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 31 of 85.
“If not, please let me know the reasons for not accepting them. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.06 pm Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, like my PAP parliamentary colleagues, I support the principles and recommendations contained in the White Paper. Since it was released about 10 days ago, there has been a fair amount of reservations and cynicism among the general population. This is apparent in the arguments of the Opposition Members who are not in touch with reality. For the general population, their reservations arise from the perception that the benchmarks recommended are excessive and not commensurate with the tasks and responsibilities of Ministers since, as senior public officers, Ministers are already enjoying perks and privileges to compensate for their personal and financial sacrifices. As far as I know and I believe many know too, the true situation is far different from what many perceived it to be. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is regretful that there is still such negative talk, including from the highly-educated, who should be more discerning and rational, given the fact that this is not a new issue but has been debated I think for almost a decade now, only more thoroughly so in the recent years. But the fact remains that there will be no end to the cynicism because most politically-related issues appeal more to the emotions than to logic no matter how much information and explanations are given. A short while ago, we have heard the Prime Minister reiterating the rationale and the philosophy behind the recommendations of the White Paper. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is essential that the people do not lose sight of the philosophy behind the White Paper.”
“Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself took a pay cut. That may have been the catalyst to Singapore's success. The proper thing to do is not to peg the Minister's salary to those in the private sector, but to determine an amount objectively which will provide Ministers with a comfortable lifestyle. I have assessed that a Minister can lead a comfortable lifestyle if he were paid $32,800. I have asked the Clerk to circulate my assessment to Members. In addition to the quantum assessed, I think it is fair to add 25% more to cover for any unforeseen circumstances or contingencies and a further $10,000 to pay for the Minister's income tax, if any. The final amount paid to the Ministers shall be about $51,000. I think that is a very fair assessment. In fact, it is on the generous side. As for the Prime Minister's pay, a 25% premium over and above a Minister's salary shall be given and it is at $63,750 a month. This follows the precedent developed in advanced countries where the Prime Ministers are normally paid about 25% more than their Ministers. It is all in my table. I am a practising lawyer. In the course of my work, I need to assess the monthly maintenance given to a spouse or to a child. I also do work in assessment on how much an injured person can get. All lawyers also need to assess the cost they should be paid. In those types of work of assessment as a lawyer, I have to be objective. I do not just pluck figures from the air. Accordingly, I dare say that when I assess the Minister's pay, I have been objective in doing so. The $51,000 a month salary for a Minister and $63,750 a month for the Prime Minister are, I would say, fair salaries for them. Now, I would ask whether the Ministers and Prime Minister accept those salaries respectively. I wish they could give me an answer today.”
“They should not be afraid to come to Parliament to ask for those pay increases. And if Ministers feel that it is not proper for them to canvass for their own pay increases which, in my view, is indeed not proper for Ministers to be asking for their own pay increases, they could get Government MPs or, even better still, get Backbenchers to do it for them. Another way is to get an independent committee, like the National Wages Council, which determines workers' wages, to study and recommend from time to time how much Ministers' salary increases should be. Anyway, I think it is improper for Ministers to be asking for salary scales which would make them millionaires more than two times over in one term of office. Ministers promote Asian values and Confucian teachings. Perhaps the Ministers in their more sombre moments, should take notice that Confucian teachings hold up yao and shan as models for other rulers to follow. They were unselfish and public spirited and believed that the position of the ruler should not be a source of wealth and personal benefit. I do not recommend that Ministers make big personal sacrifices like the Confucian models, neither do I advocate hefty pay increases as recommended in the White Paper. What I am recommending is based on the principle that the Ministers' job is a calling. It is a public service and cannot be anything else. If the Minister's post is going to be another highly paid job, how can Ministers have the moral authority to lead the country? How can our Ministers be role models? How can they preach against materialism and warn of the decay of society once it wallows in materialism? The founders of modern Singapore preached against materialism. They called on the people to practise thrift, to sacrifice and to do hard work.”
