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 61 of 85.
“I oppose this Bill because it will introduce communalism and racialism in our electoral system. The Member for Kebun Baru has said that last January he saw 200 over Malays-”
“And also Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam who is of Sri Lankan descent at Anson in 1981, after 15 years of PAP one-party rule. If anyone put forward the theory that Mr Jeyaretnam won in Anson in 1981 was due to Indian support from Blair Plain, that theory can easily be proven wrong. Because in 1984 when all the PSA flats at Blair Plain were demolished, Mr Jeyaretnam was returned with an even greater majority. All the Indian voters at Blair Plains by that time had already moved away. Yet he polled a greater majority of votes. This proved that the Chinese voters were the ones who cast their votes in favour of Mr Jeyaretnam. So that is proof enough for you that even the Chinese preferred a non-Chinese in preference to a candidate who was a Chinese. So it can be seen that Singaporeans never voted a candidate purely because of his race. This Bill requires a Malay or other minority candidate who intends to stand for elections in a GRC to appear before a special committee. In the case of a Malay, he needs to appear before a Malay committee to prove that he is a Malay and a certificate to the effect that he is a Malay will be issued to him. In the case of a non-Malay minority candidate in a GRC, he is required to obtain a certificate from a non-Malay committee certifying that he is from a minority community other than the Malay community. This would mean that at every general elections the issue of race will be brought up again and again at every parliamentary elections. This will make the people of Singapore more race conscious. For this reason, I say that this Bill when it becomes law will be racial in nature. For the first time in our history, certain citizens will have to prove that he is of a certain race before he is allowed to contest in a parliamentary elections.”
“As time goes on, the racial differences will be less marked, as all school children will be attending a common type of school undergoing the same experiences, speaking the same language. If this educational policy is not changed, then Singapore shall become a melting pot of all races, and I for one am all for it. This is the only way to forge a cohesive and united nation. Mixed marriages in time will increase. Even today in this House, we can note that a few hon. Members by entering into mixed marriages have already paved the way for Singaporeans to be one people. The assumption that in future Singaporeans will vote according to their race is ridiculous. This is particularly so when Singapore in the 1980s has already gone through over two decades of nation building and the Singapore identity is already established. The last two National Day celebrations clearly demonstrated that the majority of Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, recognize that we are all Singaporeans. We are one nation, one people, and we are not Malay Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans or Eurasian Singaporeans. Anyone who says that Singaporeans today and in future will vote according to racial lines is actually insulting Singaporeans because we do not think so. Singaporeans, in fact, in the past and up till today have never voted any candidate in any Legislative Council in the time of the British or parliamentary elections when we became independent by the colour of the skin of the candidate but by his ability, good name and character and the credibility of his party. We can recall that Singaporeans voted Mr David Marshall who was of Jewish stock to be the first Chief Minister of Singapore. He was the best man and the Chinese in Singapore voted him at that time.”
“It must also be noted that if there was a drop in Malay representation after the 1968 general elections, it was not due to electoral defeats but it was due entirely to the selection policy of the ruling party. A former Minister of State, Haji Yaacob Mohamed, has pointed out that no PAP Malay candidates standing in a non-Malay constituency was ever defeated in general elections since 1959. Haji Yaacob also pointed out that in the general elections of 1984 both PAP Malay and non-Malay candidates suffered a decline in votes. So it is not just the Malays alone. Haji Yaacob does not believe that Singaporeans were voting along racial lines. There you are. There is already a difference within your own ranks. The effect to forge Singaporeans into one nation and become one people is real. At one time, Chinese parents were sending their children to Chinese language medium schools rather than to the English language medium schools. By 1954, the pattern of enrolment was reversed and far more children were sent to English medium schools than to Chinese medium schools. Now, in Singapore, we practically have only one common type of school with the bilingual policy as its cornerstone. According to the Ministry of Education's statistics, it can be noted that in 1986 out of a total of 268,820 pupils in primary schools, 266,396 of them, comprising 99.09%, were enrolled in English language medium schools. And the balance of 2,424, about 0.9%, were enrolled in Chinese language medium schools. There were no Malay or Tamil language medium schools. It is inevitable that even the 0.9% of those studying in Chinese language medium schools will be absorbed into the English language medium schools.”
