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 37 of 85.
“But he has not answered it. Has the PAP Community Foundation asked for a change of use? Please answer the question.”
“I am surprised at the answer of the Minister. The premises are let out by the HDB, I presume, for a charitable purpose. I said that education is within the definition of "charity". But now that the premises with which it was originally rented out for educational purposes were sub-let for a different purpose, my question is: has the PAP Community Foundation obtained a change of use? As far as I understand, other organisations -- Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, you have asked your question.”
“Is it not true that the PAP Community Foundation is a charitable organisation? Because it is a charitable organisation, the HDB rents out to this organisation at a special rate. If it were a charitable organisation, can it then be allowed to let out part of its premises, which are supposed to be for charitable purposes (education is a charitable purpose), for political purposes? Is it not right that planning permission has to be obtained first for a change of use before it can let out part of its premises?”
“I understand that in certain of these industrial lands, they were acquired as cheaply as 15 cents per square foot.”
“Can the Minister give me a percentage of what the Government and the private sector pay for land? Mr Dhanabalan: I cannot give him an answer, Sir. It varies very much. I do not know how the private sector acquires land. They may negotiate and buy. Whereas the Government acquires land under the Land Acquisition Act. Even though we can acquire under the Act, we still have to pay a price related to the market price prevailing as of a certain date. This has gone up over the years. So if the Member wants to have a range in specific areas, I suggest that he submits a Question and the Minister in charge of land acquisition will answer.”
“In determining the pricing structure of Government industrial land leases, has the Minister taken into account the acquisition costs of these lands compared to the acquisition costs in the private sector? The Government acquires land at a low price, whereas the private sector has to purchase the land at a high price. Does the Government take this into account in determining its rental rates?”
“Does the Minister agree with me, as I have earlier said, that these monies were not budgeted for? They are like a windfall to the Government. They are extra monies.”
“Does the Minister agree with me that what he has said are all budgeted for? And in the case of this $693 million, these monies were not budgeted for. They are extra monies, so to speak, that have come into the hands of the Government. Is the Minister willing to use this money perhaps to educate motorists, to improve the skills of motorists and other useful devices or means to improve the traffic system?”
“Sir, whilst the Government is encouraging individuals to own properties for social good, does not the Government also want to encourage Singaporeans to own their own commercial properties?”
“All right, bonus forms part of the wages. Does the Ministry object if a firm gives as much as six months' bonus?”
“Sir, does the Ministry of Labour take into account wages given in terms of bonuses?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it should be within the Minister's knowledge that he should know the number of years a building is written off where subsidy is concerned. He should know that.”
“In regard to subsidy on capital cost, what is the number of years for amortisation?”
“I would like the Minister to explain clearly what these subsidies actually represent. Is the Government out-of-pocket in respect of only recurrent cost, in other words, in respect of salaries, medicine, and not that of land, buildings and financing in regard to the structure of medical facilities, including buildings of hospitals?”
“Can the Minister explain how this subsidy is worked out? Does it include also the capital costs of hospitals and other buildings?”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify. Under clause 6(1)(c), "for the provision of contributions to the Edusave Pupils Fund", will contributions be made now to each pupil or a pupil can only get contributions through the provision of scholarships under clause 6(1)(b)? Because you have defrayment of payment out of the student's account through extra-curricular activity. Where does the money come from if there is no payment out under clause 6(1)(d)?”
“May I ask Mr Maidin whether it is true or not that on 21st August 1991, the PAP had already formed the Government and there was no need for the Opposition to give its alternative programme. The other point is this. Is it also not true that the PAP in August last year did not say that the Edusave scheme would only confine itself to providing for extra-curricular activities and enhancement programmes? Is it also not true that the PAP has gone back on its word in regard to the setting up of an Open University? Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in fact new in politics. But as far as I know, if a party has no plans, then it is difficult to call itself a political party. Maybe it should call itself a Saturday night party. You do not have a plan and you could enjoy yourself. At the same time, Sir, in my view, it is not fair to say that because the PAP has been in power, all other Opposition parties need not worry about plans. I think that is a less responsible way of approaching politics in Singapore. As to the Member's other question, I think the Minister for Education is more familiar with this subject, Sir.”
