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 5 of 85.
“This, of course, helps a little bit, but it is not a long-term solution. The long-term solution is to provide those under hardship good paying jobs. Job creation on the part of the Government is the crux of the matter. The Government reports that unemployment now stands at 3.6% or 78,600 people out of job. On the one hand, the Government says that it wants to create jobs. On the other hand, some of its policies, such as the levy for skilled foreign workers has been increased from $50 to $100 and the imposition of the new levy of $500 for every extra foreign worker employed above the quota limit, are driving businesses away from our shores, especially the labour-intensive electronic business, which employ large numbers of foreign workers. One manufacturer in Singapore threatened to move his business to Malaysia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and China, where labour is in abundance and cheaper. An electronic factory which employs 800 skilled workers complains that the increase in levy will cost his company an additional $480,000 a year. It would appear that the increase in the foreign worker levy is counter-productive, as far as job creation is concerned. The whole business sector, including the Singapore Manufacturers Federation and the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are against the new foreign worker levy, both for the skilled workers and for extra workers employed beyond the quota limit. The Government should seriously relook the increases in foreign worker levy, otherwise it may face the flight of manufacturing and other businesses from our shores. I would now like to comment on the so-called "dirty jobs". I think one of the reasons why Singaporeans avoid the dirty jobs is because the pay is too low.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister speaks of building an inclusive society where nobody is left out. Yet, in reality, the Opposition wards continue to be discriminated against. In the last 15 years, millions of dollars of CIPC funds have been disbursed to all the PAP-controlled constituencies, yet not one cent of those CIPC funds has been handed to the Opposition wards. Residents of Opposition wards are also Singapore citizens. They do pay their taxes, they pay their fines probably, they do their stint of National Service, they obey the law and do whatever other citizens are required to do under the law. Yet, they do not benefit from the CIPC funds. I say that it is only right that all Singaporeans should be treated equally. On my part as MP for Potong Pasir, I have applied for such funds many times. Till today, I have not received any of such funds to benefit my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister and his team to look into the matter of CIPC funds and make provisions for CIPC funds to be disbursed to Opposition wards, as all previous applications for support made to the PAP grassroots were futile. Sir, I would like now to touch on provisions in the Budget. This year's Budget has been described as the people's Budget. There is supposed to be something for everyone. Yet, it has been pointed out in Saturday's Straits Times that the amount of $662 million disbursed this year is only half of the 2001 Budget benefits of $1.186 billion. The handouts are thinly spread through large sections of the population. Criticisms by academics are that the benefits are short-term and that they are not given in cash, and these shall not have immediate impact on the consumer economy. The Budget handouts are mostly to allow those in financial difficulties to tide over their present predicament.”
“Can the Minister of State please read clause 4 again? I thought he is entitled to appraise all of those items as listed. It says here, "any appraiser of any movable property listed in the Second Schedule to take out a licence under this Act for that purpose.".”
“Sir, I would like to make a clarification on clause 4 (new section 9(d)) which reads, "any appraiser of any movable property listed in the Second Schedule to take out a licence under this Act for that purpose.". I would like to ask the Minister of State whether or not the licence awarded to the appraiser entitles him to appraise all the 15 items listed in the Second Schedule or only the items that are listed in his licence.”
“Sir, I would like to ask a point of clarification.”
“Yes. When Singaporeans in the past were allowed a free vote, they voted a Jew to the first post of Chief Minister, which was equivalent to Prime Minister in the present day. In 1981, an Indian opposition was voted in in Anson to break the PAP monopoly in Parliament. In the not-too-distant past, when there were only single-seat constituencies, Parliament was filled with sufficient representative numbers of Eurasian, Malay and Indian Members. In fact, I have been in Parliament long enough to have met many of them and have fond memories of them, especially Mr Eddie Barker, a Eurasian, the then Minister for Law. GRCs are not only undemocratic but also communal in nature. At every election, the ethnic member has to appear before a race committee to certify that he is in fact an Indian, a Malay or other. If I were an Indian or a Malay, I shall object to that screening process. Anyone who is a Singapore citizen and is not barred by the conditions of the Constitution should qualify to stand as a candidate in any election. Why should the Singapore citizen, on top of his initial qualification and citizen, prove that he is an Indian or a Malay? The GRCs, I say, must be scrapped.”
“Opposition campaigns are often deprived of choice of rally sites during the short nine-day campaign. Rally sites have been drastically cut down, only one per constituency, although there is more than one candidate in that constituency. The list of complaints can go on. But above all, I say that for modern Singapore, where citizens are made to believe in meritocracy, the idea of the GRC is absolutely archaic and out of place. It demeans the minority or ethnic community in Singapore. I do not believe that Singaporeans are so racist that in time to come, Chinese Singaporeans will only vote for only Chinese candidates and that a Malay or an Indian candidate can never get elected to Parliament.”
