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 3 of 85.
“Sir, may I be allowed to clarify the two points mentioned by Mr Inderjit Singh as regards the grassroots people attending the National Day celebration dinner. The other point is on the $80 million promised. On the first point, I did not quite get his point. The information I got from those who attended the National Day dinner was that they all said that they were grassroots of the MPs. Therefore, I just repeated what they told me. I did not know that many of them were in fact guests of the PA. Anyway, if I appeared to have misled the House, I apologise for it. As regards the $80 million, that sum was promised to Potong Pasir to upgrade the flats there. I do not think Mr Inderjit Singh has that promise.”
“Would the wages in the bottom end be further pushed downwards by these foreign workers? Due to the introduction of foreign workers into our workforce, a sweeper today working full-time is forced to accept $600 a month. I am uncertain whether that rate of pay attracts CPF contributions. Even at the low level of pay, a Singapore worker who needs a job has no choice but to accept a low pay. If a Singaporean rejects that job, the cleaning contractor - this is my experience in Potong Pasir - can easily fall back on foreign workers. Foreign workers maintain the income gap between the high and low wage workers. The Government should think of ways to alleviate the low wage plight of our uneducated workers. I know the Government abhors minimum wages but I still contend that the Government should take another look at the introduction of minimum wages for Singaporeans only. Singapore is a first-world country. Let us aim to make it a first-world country in terms of dignity and to show respect for our working men and women. We should earnestly explore the possibility of introducing minimum wage schemes in our country so that we can confidently tell the world that we are a truly first-world country. The President's speech seems to have left no stones unturned. He appeared to have covered nearly all the problem areas that confront our nation-building. I just hope that all policies that the Government proposes shall be fruitful and beneficial to all Singaporeans in all walks of life.”
“I would urge the four self-help groups to merge and if that is not possible, for the time being, to take steps to accept members and applicants for aid from outside their own racial group. I would like to mention another Government policy which highlights communalism. I am referring to the formation of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). At every General Election, the minority candidates of GRCs must appear before a race committee to certify that he or she is an Indian, Malay or Eurasian, which means that the issue of race is brought up at every General Election. I think this is taking a step backwards in Singapore's attempt to build cohesiveness amongst its citizens. This is one of the reasons why the Opposition calls for the scrapping of the GRCs and maintain only Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). It has been said that education can break the poverty cycle of the poor. If we believe that, then we should help the poor kids by making tuition not only available but also affordable. Tuition fees must be kept low. Poor children also have diverse interests. Various programmes must be made available to those poor children in our schools to pursue their interests. I would call on Government to keep the cost of tuition fees low and affordable for all students who would like to pursue their diverse interests and to develop their creative talents. To alleviate the plight of the poor, more should be done to caregivers and make dental and medical fees more affordable. The President, in his speech, welcomes foreigners to live and work in Singapore. My concern is: would foreign workers widen the income gap? Foreign workers are willing to accept lower wages than those paid to Singapore workers.”
“Our army and our police force must be on the alert at all times and our citizens must be educated to cooperate with our armed forces and the police. Even tourists must be encouraged to help if they can. Fighting terrorism is an all-out war. Therefore, the cohesiveness of our society is paramount. Civilians must be thought to be fiercely loyal to Singapore and they must never fall prey to the lure of fanatics and be dragged in as volunteers to be trained as suicide bombers. We have seen what happened in England not that long ago. The three terrorist bombers were home-grown lads. We must never let that happen in Singapore. Singaporeans must all unite. The whole nation must unite to make sure that not even one terrorist bomb is exploded within our borders because our economy shall be jeopardised as our burgeoning economy depends heavily on foreign investors. The confidence in the stability of Singapore should not be shaken. At home, we must strengthen the cohesiveness among the different races. We must do more to enhance the cohesion, trust and confidence within the different communities. May I suggest that the different racialist based self-help groups like Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and the Eurasian Association be merged and act as one body instead of maintaining the dichotomy of these self-help groups which, for the purposes of maintaining racial harmony and cohesiveness in Singapore, is unhealthy. These different racial groups should follow NKF. NKF is multi-racial. It accepts and treats patients from all racial groups. It does not distinguish whether one is a Chinese, a Malay, an Indian or others. Dialysis is given by NKF to anyone who needs it regardless of race, language or religion.”
