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 45 of 85.
“We as a nation must solve this difficult problem ourselves. If we hope to reach the level of the standard of living of the Western industrialised countries and become really rich, we must reduce the foreign component in our economy and increase the share of the local or indigenous industries. The Government's help to our local small and medium enterprises is a start, but I am afraid they will not get off the ground. What do we mean when we say that Singapore must produce more indigenous or local multinational companies? To me, it means that we would have to reach or obtain the standard of technology or know-how of the Western industrialised countries. In order to reach that standard, we have not only to assist individual local companies, wherever possible, but I think the more important consideration is that we have to educate or change the attitude of our whole society. We must build a society that is production conscious, a society that is scientific, a society that is geared towards technology and industrial production. In order to attain such a society, I would recommend the Minister to implement two policies. Firstly, for a start, to commit the State to a massive education programme so that every school leaver should be a trained person. If he or she does not go to a university or polytechnic, then train him or her in some form of skill or vocation. This policy is nothing new. The Japanese and the Europeans have this kind of a system since their industrial revolution. Secondly, I think we should increase the cultural and intellectual standards of our population. I do not want to go into this difficult subject of what is culture and involve in a long debate on what culture is.”
“It is not healthy for an economy to be leaning so heavily on outsiders. Singapore has been taught a lesson in 1985 when many foreign multinational companies packed up and left us en bloc. Our economy suffered more than what it should. It nose-dived to a -1.8% growth. That lesson must be learned. One lesson to learn is that multinational companies are very mobile. As soon as the business environment, for example, rising cost, does not suit them they can leave on very short notice. It will be remembered a few years back the Government in a state of desperation said that it would "high-tech, low-tech, medium-tech, in fact, any type of tech" as long as investments flow into Singapore. With this kind of policy, most of the investments we have would most likely be not quality investments. If the technology is of a high quality, the investors would not come here because the wage element in high technology industries is low. Therefore, they would prefer to invest high technology industries in their home countries. It can be seen that we do have a problem in Singapore. Investors come here because they want to exploit our relatively cheap workforce and make big profits. The pressure on our labour market will get worse and worse, and not better. The Minister should address all these serious problems but, maybe due to political reasons, he avoided them. Now I come back to the question of direction. The Minister should indicate how he would solve our dependence on foreign companies and foreign workers. These problems admittedly are not easy to solve, not in the short-term at least. I do not think that multinational companies are generous enough to transfer their technology to us overnight so that we can manufacture for ourselves high value added goods.”
“This is nothing new to the people of Singapore. They have seen in the short 1 1/2 years since the last general election increases in petrol tax, increase in HDB carpark charges, increase in registration fees of cars, increase in school fees, increase in foreign maid levy, increase in hospital charges and a host of other increases due to the Government's fiscal policies. If the Government continues to increase its levies, charges, licences, fees and taxes and the people are made to pay for all public services, there is no doubt that, come March 1991, the Minister will announce another budget surplus, as the sun will rise tomorrow. The Government must not be obsessed with aiming for a budget surplus. If this policy is to continue, the people will be poorer and suffer more while the Government gets richer year by year. What is more important for the Minister in its financial policy is not to try to squeeze the people to the hilt to get another budget surplus. But, as the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC said yesterday, the Government must show a direction. Our economy is reported to be booming now but only precariously. We are dependent on foreign workers to make this boom possible. The foreign workers in Singapore, unlike the foreign workers in Japan, Germany or other European countries, are made only to do manual or ancillary work and not directly involved in production. In Singapore, it is not the case. Foreign workers are directly involved in manufacture, construction and the tourist trade. All these sectors are our foreign exchange earners. Another area of concern for the long term is that we are too dependent on foreign multinational companies for our wealth. They create about 60% of our demand of the economy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition cannot support the financial policy of the Government. The Straits Times calls it a "celebration budget". Who celebrates? The big businesses and the rich have reason to celebrate. They do not have to pay additional income tax. But for the poor, the small struggling businessmen and the workers, they do not celebrate. This latter categories of people do not have anything to celebrate about. The Government has not offered them any worthwhile benefits at all. With the present high cost of living, rising cost of housing and motor-cars, the personal income tax relief of $2,000 is definitely not enough. The SDP recommends that it be increased to $3,000 to help the people in the lower income group. We also ask the Government to reduce the personal income tax ceiling to 30%. It is time the Government did something more tangible for the man-in-the-street instead of collecting more and more from him. The Government boasts, year after year, to be able to have a surplus budget. What does it show? It simply shows that the Government policy and aim is to collect more and more money from the people. The main bulk of the revenue is not from profits of businesses but from people and other sources. If the surpluses of money are collected from the people, then it must be used for the benefit of the people instead of hoarding them. We are told, year after year, that the Government has accumulated massive surpluses. An elected President is said to be necessary to help look after them. Now the Government is still budgeting for a surplus. The Government says its aim is to have a balanced budget but, year after year, it accumulates surpluses. If this is the policy of the Government, what is its implication? The people of Singapore have to pay more and more.”