“So the argument that you pay a Minister well will prevent him to be corrupt is quite fallacious. I am not saying that the Government should pay Ministers peanuts, neither am I advocating exorbitant salaries to make them millionaires once they are appointed. I still believe that political leadership is a calling. Political leadership posts should not be turned into lucrative jobs. By turning those posts into lucrative jobs, we are not going to attract people motivated by a calling but people who are attracted to politics because of money. The idea of setting benchmarks for Ministers' salaries based on the top four highest private sector earnings in banking and amongst accountants, engineers, lawyers, CEOs of manufacturing companies and multi-national companies is objectionable. In principle, it is wrong. Ministers must at intervals of time come back to Parliament to ask for and justify their pay increases and also for the pay they are receiving. This principle of accountability of the Ministers in respect of their salaries must never be taken away. The day it is taken away, the seeds of corruption would have been sown. How can we know for sure that once a benchmark, as proposed, has been set, the Ministers will not engineer to make sure that they get hefty pay increases every year by encouraging the private sector to increase the pay of its CEOs? After all, many of the big companies such as privatised Telecom and SIA are Government controlled. Also, many of the big manufacturing companies, banks and multi-nationals have close connections with the Government, as they can be influenced. If Ministers believe generally that they deserve pay increases and can justify them, what is there to be embarrassed or feel uncomfortable about.”
“I would think that most of them may not want to be Ministers for life, that is, until retirement due to old age but would certainly not mind doing a two term or two-and-a-half term stint. In regard to the selection of Ministers, the Government should open its doors wider, as it did in the case of the selection of Judges and all the Ministerial posts would be quickly filled, instead of the situation now where some of the Ministers are made to take care of two Ministries. As regards the loss of privacy, I do not think that there would be a problem there. The Ministers are more than compensated in fringe benefits, such as, travelling in first class, staying in posh hotel suites, or have the opportunity to visit foreign lands. Ministers also meet dignitaries, kings, queens and heads of states and other famous personalities, which an ordinary person, even how rich he may be, may not be able to do so. What the Ministers lost in privacy are amply rewarded elsewhere and they need not be exorbitantly compensated in terms of high salary. As for corruption, I think the Government, after nearly 30 years in power, is now experienced enough, especially after the unfortunate appointment of past corrupt Ministers, like Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon and the late Teh Cheang Wan, not to appoint anyone who has the propensity to be corrupt. In any event, financial incentives cannot prevent a Minister from being corrupt. If a Minister is intent on being corrupt, the hefty salary will not satisfy him. It will make him only more greedy for more money. The high salary paid to him will allow him to enjoy a high standard of living, such as living in a nice house and purchase expensive cars which can be a veil of his ill-gotten money, if he were to be corrupt.”
“Whereas a Minister in Singapore is not the Chief Executive of the country and there are only about 3 million people in Singapore. Can we say that our Ministers shoulder more responsibility than that of the President of the USA, or they do more work? Surely not. Whatever way we look at it, it is just not right to pay our Ministers so much more than that of the President of the USA. The White Paper says that Singapore needs to pay our Ministers high salaries to attract competent men, to compensate them for the loss of their privacy and to prevent them from becoming corrupt. These reasons are faulty. I do not believe that there are not enough competent men in Singapore who can qualify to be Ministers. The true position is that there are many good men out there who are of ministerial calibre. It is just that the PAP is unwilling to pick them for reasons of their own. At one time, the High Court in Singapore was very short of Judges. There was a clamour to increase the appointment of more Judges. The Government gave the excuse that it was difficult to find suitable candidates from amongst practising lawyers to sit on the bench. What happened after that? The backlog of cases piled up. The Government relented. The Government in quick succession appointed the requisite quota of Judges from amongst practising lawyers. All those members of the bar in the past who were probably thought not suitable were elevated to the High Court bench and have since proven to be magnificent Judges. The Government could do the same by inviting good professionals with a record of integrity to become Ministers. Most professionals would be highly flattered and honoured when invited to become Ministers and would probably accept the invitation.”
“Sir, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". Today, we are in Parliament for exactly the opposite reason. The Ministers are not telling Singaporeans what they can do for them but are asking Singaporeans to pay them more money. It is not that long ago in this House, in January this year, that Ministers' salaries were revised upwards to about $64,000 per month and the Prime Minister's salary to about $96,000 per month. With that kind of salaries, most Singaporeans thought that the Prime Minister and the Ministers were already overpaid but apparently they thought otherwise. Now the Prime Minister and the Ministers want even more pay. Why do the Ministers want so much money for? People are already saying that to be appointed a Minister is like touching a lottery. If we compare our Ministers' salaries with those of the other developed countries listed in the table, which I have instructed the Clerk to distribute to Members, you will note that our Ministers earn about 2 1/2 times more than the President of the USA, 3 1/2 times more than the Australian Prime Minister, five times more than the Canadian Prime Minister, four times more than the Prime Minister of England, and nearly five times more than that of the Prime Minister of Sweden. If the Prime Ministers of those advanced countries can live on 1/5 to 1/4 of our Ministers' salaries, why should our Ministers ask for more pay? How can our Ministers justify their salaries when we take the American President's salary as a yardstick? The President of the USA is the Chief Executive of the country and is responsible for about 250 million people.”
