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 40 of 85.
“The surpluses envisaged are from $1 billion to $2 billion each year. $1 billion is one thousand million dollars which is a very big figure. No wonder when the HDB increases the rentals, it does not do so by gradual steps of 10% or 20%, but a hefty jump of 30% at one go. This type of rental increase is much higher than those in the private sector. I am told the rent for a hawker stall in a coffeeshop situated in a public housing estate can be as high as $4,000 per month. To the people of my generation, this kind of hawker stall rental is mind-boggling. No wonder the hawkers now have to work 14 to 18 hours a day. The Government says that it has to operate on a "lean and trim" basis. The average man-in-the-street has been operating on that basis for years. They have been lean and trim because they have to work at least 10 hours upwards per day for 361 days a year, save for the four days taken off for the Chinese New Year holidays. Indeed, it is not a wise policy to have high budget surpluses every year at this stage of Singapore's development. Money should be spent more on nation building, on culture, on the arts and education. Culture and the arts are not trivial or frivolous matters. Indeed, you will note that those countries which have high economic development have people not only with a high level of education but they are also more cultured. We need to build a more cultured, dynamic and vibrant society, where we can cultivate a new generation of Singaporeans who are more creative and innovative, and who can rise to meet the challenges of a more competitive business environment, which will become even more competitive in the years to come. I say that the budget has no balance towards the lower-income group; the budget should be tilted more in favour of the workers.”
“At the same time, it also needs funds for its current development projects. This Government has committed to spend or to put aside $1 billion of the reserves for its Edusave programme, and to top it up if there are surpluses from the revenue. What does all this mean to the common man? He will have to work even harder and pay higher costs. Otherwise, how does the Government accumulate money in Singapore? The answer is obvious - dip deeper into the pockets of Singaporeans. We hear of talks about restructuring and upgrading. This type of thinking in the Government circle only means one thing - the people have to pay more for their services or rentals. The latest talk is about the restructuring of HDB shops. The sale prices put up by the HDB are so exorbitant. It has been worked out that, in some cases, sitting tenants of HDB shops shall have to pay double their present rentals over a 15-year period. Those prices are, in many cases, even more expensive than privately developed commercial units. In addition to these high prices, we must not forget that the HDB's costs in building those shops are much lower than that of private developers. Land cost to the HDB is also low. Some of the land acquired by the HDB are for a song. Some of those land which are originally used for burial grounds, or are zoned as agricultural land, or are in the green belt, have been acquired by the HDB for, I am told, about 75 cents per square foot. You might spend another 75 cents to clear the squatters, or to clear the land. At the rate the HDB is pricing the commercial units these days, the land cost is probably inflated to $100 per square foot. On land alone, the HDB has inflated their land cost about 100 times. The Government has to make big profits to accumulate budget surpluses.”
“Therefore, we start to wonder whether the excuse given by the Minister holds any water. Perhaps, the true reason is that costs have been pushed up by Government policies. This is common knowledge. Some of the high costs incurred by businesses due to Government policies are the high foreign workers levy, high rentals, high cost of transport and the high employer's CPF rate. In fact, the local business community has already sounded its alarm bells. This was reported in a recent article in a local newspaper. The Government should take heed of that instead of waiting until another recession hits us, like in 1985 when we had a minus 1.8% growth. In that year, and the year after that, there were many untold hardships suffered by our Singaporean workers, especially those in the middle-aged group, ie, those above 40 years old. They were retrenched and it was impossible for them to get to find an equivalent paying job. Credit must be given to the Singaporean workers. Somehow they managed to pull through and survived. I hope that does not happen again. Year after year, the Government's budget reflects two characteristics. One is the Government's policy to have a surplus budget. And two, it is distinctly a pro-business budget. From this year onwards, the budget must get the clearance of the President. The Government cannot spend the reserves which it has not accumulated during its term of office. The previous Government has accumulated about $50-odd billion, and Dr Ow has said $58 billion. Nobody really knows the true figure. This must put tremendous pressure on the present Government and any future governments. The Government must now be under pressure to try to accumulate as much reserves as it can to show that it can perform just as well as the previous Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the figures given by the Minister, Singapore's ranking, as far as the percentage of economic growth is concerned, is no longer the highest, or amongst the highest in East Asia and the region. We rank fifth after South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan. So the Government, unlike in the 1970s, does not have the privilege any longer, year after year, to boast of Singapore's high percentage growth rate in the region. South Korea's economy expanded by a credible 8.6% in 1991. That was significant on two points. Firstly, that country, if you will recall, suffered many student and political riotings. Industries were disrupted because of the incessant political upheavals. Yet, South Korea could pick itself up and show an improvement on her economic performance. I am not advocating rioting in Singapore. But it does go to show that if a country's technological and industrial infrastructures are well entrenched, and its people are resilient, domestic political upheavals cannot destroy the economy. It could pick itself up and improve on it. The second point in regard to South Korea's 8.6% growth, I would refer to the question of maturity. We can safely say that the level of economic development of South Korea can match that of Singapore. To that extent, and not taking into account its level of GDP per head of population, its economy must be as mature or, if not, more mature than that of Singapore, and yet it can achieve a sizeable 8.6% growth. Whereas in Singapore, in 1991, there was only a 6.7% growth. The Government predicts that the growth of Singapore shall be in the region of 4% to 6% in the years to come. South Korea's economy, in many ways, is just as mature as ours. Yet, it can still have an economic growth of more than 8% a year.”