“It seems that the Government's desire to promote the all-inclusive society in Singapore is a practice which is very selective. This policy does not cover all Singaporeans. It only includes citizens who shall benefit the Government. I have been elected to Parliament six times and I have yet to receive an invitation to hear the Prime Minister deliver his annual National Day Rally Speech. Why is the Opposition so ostensibly snubbed? Why is the ruling party so afraid to give recognition to the Opposition? Is this how the ruling party carries out its nation-building? The Government intends to rejuvenate old HDB estates and give life to those estates. I call on the Minister to release the $80 million budgeted for release to Potong Pasir to upgrade the HDB flats there so that the HDB estates in Potong Pasir can be rejuvenated, as intended by the Government. I applaud the Government for wanting to promote a cohesive society. This is important because Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Getting the different races and religions to co-exist in harmony is not only important for the purpose of social defence but also for maintaining security against terrorist attacks, which is a real thing in this present age. No nation can now claim that it is immune from the scourge of terrorist bombs. Many of our neighbours are victims of terrorist bombings. We have seen the terror of the Bali bombings where over 200 people were killed, many of whom were Australian tourists. Then there are the bombings in southern Thailand, India and Pakistan. Terrorists fight a war without a front. They attack indiscriminately. They feel no remorse killing innocent victims, non-combatants like children, women and the aged. For this reason, we must be continually vigilant.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, I agree with the Government's policy to strive for an all-inclusive society in Singapore. I believe this policy also means that the Government shall give fair and equal treatment to all Singapore citizens. But, as an elected Opposition Member of Parliament, the Opposition has not been included in the inclusive society in the treatment of the Opposition in Singapore. I have not received equality of treatment in relation to even the PAP candidate, let alone the PAP MPs. The PAP's candidate at Potong Pasir gets better treatment and facilities than I, the incumbent Member of Parliament for that constituency. I have not been given an office in the void deck for my MPS work. I have to carry out my MPS work in the open at the void deck. There is no privacy, no protection from the elements and no air-conditioned comfort. Since the Government wants to strive for an all-inclusive society, it should start by giving the elected Opposition MPs fair and equal treatment comparable to those given to its own PAP MPs. After all, the funds are not from the PAP but are public funds, and they should be disbursed fairly and equally to both PAP MPs and the elected Opposition MPs. It is quite obvious that the Opposition MPs have been much marginalised and are not given the benefit of the proclaimed inclusive society policy. Opposition grassroots leaders are also not invited to the annual National Day celebrations at the Istana grounds, whereas all PAP grassroots leaders are automatically invited every year to attend the function. This is another example of a Government not including Singaporeans in its so-called inclusive society.”
“Sir, at that time, processions might have been allowed and they might have gone for a legal procession, and not rioting. Rioting, in our law, is a criminal act. 3.42 pm”
“Sir, I rise to record my objection to what the last speaker has said. He mentioned that the Barisan Sosialis members were involved in a riot. By the way, how did he know that they were members from the Barisan Sosialis? Did he see the late Dr Lee Siew-Choh in the crowd? The fact that the Barisan Sosialis was an Opposition party, people might misunderstand him and think that all Opposition parties are like that. It is really not so. I think it is unfair to mention members of an Opposition party that is not represented in this House as they are unable to defend themselves.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) when will the investigations of the former CEO and his staff over matters related to the NKF scandal be fully completed; and (b) if charges will be brought against the former CEO and any of his staff. The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) commenced investigation into the affairs of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) on 18th August last year. Soon after, other agencies including the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the Ministry of Manpower also commenced simultaneous investigations into the affairs of NKF. These agencies are currently at different stages of investigations. They are also in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers on issues relating to their respective investigations. As the case has many complex details which must be thoroughly examined, it is difficult to say exactly when investigations into the case will be fully completed. As investigations into the case are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on whether charges will be made out at this juncture.”
“I made a statement first. Is the HDB willing to come together with the Town Councils or residents to decide on what are the items that the residents need to pay and what are the items the HDB needs to pay? Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: I thought that was already asked. That was what I understood the question to be. Sir, when we look at LUP, the whole idea is basically we want to upgrade the lifts to make sure that it is accessible to every floor. What do we need to do? It depends on the structure of the flats. Some flats require landing structures; some flats require more works; and some flats require lesser works. It is a total package. That is why the total package may cost differently between different blocks. So it is an integrated programme with the same objective of creating access to every floor. So, we look at the total package, we divide by the number of possible benefiting units, and that is the cost that is required now. As far as TC-LUP is concerned, the co-payment is between 5% and 12.5% (that is, the co-payment part of the residents) and the rest are to be paid by the Town Councils. As far as HDB-LUP is concerned, 5% to 12.5% by the residents, and the rest will be covered by the HDB. So, it is very clear that it is a total package, and we do not itemise. Once we itemise, it will create a lot of difficulties because one will say that is yours, and the other one will say that is mine. So, I think to be fair, to be easy, we have a whole package and we decide the co-payment component, and the rest of it will be the responsibility of either the TCs or the HDB. NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION (Status of investigations of former CEO) 8.”
“Sir, it would appear that LUP works subsidised by the HDB are dependent on whether the works are an integral part of the lift or whether they are structural items. So, am I correct to say that if they are structural, then the HDB will bear most of the costs? And if they are an integral part of the lifts, then the residents will have to pay.”
