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 4 of 85.
“Sir, I think it is the duty of the Ministry of Home Affairs to do the investigation. It is up to the Ministry to go and find out, unless of course you want me to get ---”
“Sir, I am speaking from experience. In my constituency, my rival invites Taiwanese singers or singers from China. When he comes up to sing - of course, he is a popular singer and he is very influential - and he says a lot of good things about my rival candidate and asks them even to vote for him, is this not taking part in local politics? And if they are found to be doing so, will they be warned and debarred from coming again to do the same thing?”
“Sir, will the Ministry give an assurance that if a foreign entertainer does take part in local politics when he attends a constituency function, will he be debarred from doing so again?”
“Sir, in my view, I think it is bad taste of a Minister to mention the personal name of a Member of the House, whether or not he would or would not cheat on 10 cents or 20 cents. Even if he did not put it that way, I think it is bad taste - anything that has to do with the implication of dishonesty, with money, or with a Member.”
“Sir, I want to clarify with the Minister.”
“Can I make a clarification with the Minister? Sir, I did not at any time in my speech say that I would like benefits given to some commuters to be withdrawn. If I gave that impression to the Minister, I am sorry that I put it that way. Sir, as regards the penalty of six months and $2,000 fine, my objection is the same as Prof. Ong Soh Khim's. For a 10 cent or 20 cent evasion, the penalty is $2,000 maximum or six months' jail. These are for the second time offenders. To me, that is very high. Why for a 10 cent or 20 cent evasion you are going to fine the person $2,000? That is certainly very high. My objection is on the harsh penalties. So I implied that there might be another reason - to trip the Opposition or whatever. Sir, I take objection to the Minister for being so personal and asked me whether I would cheat on 10 cents or 20 cents. I think that is very unbecoming of him as a Minister.”
“The wrong people may be enjoying the PTOs' subsidies, but not the poorest people who are enjoying the subsidies. I hope the bus companies can identify the poorest Singaporeans and give cheap fares to them. This is the proper way to give help, that is, for those who really deserve the help. Sir, in conclusion, I shall only comment on new sections 24(C)(5) and 24D which criminalise one for not paying bus or train fares or the penalty imposed. An offender can be jailed up to six months or fined up to $2,000, or both, on the second time one commits that offence. It is significant that the fine is fixed at the upper limit of $2,000 or jailed for six months. New section 24D has a similar effect but in relation to failing or refusing to pay one's taxi fares. I am disturbed, Sir, that the fine is fixed at $2,000 and the jail term fixed at six months, which are also the amount and jail term that disqualify a person from standing in any election.”
“This group of people may be in fact quite wealthy and the help given to them has been wrongly directed and loses its purpose, that is, to help the poor. The PTOs must implement a scheme of cheap fares directly aimed at the people who really are in need of help. I think it is not unfair to call on the PTOs to help the poorest people in Singapore, remembering that they do get a lot of help from the Government. Despite the fact that PTOs are constrained by the imposition of the universal service obligation (USO), that is, they cannot cherry pick their routes, they are basically monopolistic in nature and can get good returns year after year. The Government has also been really sympathetic with the PTOs and has awarded them many cost reduction measures. I shall only name the major ones for the years 1998 to 2004. In 1998, road tax was reduced from $5,500 to $1,600 per year per vehicle for omnibuses, and the estimated savings for PTOs were about $13 million a year. In 2001, the cap on the percentage of advertisements allowed on full-bodied external advertisements was raised from 20% to 40% and road tax rebates given at $100 per vehicle for omnibuses. In 2002, road tax was reduced by $200 per year per vehicle for omnibuses. In 2003, frequency of inspection of omnibuses was revised from six monthly to yearly. Statutory lifespan of omnibuses was extended from 15 to 17 years, and the estimated savings were about $6.5 million a year. Employers' CPF contribution rates were reduced from 16% to 13%. As part of the Government's efforts to help keep public transport fare affordable, interchanges and bus terminals and RTS stations are leased to the PTOs at a nominal rate of only $12 per year. At the moment, the help given by the PTOs to the public is too general.”