“What sort of timeframe has the Minister in mind before the demand picks up again with this $50 increase?”
“Sir, I think the more important question is: after the increase in the levy, is there an increase of foreign maids? Or has the number reduced?”
“Sir, if Singapore is to increase its industrial and technical activities, then it must have a good infrastructure. A good infrastructure must include of course trained and skilled workers. Therefore, we must go all out to get more of our school leavers to be properly trained. There is another aspect of skills training. Not only will skills training equip them to earn a living, but in fact it will also inculcate discipline, dignity and self-respect in our workers. This is an important aspect. One of the problems of primary school leavers is that perhaps they lack this self-respect and they have no confidence in themselves. The solution perhaps is not to phase out NTC-3, but rather to make our schooling compulsory for eight years. If we could afford, it would be 10 years. Then they will have secondary school training. Sir, despite what I have said about replacing a label, I do support the Bill and I hope the Bill, when it is implemented, will also have some aspects in which our apprentices could benefit from them.”
“Sir, I note the Minister had technical problems with the lectern. It is perhaps timely that the Institute of Technical Education is established. Sir, may I have some clarifications? This Bill says that it repeals the Vocational and Industrial Training Board Act. Does it mean that when this Bill comes into being, the Vocational and Industrial Training Board will cease to exist? If that is so, then this Bill is not really establishing a new technical institute of education, but rather just taking one label down and putting up a new one. The Opposition, in fact, hopes that a new technical institute will be established, because Singapore needs a lot more skilled people and much more training of vocational, industrial and technical personnel. Even as shown by the statistics given by the Minister, over the last 10 years, the VITB only trained 120,000 of our school leavers. This is definitely not enough with a workforce of over a million people. And I believe not long ago, we read that 60% of our workers were illiterate in literacy and numeracy. Even up to today, there are only 150,000 trained and certified skilled workers. This is about 10% of the workforce. No wonder, we are ranked 14th by Beri's standard, as far as trained manpower is concerned. The Minister has talked much of the apprenticeship training schemes of Japan, Germany and Switzerland. They have a long history of apprenticeship. Singapore does not, especially when we are an Asian country, and people are very selfish in departing their skills. I had mentioned this once and I met with very hostile reception. I hope attitudes have changed. Sir, it is a good thing to have apprenticeship schemes in Singapore. I think all professions, all business people, should be encouraged to have this kind of culture.”
“Sir, I just want a clarification from the Minister. If that is the objective of SISIR - not to compete with local industries - is the Minister willing to recommend that the objective in new section 15A(n) be deleted? Then I think the business and commercial people in Singapore would feel very much safer to send their products to SISIR for testing.”
“Sir, may I also be allowed to seek some clarifications from the Minister. I think SISIR's policy of getting full cost recovery does hurt local businessmen and also Town Councils. Our Town Council happened to send some paint to SISIR for testing and we were given a hefty bill of, I think, over $10,000. Fortunately, it was not paid by us. It was paid by the contractors. But SISIR should review its policy in respect of testing. It should try to reduce its costs and not to get back quickly all its cost on capital equipment. As I look through the powers of SISIR, I note that under the new section 15A(n), SISIR is allowed to "form or participate in the formation of a company or companies and enter into any joint venture or partnership for the purposes of this Act". Would this power not be a conflict of interest with SISIR? SISIR is given a lot of articles, commodities, technical goods for testing, and probably they will know much of the specification and also of the possible technical secrets that are in the product. Would it not be tempted, if the product is a viable one, to use it for its own ends, form a company and market those products? There should be a clause which says that SISIR should be prevented from getting inside knowledge, so to say, for its own use. This would give confidence to the users of SISIR. Perhaps the Minister could look into this point.”