“Sir, the Minister said that stopping the forest fire is a complex problem in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Does it mean that the Minister does not know whether the forest fires were started accidentally, or otherwise?”
“Can I ask the Minister how much are the Zoo and the Bird Park charging an adult and a child nowadays? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Bird Park and the Zoo, the charges are reasonable. I do not have the numbers directly in front of me here, but for four adults and three children, the total amount is $39.60 for the Bird Park. MOHD AL-FAISAL (Get-rich-quick scheme) 2. Mr Ling How Doong asked the Minister for Finance how many people have lost money through Mohd Al-Faisal who was reported to have masterminded a get-rich-quick scheme resulting in the loss of about $35 million by investors. RAdm Teo Chee Hean (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) investigated the affairs of Mohd Al-Faisal (Faisal) in 1991 following a complaint that he was taking deposits from the Muslim community, offering high interest rates for the deposits or a paid trip to perform "haj" in lieu of interest payments. Based on the deposits agreements seized at Faisal's premises during the course of the investigation, CAD has established that between April 1991 and December 1991, Faisal had received deposits totalling $12.7 million from 738 investors. MODIFIED STREAMING SYSTEM (Fine-tuning) 3. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked the Minister for Education whether there is a need to fine-tune the modified streaming system after three years of experience.”
“Sir, I think it is appropriate for Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon to reply now to the points raised by Mr Lew Syn Pau, rather than to leave it to the end of the debate. I think this is an important issue.”
“The Minister has said that Mindef has got a comprehensive means of detecting problems in national servicemen, such as a 24-hour hotline, para-counsellors and Orientation Officers. But can the Minister explain, despite all these good measures, how is it that there are still suicides among national servicemen?”
“Before I go on to my supplementary question, I do not think the Minister should be so hot under the collar. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, no speeches. Ask your supplementary question.”
“I want to ask about this subsidy given to the HDB in 1992. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please explain how this $624 million come about?”
“In principle, is the HDB willing to give more work to the private sector in regard to building public housing?”
“Is that the reason why the HDB is limiting the design-and-build flats to only 10% and not to increase it to a higher percentage?”
“Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says that the design-and-build flats are more expensive. Does that mean that, relatively speaking, these flats are more costly for the HDB to build?”
“Is it 1,000 or 2,000? Or the Minister really does not know.”
“Sir, how many applicants applied for licences, whereby 88 were approved?”
“The Ministry seems to assume that people who are 55 years and above are less productive. But they are just as productive after they reach the age of 55. They are very senior and if they carry on working up to 60 years, they are in fact taking a wage cut. So are there provisions for people, who are still very productive, to maintain their CPF at the normal rate?”
“And the way out for them is to go back to their own children. So I would support the Bill and I support that it be referred to a Select Committee so that we can gather more views from the public. In this way, we can refine it and implement it in the best way possible in the interests of our future generations.”
“But, as in the past, we have within the community a system where relatives will come forward to counsel, or neighbours who might know of the situation will put pressure on the children concerned. Still, in the context of today's life, with fewer three-generation families and new challenges, a higher cost of living, I think the number of people who might neglect their parents, including in the Malay community, would probably increase in the future. Granted, no law, this Bill included, can guarantee that a child would voluntarily, under no pressure, come forward to maintain his parents. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel the Bill should receive our attention and support, so that at least parents would have a place to turn to should they find themselves in difficulties, if ever they need to claim their right from the children on whom they had showered love and money to raise, feed and educate. In fact, I am confident that Asian children, whether they be Chinese, Indians or Malay, would find themselves under great pressure if they were brought to court to face a claim for maintenance from their parents. I think most of us, being Asians, would try to avoid such a situation. And because there is a law to enable parents to do so, I think many will realise that it is better to provide this basic need for their parents rather than be brought to such an embarrassing situation. Indeed, I think many parents, in spite of difficulties that compel them to go to court, would feel reluctant to do so. I know some would rather live in a state of deprivation than shame their family and descendants. Nevertheless, we should allow them the means to do so and at least in the extreme cases they should be able to find a way out of their problems.”