“Sir, can I have a point of clarification?”
“We must constantly be aware that while the emphasis would rest on the upper rung, those in the lower rung must not be neglected in terms of attention and importance. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, may I be enlightened on the mode of the implementation of this scheme? Who would administer the accounts of the pupils? Will it be on the shoulders of the teachers who, at present, are so much occupied with classroom management and more? Or will it be the responsibility of the school administration which is equally occupied with running an increasingly complex institution? Or are there some other devices planned by the Ministry? This proposed scheme, viewed on a whole and analyzed objectively, is like an insurance scheme to insure the country and its people for a better future. Nevertheless, the scheme requires further discussion so as to produce a viable scheme and to guarantee its success. I fully believe that this scheme will help to foster a closer and healthier relationship between the parents, the schools and the Ministry. And in such a relationship, none other than the students themselves would stand to benefit and be assured of an easier pursuit towards excellence.”
“These programmes bear a heavy influence on the moulding of a pupil's overall development and are to be treated with equal importance. With more parents' participation, the choice made by the pupils in schools on the programmes and activities that they should be involved with would be made with more precision and wisdom with a view to optimizing the scheme. Thirdly, may I propose that the Fund be used to start certain ECAs that are only evidenced in secondary schools. Perhaps it may be worth considering the introduction of Language Societies and outdoor clubs, like an Adventure Club, in the primary schools. The cost may now be offset by the implementation of this Bill. It may consequently help cultivate interest in organisational work, community service and healthy living in the early days of a pupil. For the Malay pupils, early involvement in such activities would help solve the problems of lack of participation of Malay pupils in association work and voluntarism in secondary school and the days after. It is acknowledged that this scheme is an investment rather than a welfare programme bred by the Government. As such, it does not include the provision of financial assistance and bursaries. In my opinion, as long as the use of the fund could be justified as being proximate to the main objectives of this scheme, then some flexibility should be given. In the field of promoting education, the difference between an investment and welfare assistance can be on a very thin and grey line. When this scheme goes into practice, there may arise some confusion and complications as a result of this. It is pointless to provide enrichment programmes to a pupil who can hardly grasp the basic concept of education itself.”
“In the light of providing constructive ideas, may I propose, firstly, that parents and pupils, especially the Malay parents and pupils upon reaching their capacity to withdraw from the scheme, that a small percentage of perhaps 5% to 10% be given to further the cause of community development. The scheme allows parents of pupils below 21 years or the students reaching 21 years themselves to withdraw the balance standing to their credit. The amount donated to certain bodies that cater for educational development may be used to create a larger pool of money to be used as bursaries or financial assistance. These two requirements have increased tremendously as society realises the growing importance of education. This suggestion, if taken up, could lead to two further achievements. One, a society that is conscious of the need to care and share upon a windfall or a gain. And, secondly, it will enlighten the hopes of many who would, under the present pool of resources, have to compete fiercely for only a small amount. The 5% or 10%, taken accumulatively, will represent a huge and influential figure to help expedite the academic achievement of those who are deserving. My second suggestion is to encourage parents to be more involved in the shaping of the school's curriculum. This fund has its primary focus on the school's enrichment programmes which encompass the school's extra-curricular activities. Though I am particularly pleased to note the increasing number of parents who are very concerned with their pupils' academic performance, relatively, there are only a handful of parents who get themselves acquainted with the school's non-classroom programmes.”
“There are also cases made known to me of pupils who would go on for months without the required textbooks and materials, simply because there is not enough money to go around and the family income marginally over-qualifies for the school's bursary limits. These pupils normally come from families that are constantly bogged down with problems. It will be a plus point if this scheme allows a certain degree of flexibility to accommodate such circumstances that I have cited. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed, may I have some clarification from the Ministry of Education over these doubts of mine? Firstly, it is with regard to clause 6 (1)(a) of the Bill. Will the Ministry kindly elaborate on how the distribution of grants to schools is going to be carried out? Is it based on the school's performance or is it simply given to a school according to its pupil population? Is it both or neither of them? This happens to be a crucial factor for it leads to the objective of this proposed scheme. It may not necessarily be true all the time that schools with the highest enrolment produce the best standard or the best pupils or vice-versa. If the grant is to be allocated according to the number of pupils, then I believe the objective of this scheme will be best met via the enhancement of the quality of teaching and its materials. Whereas if it is to be given to the school based on its rank or its performance, there might exist a subtle tendency for the school administration to use the grant in improving the school's features rather than the development of the individual pupils.”
