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 38 of 85.
“Sir, despite municipal approvals, why is it that the Potong Pasir Town Council still needs to get clearance from the HDB in regard to planning and other factors? Why do we still need to get the consent of the HDB to make improvements to the common property?”
“If what the Minister said is true in regard to common property, why is it that the HDB insists that we write to them for any improvement which we intend to make in Potong Pasir?”
“I have to put these preliminary facts before I can ask the question.”
“Sir, the experience of the Potong Pasir Town Council is not in consonance with the answer given by the Minister. We have letters from the HDB telling us specifically ---”
“Sir, in view of the fact that about 37,000 cars were scrapped recently, is the Minister willing to abate the COE system to six months instead of a year?”
“I will ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister allow an educational organisation, like the PCF kindergarten, when enroling its pupils, to allow the organisers of that educational organisation to ask parents whether they are members of a political party, and the enrolment of the child to that kindergarten is based on the answers given? Does he allow that?”
“All right, one last question. It is a pity, Sir, because I think we do owe a duty to the people of Singapore to let them know what is exactly happening.”
“I have supplementary questions. I will tell the Minister now ---”
“I will ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister know that in the exercise for enrolment of K1 and K2 at Potong Pasir, the organisers of these kindergartens asked whether or not their parents are affiliated to any political body? Does the Minister know that the people in charge at that kindergarten asked this particular question? Does the Minister know that?”
“The point of order is that these educational organisations, ie, the kindergartens set up by the PCF, are set up under the Education Act.”
“It is a point of order to answer his query.”
“If the kindergartens of the PCF are set up under the Education Act, are not these educational facilities then under your jurisdiction? Because you do supervise all educational facilities set up under the Education Act.”
“I will ask the Minister for Education whether or not the kindergartens set up by the PCF is under his jurisdiction.”
“All right, I will ask a supplementary question.”
“But he did not ask question. He clarified the point.”
“Sir, is the Minister above Standing Orders? He stood up to clarify a point and I think the Opposition has the right to answer that point. Otherwise, it will be seen as if he is right and we are wrong.”
“Sir, may I answer the Minister on that point?”
“It is very simple. I am asking him whether or not the announcement by the Prime Minister on 31st August 1991 that constituencies that vote Opposition MPs will have their kindergarten facilities cut back - and everybody knows about that - is a political one. I am asking the Minister whether or not the educational facilities of the PCF have been used for a political purpose. Yes or no? Do not skirt the question.”
“It is a point of order, Sir. The Minister refuses to answer the question. It is very simple. He can give a "Yes" or a "No". But he is skirting around and refusing to answer the question.”
“I will ask the Minister now, from what he knows, from what he reads in the papers of 31st August 1991, does he view that announcement of cutting back on the kindergarten facilities in Opposition wards if they should vote Opposition members as a political announcement? Does he not agree on that?”
“No, I am asking the Minister, from what the public knows, from what the public has seen in the papers, are the facilities of the PCF being used for a political purpose? I am asking him that now, yes or no?”
“I am afraid the Minister has not answered my question. It is a clear-cut case and it is known to the public. He can look up the Straits Times of 31st August 1991, and it was stated that if the constituents did not vote PAP, the kindergartens will be cut back. That is a clear-cut case of using educational facilities for a political purpose. Does the Minister agree with me on that point first?”
“I am certain that the Minister did hear the announcement of the Prime Minister at the last General Election that if the constituency did not support the PAP the kindergarten will be closed. Does the Minister, in fact, view that as using the kindergarten set up by the PAP Foundation as a political tool of the Party?”
“In 1995 or 1996. If you can just give us the date, we will take up the challenge. An hon. Member: It is three or four years from now.”
“If the Government is willing to tell us when is the next general elections, we will take up the challenge. You just tell us when will be the next elections. Is it going to be in 1985 or 1986? An hon. Member: 1985?”
“We object to the fact that we were not performing well. But the votes did not reflect that. If what you say were true, then the Opposition votes would have been less. Since you say that the Opposition has not been performing well, then we should not have got the votes that we had at the last elections. But the votes prove you wrong.”
“By all means, we can evolve our system. But I think it is only fair that the electorate should know that we are going to evolve a certain system. Did you or did you not tell the electorate that you are going to have NMPs before the elections? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“Is he going to have a separation of powers like America? If he is, then we will have the same system as them. Then we can have any number of Cabinet Ministers who are nominated. Is he?”
“He brought up a very important point which has to be clarified.”
“I want to ask the Leader one question. Is he proposing a dual House? Is he proposing that?”
“Can I seek a clarification? Is the Leader of the House saying that we are going to transform our system into two Houses. If he is going to transform it into two Houses, we are willing to accept all the Nominated MPs. We are comparing different things.”