“Sir, I am sure that the Minister is aware that Sikhs, because of their religion, are allowed to wear turbans when they are in uniform. So why not Muslim women who are required by their religion to have a headscarf wear some form of headscarf? I would ask the Minister whether he would give a direction or standing instruction to modify the uniform of the Customs Department so that women in that Department can use headscarfs as part of their uniform.”
“Sir, the Minister has on numerous occasions quoted examples of other countries. Has he not just read recently that, in fact, in Korea, as a gesture of goodwill, on the celebration of their National Day, they have released over one thousand political prisoners? Will Singapore not do the same?”
“Sir, if the Government decides to transfer the tertiary institution funds to a private organisation, would not the Government be, in fact, breaking a promise to the Malays in not honouring what it has said earlier, ie, to give free education to the Malays from primary to university level?”
“Sir, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary aware that Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself has said that this Government would honour the Malay rights in regard to free education from primary level to university level. If you will allow me, Sir, I will read out the specific words spoken by the Prime Minister in ---”
“Sir, I notice that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has only received about 13 letters to its invitation for feedback on the proposal to transfer tertiary funds to Mendaki. But is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary still aware of the fact that there is widespread opposition by the Malay and Muslim community to transfer the tertiary institution funds to Mendaki which is really a private organisation?”
“Yes. Will the Minister say that in fact there is an inbuilt inequity in the 20% open category in relation to the small cars and to the motorcycles, as Encik Yatiman Yusof says that they will be squeezed out. Will the Minister be willing to reduce these two open categories in regard to small cars and the motorcycles, say, to 10% or less? Sir, can the Minister say what is the effect of the quota system on Government revenue? Will additional income from revalidation exercises offset losses of revenue from the falls in ARF? In regard to old cars, it is a pity that they are going to put a surcharge on them because I will be affected. The Minister has given data that half of the cars more than 10 years old failed in their fitness test. But can he give us the data whether or not the number of cars that break down on the roads are in fact old cars? The fact that people keep old cars and they take good care of their old cars, it is very unlikely that old cars will break down. Perhaps the Minister could give us some data on the breakdown of cars and whether they are old cars. Sir, in regard to infrastructure, it is good to know that the Government will continue to build roads, overhead passes, underground tunnels and so forth. But for the time being, is the Minister willing to give assistance to shuttle service between MRT stations and private and public estates? I think this area of transportation will have to be looked into by the Minister, since he has announced that he is willing to exempt scheduled buses from the quota premiums.”
“I am asking the Minister whether there is any inequity.”
“Sir, I have quoted Dr Goh Keng Swee who has got great authority and he has written a book on it. Sir, the Member may want to hold the view that it is due to religious reasons but the facts do not seem to bear out what he says.”
“No, I am talking about the 1964 riots. So there were many special circumstances, instigators from outside for political reasons. So it was not purely based on religious reasons.”
“Sir, if the Member had listened carefully, I said that the riots were not religious in origin. I have also repeated what Dr Lee has said that those riots had special circumstances. In other words, they were not purely based on religious reasons. In the 1950 riots, in fact, there was a national feeling, a strong movement against the colonial powers and the special reasons that after the court case, custody was given to the natural mother of the child. Unfortunately, the child was placed in a convent. So that was the special reason which exacerbated the riots. In the case of the 1964 riots, the special circumstances were not arisen from local people. There were external instigators. You will remember that at that time there was confrontation and there was confrontation between -”
“Sir, if the Government persists in passing the Bill in its present form, then I say that it is intent on taking the authoritarian path and it will one day surely lead us to a totalitarian state. This law gives the Minister total and absolute power, first, to silence a religious leader and then to charge him in court. Sir, I think the Minister must explain when a person breaches the prohibition order and when he is charged in court, is he charged for making statements prejudicial to wrecking religious harmony or only to breaking the prohibition order. Sir, this is important because if the court does not go into the merits of his case then it is an exercise of purely an executive power. So if that is the case, then this law will in fact be a parallel law to the Internal Security Act. In the Internal Security Act, there is no means of review of a person detained under it in our courts of law. If we have such a parallel law, then instead of moving forward we are indeed moving backward. Sir, we must never try to avoid judicial review. If we always make law which is only an exercise of executive power without our courts looking into the reasons for exercising those powers, then we are going on a very dangerous trend. Sir, we must always try to pass laws which will in fact promote the rule of law in Singapore. The Government's policy is to have more people speaking up, more contributions to public issues. What this law is really going to do is to in fact curb that policy.”