“Sir, I just want to get the Minister to name the level of noise which is within the Ministry of the Environment's guideline?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. (1) Can MPs apply to buy shops now before their offices are demolished in September? (2) Will change of use be granted when they purchase these commercial premises?”
“Is it not true that these touting activities arise as a direct result of the high take-over rentals of these hawkers from another hawker? They have to get the business to cover their rentals. In the first place, hawkers should not be allowed to sublet or sell their licences for an exorbitant fee in which the hawker taking over must recover those heavy expenses.”
“Did you or any of the PAP MPs apply to be advisors at the CC?”
“Sir, since the Government has plans to bring the MRT line to Woodlands, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are also plans to extend this line to Johor Baru.”
“When can I be allowed to make a clarification?”
“No, I want to get a point of clarification from Dr Michael Lim.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I think we have enough time. We are already more than half-way through.”
“Sir, is this House going to allow Members to say untruths of another Member? I do not think this is right, Sir. We cannot set this precedent.”
“The point of order is that Members of this honourable House should respect the reputation of other Members. They cannot take pot-shots at them and say untruths about that other Member. That is the point of order, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before he goes on to his next topic, I have an objection to make. Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Dr Lim?”
“This leaves me only to say that we have now four Opposition Members in Parliament and I am certain that it would be good for Singapore, and it should be for the benefit of not only Singaporeans but also Members - I cannot say for both sides of the House - and I think for everyone.”
“The other more troubling matter is that once we have got four Opposition Members in the House, the Government sees it fit to immediately react by not providing MPs with offices at the void decks any more. I have been told that I have to vacate my office at the void deck by September of this year. I do not know what is the rationale. There are plenty of void decks, plenty of room for the MPs to use, and yet this petty little annoyance is handed down which, I think, is meant for Opposition MPs. It would appear that the Government intends to put every little obstacle in the way of the Opposition MPs. Of course, it would not succeed. But the more important point is the attitude of the Government. Does the Government not recognize Opposition MPs? Does the Government not recognize that the Opposition has a rightful place in Singapore? Is the Government intent in ruling the country forever? And therefore, with that in mind, all the implications follow. The Government should be fair and should recognize that the Opposition can play a constructive role in Singapore and should not place too many obstacles in its way. I have difficulties in getting a tuition centre, a swimming pool and a creche off the ground at Potong Pasir. Somehow or other, it passes from one department to another department, but nothing seems to move. We are all for Singapore and, therefore, I think it is high time that the Government should recognize that. We are not asking for favours or anything of that sort to be handed down on a silver spoon, but please give us a fighting chance. It would be good for democracy and good for Singapore.”
“Apparently, the land in which the clubhouse is situated belongs to the PUB, and it is on a monthly lease. The Government would like to convert it to a 30-year lease. The members have to pay something like $154 million so that they could get a longer lease. I think they have no quarrel in that regard. But what they are quarrelling is that after having paid the rental the landlord comes down and does not give them the peaceful possession of the place. The Government insists that they have control of the Club. This is a different case from the taking over of the Turf Club. I was in this House when the Bill was suddenly passed. It was also a sudden coup d'etat, in which with one swoop something like $300 million was taken by the Government from the officials of that Club. In this particular SICC case, the Government, of course, cleverly gave the members an offer which they could not refuse, ie, they could transfer their membership for a hefty fee and, of course, members took the bait. But the point is: why should the Government in its deal have control of the Club? These club members are all well-known people - judges, high Government officials, people in the profession. They are certainly honest men of integrity and they have knowledge of running a club. The question is: why should the Government have control of the Club? As it is, the Government has control of almost every public organization, every facet of life in Singapore. So if we are really going to have democracy in Singapore, please let the people do things themselves, especially honest, well-meaning people of Singapore. I think we should not continue the trend of control and supervision from the top. It would be unhealthy for the long-term survival of Singapore.”