“Needless to say, the PAP has arranged in Singapore that it has the complete benefit of all the three elements. But the Opposition parties are completely deprived of them. On top of the said three elements, there is still the element of fear which exists in the people of Singapore. They are fearful that something bad may befall them if they go against the Government. This perception of fear may or may not be there but the Government from time to time keeps it alive by threatening not to provide public facilities if a constituency votes against them. Come to think of it, it is really a miracle that, under these harsh circumstances, two Opposition Members can be elected to Parliament. I attribute it to the bravery and resilience of the people of Singapore! That is why Singapore is so great. I would like to speak now a little about the election. First of all, I would like to say that the system of election in Singapore is unfair to the Opposition. Two general elections ago, there were 22 single seats but, today, there are only nine single seats. The number of single seats may be further whittled down in this coming general election. At first, the number of the GRC seats was suggested at two or three. But today, the number of GRC seats in each of the mega constituencies comprises five and six. The election deposit, at one time, was only a few hundred dollars. But at the last election, it was increased to $13,000 per candidate. And with the passing of the Political Donations Act, whereby all political parties have to report the particulars of donors above the first sum of $5,000 donation, it makes it very difficult or almost impossible for the Opposition parties to raise campaign funds.”
“Under the anti-terrorist laws, when terrorists are apprehended, they are tried in a proper court of law under the Anti-terrorist Act. And that law has proven to be very effective in England. The IRA has finally entered into some form of truce with the Northern Ireland government. Singapore can do the same. The Government can quickly enact anti-terrorist laws and when they are legislated and in place, the ISA can be repealed. I am surprised that the Remaking of Singapore Committee did not assign to itself the duty to recommend to the Government to repeal the ISA. I believe that the time is ripe for the repeal of the ISA and suitable anti-terrorist laws enacted in its place. I wish now to speak on the Opposition in Singapore. I believe that the PAP's disdain for the Opposition is historical. The PAP was advised by Dr Albert Winsemius, amongst other things, in its development plan for Singapore, to crush the communists. Dr Winsemius, by the way, was a Dutch professor, invited by the World Bank to advise the Singapore Government in the early 1960s. The PAP did successfully crush the communists. The PAP did the job so well that it became a reflex action and went also against all other legitimate political parties that opposed it. The Opposition parties were so depleted that, even today, it has not taken root in Singapore. All Opposition parties in Singapore are of course legally registered and work within the framework of the law. But, nevertheless, when the PAP fights, it goes for the jugular. All political parties must have the benefit of the three elements to exist successfully: (1) the organisation of propaganda; (2) the selection of candidates; (3) the financing of capital.”
“A person can be detained without trial for a period of two years and that period is renewable at the end of every two years. This draconian law hangs like a huge sword of Damocles over the head of every citizen in Singapore. This law which allows detention without trial can be very easily implemented. It needs only the signature of the Minister for Law. That was the way the French citizens court operated during the French Revolution in 1783 - only one signature. The nature of the ISA is entirely political. That is why there is so much widespread fear in Singapore even up to today. I will give an illustration. Two weeks ago, at the meet-the-people session, three university students came to visit me, and I asked them to write their names and addresses on a piece of paper so that I know who I am talking to. But one of them was so afraid that he did not even want to give his name and address to me, an Opposition Member. Even university students who are supposed to be educated and know better are in fear of associating with the Opposition. So the fear in Singapore is quite real. If Singapore wants to be a lively, vibrant and dynamic society, then the element of fear upon its citizens must first be removed. As a first step, I call for the removal of the ISA. I have done this once before in this House. I now do it again. The ISA must be repealed. Its presence is incongruous with modern day Singapore, especially when Singapore wants to remake itself. Some might argue that the ISA can be used to combat the terrorists. Indeed, the Government has used the ISA against members of the Jemaah Islamiyah in Singapore. In the case of other countries, like England, where it had been fighting terrorists, in particular the IRA for many years, anti-terrorist laws are used to combat the IRA.”
“Sir, the President said: "The people are entitled to demand the best from their leaders. They also aspire to play a part, and expect to do so. Everyone who makes Singapore home will have opportunities to make a difference. Every contribution is valued and important. There will be unforeseen challenges, but so long as we stay united we will overcome them." These are stirring words and I concur with the President, and hope that something can materialise as far as the Opposition is concerned. In 2002, in that policy statement, the President said: "In politics, we must remake our policies to fit a new generation of Singaporeans and adapt our style and approach to stay in tune with the times. No policy is so cast in stone that it can never be changed, whatever the circumstances." Since 2002, nothing significant has changed. The political situation remains the same - strict, harsh and threatening. Basically, all the strict laws, rules and regulations are still intact except maybe the revocation of the necessity to register with the Police to speak at the Speakers' Corner, otherwise, nothing has changed. There is a slight concession and it has no important significance because the popularity of the Speakers' Corner has not improved. The number of people wanting to speak at the Speakers' Corner has not increased. The Opposition was hoping for some form of glasnost to happen in Singapore, but nothing of that sort took place at all. Singapore is still a closed society as far as Opposition activities are concerned, despite the encouraging pronouncements by the Government. The most feared piece of legislation in Singapore today is the Internal Security Act, or ISA. Under that law, the Government can exercise its administrative powers on any person in Singapore.”