“I think this is the concern of most religious leaders in Singapore. I do agree with them that religion encompasses all aspects of life. Questions of conscience, of morality, of justice, of the plight of the poor, of housing, of all necessities of life, are covered by religion. So how can you separate religion from politics? As a writer in the Straits Times on 21st February wrote, and I quote: 'To demand that religious institutions stay completely and absolutely out of politics would be asking for the impossible.' Sir, these are genuine concerns among religious leaders that this law will in fact stifle freedom of practising their religion. Therefore, if the Government really has the intention to preserve religious harmony, then its first duty is to confine its terms to only specific instances. The Government cannot have an all-embracing law. As it stands now, this Bill can be used against all political dissenters, against young people who want to have more democracy in Singapore, against all those on moral grounds opposed to Government policies. You will remember that the Catholics opposed the Abortion Bill quite strenuously, especially in the 70s and of course the Government did not look to them kindly because, at that time, the Government's policy was to keep down the population. But now the Catholic church has been proven right in opposing the Abortion Bill, although its reasons were not those of the Government. Therefore, if the voice of the church and other religious groups is by law muted, then the nation would be losing a very large pool of useful, knowledgeable group of people who can contribute to social and other issues.”
“" As regards this preacher, I would say that he could only say such a thing because he was not brought up in Singapore and he did not realise the sensitivity of other religious groups in Singapore. This sort of people can be easily dealth with. In the first instance, he could be sternly warned by the Government. And once he knows of the situation in Singapore, I am sure he will change. But if he does not, of course, he can be easily expelled. Personally, I do not think that any sane religious leader who is born-in-Singapore will make such statements. Anway, if any born in Singapore religious leader is mischievous enough to do so, then I say that he can be justifiably charged under the provisions of the Penal Code. And I for one would support the Government for doing so. Just as a matter of observation, Sir, I notice that all those materials contained in the Annex to the White Paper, the reports of people who were purported to indulge in intra-religious proselytisation and mixing religion and politics were supplied by the secret police. This shows that members of the ISD have been spying in our churches and other religious places. I think indeed we are a police state. Sir, if there is going to be a law to preserve racial harmony in Singapore, then the definition of the word "politics" has to be changed. Many speakers have highlighted this problem. At the moment, the proposed law covers too wide a ground. As it now stands, it appears to be an instrument of repression. Its intention to me appears more to silence critics of the Government. For this, I cannot support the Bill. Sir, one of its intentions is purportedly to separate politics from religion. Can this really be done? This is a real problem which the First Deputy Prime Minister has highlighted.”
“These riots had their origins not on religious grounds. As Dr Lee rightly pointed out yesterday, there were very special circumstances. In those two cases, take the former, I will refer you to Dr Goh Keng Swee's book entitled "The Practice of Economic Growth". At page 50, Dr Goh observed "that the Maria Hertogh riot in 1950 was directed against the European population in Singapore." There was no mention that it was a riot due to religious reasons. And at page 79 of the same book that Dr Goh wrote, "In addition, there were two race riots in Singapore in July and in September 1964 which resulted in much bloodshed." Those riots were attributed to race and not to religion. The Prime Minister and Dr Goh Keng Swee, on more than one occasion, have praised the Christian churches for their good work they have done in education and in social welfare. Generally, the churches in Singapore and other religious organisations, far from doing harm, have been major contributors of social good. They have genuinely no intention to do harm to the Government or to the nation. Even the Minister yesterday admitted that the majority of leaders and members of religious groups are prudent, sensitive and moderate in their religious practice. The legislation is aimed at the small number of "mischievous irresponsible people." The present laws in the Penal Code could deal adequately with those few people. One example of such persons has been cited in the Annex to the White Paper, the instance of the senior pastor in a local church who was a foreigner, in any way, not a Singaporean, "wanted all Malays to be Christians". He declared that "the greatest threat to Christianity to all mankind today is not communism but Islam.”