“In such a situation, the fund may be quickly drawn down and the PTOs shall put pressure on the PTC to approve the full minimum cap allowed which was a sizeable amount of 2.4% under the old fare adjustment formula. We still do not know what is the minimum sum cap under the new formula introduced under clause 22 of this Bill. But I hope that the PTC shall continue to be stringent when exercising its powers of approving new fare adjustments after taking into account both the interests of commuters and the viability of the PTOs in the long term. As regards my second point, Sir, I urge the PTOs, when exercising fare adjustment, to look at the plight of the very poor people in Singapore, that is, the people who are comprised in the lowest quintile of the lowest 20% household income bracket. These are the people comprising four in a family, earning only about $2,651 per month in 2003. Each month, each of these households spends a total of $2,421, of which $131 or 5.4% is spent on public transport. These households hardly have any savings at the end of each month. These are the ones most sensitive to any bus fare revision. No matter how small the fare increase is, it shall be critically felt by them. I hope the PTOs shall take note of these observations and to do something for them, maybe with the cooperation of MCYS and other NGOs to identify this group of people and give them subsidy, say, charge them less for a bus or train ride. At the moment, the help given by PTOs are too general, for example, senior citizens are given cheap fares, or 25% rebates for trunk-to-trunk rides, or the cheap fares given to school children and NSmen.”
“Sir, I have two points to make. They are, firstly, to call on the Public Transport Council (PTC) to continue to exercise restraint in approving fare price increases and, secondly, to call on the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) not to completely abandon their role as a public service provider. As regards the first point, anyone who reads this year's Annual Report of the PTC will know that the PTC had been very stringent in approving fare increases under the old fare adjustment formula framework which was implemented in 1997. As a result, during the past seven years, the actual average fare increase is only 0.7% per year as compared to the average fare increase cap of 2.4% per year. This is in line with the Government's policy of small but frequent fare increases. The Government has learnt that it is easier to implement small but frequent fare increases rather than delaying the increases which can be quite hefty causing a public hue and cry when they are implemented. This was evidenced in the 1980s when commuters boycotted taxis. At that time, taxi drivers raised their fares by an additional charge of $2. The taxi drivers tried to justify their fare increase by pointing to the steep rise in fuel price, but commuters just would not listen. Inter alia, this Bill establishes the Fuel Equalisation Fund. The purpose of this fund is to mitigate the effect of any increase in fuel price and electricity tariffs. PTOs have to pay into the fund an annual contribution of such amount as the PTC may from time to time determine. We all know that due to the uncertain world situation, oil prices are politically very vulnerable. Nobody can predict when shall be the next massive oil price increase again.”
“Donations do not only come from wealthy people but much of them also come from the hard-earned or sweat money of working people. To a working man earning $800 or $1,000 a month, a salary of $600,000 a year is quite incomprehensible, and it is certainly not peanuts. I now take the opportunity to pay tribute to the people of Singapore for being so supportive of worthwhile charities. I hope this unpleasant saga of the NKF will not make the public lose confidence in the NKF and other charitable institutions. I would urge all Singaporeans to continue to donate to the NKF, because its main function is providing subsidised kidney dialysis which is a truly worthwhile cause. The NKF has saved many lives.”
“On the issue of insisting on independent checks, I must say that this has always been the position of the Opposition in this House. The Opposition has, on many occasions in this House, called for independent committees to be formed to check on the functions of the Government, the latest of which is the call for an independent commission to supervise matters concerning the election. But the Government routinely dismisses such requests. This kind of action on the part of the Government sends wrong signals to the public. The Government is telling the public that they do not accept the practice of independent checks on public affairs, which I think is wrong. On the contrary, I think that this kind of practice must be made the norm in Singapore, because independent checks on all public affairs is the surest way to ensure transparency and to prevent abuse of power, corruption and nepotism. Accountability is the second pillar to ensure that public bodies function completely above board. Again, in this area, there must be independent checks, without which the public will never know or find out the goings-on inside of public bodies. The public which supports charities must wake up to their duties in relation to them. The public must insist that independent checks be immediately instituted in all charitable and public organisations. The third point which I wish to make is that people working in organisations of public character must have sensitivity to the feelings of the man-in-the-street. I think it is terribly insensitive to say that a salary of $600,000 a year paid to a CEO of NKF is peanuts. One must not forget that, in the case of charity, the salary of CEOs comes from donations.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. The NKF episode, in my view, is a good thing that has happened in Singapore. It is a wake-up call, a lesson to the people of Singapore. They have to be vigilant. They cannot completely trust people who hold high offices in charitable organisations and Institutions of Public Character. In the case of private commercial companies, we know that there are regulatory frameworks to check them. But as far as I know, where charitable organisations are concerned, it would appear that the rules are not that strict. The surveillance on political parties under the Political Donations Act is perhaps stricter than that for charitable organisations. The checks on charitable institutions come mainly from within. This, of course, can miserably fail, as shown in the NKF case. The NKF Board seemed to have condoned or overlooked many things which are quite irregular for a charitable organisation. The NKF Board did not object to the payment of excessively high salaries, exorbitant bonuses or luxurious perks to its CEO, and also to allow the NKF to disseminate false information to gain sympathy from the public in its donation drives. I think the public must be reminded that, for all charitable and public organisations, there must be elements of transparency, accountability and sensitivity to the feelings of the common man. The best form of transparency, of course, is to have independent checks on the finances and affairs of the charitable bodies. For this, I would recommend to the Minister to get the Opposition involved in the boards and committees of important charities in Singapore. I think that is the surest way of ensuring transparency.”