“A Malay Muslim who seeks a better after-life will make sure that he looks after his parents. In fact, in daily life, a young Malay is not supposed to be rude to his parents. Never mind being unfilial - just to be rude is a serious offence. These values have been passed down from generation to generation and inculcated from young. Malay parents have a clear responsibility to raise their children well. It is a responsibility not only from the Malay point of view, but from the Islamic point of view as well: to give them food, shelter and education. Some continue to be responsible to the extent of finding life partners for their children, holding their wedding ceremony and later even looking after their grandchildren. When a child grows up, he will be explained what his responsibilities are to his parents and how he should carry the same responsibility when he has his own children. This tradition has brought strength to Malay community life and we truly hope that these values will be preserved. Mr Deputy Speaker, another source of unhappiness among Singaporeans, including the Malays, about this Bill is how a noble act that has been a way of life is now turning into a legal solution. Many feel that the needs of the aged are not just financial needs but also love, respect, concern, etc. However, I agree that with changing times and new values, there will be in the Malay community, as in other communities, some people who will shirk this responsibility and will need a bit of push before they will do it. Even today there are in the Malay community, although small in number, adult children who refuse to give their parents financial support.”
“Because we are an Asian society where our family ties are still strong. The whole Asian society is built up on a strong fabric of family ties. If we are to succeed as a cohesive society in the long term, then we should do everything to preserve that fabric, and not to tear it apart. The Bill that is before us is an attempt to tear that fabric apart, and not to preserve it. I therefore cannot support the Bill that is before the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M)( In Malay): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to give my views on the issue of maintenance of parents. Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to ask a Malay how relevant the Bill might be to him, his answer would probably be that it is not really relevant to a Malay. A Malay, one who subscribes to the values of the Malays and practises the Islamic way of life, should not need this law to live and feel secure that he would be looked after in his old age. This is a valid observation generally, because currently we can see that the Malay community, which has managed to preserve its values and way of life, guided by its religious beliefs, looks upon the maintenance of parents as an important responsibility. It is an important duty in adult life. Thus we see today that very few Malay parents or old folks are neglected by their children. The main reason, as I have explained earlier, is their strong belief in their values. I gave this reply once to someone who asked me how is it that among the Malays, the old folks are well looked after. The simple answer is that a Malay Muslim who neglects his own parents, or worse, denies them his loyalty is promised hell after his death. It is a firm and clear injunction.”
“If that happens, then the sense of shame in Singapore would definitely have been lost. There is no more privacy of the family. Everything comes out in the open. People no longer feel shameful for parents to claim maintenance from their children. Once that is done, perhaps other family disputes will also go to court, because they have lost their sense of shame, instead of seeking avenues to resolve such family disputes first. Soon, the issue relating to this Bill is just not a matter of dollars and cents. If the Government feels that it could save itself some money, perhaps it is wise to save the money elsewhere. At the moment, I read that the Ministry of Community Development is spending something like $9 million on the care for the aged. This sum, by Singapore Government's standard, is minuscule. It is not even a drop in the ocean. I should say, in fact, it is a very small fraction of a drop in the ocean. When the Maintenance of Parents Bill is enacted as law, the Government surely will have to build around it an infrastructure to administer the law. There would be a host of people involved, not only in the courts but also social workers, counsellors and enforcement officers. I think it would be a better proposition that, instead of putting this Bill through, the Government should spend the money that would have been used if the Maintenance of Parents Bill is made into law to educate Singaporeans on Asian values. It is like strengthening one's body to build up resistance against diseases rather than trying to cure the disease itself. I am glad that the Bill hopefully will be assigned to a Select Committee where it can be further examined. If this Bill should become law, in my view, it would do more damage than good.”