“Sir, the SDP wholeheartedly supports the need for religious harmony in a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. This principle is so basic, so vital, that in fact it should be ingrained in every child in our schools in Singapore. Obviously, the Government has not done so. That is why we see the need to legislate to ensure racial harmony in Singapore. The SDP supports the Government for making Singapore a secular state. It is right that the Government should not support any one particular religion in Singapore. We are a multi-religious society and equality of treatment of all religions is paramount to maintain racial harmony in Singapore. Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister has tried to make out a case for a law in Singapore to maintain racial harmony. But do we really need such a law? The Minister in his usual way has pointed to other countries - Sri Lanka, India, Lebanon and so on - stating their problems there of their religious strifes in those countries. But I think it is wrong always when we want to enact a law to point to the problems of other countries. Those countries have got different social systems. They have got different ethnic composition and they have got different economic levels of development from Singapore. We should look at the Singapore context and ask ourselves whether we need such a law. We have to look, first of all, into Singapore's history. What does history teach us as regards Singapore in relation to religion? We have religious tolerance here. Religious tolerance has been a way of our life. There is, in fact, no one single riot or clash or bloodshed which stems directly from religious causes. The two most prominent cases cited yesterday by Dr Lee Siew-Choh were the Maria Bertha Hertogh riot in 1950 and the 1964 riot.”
“I do not think you can train him to be an officer to lead men, or even if you could try to train him, I do not think any men will follow him. The Swiss do it because they do not see the threat of immediate war. Their situation is different. They are in the middle of Western Europe. They are surrounded on all sides by EC countries. They believe that this is one chance in a million and if it comes then they mobilise. We are in Southeast Asia. I think the chances are considerably more than one in a million and we should be careful about following the same example. The Germans did not follow the Swiss example. Can we?”
“We can get them. They can be mobilised, equipped, deployed, all will be well. In a real tension, to decide to mobilise reserves is a very big decision. Firstly, it raises the temperature because obviously you must be going to war. You are calling the troops back. Secondly, it is disruptive on the economy because you have to pull people out from jobs. There will be companies whose operations will be upset. Thirdly, psychologically, the country gears itself up, expecting to come to the crunch. Nothing happens, it comes back down again. The next time we need to build up is more difficult. I do not know if the Member is familiar with military history but I think Dr Ong would be. One of the reasons why the Israelis were caught by surprise in the 1973 war was that they had, on several previous occasions just before that, false alarms, mobilised and had to demobilise. When the actual day came, despite the warning signs, this was one of the factors which led them not to move. The Egyptians had cried wolf on their behalf once too often, and very successfully. That is why it is important for us to have a standing force. Two years' national service means, at most, about a Division plus of troops to defend the whole of Singapore and to be available in case of any peacetime contingency. That is one reason. The second reason why you cannot bring the period down very drastically is the way we train our soldiers. We want to give them not just a basic proficiency but as much competence as possible to enable them to look after themselves and the troops under their command in war. You can in 19 weeks train a soldier to fire a rifle or man a howitzer.”
“Sir, as I understand it, in Switzerland, they have, in the first instance, national service for something like 19 weeks. In the case of West Germany, they have full-time national service for a period of about nine months. If these countries, which are in places where they have undergone two world wars, can have such short full-time national service, why can we not have it here? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Swiss, as Mr Chiam has pointed out, have a few weeks of national service. The Germans do not have nine months. They have 15 months. In fact, until the recent dramatic developments in East Germany and Eastern Europe, they were talking about pushing it to 18 months, for precisely the same reason that we have to keep our national service period, namely, not enough German babies were born, not enough soldiers, and you need a longer period to maintain that same size of standing force. Now that situation has changed. There is no more talk of extending national service in Germany from 15 to 18 months. Our situation has not similarly changed. We have not seen a total revision of the landscape in the Asia Pacific. There has not been a change of government, for example, in Indochina or in China. There has not been a change in the strategic relationships in the region. I will be answering this more fully when I address Dr Lee's Question shortly. But there is a difference between a reservist force which you can call up in an emergency, and a force in being which is there all the time. I have to do nothing extra if tension rises, because I already have the troops at the ready and prepared deal with against any eventuality. It is easy fo us to say that in a tension period, we will call them back from the reserve, and they will come back within 12 hours.”