“So, 5,000 years is quite a long period of time. Many civilisations were already lost. In Latin America and Africa, some ancient civilisations are already not in existence. For a society to survive such a long period of time, there must be many good things we can learn from them. We should use the Chinese culture and civilisation to complement our culture here. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Reform will enthuse our children in learning the Chinese Language so that they will develop an abiding interest in the language and culture well after leaving school, and enjoy it for the rest of their lives. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“It may take a bit more time, but it is still worth it. So, I think, if we make some effort, we should be able to fulfil this requirement. Many English-educated students have great difficulty during the first few months when they go to China. But after six months or one year, they are familiar with the sounds and tones of Mandarin as spoken there. Although their pronunciation may not be perfect, they learn well because they are close to the people in Beijing. So there, they have the environment. But, in Singapore, we do not have the environment. So, if we were to send our Singapore children to China for, say, a few weeks each year, I am sure their Chinese would improved tremendously. Finally, there are two things in life that are most precious to us. Firstly, what you do not get; and secondly, what you have lost. If we have gotten it and lost it, then I think it is very regrettable. There is another thing which I left out just now - values. It is not just how we deal with one another. It also concerns the survival of a nation. China has a civilisation that lasted more than 5,000 years and a recorded history of about 2,000 years. During this long period of time, China went through various wars, chaos and calamities. But 5,000 years later, it is still surviving and it is now picking up. This dragon has woken up! Why is it that China can survive all these years? I think it is because they have very strong values that enable them to counter all the difficulties. The Manchurians conquered China for almost 200 years but they were not able to replace the Han language with their own. On the other hand, they have converged into the Han culture and they have embraced the Confucian teachings as they feel that the Confucian teachings are good for them.”
“But the southerner thought she said, "Liu mao" (60 cents). He immediately replied, "wo yao liang wan." (I want two bowls). The waitress thought he meant "I want two nights." She was so angry that she gave the young southerner two slaps on his face. So, even with the right sound, with a twist of the intonation, the meaning could turn out to be entirely different. So, I think just listening and speaking without writing is difficult enough. Mispronunciation would lead to a lot of misunderstanding. I do not pronounce very well and very often, I pronounce wrongly. Many Singapore Chinese have this problem too. They go to Beijing and sometimes get into trouble because of their mispronunciation. So I think it is good that we have to learn first by listening and then speaking, and first recognising the characters and then writing. But there should not be too big a gap in between; otherwise the students may have difficulty connecting the recognition to the writing. Of course, writing is more difficult. For me, personally, I find it is a very painful ordeal to write in Chinese. Although I passed my 'O' level, the standard then was much lower than what it is now. But now, we have the Chinese Star software, we have electronic dictionaries and various types of software to help us in the writing of Chinese. Of course, the dictionary cannot replace us. We must be able to write physically some Chinese characters on our own. Just now, the Minister mentioned that under the new system, the Committee is recommending that we may not have to memorise a specific number of characters but it hinted that we should learn at least 1,300 characters and to be able to read 95% of the Chinese newspaper. But for the rest of the 5%, they can use the electronic dictionary to check the words.”
“" A child from a Chinese-speaking background would have listened to Chinese for six or seven years by the time he goes to Primary One. However, for children coming from English-speaking background, just listening and speaking alone is already very difficult. So, if you give them just two years in Primary One and Two, and you want them to be familar with all these sounds and tones of the Chinese Language, it is not easy. Some 20 years ago, I went to China and was received by members of the Youth Group of the Communist Party of China. At a dinner, a friend from Hong Kong wanted to have a glass of beer and he spoke to the waitress in heavily Cantonese-accented Mandarin, "Xiao Jia, I want bi jiao" The waitress thought he wanted shui jiao (dumpling). She said, "We have all kinds of shui jiao (dumplings) but no bi jiao!" I asked him what he wanted, and he said that he just wanted a beer. So I told the lady that what he wanted was pi jiu ( beer). The waitress said, "Pi Jiu? Why did you say bi jiao, when you wanted pi jiu?" Even Chinese from different areas have difficulty in the pronunciation. In Singapore, we do not have this very strong native accent when we speak Mandarin. Recently, when I was in Beijing, a friend told me a joke. A southerner went to a Beijing dumpling restaurant and he ordered some dumplings. He asked the waitress how much it cost for a bowl of dumplings. However, instead of saying " Shui2 jiao3 yi wan duoshao qian?" he pronounced it as " Shui4 jiao4 yi wan duoshao qian." The intonation was wrong and it sounded as though he was asking the waitress "How much for sleeping one night (with him)?" The waitress was very angry because she thought the southerner was trying to be funny with her. She stared at him and shouted " liu mang!" (hooligan).”
“But, let us just take a look at what he preached and what he practised. As a parent, he sent all his three children to traditional Chinese schools so that they could learn Chinese. For a purely English-educated parent to send his children to pure Chinese schools, Minister Mentor was really a remarkable exception. His action spoke loud and clear of his intention to promote and not depress the teaching and learning of the Chinese language in Singapore. Subsequently, he promoted the bilingual policy in schools so that more English educated parents were willing to have their children learn and speak Chinese. For this, we should be grateful to him. Today, I choose to speak in Mandarin, because from my conversation with many of my friends, I could feel that English-educated parents are more willing to accept this reform. But the Chinese-educated parents are sceptical. They need to be given more assurance. As it is said, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree, but 100 years to cultivate a man." So with the implementation of this reform, we could only see the results maybe 10-20 years later. But I firmly believe that if we allow our children to learn according to their own pace, even if they may not be able to master many proverbs or classical poems, so long as they have this interest in the language, they will be able to build on that foundation and to learn more. But if we turn them off and they do not have this interest for Chinese, then we are actually the killer of the Chinese Language here. There are some Chinese-educated parents who remarked, "Just listen and then speak later, or recognise the characters first and then write later, it would take a very long time for them to master the language!”