“This is an enormous fund that can only be successfully raised if the people are committed to progress and productivity. Income that is derived from this Fund is meant for the benefit of the pupils in primary and secondary schools, especially for the needy. This move is most welcome. It only goes to prove the continuous existence of a government that strives for the promotion of its most valuable asset, its people. The scheme is primarily an investment for which everyone stands to gain. An introductory allocation of $50 per pupil is not a small amount to those that await for such assistance. In addition, if this amount is saved throughout the years, it will amount to a big sum by virtue of the income derived from its use. The scheme also allows our pupils to participate in more enrichment programmes without the monetary factor as a demotivational element. If I may suggest at this juncture, for the Malay pupils who are in need of further guidance in Mathematics they should be given the leeway to use the Fund in a manner that helps them to overcome the problem. It may come in the form of subsidizing tuition fees after school hours where tutors could be employed. It is still a matter of fact that there are still a disturbing percentage of Malay pupils who could not afford to pay for home tuitions that are run by concerned organisations even though the rates offered conform to market rates. In the face of a meritocratic system where competition runs high in every aspect of life, these pupils might be left lagging behind. I have been made to understand that there are still problems of pupils who are so lacking in means that they could hardly afford a second school shirt.”
“What about those whose results fall short of the best but are better than the rest, and are good enough to be admitted to the independent schools, as well as those who choose to go to the Government-aided or Government schools and whose results are above average? Should they not be given some form of incentive to encourage them to work their way up? Will the Ministry of Education consider setting aside some money from the Edusave Fund to award some sort of "Diligence Prize" to these students whose results are above average? By so doing, those students whose results are not so good will be encouraged to work harder to catch up with those in the middle, thereby generally boosting the morale of our students, and in the process attain the target of enhancing our national educational level. Finally, Mr Speaker, I hope that the Ministry of Education would announce the details of this Edusave Scheme as soon as possible. For example, how much will every student be entitled to every year from the Edusave Fund? In the long-run, will the Government consider increasing the quantum of the Edusave Fund and the scholarship annually, so that all our students will benefit? As we all know, the Government's theory is to keep on increasing the charges for every service it provides, including school fees, and the fees for participating in activities and programmes which are capable of enriching the physical and mental well-being of the students. Mr Umar Abdul Hamid (Ang Mo Kio GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The Education Endowment Scheme through which the Edusave Pupils Fund will also be launched next January will bear an initial capital of $1 billion. The Fund will build up until it is capable of reaching an impressive sum of $5 billion.”
“If the Government's reason is that the fees in the independent schools are higher, therefore the scholarship award should also be higher, then the wise parents and the brighter students, in consideration of the economic benefits, will naturally opt for the independent schools because the students will not only enjoy better school facilities and better care there, they will also enjoy a scholarship award of $9,600, whereas a student who opts to enrol in a Government-aided or Government school will get only $300 to $500 per year. Therefore, is it not apparent that the establishment of this scholarship scheme will serve to encourage those who are among the top 25% of the students at the PSLE to go to the independent schools? In the long run, will it not end up with the independent schools being labelled as first-class schools, and the Government-aided and Government schools be deemed to be second-class or even, third-class schools? Dr Tay Eng Soon, the Senior Minister of State for Education, said in Parliament this year that attempts were being made to enable neighbourhood schools to attract good students as well. Yet, in the present situation, how are the neighbourhood schools ever going to attract students with good PSLE results to be enrolled there, so that these neighbourhood schools would have a chance to rise head and shoulders above others! My worry is that under this scholarship scheme, the ordinary schools will never have a chance to stand up. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, this scholarship scheme awards only those among the top 25% of the students in the independent schools and the top 10% of the students in the Government-aided and Government schools.”