“As we are in fact in peacetime now and taking into account the interruption to students going into university and also in their job careers, is there not a case to reduce the period of full-time National Service? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just answered that question. Every day spent in National Service is a day spent away from the economy. As the Minister also responsible for trade and industry, I am acutely aware of the manpower shortage in the economy, and how much of a contribution national servicemen could make if they were not required to serve in the SAF. But it is a balance between how much security we want to have and how much economic growth and wealth we want to produce. You can have National Service for six or eight months and then allow everybody to go out and earn a living. It is one extra year plus of economic production from each soldier who does that, not an insignificant amount. But if we do not have enough in the SAF with all the wealth in the world, I am not sure whether, firstly, there will be confidence in the security of the country, and, secondly, if some threat did materialise, whether all this might not be taken away from us. One of the reasons people have confidence in Singapore is that the SAF is here. It is well-trained, it is professional and, without being an onerous burden on the economy, has been able to guarantee security and therefore confidence.”
“As to other points I share the same views and I see that our public transport system needs to be improved. Because it is only with a more complete and better public transport system that our people will change to the use of public transport more readily instead of driving their own cars into the CBD during peak hours. This will cut down on the congestion during peak hours and reduce people's use of private cars and reduce car congestion as a result. I am sure Singaporeans who have been overseas will share the same experience because when you are in Taipei, Bangkok and Hong Kong and places like that, for the same distance you may get to your destination in (r) hour in Singapore but in these cities, people often spend from one hour up to three hours just to get to where they want to go and we should put ourselves in their shoes and try and imagine what life would be like under that circumstance and in that sort of society. Perhaps people do have the ability to get used to the situation and they get used to it after a while. To me, this is a great wastage to the society and economy. Therefore I hope the people will give Government measures every support and encouragement because such a situation can easily happen in Singapore. Singapore is a tiny country. What I have query for the Minister here is that the Report presented by Dr Hong Hai and the Committee aims at the car growth that if the policy, once implemented, would it create other side effect? Would it lead to people not buying their own cars but go more for other means of transport and thus creating other traffic problems? 4.46 pm”
“Perhaps for the short-term, they should look into these 14 congested areas to see whether they could ease the traffic flow. Also, as Dr Lee has mentioned, I think this question of overall planning of our different Government departments has been discussed before. It should be brought up. There must be coordination between each department. Even the little side-road where I live, they have been digging it up almost ritually once every year without fail. I do not know what they dig it up for. It is almost like a ritual exercise. I do not know whether it is to keep the economy going or for what reason. I am sure with overall planning, we could keep down the digging of our roads and causing unnecessary obstacles. I think the Cabinet should address this very important question of coordination of the work of different Government departments. Mr Choo Wee Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Committee has made recommendations to the Government. What has attracted most people's attention has been the quota system. This system basically is to curb the car growth. Of course, such a system once implemented will cure the problem. But I hope the Government will not implement such a measure unless it is absolutely necessary. Because this will lead to people, developing a sense of loss and particularly the younger people think the measure works against them. As the details have yet to be worked out, please ensure giving the people a fair and a better opportunity so that they may purchase a car if they wish. We must not totally make car purchase out of reach of the common people. I hope the Government will work on aiming at car usage policy rather than on setting a quota on cars. I believe this will lead to realising the objective of controlling road congestion.”
“Well, it has got no details. That is really the main problem. Because unless we have got more details, I think most people will feel uneasy with a new idea. But in the long term, probably one day there will be some kind of quota system. So even if the quota system is not accepted now, I think the Committee has contributed much in the sense that it has made people aware that in fact one day ownership of cars will be a bit more difficult. The Committee has done good in that sense. And even if the recommendations are not wholly accepted, I think credit has to be given to Dr Hong Hai for making the public at large aware of this very difficult issue. I have been in Parliament for five years. But I cannot remember any issue or any problem that has been more widely discussed as this one. We had two days of public hearings and we met the mass media. There was news over the TV. I also understand that Dr Hong Hai gave an interview, and then we had many comments. I wish that in future if other issues are so exhaustively discussed in public, I think it will make people aware of this difficult problem. I do not agree that cars should be scrapped at five years. I think it is a terrible waste. It is just my own personal philosophy. To me, it is unthinkable to scrap a car at five years. I am using a 20-year old car. It is still going strong, and starts at the first turn of the key. Why should I scrap it? It is a national waste. Our young leaders, I think, should be made aware that our resources are not limitless. We have to conserve and to practise more economy. Although Singapore has been said to be an affluent society, but I still think we should practise thrift and be more conservative. The PWD has highlighted 14 congested areas.”