“Sir, the Government agreed to help put Singapore national soccer team in the World Cup Finals in 2010 but later the project was not carried through. It fizzled out. All Singapore soccer fans were, of course, disappointed. Singapore is a first world country but, by international standing, Singapore's sports standard is still very low. We have yet to win an Olympic gold medal. New Zealand, which has about the same population as Singapore, has already won many Olympic gold medals and her athletes have even broken world records. Why is Singapore's international sporting standard so low? I believe it is due to too much Government control in sports here. The Government should free sports. Let the sportsmen have a say and allow them to organise sports themselves. As Winston Churchill told the Americans in World War II, "Give me the weapons and we will finish the job." Will our Government allow our sportsmen to finish the job and put Singaporeans on the world sporting map?”
“Sir, in my Budget Statement speech, I brought up a specific case where a worker missed out on the Workfare Bonus. I believe it was not fully answered by the PM. This case concerns a worker who earns a basic salary of $1,200 a month. He has a wife and three children, and he worked hard and did a lot of overtime which earned him a gross salary of $2,500 a month. Since his salary of $2,500 is over the $1,200 and $1,500 Workfare Bonus upper limits, he is not entitled to the Workfare Bonus. The way the Workfare Bonus is framed is not fair to the hardworking Singaporeans. Can the Minister comment on whether something can be done for workers in this category? Employability of Older and Low-Income Workers”
“Sir, I would like to throw out some ideas on job creation. Anyone who has visited Marrakesh in Morocco would not have missed the world-renowned colourful marketplace there, known as the Djamaa el Fna. Although it is world-renowned, it is nothing more than a big open ground with mainly hawker-like food stalls and all kinds of local food and plenty of pasar malam type stalls. Then there are also all sorts of street entertainers there - musicians, performers - which bring life to and make the place really interesting. But the main attraction is still the food there. Sir, Singapore still has plenty of vacant land. I would suggest that the Government develop one of these vacant lands, charging low rentals for its use and supply perhaps transport if the land is out of town. I am sure it can attract many hawker and pasar malam stallholders, and street entertainers to this place. If the rent is low, hundreds of jobs would be cheaply created thus. Structural Unemployment”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to stop the LTA from constructing the bus-stop near the open road in front of Block 120, Potong Pasir, Avenue 1, and instead to get the bus company to use the sheltered bus-bay which has been built by the Potong Pasir Town Council at its own expense. My plea to the Minister, both privately and now in Parliament, is made entirely for the safety of hundreds of school children who shall be making use of that bus-stop in time to come. The bus-stop currently constructed by the LTA is not safe at all. When used, it shall expose the school children, on a daily basis, to extreme danger. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Minister allows that bus-stop, facing the open road to be used, one of these days, a child shall be knocked down or even killed by on-coming traffic. If the Minister does not want that to happen, then it is best not to use that bus-stop in the open road. 1.15 pm”
“Sir, I am concerned at the high failure rate at the PSLE. I wonder how effective is the enhanced support programme in cutting down the drop-out rate at the PSLE.”
“I wonder if the Minister could make a clarification for me. I wonder if the enhanced Learning Support Programme is made available to those PSLE students who have failed three times.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health and the CPF Board to allow married couples to use their Medisave to pay for IVF and any Assisted Conception Procedure (ACP). Couples who need ACP would like to ask for the following: (1) to allow Medisave withdrawals for up to five treatment cycles instead of the current three; (2) to subsidise the cost of drugs required for assisted reproduction; (3) increase the age limit for women for acceptance into ACP from the current 45 to 50 years but only if they are deemed medically fit; (4) increase the number of treatment cycles for women who enter the ACP programme at above 40 years of age, from a maximum of five treatment cycles to 10 cycles. Instead of taking a pragmatic approach, Sir, both the Ministry of Health and the CPF Board should take a more compassionate view in helping childless couples.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my question. I will put it direct to him. Does the SAF have a radio isotope scan to detect this kind of injury?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify.”
“Sir, can I have another clarification? The doctor is unable to diagnose this problem. And for six months, this soldier suffered and was in pain. Not only that, he had to do heavy duties like carrying heavy jerrycans.”
“As I said just now, I missed my cut. I do not know whether the Minister would like to reply whether they are true or not.”
“Yes, a clarification. Sir, some NS trainees are injured and they continue to suffer the injuries, because these injuries cannot be diagnosed. I would like the Minister to clarify whether the following factors caused such a situation: (1) system pattern; (2) a culture of silence; (3) the MOs are young and inexperienced, and sometimes they are impatient and they treat those who are injured as if they have committed a crime and also treat them as malingerers.”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary knows the set-up in Potong Pasir. I am the MP there and my chief rival, who is the PAP contestant in the coming election, is the adviser of the CCC. And the way how the CIPC funds are applied for is that I, as the MP, will have to write to my rival who is the adviser of the CCC for support. And if he does not give the support, I do not get it. This has been repeated many times. My applications are refused.”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary clearly knows that Opposition wards do not have grassroots. In that case, does it mean that we shall never get CIPC funds at all? Some hon. Members: You have.”