“Had I come under the bilingual system, I may be able to read and write better in Chinese and English. Although the bilingual policy has not changed, we have to make some fine-tuning. I feel that under the new system, my children will be able to reach further destination and perhaps they will learn to love Chinese. Just now, Mr Gan mentioned that some people may be afraid, and even Mr Chiam See Tong has mentioned that this new policy may lower the standard of Chinese in Singapore. Some extremists may say that the Government is stabbing the Chinese language at the back once again. I do not think so. My father came here from Shanghai, China, to earn a living. He sent me to an English school. Why? Because during the colonial days, job opportunities were rare, so parents sent their children to English schools in order that it may be easier for them to get a job later on. The Government then did not encourage parents to send their children to the English schools. But the parents willingly made the choice. By the 1970s, enrolment in the Nanyang University was dwindling. Fortunately, we started the SAP schools to maintain at least a group of students who were given the opportunity to sustain their interest in learning Chinese at a higher level. If the Government did not have this bilingual policy and the subsequent fine-tuning thereof, then I believe many Singapore parents would simply take their children off from the learning of Chinese, and even pressurise the Government to let them abandon the learning of Chinese. I remember that when I was a boy, the Government was always encouraging students to learn Chinese. Let me say something from the bottom of my heart. In the early days, many people said that Minister Mentor was the one who killed the Chinese language in Singapore.”
“This is to say that Singaporeans can play a very important role. If this lady's son does not know Chinese, I am sure his contribution to the company will not be so great. On this new direction for the teaching of the Chinese language, I feel that it is very encouraging. We have to tailor the teaching to suit the different abilities of the children. Depending on their ability, and depending on their progress, we customise the curriculum so that it will fit their aptitude, and see to it that they go to their final point of destination. It is like the same bus that ferries the different children to different destinations. Some may reach their destination first, some later, but eventually all would reach home. Some students want to learn and master the Chinese Language because they like the Chinese literature and culture, and do so because of the needs in their work, their communications and some perhaps for political reasons. At the moment, our present generation is not doing too badly. Minister Mentor said that we have lost one generation of students. I think the problem is not that serious. Now, our students could generally listen, speak and read Chinese reasonably well, with some having attained better skill in writing. But, what is lacking among our young people is the passion for Chinese. Most students learn the language, sit for the examination, pass it and then throw their books aside, or even burn them. They treat Chinese just as an examination subject. They have no passion for it. Worse still, they feel disgusted with Chinese. They just hate Chinese. So we have to change such a trend. Our bilingual strategy has been in place for quite a long time. I was not particularly influenced because I belong to the earlier generation of students.”
“To learn the mother tongue language and to learn Chinese is not easy in Singapore because, as my parliamentary colleague, the Chairman of the GPC for Education has said, we are short of materials for the learning of Chinese. I went around looking for materials for my son and those available are very boring. I went to the library and the materials there were either too simple or too profound. Maybe in Singapore there is no such market. I went to China and I bought some children's books. The language is too difficult. For the primary school students in Singapore, they are unable to understand these books, and that is why they turn to English books. I hope that the Ministry of Education would accept Mr Gan's suggestion to work on producing more suitable Chinese teaching materials in Singapore. Just now, I said that we should use Chinese as the foundation and English as our tool, and with Singapore as our root. We cannot deny that Singapore is a small nation. Maybe later on in life, our children may have to go overseas to study or to work and absorb more experience and eventually come back to Singapore and take roots here. When they are overseas, they have to use English. But if they have Chinese in them, their contributions to the world will be greater. Recently, I met a retired lady and I asked her about her children. She said that her son was working in New York. After his studies, the people in New York employed him. I asked her whether her son is working in the US. She said, "No, the company has sent him to Shanghai." Although there are many colleagues in the company who came from Hong Kong and are effectively bilingual, this American company preferred to have someone who knows both English and Chinese, but not too close to mainland China.”
“In Singapore, if we want to survive, we have to hold on to the Chinese language and also be proficient in English as well. Many parents who are educated in Chinese felt that this round of reform to the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy will lower the standard of Chinese in Singapore. My view is this. If my children have the competency to learn just one language, then they should learn English. If they have no choice, then they will have to sacrifice Chinese. However, given a chance to learn both the languages, even if they are not very good at the second language, they should at least possess the skill to listen, to speak and to read in the Chinese language, and strive to attain a certain standard in it. Why is it that we have to learn English and not just Singlish? Because the whole world is learning English. It is a language for science, medicine, business. Whether you are an African, Egyptian, Japanese, Chinese, French, German, you have to communicate through English. The Internet is an important medium. Everyone has to use English. Of course, we have other nets where other languages could be used but, in communication, you still need to have a common language - English. So every Singapore student must make a clear choice. You must master your English. However, we must not forget our roots. We must also do our best to learn our mother tongue. For the ethnic Chinese, we must learn Chinese. Of course, some children feel that they are more attached to the Malay language and they want to learn it. This is a personal choice. But for me, my children must learn Chinese as a mother tongue language.”