“Sir, if my Town Council, a very small one, can do it, I cannot see why other Town Councils with more funds cannot do likewise, ie, not to force a tenant to sell his flat to pay up his arrears, either in service and conservancy charges or in lift upgrading improvement contributions. In the case of lift upgrading, I think the Town Councils should firstly accumulate enough sinking funds before embarking on a lift upgrading programme. In such a situation, there is no need to get contributions from flat owners. In any event, I think it is cruel to forcibly evict a man and his family from his lodgings. I think the adults of that family can still bear the trauma, but the children's emotions may be hurt irreparably. Sir, another comment I would like to make is section 24(B). Under this new section, Sir, I would like perhaps some clarification from the Minister because, to me, it would appear that the Minister must declare a part of the precinct first before lift upgrading can be carried out in those blocks situated in that precinct. Is that right? Sir, what happens if there is a conflict between the Minister and the Town Council where the Town Council wants to improve the lifts of certain parts of the town but the Minister wants it to choose some other parts and there is a disagreement? I see that there is no provision of appeal in this part of the amendments. Maybe a section allowing appeal, when there is a disagreement between choice of precincts between the Minister and the Town Councils, should be made. And the appeal, I would suggest, Sir, should be made to some other body, or perhaps even a single judge, rather than to the Minister, because he is an interested party.”
“I would say this is purely on political grounds because a Member of Parliament who is the Chairman of a Town Council can be debarred for five years without being dishonest or corrupt but for doing good deeds, albeit maybe a breach of the Town Councils Act after its amendments. A case in point is the case which I have just cited. The Potong Pasir Town Council Chairman or its Secretary can be fined up to $5,000 for planting trees at the request of the residents on land which is not the common property. In this case, the Potong Pasir Town Council has not acted irresponsibly, because it has given an undertaking to the HDB to maintain the trees and to pay for any damage caused by any of those trees. Those trees, by the way, are healthy and thriving well, and they are enjoyed by the residents. The HDB did not take any legal action against the Potong Pasir Town Council or any of its officers or Chairman or Secretary for planting those trees outside the common areas. The next matter I want to comment on is the provision whereby powers are given to the HDB to force a sale of a flat where the owner fails to pay up his lift improvement contribution. I do not support this amendment. I think it is too harsh. How can you force a man and his family onto the streets just because he owes the Town Council some money? I have been running a Town Council for about 16 years, and I think this amendment is not necessary. It is too drastic. In our worst case scenario, our Town Council, in fact, sits it out when a flat owner owes us service and conservancy charges until the owner sells his flat then we recover all the arrears of the service and conservancy charges. I think other Town Councils can do the same, even in the case of improvement contributions.”
“The Potong Pasir Town Council wrote to the relevant authorities to obtain permission to plant those trees. There was delay, overly delay, as usual. After six months of correspondence, the Town Council was told that permission had been given to the Potong Pasir CCC to plant those trees. Members may think that this is laughable. But it is true. At Potong Pasir, the CCC wants to do the work of the Town Council at its own expense. Anyway, in this instance, the Potong Pasir CCC, after having been granted permission to plant the trees, was dragging its feet. On our part, we waited for a whole month and still the trees were not planted. As a result, my Town Council wrote to the HDB to tell them that if the trees were not planted within 14 days, the Potong Pasir Town Council shall go ahead to plant the trees, as requested by the residents. Failing a reply from the HDB and no sign of any trees planted by the CCC, the Potong Pasir Town Council went ahead to plant the 20 trees along that footpath. The HDB, of course, quickly got wind of it and was angry. I believe the law is amended today to give the HDB powers to deal with such a situation where a Town Council goes into land that is not common property. The law is now amended to give the HDB powers to prosecute the Chairman of a Town Council who orders the trees to be planted on land which is not the common property without ministerial approval. So there you are, Sir, that is the reason for the criminal element in the amendments. These amendments make the Chairman or Secretary criminally liable.”