“Nowhere has seen more discrimination than in the way the CIPC funds are disbursed. The Opposition MPs are completely deprived of CIPC funds while the PAP MPs get the full quota of those funds. The injustice and unfairness is glaring. I hope that the new leadership shall make a genuine effort to rectify the incongruent situation and give Opposition MPs their share of CIPC funds. There should not be any discrimination against any Singaporean who supports the Opposition. They pay their taxes, observe the law and do their required time for National Service and why should they be treated so shabbily? Also, the Government boasts that no Singaporean shall be left behind and it wants to build an inclusive society. Those are high-sounding aims but we do not see them in reality. The Opposition in Singapore is always left behind and is not included in such benefits like the CIPC funds.”
“Sir, on the Arts School, I believe the Minister said that the academic standards are as high as the one taken by students at the Baccalaureate. If that is so, where is the time to train the students to specialise in the arts? They already spend so much time in the academic subjects.”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Senior Minister of State can clarify whether revenues collected for commercials are enough to support the operation of the TV operators, including education programmes. If so, whether it is justified for the Government to continue collecting TV licence fees.”
“Sir, many in the public feel that the TV and radio licences should be scrapped. They say that as much as one-third of the air time is dedicated to commercial broadcasts. The revenue collected is phenomenal, especially now that the TV operator in Singapore is a complete monopoly and can dictate the price for advertising in their broadcasts. I understand that for a non-moving advertisement on TV comprising just a few seconds' flash will cost the advertiser at least $2,500. What more if the advertisement is a moving clip? The cost of the advertisement must be very high. The revenue collected by the TV operator is big enough to support its operations, including broadcasts of educational programmes. In any event, many TV programmes are repeats, especially the popular Jackie Chan and other movies. Viewers are, of course, unhappy.”
“Sir, I have only one point to make and that is to ask whether the Minister is agreeable to recommend to the transport company to reduce the one flat rate for feeder bus services and the LRT. I understand that the feeder service is now charging 80 cents per passenger and for a transfer passenger, it is 65 cents. In the case of the LRT, it is 90 cents flat. This is unfair for people who want to catch only one stage of the travel, especially for workers who have got two or three children and they wish to travel only one stage. If the fare could be reduced, say, for the LRT from 90 cents to 60 cents, for a worker with three children, he can save as much as $1 per day. This certainly will be a great help to him. I wonder if the Minister is agreeable. Wheelchair-accessible Buses”
“Sir, in the past, the Police used to organise Boys' Club. I think that is a very good thing rather than putting a curfew on the youths of today. The Boys' Club, I think, is more meaningful. They can keep the boys away from the streets and also keep them away from doing mischief. The Boys' Club can teach these boys social skills. I think this Boys' Club should be revived rather than to impose curfew on the youths, which, I believe, is counter-productive.”
“Sir, I have two points to make. One is on the checkpoint and the other one is on traffic jams at that checkpoint. Sir, there is a need to tighten the security at Woodlands Checkpoint. Recently, there were two murderers who escaped from Singapore to Malaysia by just slipping through the Woodlands Checkpoint. I wonder if a terrorist can do the same after letting off a bomb in Singapore. The second point is on the traffic jams at the Woodlands Checkpoint. Sir, I had complained of this last year and I believe the Minister promised to deploy more manpower there. Anyone, having travelled through the Checkpoint, will notice that the jams are still there. They are very crowded especially during peak hours. But I notice that during the peak hours, many of the check-in booths were left vacant and empty. I wonder whether they can be manned with manpower. Handling the Young”
“Sir, I have three points to make. Firstly, I ask the Prime Minister in the coming elections to provide two or more election rally sites at Potong Pasir constituency. In the last general election in 2001, only one rally site was provided. That was not enough. I ask the Prime Minister please to provide at least two or more rally sites this time round. Secondly, Sir, I would like to request that the election deposit be reduced from $13,000 to $5,000, or less. The Opposition candidate has to finance his own election expenses, including paying for the election deposit. Opposition candidates are not wealthy people and many cannot find a ready cash of $13,000 to pay for the election deposit. It is also really not democratic to bar serious candidates from taking part in the election. The $5,000, which I propose, is big enough a sum to show that a candidate is a serious contender in the election. The third point I wish to make is that it concerns police action. In the last two general elections, the Police had been very strict with the Opposition. They did not allow the Opposition candidates to come down from the stage to speak and bond with the crowds. They insisted that the Opposition parties station a vehicle near the election stage and, immediately after the election rally, they whisked the Opposition candidates quickly away from the rally site. This is unnecessary as it only makes the crowd angry because they want to meet the Opposition candidates after each election rally. They are strong Opposition supporters and there is absolutely no danger to the candidates. I hope the Police shall not be so strict and allow Opposition candidates to meet their supporters after an election rally. 3.30 pm”
“" Yes, Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew does not need to take responsibility for this because this is an inevitable phenomenon in the process of modernisation of the nation and the society. I personally feel that, at the present moment, there are many policies and measures that are inclined towards the male perspective. The lack of a feminine angle in the system and the imbalanced family structure are the critical factors that cause the economically-independent females to avoid getting married and reject the duty of procreation. I hope the Government will consider the points I have raised concerning the status of women in Singapore. I hope that the Government will immediately start to focus on this trend, and adjust some of its policies so that they could take off from the angle of equality between the sexes thereby affirming and elevating the status of the women vis-a-vis the men. Finally, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his fiscal policy and this Budget to build up an inclusive society where no one is left behind, so that Singapore will become the best home for all its citizens. 2.15 pm”