“We have read in Singapore about an engineer who committed suicide whilst building our Singapore Airport because his company lost money. He felt that he had let his employers down. We have also read that after World War II, many Japanese soldiers were left behind in the jungles in the Philippines. They dared not surrender because if they did, they felt that they would let their family down. It would be very shameful for their family. And I believe more so that no Japanese children would dare not to support their parents. That is the sense of shame. So if we can achieve that Japanese value, I believe we have really gone a great distance in building a cohesive society. As regards this Bill, there are two possibilities. One scenario is that the sense of shame in Singapore is still very strong and parents are too shameful to go to the courts to force their children to pay for their maintenance. That was the case in Israel. Israel, as has already been mentioned, has a similar law enacted in 1959, whereby under the Israeli family law, parents and even grandparents who are neglected can claim maintenance from the children and grandchildren in the courts. However, to the good name of Israel, that law has hardly been used at all. It shows that the children over there care for their parents. And if you ask any lawyer in Israel to cite a case when that law was last used, he would probably find it very difficult to find one such case for you. If that is the scenario and it could be transported into Singapore's case, then we really do not need such a law. On the other hand, there could be a different situation. Once the Maintenance of Parents Bill is made into law, due to examples of a few, others may follow them and flood the courts to claim maintenance from their children.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today's debate on the Maintenance of Parents Bill is really a debate on whether we are for or against Asian values. For over two decades, the Government has been promoting Asian values. The Government tells us that the family is the building block of the nation and that family unity is of paramount importance. It is also Asian practice that disputes in the family should be resolved by discussion and a consensual decision arrived at, and that it is quite shameful to let others know that there is a family dispute. I think most families would prefer disputes to be resolved amicably in private rather than in the open. Where disputes cannot be resolved by the immediate family members, they would normally seek the assistance of other members of the family such as the grandparents of the children or brothers and sisters of the parents and also seek the clan association to help them resolve the problem in the family. The general rule is that whatever happens, the family would try as best as it can not to bring the family dispute in the open and make it public, for it is considered very shameful to do so. In Singapore society today, there is still a sense of shame. There are certain things we still do not like to make public, and one of the things is a dispute in the family. If this Maintenance of Parents Bill becomes law and is used in the courts, the sense of shame that we now have in our society shall surely be eroded. The Japanese society is very stable and I believe one of the reasons for that stability is the sense of shame. Most Japanese dare not go out of line or do anything wrong, because there is that sense of shame. They dare not face their relatives, their neighbours or their friends if they did anything wrong.”
“I think this is a one-off thing and I would hope that the Minister will consider it. Because it will also come out with a clean slate. Whatever way you do it, you cannot deal with these two million offenders. It will always be on record.”
“Dr Arthur Beng has suggested one solution, ie, to allow these offenders to pay by instalment. I have another suggestion. Before this law comes into being, perhaps the Minister should consider giving an amnesty to these two million-odd people who have outstanding car parking fines. Why not? I think this is an election year and it will be good. An hon. Member: How do you know?”
“Sir, can I just ask the Minister a further question?”
“For not displaying a 45-cent or 90-cent parking coupon, he may end up with a $66,000 fine. In our society, there must be something wrong with our system here. For such a minor offence, he can go to jail for 3-4 years. It is like the proverbial person who suffers the offence of stealing half a loaf of bread and he loses his life for it. We are coming to that stage. For a minor parking offence, he may end up with a $66,000 fine, or he may lose his livelihood. His wife and children will also be affected. I do not know whether we have come to that stage. It is not, as the Minister said, as easy as just paying the 90 cents. In the daily working life of the people who are under great stress, it is not just the 90 cents. There are other problems too. My contention is that parking problem is a real problem in Singapore. And I think the Government should look into it rather than slapping more and more penalties on our people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is, in my view, a very harsh Bill, because it is not a question of asking the offender to pay a fine or asking the offender to be sentenced to a jail term but, in fact, the law is taking away the livelihood, ie, the rice bowl of a person who uses his driving licence or his vehicle as a means of livelihood. So I think, in this sense, it is a rather harsh Bill. I think before the Minister enacts such a very strong law, what he should do is to examine the parking problem in Singapore. That is the key issue. Why do so many people commit parking offences? It may not be due entirely to his fault. If one has gone to other countries, there are places where it is clearly marked "Five minutes parking" or "One hour parking". There are many instances where these people pay fines because they may be delivering goods. They may just want to go in to deliver the goods and their intention is to go out within five minutes. So they take a chance. Instead of putting a parking coupon, they think that they could rush in, deliver their goods and come out again. What happens is that, sometimes, when they go in, they are held back because of certain problems in relation to their work and, therefore, they cannot come back within five minutes. And when they come back, they see a parking notice slapped on him. Probably, he feels that it is not fair in that circumstances and also due to his busy work schedule, it may have just slipped his mind. In the first place, he is not willing to pay because he feels that it is not fair to him while he is trying to make a living. A parking notice is issued to him because he forgets to display a parking coupon. And because of a 90-cent offence, he ends up losing his rice bowl.”