“I wonder why the Minister wants the Town Council to pay more when it can save costs for its residents. A case in point, Sir, is the recent lift upgrading carried out by my town council at Potong Pasir, Lorong 8 Toa Payoh. We replaced 29 lifts there at a cost of just over $2 million. The estimate of the HDB for that similar job like ours is about $4 million. In such an instance, is the Potong Pasir Town Council supposed to charge flat owners improvement contributions based on $2 million or $4 million? Under this Bill, the Potong Pasir Town Council will have to make residents pay their lift improvement contributions based on the higher cost at $4 million because the amendment seems to say that the Town Council cannot charge anything cheaper than the price paid by the Housing and Development Board for similar work done. This, of course, shall make the Town Council richer. But the flat owners would be terribly dissatisfied and unhappy. The new section 33(6B) is particularly worrying and I strongly object to it. This section makes the Chairman and Secretary of the Town Council personally liable for certain breaches of the Town Councils Act. I see that it is completely unnecessary to implement criminal elements into the Town Councils Act, especially with such a severe punishment, ie, a maximum fine of $5,000. This kind of draconian punishment will certainly hold back the Chairman and Secretary of the Town Council from showing initiative to do good for the residents. An example is the recent planting of 20 trees at Potong Pasir. Residents there requested for the trees to be planted by the side of the footpath linking the MRT station and Blk 147 at Potong Pasir to give them shade. The land is not a common property but belongs to SLA, but managed by the HDB.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I support this Bill in principle on the grounds that at least the Minister still allows Town Councils to replace lifts with their sinking funds. Other than that, I notice that this Bill has not lived up to the spirit of the Town Councils Act when it was first enacted in 1988. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair] 5.07 pm When the Town Councils were formed, they were touted to be a progressive move. With the formation of Town Councils, residents in HDB flats were supposed to be given a bigger say in running the estate and that they would be developed into more responsible residents. Residents from then on can be developed into active participants in the affairs of their estates rather than only onlookers, and expect everything to be done for them. I do not see a more liberalising of the Town Councils Act in this new amendment. Sir, may I comment on section 24D(3) and (4). I shall now read the relevant parts of the two sections. Under section 24D(3), it reads, "the amount of improvement contribution payable by the owner of a flat shall be determined by the Town Council whose decision shall be final" and section 24D(4) reads, "Any improvement contribution determined by a Town Council in respect of any lift upgrading works in a precint shall not be less than the improvement contribution that the Board might have determined ... if the Board had carried out similar upgrading works in that precinct.". Sir, I am surprised that the Minister wants to make this law because he is presuming that the Town Councils cannot get a similar job done cheaper than the HDB and even when a Town Council can get a similar job done cheaper, it is not allowed to get the job done at a lower price.”
“But what I am concerned is, under the principal Act and under the amendment, there is nothing to say that the "one other person" cannot be a foreigner. Can the Minister please point out where does it say that the "one other person" shall not be a foreigner?”
“Sir, the issue is not whether the "one other person" be a qualified lawyer or not. I know that is the PAP's practice, ie, get a lawyer there, and normally a well-known lawyer at that. An hon. Member: How can you say that?”
“Sir, a further clarification with regard to "one other person". If I am not mistaken, the Minister just now mentioned that the "one other person" should not be a foreigner, and that the Returning Officer would not allow it. But under the new amendment to the Act, it says here that the "one other person" is appointed not by the Returning Officer, but by the candidate.”
“Sir, allow me to clarify why I used the word "fear". This is the exact word of the feedback from a nurse. Actually, if I had used the word "fear", it should have been within inverted commas. "Fear" not as in the sense of a person with authority whom people fear, but rather members of the public's respect for the nurse, that kind of "fear", ie, respect the nurse. I should have used the word "respect". "Respect" should be a better word.”
“If there is so much movement of nurses, it is important for Singapore to expand its training school to train more nurses to fill the vacancies. I should also like to highlight to the Minister some of the concerns of our nurses. Our local nurses say that the public has low esteem of them. They say that they are looked upon not as professionals but rather more like maids. Nurses say that some visiting members of the public at public hospitals tend to order them about to do chores for their mothers or fathers who are patients in the hospitals. Some of the more senior nurses commented that, in the past, the public respected them and were even afraid of them. But these days, they show no respect for the nurses at all and tend to treat them like their own house maids. If these are the problems, the Ministry certainly needs to do something about it to raise the image of our local nurses. If nurses indeed have such low status in the eyes of the public, it would make it more difficult for MOH to encourage young girls to join the nursing profession. I have a specific complaint from some nurses. Apparently, MOH has started a 10-year programme whereby it reorganises mass health screening every Sunday at all community clubs or CCCs throughout the island. Nurses are asked to give their time every Sunday free of charge to these centres. Some nurses say that those Sundays which they sacrifice are their rest days. I do admit that this mass health screening programme is a good public service. But can MOH make sure that nurses are not over-worked without any rest days? I hear that the Nurses Day is not a public holiday. To give more awareness to the importance of nurses, I wonder whether the Government can allow or make Nurses Day a public holiday.”