“I am only proposing that the Government uses a more gender balance approach when proposing and implementing new policies. What I am asking for is to have a better balance between the male and the female citizens in our society. The women of Singapore are grateful to Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew for giving the female citizens of Singapore equal opportunities to be educated and to find better employment during the 1960s. Since they have been given equal opportunities to be educated and to secure good employment, then why can we go one step forward to give all female citizens equal status as their male counterparts in society, the economy and in politics? As a newly emerging city-state, the important issue is how do we let the womenfolks who hold up half the sky give full play to their capabilities. This is one issue that relates to our social harmony and national development and prosperity. The realisation of social harmony and national development depends not only on political stability, strong economic growth, formidable defence and religious harmony, equality and tolerance, but also on the equality and harmony between the sexes. In a speech entitled "Oriental and Western Culture and Modernisation" delivered at the "China Science and Humanities Forum" organised by the China Science Academy in 2004, Minister Mentor Lee said, "In the past, I felt that I have to bear the responsibility of allowing all female citizens of Singapore equal opportunities to be educated and the best job opportunities in the 1960s, resulting in the phenomenon of many female university graduates not getting married subsequently. Now, I believe I was merely bringing the phenomenon forward by some two decades or so.”
“The Government introduced various measures to encourage female undergraduates to get married and have children after their graduation. The Social Development Unit was formed. Childcare centres were set up extensively, flexi-work hours were provided for female employees, procreation incentives were given, more time-off for husbands to visit their wives in confinement, and even paid leave for fathers to look after their sick children. But these measures are fundamentally built on the basic viewpoint that family obligations are the bounden duties of women. So the women have not been given true equality. This does not go to the root of the problem. It will not effectively resolve the problem of low fertility rate in Singapore. Singapore women's social obligations are generally becoming heavier and heavier, with no likelihood of relieving themselves of their families' obligations. They have to contend with three layers of pressure from their personal, family and social obligations. We should find some ways to help them get out of this predicament. Many working women have told me that having worked hard for an entire day, they would still have to tend to the household chores when they reached home. Even helping their children with the school homework is also considered to be part of their duty. If we cannot address these problems faced by women with regard to family, work and society responsibilities and obligations, and implement concrete measures, then it will be very difficult for Singaporean women to maintain a between family and work and yet remain true to themselves. I hope that the Government will look at the basic social structure and value, and create a new society where there is a balance in the gender roles. I have to declare that I am not a feminist.”
“The Government seems to be sending out a message though its policy that female citizens of Singapore ought to be contented with their present situation whereby they can walk out of the kitchen and get into the main hall, and that they could have a happy family and an income that could make them self-reliant. This may not be the actual message that the Government and the Cabinet wish to send out, but it is the kind of message that many Singapore women have "heard". While appealing for the female citizens to walk out of the comfort zone of their homes, to take upon the citizens' obligations and to join the workforce, the GovenrmentGovernment is also insisting that the women folks should not abandon their traditional roles as wives and mothers. For example, the female employees are provided with the flexi-work hour system and thereby enabling them to get married and bear children - for posterity of the nation. Only then, would they be deemed to have contributed to the nation, and be affirmed and endorsed by the Government to enjoy benefits like tax relief, baby bonus, etc, under the Budget packages. But, for those female citizens who are single and have not produced any children, apart from the basic Growth Dividend, they do not get any other form of recognition. The Government does not seem to recognise that the female citizens, although not having done National Service, have also made contributions to the nation. After the 90s, the awareness of independence and freedom from domestic responsibilities has gradually been formed amongst the women of Singapore. They refused to get married, refused to have children, while actively pursuing their careers.”
“Since 1965, the conservative and traditional nature of our society has become a marked contrast to our modernisation and economic develop ment. Singapore has become an Asian city with a modern outlook, but a relatively conservative and patriarchal society. The social status of women in Singapore remains not too high. In Singapore, the materialistic lives of our women have apparently improved. However, compared to their male counterparts, the women do not seem to be affirmed and elevated as far as social, economic and political status is concerned. Singapore has consistently taken strict control of the social ideology, flying the flag of upholding values of Oriental traditional culture to counter the onslaught of westernisation and modernisation, and this includes resistance to the elevation of social, economic and political status of the women vis-Ã-vis the men. Why do I say so? Take, for example, the political status of the women vis-Ã-vis the men. There was a recent newspaper report that a certain Minister said that the PAP would field more than 10 female MPs in the next election, and that there was "progress". Why should it be called "progress", rather than "as it should be"? Does this not show that we are still having a deeply patriarchal society here in Singapore? Is this not an indication that the Singapore women would have to stand by the margin and try to integrate into the patriarchal social system by working silently by themselves? The Singapore Government seems to feel that the Singapore women should consider themselves lucky for not being among the women folks of Japan, Korea or India.”