“They are still young but I have been telling them, "You must use Chinese as your basic language and use English as your tool, with Singapore as your root and the world is yours." Because I feel that the two languages - Chinese and English - have their own advantages. The Chinese Language and culture are good when dealing with people, and I feel that the traditional Chinese values are good. But when you are dealing with things, it may be difficult if you were to just use Chinese alone. English is a very practical language. It is good for management, good for dealing with things. So if we were to use Chinese and English together, you have the best of both worlds when dealing with people and things. Singapore is a multi-racial society. Although English is our main administrative language, we are after all Chinese, Indians or Malays. Our culture is closer to the Asian culture. We are closer to the Asian values, and it is also easier for us to absorb the essence of the Asian languages. Although some people have opined that you do not need to use your mother tongue language to impart your traditional values to the younger generation, you can also use English or other languages to transmit the Confucian philosophy, I am sure by so doing you will miss some of the essence of these teachings. Some people bid thousands of dollars for the original manuscript of D H Lawrence's work because, more often than not, when it comes to publication, the published book would have been edited and not quite his original version. So I think if you want to learn Chinese culture and Confucian teachings, it is best that you learn them using the original language rather than the translated version.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion. Last night, I spent a few hours writing the text for my speech today. However, this morning, I have decided not to use the text because I am not going to talk about big principles. I do not want to repeat the recommendations in the Report. I just want to speak from my heart - my own feelings and about the future of my children. First of all, I would like to declare my interest. My children are completing Primary Two and Primary Three this year. At home, we do not speak Mandarin because my wife grew up overseas and she did not have the opportunity to learn Chinese. That is why at home, we do not speak Mandarin. But my children are doing pretty well in their Chinese Language. They are among the top students in their respective Chinese classes. I support this motion not just for the interest of my children but for the interest of Singapore. Afterwards, I will explain why I feel that this new direction will be able to make the learning of Chinese better in Singapore. I am not here to uphold the Chinese culture but to maintain the traditional values in Singapore. Singapore is a small country. We have about 75% of our population who are Chinese. Even if every one of our Chinese Singaporeans is proficient in Mandarin, we are not able to uphold the Chinese civilisation. China has such a long history, and it does not need us to uphold its language and culture. We want to maintain the values of Singapore. Why is the learning of Chinese so important to me and why do I hope that my children could be effectively bilingual in Chinese and English?”
“If parents do not support the compulsory passing of the Chinese Language to gain entry into the local university, it may mean the failure of the bilingual policy and the ultimate loss of our mother tongue as a second language. I support the bilingual policy. I accept English as a working language in Singapore and, at the same time, accept that each ethnic group should study its own mother tongue. We are Asians and we should study our own language, other than the English Language, so that we can identify ourselves and be confident of who we really are. But in the Singapore context, however, the reality is that we are an open cosmopolitan country with massive influences from the West. Our markets are flooded with Western goods, books, magazines, films on television and in the theatres, music and Western lifestyles. We are bombarded unabated with Western influences all the time. No wonder our people are succumbing to Western influence. For example, spoken English has increased among Primary One students. The number of Chinese students entering Primary One who speak predominantly English Language at home has risen from 36% in 1994 to 50% this year, a 14% jump in 10 years. I hope Singapore can resist populist demands and hold firm its bilingual policy and take all steps to make it work. In this vein, I cannot support the recommendations of this Report because these recommendations water down the contents of the curriculum and, at the same time, sugar-coat it to make the Chinese Language more attractive to students but does not increase proficiency in the language. I would recommend to the Minister to restore Chinese Language as a compulsory subject for entry into our local universities with the view to increase proficiency of the language.”
“The lesson from the failed American experiment is that there is no easy route to teach students to master a language or, for that matter, any other subject. The enthusiastic cooperation of all Chinese Language teachers should be a great help in the teaching of the language. Without the full support of all Chinese Language teachers, the teaching of the Chinese Language in our schools cannot succeed. The doing away of Chinese Language as a compulsory subject for entrance to our local universities has great adverse effects on teachers teaching the Chinese language in our schools. Once the Chinese Language is taken off as a compulsory subject for entrance to local universities, its importance is downgraded. The standing of Chinese Language teachers in the schools is also lowered. Chinese Language teachers, as a result, feel very demoralised. I think that their morale should be restored. This can be done by changing the policy and once more make Chinese a compulsory subject for entrance to local universities and, at the same time, help to keep the standard of Chinese up in our schools. Of course, some parents would feel very unhappy. They would complain, "Why should our children be kept out of the local universities just because they cannot pass their Chinese?" For such cases, I would say, "Make the students stay one year back and master their Chinese Language". I am certain that after staying back one year, every JC student, worth his salt, can get a credit in the Chinese Language. The sacrifice of one year in the life of a student is really nothing and parents should not complain too much about it. Think of the consequences.”
“Sir, it was reported in yesterday's Straits Times, quoting MP Mr Gan Kim Yong that "Many in the Chinese community are worried that the standard of Chinese might be lowered". I suppose as a result of the implementation of the White Paper on the Chinese Language, I also have that same fear. Chinese and other foreign languages, Science and Mathematics are all considered "hard" subjects in schools. There is no doubt that the learning of those so-called "hard" subjects need an effort on the part of the students. However hard the educationists tried to water down the contents of those subjects or sugar-coat them to make them more palatable, for a student who wants to master any one of those subjects, there is no running away from the fact that a student has to put in some hard work and a great effort. A good dedicated teacher, of course, will help. Students therefore must not be misled into thinking that they can master the Chinese Language without really putting a sustained effort in it. Therefore, I am afraid that with the introduction of the many new ideas in this Report, to make the learning of Chinese Language more palatable, will certainly not raise the proficiency of the language amongst students generally. I think, more likely, the standards might be lowered. American educationists, after World War II, enthusiastically tried to sugar-coat the subjects taught in schools. Educational theorists in America in those days thought that by making school subjects more acceptable, the students would be more enthusiastic with their lessons and study more. What really happened was just the opposite. The American schools, in those days, were producing children who were literally illiterates. After leaving school, these children could hardly read or write.”