“Singapore aims to be a medical hub in the region, and it is only right that it raises its standard of nursing. The introduction of a new layer of highly qualified nurses, namely the Advanced Practice Nurses, is timely. The Minister has said that these nurses shall be of at least Master degree holders. These days medical practice has become more advanced and complex, both in practice and of medicine as well as the administrative side of it. These Advanced Practice Nurses who are highly qualified can give good aid and support to the system. The papers have reported that our universities shall be offering a degree course to nurses. In fact, in many countries, like America, Great Britain and Canada, they have already post basic or bachelor degree programmes for their nurses as early as in 1925. Singapore seems to be far behind those countries in the training of nurses with specialist degrees. In those countries, post basic programmes are offered in the universities. The purpose of the post basic programmes varies and includes the preparation of teachers, supervisors, administrators and/or nurse specialists in various fields, including midwifery, public health and teaching of auxiliaries. Some augment the education received in other programmes. Enrolment is generally small in relation to the need of postgraduates. Allow me just to make a brief comment on the local nursing scene. There seems to be a shortage of nurses in Singapore. Nurses are recruited from China and the Philippines. Other than the language problems, I hear that there is a high rate of attrition among the foreign nurses. Foreign nurses move to greener pastures once they get the training in Singapore, both in language and professional skills.”
“Before they start their speeches, they can tell us that they have to agonise for four or five days. It is because it is a PAP line. They want a society that is clean, hardworking and does not earn the money the easy way, and be moral. Now suddenly, they want to change and make a U-turn. I think it is difficult, both for the PAP and non-PAP.”
“It was announced that the $100, collected as an entrance fee, shall be donated to the Totalisator Board. I hope that this money can be fairly distributed to all charitable causes, including those which have gone bankrupt for lack of funds. On our part, my party, the SDA, has called on the Government to compensate Singaporeans for the social ills that come with the casinos. The compensation can come in the form of revenues generated by the casinos. The income from the casinos can be made to subsidise public health services and also go to pay for welfare and unemployment benefits to those workers who have lost their jobs. Many Singaporeans worry that the building of high-class tourist resorts, the increase of tourist trade, the influx of great numbers of tourists and the expensive things sold at the resorts can cause the cost of living in Singapore to go up. Can the Government, with these pressures on the consumer prices, ensure that the cost of living in Singapore remains stable? My other concern is that, say, in 10 years' time, when we are faced with unmitigated competition from casinos that spring up in China and the neighbouring region and that there is a falling business in our two IRs, will the Government, in such a new situation of falling business, ensure that the restrictions imposed on the operators remain the same or accommodate the demands of the casino operators, for example, to open the doors of the casinos wider to local punters? Another concern relates to existing high-class hotels and the convention centre at Suntec City and the exhibition halls. Will the new facilities at the two IRs not duplicate the existing ones?”
“The casino may only occupy 3-5% of the total floor space of the IR, but because the total floor space is so large - in our case, several times that of Takashimaya - the 3-5% occupied by the casino is physically a very large area. The Government should tell us the actual floor space to be occupied by the gambling element, and not just gloss over and say that it takes up only 3-5% of the total floor space of the IR. The other important point touted by the Government is that the casino shall create 35,000 jobs. But academics have voiced uncertainty whether the 35,000 jobs created can be the net gain of jobs for Singaporean workers, or that the majority of the jobs created go to foreigners. I would like the Prime Minister to give an assurance and also how he can assure that the majority of the jobs created are passed on to Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans are wondering whether Temasek Holdings, through its Government-linked companies, shall go into business with the operators of the casinos. It is of course very tempting for the Government to do so, as casinos all over the world generally make good money. The Opposition, for one, will definitely object to the Government going into the casino business, because there is a conflict of interest. The Government collects revenue from casinos as one of its sources of income. Therefore, if the Government is in business with the casinos, it shall want the casino to make as much money as possible, so that it can collect more taxes from the casinos. A casino can only increase its revenue at the expense of the punters who are members of the public or foreigners. The Government must never go into business with the casino operators. On this matter, the Government must be absolutely transparent.”