“In this regard, I would like to raise my second suggestion, which is that perhaps HDB can reserve some units in this retirement village for purchase by singles. I passed by a retiree village during my visit to New Zealand last year. I was in a special bus that took the passengers from the airport to their destination. When the bus passed through the retiree village, my impression was that this was a very quiet place with no life or vibrancy in it. If we allow younger singles to buy some of the units in the village, then they will bring life and vigour into the village, and also help to look after these old people. By allowing these singles and the older people to stay in the same retirement villages, the retirement village can become a better place with the structure of a family although there is no direct family relationships between these singles and older people. Lastly, I would like to talk about the status of women in Singapore. There is a group of people in Singapore who seems to be neglected, they are the Singaporean women, especially the unmarried single women. In this year's Budget, we have a Progress Package, comprising the Growth Dividend, Workfare Bonus, NS Bonus and so on. If we combine this year's package to packages in the previous years, including baby bonus, marriage, procreation package, foreign maid levy, rebate for married women and so on, then everybody in Singapore seems to get some kind of benefit from the Budget in recognition of their contribution to the country. Only the female citizens, especially the single female citizens, despite whatever contributions that they had made to Singapore, do not seem to be duly recognised.”
“All I am saying is that the housing problems that come about with their remaining single are part of the new modernisation process - something that is inevitable. We should adjust our existing policies to look after them. We cannot remain like an ostrich which buries its head in the sand and ignores the existence of the singles. Has our pro-family housing policy, which aims to encourage young Singaporeans to marry in order to purchase new HDB flats, fallen behind times? The Ministry has said that Singaporeans can apply to the HDB for waiver based on their special circumstances. However, if there are so many Singaporeans applying for waiver, does it mean that our pro-family is our-dated, and it is time to amend this policy? Our pro-family policy, encouraging marriages and procreation, should be adjusted in accordance with the changes, to enable the singles to buy new flats at the normal HDB prices. I would like to make two suggestions: One is to allow lower and middle-income singles to buy new flats at the HDB prices. Many of these middle-aged people have reached a certain age and whatever pressure you put on them, they would not get married. This is a fact. Like in my workplace, there is a middle-aged lady. She told me that she is no longer pretty and could not possibly give birth to children. She would not contemplate getting married. She told me that she was used to the life of a single and would not get married just for the sake of getting a flat. Our procreation policy is irrelevant to her. Hence, I hope the HDB can consider allowing middle and lower-income middle-aged singles to buy HDB flats at HDB prices. The HDB is considering the building of retirement village.”
“Fourthly, the HDB's rule is that for a single person to rent a one-room flat from HDB, he would have to apply jointly with another single person as he cannot apply for one unit for himself. Why is the HDB insisting that two total strangers should "cohabit" with each other just to apply for the flat? This would create a lot of problems. I think there are frequent reports in the papers of problems arising from these circumstances. Fifthly, there are rumours that some lower-income single men, in order to buy their own flats, would just go overseas and conveniently take a bride in order to form a family unit to apply for the flats. These foreign brides are causing some new social problems in Singapore. Has our so-called pro-family home ownership policy added on unnecessary stress on our lower-income singles resulting in the creation of new social problems? Sixthly, the pro-family policy is to encourage people to get married and have children. But we can see that it is not making much headway. The trend that many Singaporeans (not only the women, the men too) did not marry is not because they are too highly-educated, but is due to a strings of problems, such as an unbalance in the gender roles in the families, no financial means to support and bring up their children. Singapore has progressed and modernised. The education level of Singaporeans has also risen. It is no longer the Singapore of the 70s and 80s. Nowadays, many people have gone overseas to work or study. When they come back, many of them are beyond the age of 35 years old, still remaining single. Many have missed the boat for courtship and marriage due to work or study. Hence I have to declare that I am not advocating singlehood.”
“In Singapore, there are many middle-aged single people, men and women, who are facing these problems. Generally, in Singapore, if both the husband and wife are working, they need about 20-30 years before they can clear their housing loan. For a single person, he or she will have to spend a longer time before the housing loan could be fully discharged. The unfair treatment when purchasing HDB flats causes many problems to the middle and lower-income single people, and they feel that they have been discriminated against. This middle-aged lady in my place of work asked me, "Why must I be penalised just because I am not married and have not produced children for the nation?" This feeling is not limited to middle-aged women, many other middle-aged men have the same feeling too! Secondly, I think it is not practical to insist that a single person must apply together with their parents, as some single persons' parents could have already passed away. Those parents who are still alive would, more often than not, choose to stay with the married children so that they can look after the grandchildren. These single persons are unable to form a family unit and they cannot apply for new flats from HDB. Thirdly, there may be suggestions that these singles can stay with their brothers or sisters, and there is no need for them to buy their own flats. But we all know that the HDB flats are getting smaller and smaller, and married brothers or sisters who have their own families will not have a spare room for these uncles and aunties to stay in. Even if there is a spare room, when the nephews and nieces have grown up, they will need a room for themselves, and these uncles and aunties will have to move out after all.”