“Singaporeans like to travel and I think they have got no way to travel except to Malaysia. And what is wrong with having a car and going to Malaysia? I think it is good for both countries. [Encik Yatiman Yusof interrupted]. Well, there will be more causeways by then. Much has been spoken about the quota system. It is a pity that the Select Committee has not come up with more details. I think everybody is still --- An hon. Member: You are on the Committee.”
“I think this planning should involve not only the transport people but also property developers who take up a lot of land. I think they should pay a tax for taking up land. We should have measures to control the movement of school children. Perhaps schools should be built close to housing estates or within walking distance. Members will note that whenever there is a holiday, the traffic also goes down. We have got about 500,000 school children using our roads during the school term. We need to decentralize our economic activities. And perhaps we should try to get the aid of modern science, using more electronic devices, like Fax. We have got electronic shopping and other modern devices which could cut down the unnecessary travel of people. But I think the ultimate solution is really in public transportation. We should not have a Select Committee just on Transportation. We should have a special group of people just to study public transportation. I think ultimately that is the key to the solution of our problem. We cannot have every person owning a car. I think that is not possible. We must have good public transportation. Like Dr Lee Siew-Choh, I also agree very much on the recommendation to have efficient and comfortable buses. I think there is a point about feeder services, and it should be studied at greater length. So, ultimately, if people can be encouraged, can be persuaded, and also value systems can be changed to get people to use the public transport system like in Munich and Hamburg, I think probably that is our ultimate answer. Everybody wants to own a car, and I think there is nothing wrong in owning a car. Perhaps if each family could own a car, I think it speaks well for Singapore. Why not?”
“Much obliged to you, Sir. Transportation is one of the necessities of life like food, shelter and clothing. Everybody needs transport to be mobile, to go about their social and economic life. Having said that, what we are discussing is a very complex and difficult issue. I think there is no one single answer to the problem. It is a very difficult problem that we are tackling. At the moment, of course, the Government has basically used the price mechanism to solve the problem. It has put up the cost of a car, such that Singapore has now the highest car price in the world. One car here costs as much as four cars in Los Angeles. We have 45% import tax, then we have a registration fee of $1,000, 175% of ARF, and on top of that, we have to pay high road tax, car park fees, not counting the fines. If the Government is really serious about keeping the car population down, I think it can solve the problem to a certain extent if it makes financing difficult for would-be car purchasers. I think there was a witness at the public hearing of the Select Committee on Land Transportation Policy who advocated this. I take his point. If financing were to be difficult, we can have a very substantial drop in the purchase of cars. At the moment, it is easy to get financing, even for second-hand cars. So if the Minister is really serious about keeping the car population down, he has to get the Minister for Finance to introduce a measure which will make it more difficult for people to get a car loan. Perhaps Government servants should also be discouraged from getting car loans. What is the solution? Actually, as the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC has said, we must have total planning, and I entirely agree with him. If we really want to solve the problem, we must have total planning.”
“Is the Minister aware that in fact there is a move in England to change their law to make directors release details of their remunerations? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I do not think we are concerned at this point of time over legislation in other countries. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (Staff shortage and complaints) 7. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Collection Division of the Inland Revenue Department is under-staffed; and (b) if he will give the number of complaints received both by telephone and letters in relation to this Division from 1988 up to the latest available date.”
“Sir, does the Minister agree that in fact the Ninth Schedule gives only the remunerations of executive and non-executive directors, all lumped together and not the detailed remunerations?”
“Does the Singapore Government accept the fact that the CPM has given up the use of force pursuant to its agreement at the Malaysia-Thai border?”
“The principal objective is to ensure a clean environment in the estates and to give enforcement powers to Town Councils. I have a few questions for the Minister. Firstly, with the passage of this Bill, is the Ministry of the Environment going to pass on all its enforcement functions to the Town Councils? Secondly, if the Ministry of the Environment aware of the cost increases that the Town Councils will have to bear as a result? And if the Town Councils' costs do increase, would the Ministry of the Environment be prepared to bear part of such increase? My final question is: should any Town Council decide not to assume these functions intended for them, what will be the effect on areas under the charge of the Town Council concerned? Does this mean that the Ministry of the Environment will not be carrying out enforcement in such areas?”