“Sir, as regards foreign workers who work at construction sites, they have temporary accommodation at the construction sites. I think the main problem is those foreign workers who work in the manufacturing sector. From my experience, there is pressure for accommodation for these workers. Is the Ministry, together with the Ministry of National Development, doing something to open up more HDB flats to be used as dormitories for these workers?”
“Has this provision been accepted by the Government? My case is quite recent. His salary exceeds $1,500.”
“Sir, from my experience at the meet-the-people sessions, there are many cases of workers whose salaries exceed $1,500. And when they are dismissed, they have really got no recourse, except the Ministry of Labour. Because, firstly, if they go to lawyers, they find that the lawyer's and court fees are now too high. Secondly, if they try to approach their employers, they find that their employers are adamant, because the termination is always under a very sour note. The Minister says that there are other provisions for those workers who earn more than $1,500, but I am not aware of these provisions. Can the Minister please highlight these other provisions of law that he mentioned?”
“Sir, I understand that the group from which this Japanese lady was killed left for Japan the following day. My question is whether or not the image of Singapore as a safe place to visit has in any way been hurt by that particular incident.”
“I have two questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. What is the total cost of this reclamation exercise? And could the Parliamentary Secretary break down this cost into cost of reclamation per square metre and other costs, such as compensation given to landowners? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the estimated total cost of developing Phase II is $4,800 million, and that includes infrastructure, systems and equipment costs. For reclamation cost alone, the estimated cost is $543 million. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang containing an area of approximately 222.6 hectares as shown coloured green on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/94", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore.' ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM VACANT HDB FLATS 18. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether there are Housing and Development Board flat owners who, having purchased their HDB flats, hardly live there at all.”
“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. RECLAMATION AT PASIR PANJANG”
“Whilst LawNet is used mainly by lawyers as a very useful research tool for quick updated information on the laws of Singapore, I am sure everyone in this House will agree that our laws should be made available to as wide a segment of the population as possible and at costs which are affordable. Therefore, Sir, it is envisaged that, and this is in fact provided for in the Revised Edition of the Laws, these laws shall be published and made available to the public. Therefore the LawNet system cannot fully replace the Revised Edition of the Laws. Mr Chiam makes two points. First, he asks whether or not members of the Law Society - I would guess he means legal practitioners - will be appointed as Law Commissioners. Sir, as the Act provides, the appointment of Law Commissioners is made by the President. In the past, I think he will know that we have had, for example, members of the Law Faculty, eminent members, who have been appointed to the Law Commission. In other words, the Law Commission is not a closed-door affair. Even though we provide for the appointment of the AG, the SG and the Parliamentary Counsel, as and when there are members of the legal fraternity with expertise, they will be appointed. Prof. Tan Sook Yee provides an example. So I think we must leave it to the President in his wisdom to decide on who fits the bill to be appointed to the very important appointment of Law Revision Commissioner. The other point which Mr Chiam makes is about cost which is in fact a point met by this Bill. With the loose-leaf system, there will be no need to replace booklets in their entirety and, therefore, this should reduce costs in the long run. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Perhaps the Minister could look into the cost of the publications of the revised laws and make them readily available to the man-in-the-street who would certainly like to know the progress of the law. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, let me thank the Chairman of the GPC (Law) for his support of the Bill. Sir, the Chairman of the GPC (Law) makes two points. The first relates to the manner in which the loose-leaf system will be introduced. He makes a good point, a valid point, a very keen observation, that if we were to introduce a loose-leaf system all at once to replace the loose-booklet system, it may seem wasteful. Therefore, Sir, the methodology we have envisaged, whereby the loose-leaf system would be introduced is to phase it in. Whenever a new Act is enacted or a Revised Edition of an Act is amended, the format in which the new Act or Revised Edition will come out will be the loose-leaf form. In other words, not a once- for-all replacement, it is a gradual phasing-in. Over several years we will have a loose-leaf system fully operational. The other point the Chairman of the GPC (Law) makes is to ask whether the LawNet system, the statutes database, will replace the Revised Edition of the Laws. Sir, I think it is not envisaged that the statutes database in LawNet will replace the Revised Edition of the Laws. First and foremost, Sir, the publication of our written laws is required, both under the Constitution as well as under the Interpretation Act. Therefore, LawNet is not to replace the publication of our written laws. Secondly, under section 7 of the Revised Edition of the Laws Act, it is stated that in all courts and for all purposes the sole and proper Statute Book of Singapore is the Revised Edition of the Laws. The third point, Sir, is a more practical point.”