“I say that we should have more democracy in our university, not just for the sake of having democracy. We do need a more open, more free, more democratic society, for our future survival. Our population is our main resource. Therefore, they can only be trained to their utmost potential to become leaders in business and in their professions, to become dynamic entrepreneurs, industrialists, showing great initiative, creativity and innovativeness, only if they have the right environment. A free democratic environment is the correct one, and not a stifling authoritarian like environment. In the same report, Dr Balakrishnan has complained that there were no great men or leaders produced by the universities, and it is not surprising that no great man or leader has come out of such universities. Why? Because they have no freedom in our campus. There is only fear. They dare not to speak out. They go there, they are lectured: Study hard, pass your examinations and do not be involved in any other activities, especially political ones. Therefore, for the sake of the long-term survival, I would like to call on the Government, as part of its programme for this term, to introduce more freedom and more democracy in our two universities and also in our polytechnics. Another incident which was reported in the press, and which I would like now to quote, is the taking over of a local well-known golf club, the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC). I am not a member of that Club. I am not interested in the details, but I am interested in the principle involved. It would appear to me that the Government has been rather blatant and has disregarded the opinions of others. It just came down and did a coup.”
“And I hope there are good teaching methods and not because of poor teaching methods that there are too many drop-outs. The other important issue which has not been touched in the President's Speech, and which I consider to be important for Singapore's future, is the question of democracy and freedom. Does the Government intend to introduce more democracy in our society in the near future? Is the Government going to relax a little its political grip on the people of Singapore? Are we going to see more democracy and freedom? Despite what the Prime Minister has said about his consultative style, it would seem that the Government is not loosening up its grip. ISD and other harsh laws are all still present. The authoritarian rule of the Government is still continuing. I was just reading yesterday's Straits Times and there was a headline somewhere in the middle of the paper, and I quote: "Give students and alumni more say in running NUS." Dr Vivian Balakrishnan was quoted as saying "that students and alumni should be given more say in running the university if they are to identify with it". Our universities still have no autonomy, as we know it in the West. I think it is high time the Government loosened up a bit and take note of what the students and alumni of the NUS are saying and start to consider giving some form of autonomy to our local universities. Students and alumni should be given more say. It is only right. How long are we going to hold our university administrators, lecturers and students on the leash? The students in our university must not be controlled like school kids. University students are our future leaders. How can they develop to be leaders when they are not given the environment to do so?”
“Singaporeans are beginning to talk of being a Chinese, a Malay or an Indian rather than identifying themselves as being Singaporeans. The Government seems to be introducing more Chineseness into our Chinese population, rather than telling them that they are Singaporeans. Our roots are in Singapore and this is where we belong, not China. This kind of Government policy has made non-Chinese Singaporeans rather uncomfortable. They begin to think that they no longer belong here. Some of them, I am sure, have migrated, citing this as one of the reasons. I am not saying that the Government must immediately change its policy because some Singaporeans have migrated. But the more important issue is whether such a policy, which decides what Singapore will eventually be, will be detrimental to us as a nation. I believe that if we are to separate and compartmentalize our different ethnic groups, we are only sowing problems for the future generations of Singaporeans. In the Canadian case, it was the generosity of General Wolfe at the Battle of Quebec. He was the British General who beat the French. But after conquering his adversaries, he was gentleman enough to allow the French to continue their language, their culture and way of life. And that sowed the seed for separation. We must not sow the seed for separation of the different ethnic groups now. I know that this is a sensitive and difficult problem, but I believe we can solve it. We have a long history of multi-racialism and racial harmony and I am sure we can solve it. Lest I be misunderstood, I have always supported the bilingual policy. I think it is good that each of us learn another language and I would support even the teaching of the second languages, the so-called mother tongue, in all our primary schools.”
“It has happened in the province of Quebec in Canada. The French-speaking population there wants the French language and way of life to be accepted as the official norm in that province. The French-speaking population's feelings in that province are so strong that they are in fact asking and clamouring for a separate state. We do not want that to happen to Singapore. In fact, we are too small for that. We in Singapore must learn this lesson from the French experience in Canada. We are still young. If we pick the wrong choice, we are creating trouble for the future generations. If we settle for a compartmentalised and separate culture, language and way of life for the Malay, Chinese and the Indian population in Singapore, this kind of set-up which will eventually crystallise or ossify, then each ethnic group definitely, when that time arrives, will demand more and more rights for themselves. And we can never have peace and stability in Singapore in the future. This is not a new issue. It has been discussed before. But it has been obviously and glaringly left out in the President's Speech. In the past five years, the PAP Government has tended to move away from their earlier stand of a Singaporean Singapore. We all remember that PAP fought hard for a Malaysian Malaysia and I believe that it also definitely wanted a Singaporean Singapore. But the PAP has now a change of mind in regard to this policy. Even the PAP's former party theoretician and former Senior Minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, and I believe many other non-Chinese PAP members are also worried about the trend that the Government is taking. Singaporeans have been made more aware of their own race.”