“I want a clarification from the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC. In fact, I have two points to bring up. Firstly, he said that an NMP in this House has an oblique representation. I just want him to clarify whether or not he thinks that the elected MPs have a right to appoint other MPs? In other words, have the voters given us the mandate to appoint other MPs? The other point is this. He commented that I have said that NMPs are third-class. If he wants an explanation, I will be too happy to explain to him why I call them "third-class".”
“In my view, there is still one area which need replacement, probably the Finance Minister. This was specifically mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech in March 1990 in Parliament, whereby NMPs could be office holders and one of them could be a Finance Minister. Probably the Government feels that they cannot replace one or more Ministers with a person whom the Government has in mind if the person has to go through the by-elections, because the Government probably feels that that person cannot win at the by-elections. I think that is the real reason why we want more NMPs. If this were true, then I am afraid having NMPs in the House is more for political reasons of the Government than to improve the parliamentary system or the quality of persons in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point of time, it is more appropriate if the Minister could tell us when the by-elections will be held, instead of trying to get this House to make provision for more NMPs. After all, the local press has reported that the PAP is ready for the by-elections and its members are raring to go at it. Surely, the appointment of NMPs is not to get fresh blood into this House. This can be done at the coming by-elections which was promised by the Prime Minister. Neither do I believe that the appointment of NMPs is to bring in women MPs, as has been suggested by a Member. Nor is it to have a third point of view. In fact, there is no such thing as a third point of view. Either you are for or against a motion or an issue in a debate. Was there really a third point of view when we had two NMPs in the last session of Parliament? I do not think so. The last two NMPs were specialists in their fields of work and they tended to speak very narrowly, confining themselves to their expertise knowledge. We do not need such people in Parliament. If Parliament wants experts or technical advice, it could easily obtain them from experts outside the House. In Parliament, we need people who are committed, who have a vision, who have fresh ideas for change for the good of society and for Singapore. These people, if they have the commitment, will go through, as put by another NMP, the agony of an election and get elected, and in that way, to be in this House and contribute to society. The reason for the need for NMPs, in my view, is more likely that the Government has need for potential Ministers. The last Member mentioned that he went through the list and said that there was no replacement.”
“Sir, after all the improvements at the Alexandra Hospital, will there still be C class beds? If so, how many?”
“I have been asking the same question. Why are priorities given to foreigners ahead of Singapore citizens for this very special type of premises where, I believe, the rentals are fairly low?”
“Sir, we are not talking about the breach of the law. We are talking of Singaporeans who are sitting tenants. Unless there is good reason for eviction, it has caused them grave inconveniences and great hardship. Because I understand --”
“Both foreigners as well as Singaporeans enjoy the same tenancy terms. But the thrust of the question is: why should you give these premises to foreigners and not to Singaporeans? There are alternative premises where these foreigners can go to. You have one set of premises, and you have got sitting tenants who are Singaporeans. What is the reason for evicting all these Singaporean tenants and bringing in foreigners? It is easier for the Government to house these foreigners elsewhere, or they can look for their own premises.”
“Then, Sir, why are priorities given to foreigners ahead of Singaporeans? They can easily get many of the condominium units or other units that are available. Why should they evict local Singaporeans?”
“Sir, these UDMC premises that will now be let out to foreign army personnel, are the rentals charged to these foreigners higher or lower than those charged to the local tenants? Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the details but I believe that there is no distinction between the rentals paid by the different occupants of these premises.”
“Further supplementary question, Sir. In view of the fact that the Minister has just said that he is willing to review the criteria in respect of permanent residents in Singapore, would he also be willing to review the criteria in relation to permanent residents who are marrying foreign spouses or permanent residents marrying Singaporeans?”
“Sir, I would like to ask whether the Minister is willing to publish those marriage criteria whereby Singaporeans can marry foreigners or foreigners marrying Singaporeans.”
“The Minister says that the HDB will be installing an antenna suitable for receiving Teleview. Will it also be suitable for receiving TV3 of Malaysia?”
“How does subscription TV work? Each subscriber has to pay to the commercial TV station for a modem or a device to unscramble the signals before he can get a clear picture on his TV screen. Apparently, if such a device or modem is attached to CATV, the residents in the block of flats will be able to get clear signals. So the Government will not be able to sell their devices or modems to the individual residents. Of course, if the HDB allows the Town Councils to look after the common TV antennae and when this subscription TV comes into being, I think the residents will be happy. Certainly it will be fine for the residents, but not for SBC which, we presume, will be owning this commercial TV station. Hence, to prevent the loss of revenue, HDB wants to take back the maintenance of the central TV antennae in the HDB estates. The grant, of course, given to the Town Councils for maintaining the CATV system has been taken back by the HDB.”