“Sowe try to curbfuneral expenses, just like certain countries had curbed expenses on wedding dinners.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether or not it is fair to get an estimate from the Singapore Casket alone. Actually, she should go to the HDB flats and find out at the funeral wakes how much they spent. They have to give lavish dinners, employ priests, and musicians to come and play. So it costs upwards of $20,000. I have heard this many times.”
“My plea to the Minister is to allow an estate a longer period of time to pay up its estate duty free of interest, maybe in 12 months' time, instead of the six months allowed in the Sixth Schedule.”
“After all, in mostcases, the money spent on funeral is the deceased's own money in the first place. He should be allowed to lavish on himself for the last time. The next comment I want to make on the Bill is the grace period for estate duty to be paid without having to pay interest on it. For persons dying on or after 1st January 2005, the grace period is six months, after which an interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, is payable. The rate of interest is 12% per year if the estate duty is not paidwithin 18 months after the date of death. There are two main reasons why some estates are slow in paying estate duty. Firstly, they are unable to come to a satisfactory valuation of the assets of the estate. Business people, especially people running their own businesses, do not plan their tax liability in the event of death. The executors or administrators find it difficult to locate all their assets and are unable to file the estate duty return withinsix months of death. Secondly, the problem of liquidity -the inability to raise cash to pay their duty. Often, business people have most of their property in fixed assets which cannot be converted quickly into cash. Some governments do appreciate the problem of liquidity, that is, getting cash with which to pay the taxes. Those governments do not want business concerns with a deceased partner to go into liquidation to raise cash for payment of death duty. They allow the tax to be paid over a period of years, or allowing various insurance arrangements to make liquidation of a business unnecessary. I do not expect that this Governmentwould be so understanding and sympathetic.”
“As such, I further believe that the economic effect of the estate duty, by nature of its small size, is, to use a word,"unimportant" by the usual criteria. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister wants to consider scrapping it altogether. The benefits of not having a death tax in Singapore outweigh those of having one. The oft-given reason for having an estate duty is that it doestend to achieve a more equal distribution of wealth. ButI believe in Singapore, the magnitude of the effect is small. But, on the other hand, if businessmen, not only in the region but around the world, come to know that there is no death tax in Singapore, there is a greater tendency that they may want to keep their money here. The effect is that a tax haven, in respect of estate duty, can be established here. The money and businesses that can be attracted to Singapore shall greatly exceed the $72 million estate duty collected by the Government last year. In respect of the Bill itself, I would like to comment on clause 3. The amendment to section 27to allow the funeral allowance claim to be increased from $1,000 or 5% of the value of the estate to $6,000 for a person dying on or after 1st January 2005, I think that sum allowed for funeral expenses is still quite unfair. When I was in legal practice, my Chinese clients often complained to me. They said they had spent over $20,000 in funeral expenses and why only an allowance of $1,000was allowed. I wish to repeat my former clients' complaint to the Minister. It is not fair to cite an arbitrary amount of $6,000. If the Minister really wants to exempt funeral expenses from estate duty, then the wholeamount spent on funeral expenses should be allowed.”
“Sir, the amount of estate duty collected each year is small. The estate duty, of greatersymbolic than of practical significance of all taxes collected in Singapore,is the least productive of revenue. In both absolute and percentage terms, I believe that its relative importance hasdwindled with the growth of income, goods and services, property and gambling taxes and also the revenue from the ERP system. In Singapore, the estate duty collected each year is the lowest of all taxes collected. In the last two previous years, for each of those years, the estate duty collected comprised only half or 1% of Singapore's total revenues. When compared to income tax, the estate duty collected by the Government for years 2002 and 2003 comprised only 0.7% of each of those years. I believe that for any one year, two ERP gantries placed at any busy road can collect just as much revenue as those derived from estate duty for that year. This clearly illustrates how low revenue is derived from estate duty. The pattern of yield from other countries in respect ofdeath taxes is about similar to ours. In the United States, the federal estate tax generally has produced less than 2% of federal tax revenues. In the Irish Republic, the percentage is about the same. In Canada, the figure has been closer to 1%. The Australian national estate duty has also produced less than 1% of the total national revenue. A similar small percentage has held in Sweden. Even in Great Britain, where estate duties are high, the yield has always been about 3% of the total revenue. I believe that the rate of estate duty in Singapore, despite its relatively high interest rate imposed for late payment by this Bill, is amongst the lowest in the world.”
“In fact, we have applied for the use of that land this year and we were refused on two occasions already. That goes to show the things to come for the elections.”
“Sir, I do not understand why a 3-year TOL should be given. In the past, anyone who wants to use the land can always apply to the HDB on an ad-hoc basis.I think that would be the fairest, and not to give a blanket 3-year TOL, cutting off all other residents and parties who want to use that field.”
“Sir, is the real purpose of granting a 3-year TOL to the CCC not to prevent the Potong Pasir Town Council and myself, as the MP, from using that open field, hoping that, by doing so, my re-election prospects would be lessened?”
“Sir, the granting of the 3-year TOL to the Potong Pasir CCC, in my view, is very political in nature. I am asking whether the Minister of State is willing to rescind the TOL forthwith. Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Sir, as I said, this is a piece of vacant land where there is currently no plan for development. Therefore, it would not be right for the HDB to deny the CCC the use of this land, sincethey have applied for it to build jogging tracks, simple playgrounds, benches and so forth. It is also not right for the HDB, oranyone for that matter, to deny the residents use of such facilities.”