“Sir, I rise to thank the President for his Speech. Before I go on to my speech proper, I would like to reply to what Dr John Chen, hon. Member for Hong Kah GRC, has said in regard to the standard of living in the 70s as compared to today. In 1972, I was told that an engineer with an MSc who returned to Singapore was paid $1,600. With that salary, he could afford to rent a flat, buy a car, have a maid and still go night-clubbing, after which he still had some pocket money left in his pocket. I am sure any returned engineer from abroad with a salary of $1,600 today cannot enjoy such a standard of living. I am sure the 1972 engineer was better off than his contemporary of today. So even for the same income in the 70s, people were definitely better off than today. We are here to debate on the President's Speech. We are here to discuss on what we want Singapore to be in the next generation. What is glaringly missing in the Government's long-term goals for Singapore is that it has not clearly spelt out what sort of nation it wants Singapore to be. Does it want Singapore to be a homogeneous society, ie, to strive for a Singaporean Singapore, or does it want Singapore to have the races compartmentalised, each ethnic group coexisting only with each other? Any serious Singapore citizen who cares for the long-term good of our country must opt for the former. It is only having one political type of Singaporeans that we can truly be a united nation. I cannot see how we can be united as one nation if each ethnic group has its own language, culture and way of life. If we are to be separated in this way, each ethnic group will entrench their positions even stronger for fear of being swamped by the other group's culture, language and way of life. This is not new.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that you have been unanimously re-elected as Speaker of this House. Sir, allow me and my two colleagues to join the Leader of the House and also, I believe, other Members of the House, in congratulating you on your re-election to this high office. Sir, I was fortunate to be a Member of this House in the last session of Parliament when you were also a Speaker. You are a very patient man and often your patience has been tested and you were never ruffled. I note also that you have got a good sense of humour which is most welcome in long and tedious sessions. Sir, I am confident that you will perform your duties impartially and fairly. I am fortunate to be sitting in front and it is easy for me to catch your eye. But my other two colleagues have been placed at the back seats. I hope they can also catch your eye. Sir, I welcome the recognition of me as the unofficial Leader of the Opposition. You can be assured, Sir, that I will certainly live up to a Leader of the Opposition, whether officially or unofficially. I think it is the duty, the way that I perform in Parliament and the keeping of my responsibility which are more important than a name which is attached to me. Sir, you can be assured that the SDP Members will definitely be constructive. We are all here with a mission in nation-building and we shall certainly keep our record of nation-building and we hope for Singapore's further progress.”
“" In a way, this should not be the case because there is already a Committee to select the candidates and they are the best, most suitable, most honest and most qualified to stand as candidates. Having gone through the process, why should we reject that candidate who has already been nominated? He should be allowed to go through the election and not give a group, or a political party, another chance to select another candidate. So again clause 16(7) should be amended to show that if there is a death and there is more than one candidate, the elections should go on.”
“Because, in the first place, the whole idea of having an Elected President is to give the President some kind of an electoral mandate, some kind of moral right to act on those serious matters that are listed in the Constitution. So if you have got only one candidate and he is declared the winner, we are not sure whether the people of Singapore want to vote him. There is still an element of doubt. Even if there is only one candidate, the voting should still go on. When he gets 50% or more of the votes, he will be declared the President. If, in the elections, he gets less than 50% of the votes, then there must be another election, because he does not have the confidence of the people of Singapore. I think clause 15 should be amended. The other clause is clause 16(7) where a candidate dies before nomination day. If a nominated candidate dies before nomination day, according to this clause, the whole election is called off and you can have fresh nominations. But for those who have already been nominated, they will not have to file in a fresh set of papers. Again, I think this is not right. If there is more than one candidate, the election must go through. Because we are telling the people of Singapore that the election of the President is above party politics. He does not represent any political party. He is the best man to be the Elected President for the whole of Singapore. Under this clause, if a nominated candidate dies, fresh candidates will have to be nominated, and if that candidate is, in fact, a nominee of a group, whether it be a political party or a group interest, this group will be unhappy, and they will say, "Now our candidate is dead, we must nominate another candidate.”