“Sir, I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to clause 2 of the Bill, in particular to this amended section 3(1)(d), which reads: `(1) The President may appoint a Law Revision Commission comprising, as Law Revision Commissioners - (d) such other persons as may be appointed by the President.' Would the Minister be willing to recommend to the President that these "such other persons" may comprise at least one nominee from the Law Society? These statutes and laws of Singapore are the tools of lawyers and they are the people who are handling the law every day. It would be inappropriate if they were not included in this Law Revision Commission. They can certainly give important and relevant feedback to improve the revision of the laws. The last time the statutes were published in book form was in 1970. It was not until 1985 that the Revised Editions were published. So there was a long lapse of time and many lawyers found it very inconvenient with their statute books full of pasted and notated amended sections of the law. If the Law Revision Commission had a lawyer or a representative from the Law Society at that time, perhaps the revision could have come sooner and make the work of the lawyers more convenient. It is also noted that every time Revised Editions of the laws are published, the cost of each of these publications goes up. I do not know whether the Law Revision Commission has something to do with the pricing, but certainly I would ask the Minister to look into the cost of these Revised Editions of the law. I believe the 1970 full edition of the Singapore Statutes costs less than $1,000, but when the Revised Editions were published in 1985 they cost more than $3,000.”
“The Minister has not answered my question. I said that even within his own group, there is already dissatisfaction.”
“The percentage of 6% of grassroots leaders who had applied is not an issue. The issue is that there is dissatisfaction even within the 6%, ie, those who have not got them. I know it because I had received letters which were carbon copied to me. Mr Speaker: What is your question, Mr Chiam?”
“Yes. The question is: Is it not so that those who have given almost their whole life to charitable work are dissatisfied? Even within his own grassroots organisations, there is already dissatisfaction. My question is: Is it not so that those who have given their whole life to public service are not given this priority?”
“I do not think the Minister needs to be cheeky. The HDB has taken upon itself the right to make such priority. In fact, these flats are built with taxpayers' monies. Why should some Singaporeans benefit and the others do not? That is the crux of the matter. It is not a fair system, and this system should be enlarged.”
“Sir, the Minister says that he is not making a ranking. But it will disturb those Singaporeans who have given a lot of their time to charitable work and are not rewarded in concrete terms. Whereas those who work for the grassroots organisations, they are rewarded. I am sure they are very disturbed. Does the Minister not agree with me?”
“They do not want the National Day awards. They want priority in the allocation of flats. Does the Minister not think that he should give them the choice? Is the Minister saying that the grassroots leaders who give their time and effort to grassroots work are, in fact, more valuable than those who give to charity?”
“Sir, these grassroots members are obviously given such priority because of the public service that they have rendered. What is the difference between the public service rendered by the grassroots members and by people who do public service in charitable organisations? I am sure the latter sometimes gives more time, energy, effort and even money than the grassroots members. But they are completely kept out. Is that fair?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that other prisoners in Thailand who have suffered the same punishment have their leg chains removed after the initial period, whereas Singaporean prisoners still have to suffer or undergo imprisonment with leg chains? Is the Minister aware of that?”
“Question No. 6, Sir. SINGAPOREAN PRISONERS IN THAILAND 6. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how many Singapore citizens are jailed in Thailand at the moment and whether the Government has taken steps to contact the Thai Government to alleviate the plight of these prisoners, in particular the removal of their leg chains.”
“I think the issue is very clear. The Minister has given an answer and he says there are rules for the general course of events, in other words, nothing crops up during a General Election. What happens when something crops up? What sort of rules do we adhere to?”