“In reality, the amount which shall be lost by Singaporeans at the casinos shall probably be double or triple that figure. The human cost and suffering shall also be very significant. The Government tries to put across to Singaporeans that the licences are given for integrated resorts, with only a small part, about 3-5% of the floor space devoted to the casino. But, in truth, it is the casino or the gambling element that clinches the deal. It is the gambling part that rakes in the money to subsidise the losses that will be incurred by the resort part of the development. Las Vegas was started as a gambling destination in the 1920s. Gamblers in America and from all over the world flocked to that city to indulge in unrestrained gambling. As a result, Las Vegas boomed. As it prospered, the casinos expanded and became bigger and more glitzy. All the vices like drugs, women, alcohol and gangsterism also surfaced. Soon, Las Vegas was well-known not only in America but all over the world as the sin city. In the 1980s, the city fathers did not like the image that the city was being portrayed, ie, a sin city. They decided to change the image of the city by building new infrastructures to attract families to holiday there. They changed the image of Las Vegas from a place purely for gamblers to a place where it was also suitable to bring children for a wholesome holiday. That is the genesis of the resort concept of the casino development. The casino is the most important part of the so-called integrated resort. The Government should be truthful and not tell the people that the casino is only a small part of the IR. But even this assertion is not quite accurate.”
“Sir, I am against the setting up of a casino in Singapore. My party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, has already announced that it is against the casino. We are of the view that the permission, when given to establish a casino in Singapore, is the first step down the slippery slope. Singapore has, over the past 40 years, painstakingly developed itself into a clean, honest, hardworking and moral society. All these shall eventually be destroyed or diluted into a form which we may not like our future generations to live in. Once we officially plant the seed of gambling in our soil, it is only a question of time that it will grow and spread in our land. Now we allow licences for only two casinos. Who knows, in time, there shall be more and more licences issued, if the Government needs the revenue, and also when the casinos shall be the main source of revenue for the Government. Look at London. At first, only a few licences were issued. But over a period of about 40 years, casinos have mushroomed all over that city. Recently, the Labour Govern ment was pressured to change the law to allow a Las Vegas-type casino to be opened in London. Is that not the initial sign of that city going down the slippery slope? What I am afraid of is that since many Singaporeans have a habit of gambling, the casino may dominate the way of life in Singapore and gambling becomes the ethos of the land. The harm done can be incalculable. According to Chia Teck Leng, based on only one game, baccarat, the punter will make a potential loss of $12,480 a year. A recent MCYS survey revealed that 55,000 adults may be addicted to gambling. If we take only this number, which I think is very conservative, the loss to Singaporeans for just only one game in the casino is $686 million.”
“Sir, the Minister says that the Ministry is extending the number of students beyond the 30% mark of cohort. So, how many percent, please?”
“Sir, I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, in these days of low HDB resale value of flats, many HDB flat owners who even want to downgrade make a loss and this causes hardship to them because they cannot afford even to purchase a smaller flat. Secondly, I would like to ask whether the Minister is agreeable to let an owner of a flat to be charged a resale levy, based on a percentage of the profit made. And for those resale flats that make a loss, the resale levy should be waived altogether.”
“Sir, the handout is on youth initiatives, but when we read the programme, every one of them is started by the Government. There are no innate youth initiatives at all. Sir, I think if we really want to train our youths to be leaders, we should allow them to initiate, rather than let the Government keep leading them by the hand as to what to do, especially in our secondary schools, junior colleges and universities. All our students should be allowed to initiate activities or programmes for themselves, and that is how they learn. They have to do things themselves, rather than the Government leading them by the hand all the time. I wonder whether the Government will encourage more of the youths in our schools, junior colleges and universities to take the lead and do things for themselves.”
“It is sad to know that almost all younger Singaporeans have not had the opportunity to learn basic Malay. Singapore is in the heart of the Malay world. Indonesia and Malaysia are our close neighbours. They have over 220 million people between them. Their economies, although not as strong as ours, are improving. I think it would benefit Singapore, if Singaporeans could communicate with people in these neighbouring countries in their language. I am pleased and happy to read in the Straits Times of 18th February 2005 that the Education Ministry is considering an option to let students learn Malay or Bahasa as the third language - read, speak and understand it, without having to master the writing. I think Malay is a language important enough for Singapore to make it a compulsory subject at the elementary level. I would like to know whether the Minister is willing to make ML3 a mandatory, but not examination, subject in our schools.”