“On the average, every independent school will get $1 million while the other Government-aided and Government schools will get less than $50,000 each. So, is this a fair allocation? Thirdly, for the independent schools, each scholarship award can be worth as much as $2,400 per year. Yet in the Government-aided and Government schools, each scholarship award is worth only $300 to $500 per year. So if the scholarship scheme is aimed at encouraging the better students, irrespective of their family background, to carry on working hard, then so long as their results are good, these good students should be awarded equally. However, under the present scholarship scheme, those who are among the top 25% in the PSLE results, but who choose to go to the Government-aided or Government secondary schools, will be awarded only $300 to $500 per year. Even then, they will have to remain among the top 10% of their respective schools each year to be entitled to these awards. In contrast, if the student chooses to go to an independent school, he can be awarded, at one go, a four-year scholarship of $2,400 per year, totalling $9,600. So, there is a world of difference in terms of awards for students who go to independent schools and for those who go to non-independent schools, although they may attain equally good results in the same PSLE. Then, is this scholarship really a scheme to encourage students to work hard in order to achieve good results, as announced by the Prime Minister, or is it meant to encourage students with better results to seek enrolment in the independent schools?”
“However, with regard to the particulars and standard of the Edusave scheme announced by the Ministry of Education, so far, I have the following queries: First, the Ministry announced that those who are among the top 25% in the PSLE and who have applied for enrolment in the independent schools will be awarded, at one go, a scholarship for four years. Is the Ministry of Education of the view that these students who did well in their PSLE will necessarily do well in their entire four years' studies in the secondary schools? Or is this meant to be just a one-time incentive only, and its effect will last as long as four years? On the other hand, those students who go to Government-aided or Government schools will have to be re-assessed every year and be among the top 10% in their respective schools to be entitled to this scholarship award. Is the Ministry of Education holding the view that good students who go to independent schools will necessarily maintain their good performance every year, but the good students who go to the Government- aided or Government schools will not necessarily maintain their good results every year, and they will have to be re-assessed every year to qualify for the scholarship award? Secondly, the Government announced that with effect from next year, it will set aside $12 million per year for the Edusave Endowment Fund Scholarship. Of the $12 million, $6 million will be given to scholarships for the independent schools and the other $6 million for scholarships in the Government-aided and Government schools. On the surface, this appears to be a fair distribution. However, there are only six independent schools in Singapore while there are 132 Government-aided and Government schools.”
“I hope that with the implementation of this Edusave programme whereby Edusave can only be used for ECA, all this will not be charged. I believe that to give additional monetary incentives to teachers to conduct ECA is wrong. When the teachers are properly motivated, they can, of course, give of their best without monetary incentives. More importantly, when the teachers unselfishly spend long hours after school hours to teach and impart skills, the pupils can learn valuable lessons from the dedication, selflessness and commitment of their teachers. But, with this Bill, I am afraid that it will do away with all that. Some principals are going to be thrown overboard and, in their place, short- sighted mercenary incentives are to take its place. If what I say is true, ie, the Edusave money can only be used for ECA, and at the moment ECA are free of charge, but if the Government is going to charge for ECA, then what the Government is giving out with one hand will be collected back with the other. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Government to set aside part of its budget surplus to invest in education and to set up the Edusave Fund for the benefit of our students, instead of carrying on using the surplus fund to generate more and more funds to continue to build up a reserve which is already strong, is indeed a wise move. In my view, a good Government should not only be good in generating wealth, but should also be good in making use of the wealth it has generated. Spend on the people what you have taken from the people. Therefore, in principle, I support the Government's move to invest in education.”