“Yes, there is a connection. At the moment, the number of residential and commercial units of flats in a four-member GRC is large enough to enjoy the economies of scale in running it. From this point of view, there is no need to enlarge it further. Potong Pasir is only a single-member constituency and its Town Council is doing just fine. Since a single-member constituency Town Council can manage, there is no reason why a four-member GRC cannot manage. From the management point of view, there is indeed no need to change the four-member GRC. I believe one of the reasons why the HDB is divesting the maintenance work of housing estates is that as the estates get older, such maintenance work becomes more and more troublesome. So the HDB passes this part of its difficult task to the Town Councils. In doing so, the HDB reserves for itself the more lucrative and politically sensitive parts of the common property, such as the car parks and the open spaces which may be used for public dinners, fairs or political rallies. The central TV antennae (CATV) did not, at first, come under this category. In fact, the two most troublesome areas of maintenance work are the CATV system and the lifts. Complaints of poor TV reception are received frequently, in particular, during such events as the World Cup or if there are popular films being shown. Now suddenly the HDB wants to take over the maintenance of the CATV system. Contrary to what the Minister has said, I do not believe the real reason is that HDB has the technical expertise. The Town Councils have the means to maintain any kind of CATV system and maintain it well. It does not need the HDB to do so. I believe the reason is that money is involved. We have been told that the Government will soon introduce subscription TV.”
“At first, it was suggested twinning two single-member constituencies but suddenly there was a change of mind on the part of the Government, and instead of only two single-member constituencies joining up to form a GRC, we were told that there should be three. And then before the 1991 generalelection, suddenly again there was a change in the law to bring it up to four. With the amendments to the Town Councils Act, are we soon to be further told that the number of single-member constituencies in a GRC shall be increased? This change shall certainly come into being if the Government perceives that its electoral success will be enhanced.”
“Sir, one of the common complaints against the Government is the frequency at which our laws are changed or amended, and the Town Councils Act is one of them. It has been mentioned that it was amended only in November 1990 and now we are back here to amend it. The formation of Town Councils was a big election issue in the 1988 general election. The election law was also changed, which was, to my mind, for the worse because it introduced communalism into our electoral system. It should have been more properly considered but it was not so. So we have to come back to this House again to amend this law. No doubt, there shall be further amendments to this law because, I believe, the Government considers this law as a very sensitive one. Clause 2 seeks to give more transfer time when one constituency is absorbed by another, or one constituency is given up. But the HDB now sees fit to allow 90 days for a takeover. But after the last general election, when the SDP won two more seats at Nee Soon Central and Bukit Gombak, they were only given 30 days each to carry out the transfer. I am just wondering why such a short changeover period was given for those two new constituencies. Clause 2, I believe, also envisages that there shall be further changes in our electoral boundaries. What does the Government have in mind? I do not think that the Government intends to reduce the size of present day GRCs. At the moment, each GRC can comprise up to four single-member constituencies. Is the Government considering enlarging the GRCs to make them into five single-member constituencies, or even more, instead of the present four? Members will remember that the rationale behind forming multiple single-member constituencies was to ensure that there was minority representation in this House.”
“The Minister has not answered one of my queries, and that is in regard to the levy imposed on a sitting tenant should he get a sizable profit on the resale of his flat and also the premium.”
“Perhaps the Minister could clarify these points.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noticed that the upgrading of residential flats is being done in tandem with the sale of HDB shops. Of the two, I would think that the sale of HDB shops in the open market has greater implications to the residents of HDB housing estates. Sir, I would like the Minister just to clarify whether or not, when the HDB changed its policy to sell the commercial units, they are treating the commercial units just like private commercial units, or there is still going to be a set of rules and regulations governing these commercial units in regard to their sale, rental and transfer of title, and the type of business they can do there. The HDB has got a string of regulations tying down owners of residential units. Although they pay and say that they are owners of the flats, in fact they have to get permission from the HDB for renovation, for bringing in tenants and many other aspects in connection with the flat. Sir, there are reports in the papers that there are already business people wanting to acquire shops in choice areas, and they are willing to pay very high premiums, and large sums of money have been mentioned in the papers. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the HDB is willing to treat these shops as commercial units. In other words, if the sitting tenants are allowed to purchase and if they re-sell it for a profit, is the HDB going to impose a levy on the profit? Is the HDB willing to allow a sitting tenant, after purchasing it, to rent out for a good commercial rental? Also, if the sitting tenant has already purchased the unit, is he allowed to sell it straightaway, or is there going to be a waiting period before he is allowed to sell? These are important questions for those who are now in fact tenants of these shops.”