“Sir, the Town Council was specifically formed to manage, maintain, control and improve common property of residential and commercial housing estates. Now the Town Councils are asked to do additional duties. I would imagine basically enforcement duties. Sir, I wonder whether it would not be ultra vires the Town Councils Act, which specifically spells out the functions of the Town Councils. The Town councils not only manage and maintain properties but they are now asked to do enforcement duties. Perhaps the Minister could clarify on that. Sir, I think the Minister is not quite accurate in saying that all Town Councils are managed by the EM Services. In fact, the Potong Pasir Town Council is managed by ourselves. We are a compact unit. We run a tight budget. We have got a very small staff, minimal staff, to keep down costs. Now we are asked to stretch our resources to embark on enforcement duties. We did not foresee that. I hope the Ministry of the Environment with which our Town Council has got very good relationship, is not passing the buck on to us to do duties for them. As it is, we have already got our hands full and I do not know which section of our Town Council we should call upon to do such enforcement duties. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that once this Bill is passed they are not coming down to Potong Pasir to do any more work as regards enforcement duties and dependent entirely on us to do it. The last point I would like to bring up is this. Once this Bill is passed, by law, the Town Councils can do these duties and are mandatory. The question is whether or not we have to carry out these enforcement duties. Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support the amendment Bill because the objective is good.”
“He has made a statement that Members of Parliament are Members of Parliament. But that cannot be true, because in relation to a nominated MP he has not explained these very important issues. So they cannot be Members of Parliament.”
“The Member for Serangoon Gardens has not finished. He may continue.”
“Clarification, Sir. The Member for Serangoon Gardens is a political scientist. He made the statement that MPs are MPs. I was waiting for him to address us on the issue of mandate, authority, representation and accountability of nominated MPs. Would he like to clarify on these points?”
“I have got one more question for him. I assume that his answer is yes. If the answer is yes, why does he say that the Opposition is an obstruction to good government?”
“Sir, as I expected, there is no answer from him. Can the Member for Nee Soon Central please answer my question? Yes or no? Is there a place for Opposition in Parliament?”
“When did I say that? Do not pick words and quote me.”
“Sir, I do not want him to hedge. Yes or no? Mr Ng Pock Too: He always bemoans the fact that the ruling Party having 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament ---”
“Will the Member for Nee Soon Central tell this House whether or not there is a place for Opposition in Parliament?”
“I think I have a right for clarification. Unless of course we are short of time, then I will sit down.”
“Sir, I do not think that argument can hold any water at all. Nevertheless, let us go to another point which I need clarification and, that is, on accountability. He says that the nominated MPs are accountable to the whole of Singapore. How does he substantiate that? The nominated MPs are not put in Parliament by the whole of Singapore. Mr Davinder Singh: Mr Chiam is right if we go by traditional notions. I think they are English notions of accountability to one's constituents. What I was trying to persuade this House to accept is that accountability has a larger definition. When you come up here, as I do, to express a viewpoint, you are responsible for what you say. You are responsible to yourself and you are responsible to everybody who is affected by what you say. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“Clarification, Sir. The NCMP has a measure of support from the electorate. He has stood for election and votes have been cast. And if the Member for Toa Payoh GRC will recall those with the highest votes among the losers are appointed NCMPs. What has he got to say to that?”
“Point of clarification, Sir. The Member for Toa Payoh said that he will support the Bill because these nominated MPs will have a non-partisan view and it does not deviate from any parliamentary principle. But I beg to differ. How is he going to reconcile with the fact that these nominated MPs will in fact deviate from a very important parliamentary principle of representation?”
“The Government should be fair at the polls and not resort to smear tactics, changing of the ground rules, changing of boundary lines, juggling with constituencies, and resort to the tactic of fear by using the Internal Security Act to make arbitrary arrests. The truth is that the Government is afraid that at the next general elections more opposition will be voted into Parliament and it does not want any more elected opposition in parliament. Therefore the Government has to do something about it. Hence, the introduction of 6 nominated MPs. The opposition calls on the government not to bring back forms of colonialism into our parliamentary system, not to convert our Parliament into a legislative assembly with initially 6 nominated Members but eventually increasing it to a substantial number. Our style of parliamentary system is essentially a contentious one. Our Parliament is fairly new, only 25 years next year. It is time we set a precedent of good, high level contentious debate in Parliament amongst mature people and not by way of the nominated MPs, by trying to sneak in elements of "Confusion type proceedings" in Parliament by consensus. If we set on that road now, we will eventually end up a dictatorship of one-party rule. It is the duty of the opposition to see that that day does not come.”