“On this point of scholarships, I would like to ask the Minister whether, from now on, the scholarship awards payable to the President's and Merit Scholars shall be taken out of the income of the Edusave Endowment Fund. With the income of the Endowment Fund to be divided between so many contesting groups, I would like the Minister to clarify (1) how will the grants be allotted to the schools, especially between the independent and Government schools, and how much; (2) will there be a separate scholarship scheme; and (3) whatever amount is left over, how will they pay to each pupil per year. Will it be less than the sum of $100 touted at the last General Election? Perhaps, the Minister could clarify. Another disturbing proposal of the Bill is that the withdrawals from the pupil's Edusave account can only be used to pay for extra-curricular activities or for enhancement programmes. This proposal for the payment of only ECA and enhancement programmes is very disturbing. I believe that it will be very restrictive. It will not really benefit the pupils. I do not know whether the Minister has any special reason. If he has, he should tell us because, as I see it, the use of Edusave fund for the payment of only ECA and enhancement programmes would attract adverse educational consequences. The payment out of Edusave for ECA and enhancement programmes would, to me, mean two things. First, the teachers are going to be expected to be paid when they conduct ECA classes and, second, the schools shall be charging for ECA. When I was a teacher in the 60s, ECA programmes were all free of charge, whether it be sports, games, or non-athletic programmes, like folk-dancing, photography or even in the uniformed groups.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the General Election held last August, the Government made several promises. Amongst them were the Edusave scheme and the Open University. The voters were impressed. Singaporeans all know the importance of education to advance themselves in life. They must have believed the Government's promise, or else the PAP surely would have lost more than four seats when the Election results were announced. What happened after the Election? The people waited. There was only silence in relation to the Edusave Scheme and the Open University. Instead the people heard of massive increases in medical and hospital charges and other increases consequent to Government policies. Then came the announcement. The Government decided not to carry on with the Open University, as promised. The Open University was to be handed over to the private sector to start up and manage. What about the Edusave scheme? Here again, the Government has deviated from the election promise. The scheme spelt out in the Education Endowment Scheme Bill, that is before us, is different from what was told to the voters in August 1991. It was announced then that for the whole of a child's school life, the sum of $100 was to be credited to his Edusave account per year, purportedly to pay for the child's school fees and whatever his basic educational needs. Even at that time, the feedback from the public was that the sum of $100 per year was paltry, taking into account that private tutors were already charging $100 per subject per month. What do we have in the Bill that is before us? The total income from the Endowment Fund is not to be credited to the school children but only part of it. The rest goes to the Government and Government-aided schools as provision for grants and scholarships.”
“Yes. If $5 million is sufficient to sustain itself on a long-term basis, it will appear that the PAP Community Foundation, with its $5 million paid-up capital, has got not enough funds because it has got grants from the Government.”
“I just want to take up one remark made by the Minister.”
“Because there are cases which they have not received the HDB notices, for some reason or other.”
“Is the Minister saying that everyone who parks his car from now on will have to retain his receipts and parking coupons all their lives? Some hon. Members: No!”
“Sir, the Minister's answer has not stated whether or not it will give up on summonses that are too long. I have personally known of cases where people who were in fact under a warrant of arrest had been brought to the police station to answer parking charges as early as 1984. So if there is no cut-off period --”
“I am just curious how the hospitals charge doctors' and surgeons' fees. Like other professions, there is time costing. They justify by saying so much time is spent on the work. How do hospitals charge surgeons' and doctors' fees? On what basis, please?”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the main fees chargeable go to the medical services of doctors. How are doctors' fees chargeable? Is it by time, or on what basis?”
“Sir, I am heartened to hear from the Minister that the Government has successfully agreed with the Malaysian Government to build a second causeway, linking Singapore to the mainland. This will come only as a good in all aspects of it. I have travelled to Johor by car and have to wait something like two hours in the congestion. I am happy to hear that we will have a second link. It will definitely relieve the congestion and it will be a more pleasant journey to the mainland. Also, with the second link, I believe people will travel more, more connections, more understanding and I am sure the relationship between the two countries will improve. There are many other benefits, trade, culture and all the rest of it. Therefore, I am really happy to hear of this second causeway linking Singapore to Johor. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas containing an area of about 20 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT”
“Sir, I just want a clarification from the Minister. In this particular amendment, self-employed persons will contribute to the CPF specifically for their hospitalisation and medical needs, and not for their old age. That is my point. Whereas other CPF members contribute, in the first place, for their old age needs, and then for other investments.”
