are to promote social, cultural, educational and recreational needs of the residents of HDB estates. These organisations are also highly endowed with facilities. In order that they can carry out their work more effectively, they are provided with premises at the void decks. They are provided with ample notice boards strategically located at every block of flats, and they also have facilities available to them at the community centres. From time to time, they also get facilities from the HDB. I can say that in Opposition wards, the incumbent MPs there do not get such facilities. In fact, what the RCs and CCCs get far outweigh the facilities that are made available to the Member of Parliament there. Sir, I am bringing up this issue again. In other constituencies, all the elected Members of Parliament are automatically made advisers to the grassroots organisations, except in Opposition held wards. I would call on the Minister to rethink on this issue and appoint the MPs in Opposition wards as advisers to the grassroots organisations in place of PAP prospective candidates. I think there are good reasons. Because the purposes of these CCCs and RCs are to serve and promote the welfare of the constituents. And I think no person can do that better than the incumbent MP. The reasons are quite obvious. The aim of the PAP prospective candidates, of course, is to get elected and if they can help it, they would not assist the incumbent MP in promoting and giving more facilities to the constituencies.”
“Sir, Mr Maidin, I think, makes the issue stand on its head. He asked why the Opposition wards need CIPC funding when they can carry on with whatever funds they have and do something. I think he should reverse it and say that all the CIPC funds be given to the Opposition wards and let all the PAP wards do the funding on their own. Why does he not reverse the argument? The other point is Mr Choo Wee Khiang of Jalan Besar GRC said that he is very happy with the system. Of course, he is happy with the system because he is having all the funds and we are not having it. I am astounded that he makes such a statement. As a senior Member of this House, I would advise Mr Choo that if he does not know his constituency better than his grassroots, I think he had better watch out at the next election. With that, I thank you for your indulgence, Sir, and withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $498,806,550 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $11,345,011,200 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head J -”
“Sir, I think the answer from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is rather unsatisfactory. His Ministry controls the fund and of the two Ministries, MCD and MND, I would say that MND should be the Ministry that should initiate a change on the procedure of application for CIPC funds because it is controlling the purse strings. It is not MCD. So I would urge the Minister not to pass the buck over to MCD and say, "It is none of my Ministry's concern. Let them solve it." I would say the buck ends with MND. I would urge the Minister to take the initiative to change this system of application for CIPC funds. I repeat myself again. If this system is not changed, none of the Opposition MPs would get any assistance from CIPC for funds for community projects. Can I urge the Minister to initiate the change?”
“The Minister talks about the CCC. I have an amendment on the CCC and I will talk more about it. But he says that the CCC is not politically motivated. I think most CCCs, if not all, are highly politically motivated. This is proven by the fact that I have been an MP at Potong Pasir for nearly 10 years and the CCC has not lifted a finger to apply for CIPC funds. The best person to get things moving in a constituency must be the MP. It cannot be anybody else. If he wants his seat, he must do something. If he does not do anything, he will be kicked out. Whereas for the CCC, it makes no difference to them. So the CCC is not the best body. I am going to repeat myself. As the system exists now, all the Opposition wards will not get any CIPC fund, and that is the reality. I have already mentioned that even in Hougang, before the Opposition MP came in, they were eagerly applying for funds. As soon as the Opposition Member came in, they say, "No, withdraw all the funds." That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the CCC has got no interest to improve the constituencies under Opposition MPs. So if you have this system, Opposition wards will not get one cent of the CIPC fund. That is the problem. So if the Minister can solve this problem, I shall be very happy.”
“Unfortunately, when I brought up this problem the last time, the Minister conveniently said that CCC was not under his charge. So I should not ask him how they approve and not approve. The Ministry of National Development is the ministry that disburses the funds and yet it is another ministry that gives the approval. Again, there is some irregularity here. Perhaps the CCC should not be made an approving body in the first instance. Maybe, as we have suggested yesterday, it should be the MP himself. Normally, the MPs are the advisors in other constituencies and the CCC in a way will take the advice of the MP. So why not cut away the CCC and let the MP, who is the elected Member, make the application or approve it? If the MP does not know the wishes of the grassroots, then he should not be the MP at all. If he cannot read the ground, I am afraid he will probably be voted out in the next election. There is no other person who has got more interest in these projects than the MP himself if he wants to remain an MP. I would suggest that the procedure be corrected and put the MP to be the person either to approve or to make the application. The town councils can make the application and approval given by the MP, just like MPs have approved many other applications. I would suggest this to the Minister.”