“The Malay language or Bahasa Melayu has a chequered existence in Singapore. In the 1950s, nearly all Singaporeans could speak bazaar Malay. English in those days was not spoken by the common working people, except a minority of Singaporeans who were educated in the English medium schools. In 1954, the PAP was formed and it proclaimed inter alia in its first party manifesto as follows, "A lingua franca is necessary and moral, political and practical considerations make Malay, rather than English, the obvious choice. The alleged inadequacy of the Malay language as a lingua franca is not disinterested propaganda. The Malay language in Indonesia, freed from Dutch colonial restraints, is rapidly becoming a comprehensive means of expression and communications in science and technology, commerce, industry and the humanities. By contrast, the Malay language in this colonial country remains static." In 1954, the PAP's aim was to make Malay the lingua franca of Singapore. It nearly succeeded when Singapore joined Malaya to form Malaysia. In 1963, Malay was a compulsory subject in all Government and Government-aided schools, and all civil servants were required to study Malay. They all had to pass Standard One Malay; otherwise they could not be confirmed. During that period from 1963-1965, when Singapore was part of Malaysia, the promotion and study of the Malay language amongst Singaporeans was at its zenith. But the fall of the popularity of the Malay language as its rise was just as fast. After 1965, with the advent of the mother tongue policy in Singapore, where only Malay students were allowed to study Malay as a mother tongue or second language, all Singaporeans, who were non-Malays, did not study Malay and were quite ignorant of the subject.”
“I hope the Minister could arrange for regular talks by successful Singaporeans in schools to inculcate confidence in the students. My second point is on the enrolment of foreign students in our newly opened music conservatory. Singapore has only one conservatory and has proven to be very popular. The enrolment to the conservatory is high and competition for places is keen. I know Singapore observes meritocracy. In the case of admissions to the conservatory, I am certain that only those who qualify could get admitted, yet, I read in the newspapers that parents are complaining that too many foreign students are enrolled in the conservatory and their own children, who are Singaporeans, have missed out. Has the admission procedure not been made clear to those parents? Could the Minister explain whether there is a policy to gain foreign talents in our conservatory at the expense of local students? Character Development”
“Sir, I wish to address on two issues: one, the competition in local schools for foreign students; and two, the admission of foreign students to our recently opened Music Conservatory. Recent reports in local press indicate that the students in Victoria Junior College are not coping well with the challenge from foreign students. One pupil complained, "When I see them getting better results than me, I feel inferior and pressured." Others suffer emotions, ranging from jealousy and envy to awe and admiration. A local parent commented that, "Foreign students would also take away jobs from our kids at the end of the day." What disturbs me is that we have taught our pupils almost everything in school, except confidence - how to be confident in oneself. I think confidence in oneself is an important element which could determine whether a person succeeds or fails in his life's journey, which is a long one. It is often said that life is a marathon. So the success or failure in junior college examinations is only a very small part in the life-long journey. The important point is that it must not be able to destroy the confidence of a student. In response to the said newspaper report, SM Goh said that, "What the junior college students experience is nothing. Wait till they go out into the globalised world. They shall meet challenges which are many times stiffer than what they experienced from the foreign students in schools." Whatever it is, our students must be brought up to have confidence in themselves. If they have that kind of positive attitude they shall have better chances of succeeding in life. Maybe a good example is what Dr Loo has said, the zi cha man, he has got so much confidence he is willing to sail alone around the world.”
“Two of the three major power stations are already supported by two sources of gas and the third power station plans to have its second pipeline by the middle of this year. Sir, many Singaporeans are complaining of the high electricity prices in Singapore. Singapore's electricity tariffs are twice as costly as that of Malaysia. This high electricity cost will further burden even more poor Singaporeans who already could not afford to pay their utility bills and have to suffer termination of their electricity supply. I hope the Minister shall expedite all efforts to liberalise the gas market and take all other steps which could soon lower electricity prices to the consumers. Research and Development Plan”
“Sir, Singapore is overpaying for its natural gas. The Business Times article of 17th February 2005 reports that Singapore buys natural gas from Malaysia and Indonesia at prices which make our purchases of natural gas from our neighbours the most expensive in the world. It states: "Given a proliferation of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) suppliers world-wide and that, Korea Gas is the world's biggest LNG importer, it has squeezed a good deal. The price paid for the gas - to be shipped from Russia, Malaysia and Yemen - is more than a third cheaper than the natural gas piped into Singapore from next-door Malaysia and Indonesia. Taking advantage of rival bids from Iran and Australia's North-West Shelf, Korea Gas secured the LNG at 40% below current prices. The Korean LNG price is 35-45% lower than the price of natural gas Singapore buys from its neighbours." The Business Times report further states that according to consultancy Facts Incorporated, Singapore buys gas from Malaysia and Indonesia based on high prices, making it among the world's most expensive gas. It was reported in the local press of 4th March 2005 that the Minister plans to liberalise the gas market to encourage more sources of gas supply into the energy system. The resulting competitive pressure should spur players to do better on both prices and reliability. The Minister also pointed out that last year's June power failure highlighted the question of whether Singapore Gas was relying too much on one source of fuel to generate electricity and whether it should diversify its fuel types and sources. He suggested that one measure is for generation companies to be fed by gas from two sources.”