“After having done that, the second step he has to do, which is peculiar to the Presidential elections, is to appear before the Presidential Elections Committee to obtain a certificate to certify that he is a qualified person to stand for the Presidential elections as spelt out in the Constitution. This is not an easy task. Dr Lee Siew-Choh has dealt with it at length. If within four days, you cannot prove yourself to be a suitable candidate, you have no chance to do it again because you have only four days. I think it should be slightly lengthened to give him at least some time to make an appeal, or to get it corrected, if necessary. Thirdly, the candidate will have to swear a statutory declaration to certify that his qualifications are all in order. Fourthly, he will have to get his deposit ready. The deposit, of course, will have to be either in cash or, an equivalent, in bank draft, or a certified cheque. I suppose for the Presidential candidate this would not be a problem. The last announced deposit was $4,000 for a Parliamentary candidate. If it is going to be three times, then the amount will be $12,000. If the time frame, as the Minister has announced, is to be the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, then it should be amended. I would recommend that clause 7 of the Bill be amended to show that there are at least 14 clear days. As regards clause 15, the procedure therein cannot be similar to that of Parliamentary elections. If there is only one candidate in a Presidential election, he cannot be declared the winner and then appointed as the President. I would say that even if there is only one candidate in the election, a poll must be held in the case of Presidential elections. Why is this necessary?”
“The whole process of electing the President from day one when the writ is addressed to the Returning Officer until the polling day can also be completed in a quick 16 days. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister will issue a writ and this will be sent to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer need only to give four clear days of notice before nomination. This is definitely too short a period of time. One lawyer friend has suggested that it should be at least 30 days. From my own experience, to be fair to the Government and the public, I think 14 clear days, at least, that is the minimum, should be given. Why is this necessary? Anyone who had taken part in the elections will know the reasons. There are very many important steps to be taken. Now we are required to take them in only four short days which definitely would not be enough. If any candidate who wants to take part in the Presidential election fails in one of the steps, it would be fatal to him. Firstly, what has he to do? He or his election agent will have to go and get a nomination form and he has to round up at least six people to sign his nomination form, one as a proposer, one as a seconder and four others. We all know that. All these names must appear in the current electoral register. If you have made a mistake by not entering his name properly, in accordance with the electoral register, the candidate could be disqualified. All these are very technical, especially for new candidates for the Presidential elections. They will need time to go through all these very difficult and technical matters.”
“Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has, on record, said it does not agree with the concept of the Elected President. We had said so in the 1988 elections. Now we have the procedures for the election of the Elected President. The Presidential Elections Bill prescribes the procedures for the election of the President. It is modelled, as has been said, about 90% of it, on the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Parliamentary Elections Act is familiar to all of us who have gone through the elections. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we find that it is definitely not a flat playing field. It is tilted much to the advantage of the PAP. The procedures spelt out in the Parliamentary Elections Act are patently unfair. I would also differ with Dr Koh Lam Son who said that it is fair. I say that it is really unfair to the public at large and, in particular, to the first-timers in an election. Under the procedures set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act, the general elections can be started and completed in a very short space of time. It is about 16 days from start to finish - from day one when the writ for dissolving Parliament is announced until the polling day. The whole process is rushed through, we all know, like the speed of an express train. As has been mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, even before the public has grasped the significance and implications of the elections and of the issues involved, everything seems to have come and gone. It would appear that since we have this Bill before us, and the Government is going to make it exactly the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, it really does not give the seriousness which it really deserves.”
“Yes. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government should not first get enough evidence before it arrests a person, puts him on such a big bail and impounds his passport, which is a very serious thing. If you do not have enough evidence, you just arrest him first. I do not think it is right. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, Mr Khamis' solicitors did not object to the bail. Secondly, the Government does not direct the CAD whether it should be lenient or generous. It is for them to exercise their professional judgement to decide on what is necessary, whether charges need to be pressed, and whether there are sufficient bases, firstly, to start an investigation and, secondly, having done the investigation, whether to continue with the charges. SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL (Class B2 and Class C ward charges) 13. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Health how comparable are the ward charges for Class B2 and Class C in the Singapore General Hospital to other restructured hospitals and whether there are plans to revise these charges.”