“Sir, the original purpose of the CPF scheme is for the workers to accumulate a sum of money as security for their old age. Later on, the Government imposed such high rates that each worker has accumulated fairly large savings which are more than enough as a nest-egg for their old age. So the Government amended the CPF Act and the workers are allowed to use their CPF for various purposes other than the original intention of the CPF, such as buying of HDB flats, private houses and commercial properties, and also to invest in shares and gold. Today, we have before the House this amendment which will stray from the original purpose in which the CPF was set up. A person is now asked to contribute not for his old age but as a form of medical insurance. Is the Government not straying from its original purpose? Having set a precedent today, then what is there to stop the Government from using the CPF for purposes other than as a security for old age?”
“I believe Members would like to know the amount in the Fund, the number of members and, in the case where a member cannot be traced,because this Fund first came into being 24 years ago, what happens to the unclaimed funds?”
“Can I have a clarification from the Minister? The Inland Revenue Department has in fact improved on its performance. Last year, as the Minister pointed out, 0.75 cents was used to collect $1 of tax. There was an improvement from 0.79 cents of the previous year. In other words, its efficiency has been going up. Also, I want to ask what a statutory body can do which the Inland Revenue Department cannot do in collecting this $1.14 billion of uncollected taxes. There are two factors - the performance of the Inland Revenue has been improving, and what the statutory board can do which the Inland Revenue at the moment cannot do. So there is really no reason to change.”
“Many people at the ground speculate that the conversion of the Inland Revenue Department to a statutory body is a natural progression of the Government's privatisation policy. A statutory board like the Singapore Telecom has been privatised. Very soon, the PUB shall also be privatised. These privatised bodies may soon be listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange. The Government, in taking these steps, intends to make massive amounts of profits. With profit motive in mind, will the Inland Revenue Department also take the path of the Singapore Telecom and the PUB? I would like the Minister to let the public know whether or not the Inland Revenue Department will also be eventually privatised and be listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange, since the Government is so bent in making huge profits.”
“Sir, given the record of the Government for its efficiency in collecting vast amounts of money from the people, the Opposition is naturally apprehensive about the handing over of the job of collecting the nation's revenue to an independent body. According to last year's annual report of the Inland Revenue Department, the total revenue collected by the Government was $27.412 billion, 40% of which, at $7.842 billion, were collected by the Inland Revenue Department from the various types of taxes. The amounts collected year after year by the Government are far in excess of the Government's total annual expenses. No wonder, the Minister for Finance almost in a reflex action can announce massive budget surpluses yearly. I did express the fear in last year's Budget debate that the incumbent Government may be forced to increase its own savings as a result of the amendments to the Constitution giving powers to the Elected President to stop a Government from using the national reserves which it did not earn. Is the transfer of duties of collecting Government revenue from the Government department to an independent statutory body an attempt to increase the already high Government revenue to an over-flowing level so as to accumulate more reserves for the present Government? If that is so, then the cost of living and the cost of doing business in Singapore naturally will further increase. In that event, there shall be further hardship on the working people and local businessmen shall suffer even more. The Government has already got a very sharp knife in respect of the Inland Revenue Department in collecting taxes. Why does it need a still sharper knife?”
“My question is: does he confirm that the site given to the Potong Pasir Town Council for a creche has now been taken over by a home for the aged? Does he confirm that?”
“We have letters from the HDB saying that the HDB is building an alternative child care centre next to this mental home that has been taken over from the original site. That is what the HDB said. I am afraid the Minister's answer is wrong. I am asking now whether or not he would like to clarify his answer.”
“Since the Minister is in front of me, I would like to ask him which alternative site has the HDB given to the Potong Pasir Town Council to build a creche that has been refused permission?”
“If the Minister is right, does he not realise that the permission given to build a creche at Block 139 of Potong Pasir Estate has been revoked by the HDB?”
“Is the Minister willing to allow Town Councils to play a bigger role without, every now and then, having to get consent from the HDB in running the Town Councils? If so, is he willing to give the Town Councils a completely free hand to do so?”
“Sir, I have already mentioned that we have difficulty in getting approval. We do not agree with what the Minister has said. Recently, the Prime Minister has announced that Town Councils should play a bigger role. Now, if the HDB ---”