“In this year's Budget, the Government will spend $75 million to provide additional CPF Housing Grant to the lower-income families to help them own their flats. But this would have no effect on the lower-income singles. According to Census 2000, 15.8% of the people between the age of 15 and 44 are single. With some 650,000 people in this age group, there are in fact as many as 100,000 single men and women. For those who are below 35 years of age, they will have to form a family unit jointly with their parents before they can apply to buy a new HDB flat. HDB will occasionally sell some of their new flats to the singles, but they are sold to them at market rates. Moreover, the singles do not qualify for concessionary interest rates for their housing loan. Those whose income is $3,000 and above will not qualify for the $11,000 housing grant and they cannot apply to the HDB for the concessionary loan. I think this is unfair to the singles, particularly the middle or lower-income singles. First, these middle and lower-income singles remain single not by choice but due to circumstances beyond their control. No matter what job they are doing, they have been contributing to Singapore. But when it comes to buying a flat from HDB, they are treated unequally. There is a middle-aged single lady in my place of work. She is 40 years old and working as a general clerk. When she wanted to purchase an HDB flat, she had to buy from the resale market and it is much more expensive than buying direct from HDB. Her salary is not too low, yet not too high either. Hence, she cannot apply for a HDB loan and has to take a bank loan. Because she is buying a second-hand flat, she has also to spend a lot of money to renovate it before she could move in.”
“Singapore does not advocate a welfare system, so we cannot provide welfare to these lonely old people. But if we can make use of some of these unclaimed Growth Dividends to help them, why not? This year's Budget is very generous and it takes care of the immediate problems of the older and lower-income workers. But there is one group of people who have been perpetually neglected. They are the middle or lower-income singles, particularly those who are middle-aged. The middle or lower-income singles, particularly those who are middle-aged, face all sorts of problems. Singapore society now is aging. By 2030, almost 19% of our population will be 65 years and above. With an aging population, smaller families and lower fertility rate, there will be fewer family members with the means to maintain their older folks. The probability of the single persons having to bear a heavy burden to look after their old folks without helps from siblings is higher. This Budget does not help them in this respect. I hope that we could provide the followings to help the people to maintain their old folks: (1) A higher tax relief for maintenance of parents, particularly those who need long-term medical treatment; (2) Paid eldercare leave to take their parents to hospital or clinic, since they cannot afford to have maids to look after their parents; and (3) More subsidies to help with the charges of the old folks' homes or day-care centres so that these lower-income people could send their parents to the old folks' homes or day-care centres, and they can then go to work with a peace of mind. The single people also have a lot of problems when it comes to housing.”
“My first suggestion is that we could allocate some of these unclaimed Growth Dividends which have been budgeted for, to the neighbourhood schools for them to set up a Pocket Money Fund for each school. Although there is the Opportunity Fund for each school to help the children from the lower-income families, the Ministry of Education has raised the income ceiling of families to qualify for the various financial assistance schemes and the Edusave scholarship, and the Ministry of Education has also announced on Sunday, the Breakfast Plan. But many students from the lower-income families are often worried about having not enough pocket money. After using it to pay their bus fares, they may have no money to buy food during the recess. Moreover, when they have to stay behind for core-curricula activities or remedial classes, some of them may not have the money to buy their lunches. Although the Straits Times has already set up a Pocket Money Fund, it would be good for an individual pocket money fund to be set up for each of the neighbourhood schools. These schools know their students well and are in a better position to extend their help to those who are genuinely in need. My second suggestion is that we should distribute some of the unclaimed Growth Dividends to the old folks' homes and day-care centres. In Singapore, most of the old folks' homes and day-care centres operated by voluntary welfare organisations are running at a loss. Among the inmates of these old folks' homes, some of them are lonely, single old people and some of them are displaced parents. No matter what job they did during their younger days, they have contributed in one way or another to our nation-building.”
“53 pm Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the Budget Statement. First of all, I support the financial policy and the Budget announced in Parliament by the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister for Finance for the new fiscal year, to build a vibrant economy where opportunities are everywhere and an inclusive society where no one is left behind. Allow me to raise a few suggestions and observations. In this year's Budget, the Government has introduced a Progress Package amounting to $2.6 billion. This package includes the Growth Dividend, Workfare Bonus and the National Service Bonus. With regard to the $1.4 billion worth of Growth Dividend to all adult Singaporeans, I would like to make a few suggestions. This Growth Dividend is computed according to each citizen's annual income and the annual value of the house that he lives in. Each person will receive an amount of between $200 and $800, with the middle and lower-income families getting the biggest benefits. Singaporeans only need to fill in a form or make an application through the ATM or website by 1st April 2006 and they will receive the Growth Dividend by 1st May 2006. In past years, we saw many generous and well-off Singaporeans who cashed their New Singapore Shares and Economic Restructuring Shares, and donated the proceeds to poor and needy Singaporeans. This year, these well-off Singaporeans may not claim their Growth Dividends, so we will have some amounts of unclaimed dividends which have been budgeted for. Although the amount may not be very great, it would also go a long way to help the poor and needy people in our society.”