“Now, we need to enact this competition law to unravel that dilemma and meet with other international obligations. One important question comes to mind. I would like to ask the Minister whether exclusions contained in the Third Schedule are a permanent feature or whether there is a time-frame to remove them, including other provisions in the Bill giving the Minister power to avoid the prohibitions and against monopolies as well as the above dominant positions and mergers as contained in clauses 34, 47 and 59 of the Bill. Sir, as regards the Bill itself, I would only like to have a clarification on one point from the Minister. I notice that the District Court shall have the jurisdiction to try any offence under the Act and shall have power to impose full penalties or punishment in respect of the offence. As regards punishment, clause 83 imposes a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. I have no quarrel with this punishment or penalty because they are within the jurisdiction of a District Court. But we see that under clause 69(4) of the Bill, the Commission can impose a financial penalty up to 10% of the turnover of the defaulting business. Nowadays, some businesses in Singapore have a yearly turnover of hundreds of millions of dollars, and a financial penalty of 10% of its turnover can easily exceed the quantum allowed under the jurisdiction of the District Court which, I believe, is to be only about $250,000. I stand corrected. If that is so, then the District Court has no jurisdiction to impose such a large financial penalty under the said clause 69(4). The Minister might like to comment on this provision of the Bill.”
“And, as we all know, really, all Government-owned entities are the creatures of statute. Therefore, they are not caught by this competition law. Sir, the economic development of Singapore is a recent history. We all know that Singapore was first built up as a socialist state. The early political philosophy of the PAP was democratic socialism. Therefore, the infant capitalist system was not encouraged, but the public sector, by policy, was cultivated and built up. We see the Government controlled by one dominant political party and had a free hand in accumulating massive capital. The Government in Singapore, the richest sector in the economy, was soon the biggest landowner in Singapore. The Singapore Government now finds itself in an awkward position in a wholly-changed world from the 1960s and 1970s. Now we are in an era of fierce competition from the other so-called emergent nations, in particular, the People's Republic of China and the other neighbouring states. Singapore's strategy or way out of this changed situation is to enter into Free Trade Agreements with other countries, some of which are mature capitalist countries where the early infant vibrant competition in their markets has turned some of their companies into monopolies, which are anathema to the capitalist system. We have read of Bill Gates of Microsoft having to pay millions of dollars in fines when its company abused its dominant position in the software business. So competition laws are necessary in America and other mature capitalist countries to break up the monopolies that are being formed there. We in Singapore started by not encouraging private enterprise but concentrated on growing the public sector. The public sector now dominates the whole of Singapore's economy. This is Singapore's dilemma.”
“Sir, as I listen to the speakers, many of them spoke with certain background of the business world. But my speech is purely from the reading of the Bill itself. Sir, I support the Bill in principle, but I cannot support the Bill as it stands because of the wide powers given to the Minister for allowing him not to accept relevant provisions in the Bill. The relevant provisions in the Bill are contained in clause 34 which disallows agreements preventing, restricting and distorting competition; clause 47 which prohibits any practice of abuse of a dominant position in any market in Singapore; and clause 54 which prevents mergers which may result in the lessening of competition. I cannot agree with the provisions in the Third Schedule of the Bill. They are far too wide and too pervasive. The Third Schedule, to my mind, is wide enough to annul the intent and purpose of this Bill itself. Let us look at paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule: "Neither the section 34 prohibition nor the section 47 prohibition shall apply to any undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly in so far as the prohibition would obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to that undertaking." This clause is so wide-ranging that it can cover the activities of any Government entity, Government-linked company, or any company which the Government has an interest in, or activities of a statutory body or Government-owned company. Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule is equally wide-ranging in taking away the effects of sections 34 and 47 prohibitions as long as an agreement complies with a legal requirement.”
“Sir, I think the Minister brings up the issue of sentencing. I only brought it up because it is a deterrent for people making frivolous appeals, because the sentencing in the first instance appeal is quite stern.”
“Sir, as I understand it, the right of appeal can be stopped by legislation, and this is exactly what we are doing. We are legislating to deny a litigant a chance of appeal. Parliament can stop a court from giving that right of appeal, and this is what we are doing, and this is my fear. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can do no more than to state and reiterate that that is a misreading of the Bill and that is not the intent of the Bill. And may I take this opportunity also to say that the second part of his speech where he went on sentences of the court, I think this had been dealt previously on other occasions by my colleague, Senior Minister of State Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee. But if he wishes to make an issue of this, he is free to file a Question for Oral Answer or an adjournment motion where we can thoroughly go into that matter. But that is irrelevant to the Bill in question.”