“Sir, I beg to differ. Putting a bail and impounding of passport are two different matters altogether. But, nevertheless, I would ask the Minister whether or not the Government has behaved in a high-handed manner, has been rather trigger-happy in this particular case, when there is no concrete evidence it has seen fit to arrest a person, especially a foreigner, impound his passport, put him on a hefty bail of $30 million, and was about to charge him on a very serious offence. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should listen to my answer carefully. I have said that the Government was satisfied that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, in other words, obtaining credit by deceitful means. After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. This was an outcome which could only have been established after thorough investigation. Supposing we had not acted and Mr Khamis had left Singapore, and it subsequently transpired that there was something to be answered for within Singapore, I think the Opposition Member would now be asking me a different question. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I believe this matter arose because there were in fact complaints from abroad and not initiated in Singapore, and therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government to see whether there is enough evidence first before you can arrest a person. It would appear that the Government just ---”
“Sir, is it not true that, besides the $30 million bail, his international passport was also impounded? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. Because the purpose of putting him on bail was the same as the purpose of removing his passport, to ensure that he stays in Singapore for the investigations.”
“Therefore, male full-time university students who are of military age should not be deferred from military training. But full-time students are deferred from national service. Therefore, under the policy of military preparedness or operational preparedness, there is no need to involve every male citizen of military age. The male full-time university students are deferred and the part-time reservists accordingly should be given deferment from their ICT. The other question is whether once a part-time student is given deferment from ICT, this policy will be abused. The Minister need not fear that it will be abused because he can easily check to see that a part-time student is really a genuine one, and not use it as an excuse to avoid his in-camp training. For these reasons, I hope the Minister will consider sympathetically the plight and the difficulties encountered by part- time students in regard to their in-camp training.”
“He also sent his examination time-table to MINDEF. He went personally to see the Commanding Officer. I was told that he was made to wait for two hours before his Commanding Officer saw him. Despite his letter of appeal and personal visit to MINDEF, his appeal was predictably refused on 6th March 1991. On 7th March, this reservist sought the help of the Vice Principal of his law school and also enlisted the assistance of his Member of Parliament. After much correspondence, the Vice Principal of his school and the Member of Parliament and the hectic telephone calls made by the former to the office of the Permanent Secretary, permission was finally granted after the reservist had attended two days of his in-camp training on 11th and 12th March 1991. Although permission was given on the 12th, it was not communicated to him until the day after, ie, on 13th March 1991. This is a trauma and heartache of a reservist who sought deferment from his in-camp training. 4.28 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] The reason given by MINDEF for not allowing part-time students to be granted ICT deferment is that they want to ensure operational readiness. I think this is not really a good reason to refuse part-time students deferment from their ICT. If there is really a need for operational readiness in the SAF, then this criterion should not only affect part-time students but also those who are studying full-time, because the concept of operational readiness implies that if Singapore is attacked by an external force, Singapore would have maximum military preparedness. In accordance with this kind of strategy, every able-bodied person who is liable to do military service should be prepared to defend Singapore in such an eventuality.”
“It is common knowledge that it is more difficult to pursue part-time studies than to do them full-time. It requires a lot of sacrifice, determination and perseverance to get a university degree through part-time studies. And if there are Singaporeans who are undergoing part-time studies, they should be encouraged and helped and not hindered. The SAF in this respect does not seem to have a heart and it is cold and uncaring on these part-time students. I am sure there must be quite a few reservists who have been thumped down by MINDEF when they requested for deferment from their ICT because they are doing university courses on a part-time and not a full-time basis. I would like to highlight one such case. This reservist is a part-time law student. He enrolled in a locally registered private law school and he was scheduled to sit for his LL.B University of London External Intermediate Examinations on 11th June this year. He was served a notice on 9th September 1990 to attend an ICT from 11th March to 30th March 1991. He requested for deferment in writing on 20th October last year stating his reasons and supplying proof that he was pursuing an external LL.B course and he was scheduled to sit for the local preliminary examinations in April 1991 and the University of London External Intermediate Examinations on 11th June 1991. The period of his in-camp training will end just 10 days before his intermediate examinations date. This case is a deserving one for deferment. Yet, the request was flatly refused. The reply from MINDEF came some three months later on 25th January 1991 refusing permission for deferment and, as usual, no reasons were given. Can you imagine how this part-time student felt? He was frantic. He appealed against MINDEF's decision on 28th January 1991.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to you. At this Motion for the Adjournment, I would like to highlight the plight of reservists who are pursuing part-time tertiary courses in preparation for professional or academic examinations leading to degrees or diplomas which are internationally recognised. These reservists who are doing part-time studies are generally not given deferment from their in-camp training (ICT). MINDEF's policy now allows only full-time university students or students who have gone abroad to pursue their studies or reservists who have gone overseas to work to defer their in-camp training. The issue I would like the Minister to consider is whether he will allow reservists who are genuine part-time students pursuing university courses to be given deferment from their in-camp training. Would the Minister give them the same treatment as full-time university students in respect of deferment from ICT? I would urge the Minister to change the policy and allow bona fide part-time students who are studying for tertiary degrees to be given these deferments. On the one hand, MINDEF allows full-time university students to delay their national service and in-camp training but, on the other hand, those reservists who are part-time university students are not allowed to postpone their in-camp training. Why the anomaly? Such a policy is patently unjust, unfair and discriminates against those male Singaporeans who have missed the boat the first time from obtaining a university degree to get it the second time when they are already past the normal age for admission to a university. In fact, the Government should do all it can to help these genuine part-time students instead of discriminating against them.”