“They did say that they were going to plant a tree.”
“I did not know whether they would do so.”
“Thank you, Sir. About this tree planting at Potong Pasir, permission was given to the CCC to do so. But permission was not given to the MP to plant the tree. If that is the case, we might as well have the CCC or its adviser run the constituency. Why bother to have elections and elect an MP?”
“Sir, is there time for another clarification?”
“Sir, the facts of this tree planting case show that residents have requested me to plant the trees. The HDB and/or the CCC had stopped me from doing so as an MP. I think this is an important point. Can anyone stop the MP from doing his legal duties?”
“After about six months of correspondence and telephone calls, I was told that permission had been granted to the CCC, and the PAP election candidate, as adviser, could plant the trees. To make a long story short, finally, I did plant the trees myself.”
“I came to know of it only at a very late date when the programme was at its tail end. 3.45 pm With this kind of a situation, I have a fear that my work as an MP shall be hindered. The saga which I am about to cite refers to planting of trees again. I say again, because when I was first elected, the HDB even refused permission for me to plant one tree. This time round, residents requested me to plant a row of trees along a footpath linking the MRT station at Upper Serangoon Road to Block 147 at Potong Pasir Avenue 1, to provide a shade for them from the sun. That request was made about six months ago in August 2004.”
“Sir, I have got a cut on the role of an MP. "Members of Parliament represent the whole community, responsible in the last resort to their own consciences" wrote Professors Waite and Philips in their book "Constitutional Law". This quote is in the context of the English parliamentary system. But, in Singapore, our system is the dominant-party system with an "administrative state", according to Chan Heng Chee in her book entitled "The Dynamics of One-Party Dominance - The PAP and the Grassroots". She says that Singapore is an administrative state. What does this mean? To me, it means that in Singapore's case, due to the ruling party being a one-party government for so long, about 50 years, it has come very close to the civil servants. The civil servants feel obliged to help the PAP readily since it is so close to the ruling party. The implication is that those who are in the PAP or have close connections with them get things done more readily, for example, the allocation of TOL of large pieces of land to the PAP election candidate in my constituency. People who believe in a democratic system of government shall not tolerate this kind of situation because it can be easily abused. I have got this kind of problem in my constituency. Large pieces of land aforesaid, in my constituency, and choice places for putting up banners, have been allocated to my rival, the PAP election candidate. And, furthermore, Government policies which involve public funds are given to the PAP election candidate to implement at Potong Pasir. I refer to the HDB offering free services to make good spalling concrete. The information about such free services was told to the PAP candidate but not to the elected MP in the constituency.”
“Through him, at least. And it was for two or three town signs, if I am not mistaken. I think the amount was $6,000. That is all. And to date, I believe a PAP constituency has, on average, received about $1 million.”
“Can I just clarify? I believe the CIPC funds received by Potong Pasir was awarded to a PAP election candidate. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Thank you. Sir, I have two comments to make. Firstly, at least, Dr Wang has received some money. I have not received any money at all. The other comment is that: does he know that we have to pass through the first hurdle at the constituency level before we can go to the Committee in which he is sitting? That means, we have to go through the person whom I defeated at the last election for permission. What do you think his answer would be?”
“The complaint is that, for this type of workers, not only is the pay low, but they are often exploited by the employers. A woman once wrote to the press complaining her mother's pay of $600 as a sweeper is often not paid on time. Her mother's employer often delayed a month before she received her wages. On top of the delay, the employer pegged her mother's basic wage at $300, and the rest as variable components. The CPF contributions are based on the $300 basic wage. This example which I cite, I believe, is quite rampant among the poorly paid. No wonder Singaporeans are reluctant to take up the so-called "dirty jobs", because not only is the pay low, but workers are also unfairly exploited. What the unions need to do for these workers is to fight for a minimum wage of at least $1,000 a month for them. I believe that, with the higher pay, more Singaporeans will come forward to fill vacancies in these so-called "dirty jobs". It is also noted that the poorly-paid workers, once they leave a job, find it hard to get an alternative job. Perhaps the Government could make welfare more accessible to them. They are also less educated, and often do not know where to get help. These ignorant workers should be given help to get help. Sir, as for estate duty, my stand remains the same as the one I took in Parliament recently. Since the income from estate duty, estimated at $75 million a year, is so low, the Government should consider abolishing it. Once that is done, Singapore can be fully developed into a wealth management hub. If estate duty is scrapped, then there is no need for the concession to exempt death duty of a second member of a family dying soon after one family member has passed away. This concession is only a look-good one. In reality, it is a waste of time.”