“Although I applaud the courts' policy in promoting efficiency and cutting out delays in the cases that are brought before the courts, I am of the view that efficiency in our courts cannot be achieved at the expense of the rights of the public. A member of the public has the common law right of seeking justice to its ultimate end. One famous English judge said, "Justice must not only be done but seen to be done." Under the amendment in clause 2, how can justice be seen to be done in Singapore when the right of appeal is eventually not even accorded to a litigant? I also wish to mention that these days, the sentences meted out in appeals heard before the Chief Justice are not always more lenient. On the contrary, we have read in the papers that sentences on appeal before the Chief Justice can be double. And when the sentences involve caning, doubling the sentence can be a very painful experience. So the sentences meted out on appeal is a deterrent to those defendants with frivolous appeals without any merit. Those defendants normally are advised by their solicitors not to appeal, and they normally take heed of the advice of their lawyers. The sentence in the appeal in the High Court is a strong deterrent on would-be appellants with frivolous appeals, and those appellants would normally give up the idea of appealing before the Chief Justice. In this way, there is no fear of taking up the court's time. Sir, this amendment involves the taking away of a litigant's right of appeal. To me, this is an important amendment, and I say that there should be further discussion on it. I therefore call on the Minister to place the Bill before a Select Committee and let the public have their say on the matter.”
“Sir, my complaint is against clause 2 of the Bill. This clause makes an amendment to the principal Act whereby the Chief Justice is given the discretion to stop an appeal, amongst other provisions, which he can make when a case is transferred to a District Court. As an Opposition Member, I cannot allow, consciously, the legislature to diminish the rights of a litigant, especially the right of appeal. A litigant must be allowed, all the way, to exhaust his remedies in a court of law. How else can he seek justice except in a court of law? Take the case of the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr Anwar Ibrahim. If he were not allowed to appeal, he would not have a chance to clear his name in respect of the sodomy charges levelled against him. He appealed against the charges and he succeeded. He was released pending the hearing of his appeals against other charges which he was convicted of in the first instance. After successfully appealing against the sodomy charges, he, at least, was temporarily released so that he could go to Germany for his medical treatment, and also an opportunity to reunite with his wife and members of his family. If he were not allowed to appeal, as we are now legislating here in Singapore, he would still be tainted with the sodomy charges and would still be languishing in prison without the benefit of getting medical treatment and reuniting with his family and friends. Sir, I know that the policy of the courts, since the 1990s, has been to administer the judicial process swiftly and efficiently. Much of the backlog of cases has been quickly dealt with. The aim in the courts is, of course, to complete a case within 12 months under the workplan to administer the courts implemented by the Chief Justice.”
“I am asking a straightforward question. Permission is not given to Potong Pasir for the lifts to stop at every floor. Is it because it is an Opposition ward?”
“The point is that now the Minister mentions the segmented blocks. What we wrote to HDB was only for the point blocks for the lifts to stop at every floor. And at the moment, our contract price with the contractors is that the lifts are put in place with the machine to stop at every floor. So when permission is given, what we need to do is just to knock a hole in the wall, make a door for the lift to stop. It is easily adjusted. So the cost would not be as great as what the Minister says. I cannot give him offhand how much the contractors will charge us for knocking down the walls at every floor. But that is the situation and we do have enough money. So the money is not the question. But we still do not know the reasons why permission is not given.”
“We need some explanation. Mr Speaker: You are not specific. What is your question?”
“I think the Minister of State does not know what is happening at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh. When I said lift upgrading, actually what we are doing is replacing all the lifts there. We are ripping off all the old lifts which are about 30 years old, throwing them away and putting new computerised motors in them. And all these are paid for from the sinking fund. We have checked with HDB and we are allowed to use the sinking fund to replace the lifts, and I believe the Minister also said that earlier. When we talk of upgrading, it is a general term, but what we are actually doing is that we are replacing all the lifts there, and we do have enough funds for them. As I said, the total cost is just over $2 million. As the Minister has mentioned, we have got $8 million. I think we do have enough money. The point is that we have replaced the lifts in its present situation ---”
“With due respect to the Minister of State, I have been the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council for 15 years now. And I think we know what funds can be used for lift upgrading and what funds cannot be used. I can assure the Minister of State that we do have sufficient funds in the sinking fund to carry out both our Lift Upgrading Programme at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, and also the R&R works that we are going to do at Potong Pasir estate. Of course, we have to get permission from HDB to do our lift upgrading at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh. But the HDB specifically says, "Ok, you can go ahead and do lift upgrading.", but they do not allow us to make the lifts to stop at every floor. So I want to know what is the reason. We do not spend $12 million, as the Minister has said. The lift upgrading for 29 lifts only cost us just over $2 million. I do not know where he gets his figures from.”
“Yes, I will let the Senior Parliamentary Secretaryhave the details and I hope to get an answer from him. 1996 STOCKHOLM DECLARATION AND AGENDA FOR ACTION (Ratification) 11. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports why has Singapore not ratified the 1996 Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action which pledges a commitment to reduce child prostitution and child sex tourism. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Sir, the Government fully supports the intention of the 1996 Stockholm Declaration to protect children. As Singapore takes its obligations very seriously, we will examine the details of the Declaration carefully before making a decision on its formal adoption. I would like to inform the Member that Singapore is already a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This Convention reaffirms the intention of the Stockholm Declaration. It upholds the principle that every child has the right to special protection in situations of exploitation, such as child labour, drug abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse, sale, trafficking and abduction. There are very few cases of child exploitation in Singapore and we have adequate legislative provisions to protect our children. This robust legal framework is backed up by the tough enforcement stance we adopt against offences of child abuse and exploitation. It is also complemented by the many different kinds of social services available for children in need of protection.”
“I can point a case to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. It is a case where the Ministry of Manpower took one year to reply to a letter. Is he willing to investigate on it and let me know the outcome?”
“How long does the Ministry of Manpower normally take to reply to a letter concerning a maid problem?”