“That is really what this amendment is all about. This amendment is one of the means to ensure the Government to be in power all the time. The Government's intention is also to bring in the nominated MPs with a view to perpetuate a myth. The gist of the myth has already been mentioned and it runs something like this. The people want the PAP to rule them, but at the same time they also want some opposition to be in Parliament to check the Government. Since the opposition is unable to win any parliamentary elections except in one constituency, the Government has generously amended the Constitution to meet the people's wishes to have opposition in Parliament, and by giving them 6 nominated MPs who shall, in the Government's view, satisfy the needs of the people for opposition in Parliament. I say that that myth remains a myth and it is, of course, absolutely untrue. What people want is really elected MPs in Parliament, not nominated MPs or NCMPs. The Government knows it and that was the true reason why the Government refused to hold by-elections at Geylang West and at Anson when those constituencies became vacant in late 1986 and early 1987 respectively. Further evidence that the people want elected opposition MPs is by the increase of Opposition votes. In the 1984 general elections the opposition increased their vote by 12.3%. And in the last general elections, the people gave the opposition a further increase of 2.3% vote, making the total opposition vote of about 40%. If the Government is sincere in wanting opposition in Parliament, the Government should be fair. That is all the opposition is asking.”
“Even if the PAP Members are not really as good as they are made out to be, Backbenchers through their GPCs have the help and aid of resource panels who comprise people with specialist knowledge. The Government MPs have the Feedback Unit which is supposed to have its ears on the ground. In addition to the Feedback Unit, the Government Members also have the benefit of feedback from the grassroots organisations like the RCs, CCCs, CCMCs and, as the Member for Ayer Rajah has pointed out, many other sources for information and knowledge if they want to. In view of the fact that Government MPs are so equipped to debate in Parliament, there is no excuse really if their level of debate is not up to the mark. They should be up to the mark. Therefore, there is no need for nominated MPs. As I recall, the PAP did not canvass the issue of nominated MPs at the last general elections. I would say therefore that the Government can only amend the Constitution on such an important matter as the introduction of nominated MPs, it must first of all go back to the people to get an electoral mandate. This Government does not have the mandate to amend the Constitution. It has no moral right to do so. If Singapore hopes to be like Switzerland, then we should have a national referendum before such a very important matter as nominated MPs can be introduced in our Parliament. Of course, Singapore is not like Switzerland. This Government thinks that it can make Singapore like Switzerland in its so-called Vision of 1999. Singapore can never be compared to Switzerland simply because Switzerland practises true democracy. Singapore does not. We practise a brand of authoritarian, paternalistic, pseudo-democracy with a dominant party which intends to keep political power for ever.”
“In the case of nominated MPs, they represent no electorate. They are in Parliament by virtue of being appointed ultimately by the ruling party. Thus they naturally represent the interest of the political party that appoints them. They cannot be the voice of the people. The nominated MPs shall be useless to the electorate because they do not represent their interests. The only use nominated MPs really have is to talk for the sake of talking in Parliament. There are at the moment 81 elected MPs in Parliament. This number is more than enough of MPs to serve the electorate. The ratio of elected MPs to the voters is about 1:20,000. This ratio is high compared to many other Western democratic countries. We may have to increase the number of elected MPs as our population grows, but certainly we do not need them now. I believe we already have excess numbers of elected Members of Parliament. As far as the voters are concerned, these nominated MPs, if appointed, are a waste of public funds. They are like the fifth wheel on a carriage which has no practical use. The Government should be more responsible and not turn Parliament into a mere talk shop and also not to waste taxpayers' money. Why throw away good money when we can save it? The nominated MPs will not be of any help to Parliament. It has been said that nominated MPs will raise the level of debate in Parliament. But then the PAP has told the electorate in the last general elections that their candidates are the best brains in Singapore. Today, there is an admission. They are in fact not the best brains after all. We need nominated MPs to assist them in the debates in Parliament.”