“It was reported that as many as 100,000 Singaporeans did not pay the required $50 into their CPF accounts and they were not allotted the New Singapore Shares. This time around, because the exercise is to win votes, the payments out of monies under the Growth Dividends and the Workfare Bonus need not be accompanied by any co-payment. This, I believe, the Government wants is to make sure all Singaporeans receive payments under the Growth Dividends and Workfare Bonus schemes so that they may be influenced to vote the PAP. I would like to report a feedback on the Workfare Bonus. This scheme, according to some people, seems to discourage hard work. I was told of a worker who earns $1,200 a month basic and since he has a wife and three infant children to take care of, he worked very hard and did plenty of overtime to increase his earnings. His gross salary jumped to $2,500 and, because the upper limit of his income exceeds the upper limits of $1,200 and $1,500, he is not allowed to claim the Workfare Bonus. That worker is very angry at the way the Workfare Bonus is framed. The Government, on the one hand, tells Singaporeans to work hard, yet, when this worker puts in more hours and earns more money, he is disqualified from receiving his Workfare Bonus. I do not think the Workfare Bonus scheme is fair to this category of hardworking Singaporeans. Sir, I have one last comment to make. It concerns the distribution of the CIPC funds from the Ministry of National Development. Can the Minister for Finance do something to bring fairness and equity in regard to the distribution of the CIPC funds? The current practice is to allocate CIPC funds only to PAP MPs, while other MPs who are in the Opposition are kept completely out of those funds. I ask: why the glaring unfairness? 1.”
“In fact, to me, it is mind-boggling as giveaways. The sum is more than that budgeted for FY 2006 for the following sectors: Health, National Development, Environment and Water Resources, Transport, Trade and Industry, just to name a few. This huge sum distributed to the poor at a time when the election is around the corner must "render the ground sweeter for the ruling party in the coming general elections", as mentioned by a PAP Member in this House. Some PAP Members have boasted recently that their Party has won every general election. But they forgot to mention how the elections were won. Were they won at level playing fields or were they won with tactics they rather not mention, like the tactic for this coming election, where even the Budget is used to the PAP's advantage? The sum involved this year is a huge $2.6 billion. Recently, Government Ministers have tried to brush off comments that "this Budget is an election Budget". I believe that they know at the bottom of their hearts that the fact that such a large sum is disbursed to every adult Singaporean, those comments must have a ring of truth. Otherwise, such a large sum would not have been disbursed even at the expense of incurring a deficit. What is interesting also is that the much-publicised practice of the Government is done away with in the way money is paid out under this Budget. The practice of the Government has been almost never to give subsidies, financial assistance or monetary handouts without a co-payment being made by the recipient of the Government's monetary gifts. So, in 2001, when the Government allotted the New Economic Restructuring Shares and the New Singapore Shares to Singaporeans, they had first to co-pay $50 before those shares could be handed to them.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I am not a cynic. I know the realities of politics, especially politics in Singapore, and I say that this Budget is an Election Budget. All the signs are there. The PAP's aim is to win the election this time with convincing results equal to or not better than the record of 75.1% achieved in the 2001 election so as to give the standing of the new leadership a big boost. It shall then have more authority with a strong mandate from the people to deal with matters locally and those abroad with greater confidence. However, it is difficult for the PAP to repeat the 2001 election results. I sense that the ground is different this time round. Currently, more people are talking earnestly that they want more Opposition in Parliament, especially the young and more educated Singaporeans. Their desire for more Opposition representation in Parliament is hard to change. For this reason, the PAP's tactic is to target the poor and the elderly. Financially, they are the worse off group in Singapore and are vulnerable to monetary handouts by the Government. The Government's timing is right. Despite the Government's claim that the economy is recovering and a drop of unemployment rate from 4.2% a few years back to the current 2.4%, the effects of the recession are still felt now by the workers. Any monetary help from the Government at this point of time to the poor and the aged shall be readily welcomed. The Government knows of this fact and the use of the Budget at this time round for election purposes is fully exploited. The tactic is awesome. The tactic used is like a military assault - massive and precisely targeted. The amount to be distributed is a whopping sum of $2.6 billion. The sum is massive.”
“Sir, I am glad to hear categorically from the Minister that foreigners cannot take part in local politics. So, if there is a report, with evidence, tape-recorded, etc, will he debar that foreigner who is an entertainer from performing again in Singapore? That is the question.”