“Sir, I believe the Minister wants an explanation of the meaning of "money politics". I think money politics can best be seen in America where they have to spend vast amounts to win an election campaign. How do they do it and why do they need large sums of money? Because they want to buy air time on television. I do not know whether this Government is going to change the rules in regard to electioneering in Singapore. If they are going to allow advertisements in regard to election campaigns in Singapore, then that is where money politics will come in, where you can advertise and you can put your message into every living room in Singapore. For a four-Member constituency, or even a three-Member GRC, there would be enough money to do this kind of campaigning, because if you have three, I believe it is about 30,000 to 35,000 voters in each of the GRCs. If you have four, you add another $20,000, it is $50,000. That is quite a lot of money. But where do they get this money from? From, of course, interested parties, business people, people who have an interest and they want certain Members to get in to voice their own interests. And this is where money politics comes into play. So I hope Singapore's politics will not degenerate into that kind of politics. I think we have been doing very well, spending just enough money to campaign and using a lot of willing helpers and volunteers who believe in a cause and not with a money sign in them to come into politics. I hope this amendment will not degenerate into having bigger amounts allowed for each parliamentary candidate.”
“If not, why do they need this extra money? As it is, each candidate already has to pay something like $4,000 deposit in an election. And of course everybody knows that the PAP is a rich political party whereas the Opposition has to live and work with volunteers. What the Member for Fengshan said is perfectly correct. In fact, many of the Opposition volunteers who have helped in the election campaign have to pay for their own meals, provide their own vehicles and pay for the petrol to run their vehicles. Why not? If they have a cause to fight, I do not think they will begrudge the amount. As regards the NCMPs, at this juncture, where there is a very basic political change in Singapore, I really do not think that this amendment to the NCMPs will have effect. I think the Government is very presumptuous that they will win nearly all the seats again. But I can tell this House that the situation in Singapore has really changed, and it really makes no difference, whether you are going to allow four or five NCMPs. It does not make a difference because we do not need them, and we will see that there is no need for NCMPs at the next general election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not agree with the Member for Fengshan who said that the money allowed at 50 cents per elector or $6,000, whichever is greater, is not enough. From my experience, the amount allotted at the present rate is more than enough. In fact, there is really no justification to increase the expenses for a parliamentary candidate. I have been involved altogether in five parliamentary elections - four of them in general elections and one in a by-election. I have not only taken part in those elections with the amount allotted and campaigned not only in those elections but also campaigned them successfully with the amount at the present rate. In fact, in all of the elections, I have not spent more than half of the amount allowed. My constituency comprised about 18,000 voters and I have never spent near to the $9,000 allowed. In three of them, it was about a quarter, for the fourth, it was about half, and for the last election, it was about 80% of the amount allowed. Therefore, it proves that the amount is really sufficient. In fact, this Government has always prided itself that the politics in Singapore is not money politics. It has often said that anyone, not necessarily a rich man or a millionaire, could take part in a parliamentary election. Why not keep it that way? I think that is the best way to maintain democracy and not make politics into a rich man's game or to be supported by interest groups like in other European countries. Why do we need to increase the amount allotted for each candidate to spend? Is the PAP now short of volunteer workers? Do they have to rely now on money to carry out their campaigns? Do they want more money for advertisements on TV? Or do they want to employ professional advertisers to carry out the campaigns for them?”
“If the answer is yes, what is the problem of the Minister in giving me the answer I require. I have got it in my notes that he said the information was given in late October. Is he denying that he did not say this? You can check the Hansard.”
“I say that I am entitled to clarification of what the Minister has said in his speech. Check your notes.”
“I am only seeking a clarification which I am entitled to.”
“Is he denying that he did not say that in late October the information was given to Mr Liem? Is he saying that? I am only quoting his words?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only quoting the words of the Minister.”