“I oppose this Bill because I believe it is going to be bad for our efforts in nation building and it is going to be a threat to our racial harmony. The Government has given a very flimsy reason, namely, to ensure Malay and other minority representation in Parliament. This must first assume that for the next and other coming general elections the voting trend in relation to Malay and other minority community candidates of the past 32 years since 1955 will suddenly change. This cannot be because there is no evidence to show that Singaporeans will become racialists overnight and will vote only a candidate belonging to his own race. In the 1959 general elections, when the PAP first took office, the Malays were over-represented in Parliament. And in subsequent general elections, up to the last one in 1984, they have always been adequately represented in Parliament. Their representation for the period 1963 to 1984 was about 80% of their quota. Effective representation need not be 100% mathematically matching between the percentage of the number of minority MPs and the percentage in population. In the case of the Malays, no alarm bells need be sounded. It is not a case where Malay representation in Parliament has suddenly dropped drastically. There is no such sign that Malay representation in Parliament has this trend. In fact, Malay representation in Parliament has increased from 10.81% in 1980 to 11.39% in 1984. There is no proof at all that the Malay representation in Parliament has dropped to such low levels that we need to amend the Constitution and other laws to introduce communal representation in Parliament.”
“I am opposing this Bill certainly not because I think that the Opposition will be disadvantaged. Far from it. With the present mood of the people's support for the opposition, this GRC system may even favour the Opposition. Perhaps this is the reason that prompted the PAP to refer this piece of legislation to a Select Committee. Instead of getting one Opposition Member voted into Parliament, we may get three Opposition members returned to Parliament in one constituency.”
“Sir, I say that it is important that the PAP must prove and show by concrete evidence that their assumption is correct first, their assumption that in future elections the people of Singapore will be voting according to racial lines. They have to prove to us. Unless they can show that, I think this whole GRC system will fall flat. I rise to oppose the Bill because it will introduce communalism in our statute books. If I had advocated that we have communal representation in our Parliament before 23rd December 1984, I would surely be arrested. We can all recall that it was in the very early hours of 23rd December 1984 after the general elections' results had been announced that the Prime Minister gave his press conference. In that press conference, he questioned the one-man-one-vote system. He was very annoyed because there was a huge swing of 12.3% of votes towards the Opposition. The PAP think tank has been working extra hard from that day on to devise a way to stop the move or enlargement of votes in favour of the Opposition. I believe that this Bill is the PAP's answer to the prevention of a further move towards the Opposition. That is the real reason for this piece of legislation. The PAP thinks that with the concept of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), they will not only ensure electoral victory at the next general elections but also hopefully to edge out the sole Opposition in Parliament and regain a 100% PAP representation in Parliament. The ultimate purpose is to achieve such an overwhelming majority so as to dispense with the necessity to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution with a view to provide an elected Presidency with executive powers. That is the real reason of all this law that is being introduced here.”
“The PAP had four candidates at the 1955 elections and they had one Malay, I think. It is because in those days the unions were strong. But where are the unions today? I think the hon. Member for Kebun Baru would know that the unions are all properly muzzled. And what representation do you have in Parliament from the Unions? You tell me, where around us is anyone representing any unions here?”
“They said, "All right, we give 70% seats to the Greeks, 30% to the Turks, and we have got 70% for the Armed Forces, for the Civil service." And they go down the line. That is their big mistake. Because if you start on communal basis, you will remain that way. But if you start, like in America, a melting pot, all come together into one nation and start off like that, you see how prosperous America is. So if we want to reverse our process and go along communal lines in our Parliament, this entrenchment of communalism in our Parliament will be more enhanced. You will just get the reverse result. You would not get racial harmony. In fact, you will get racial strife. But I think Singapore is too small for partition. But in any event, the problems that you sow today will wreak very serious consequences from this policy. As regards the comments made on the SDP, I am surprised that the First Deputy Prime Minister has made those remarks. Sir, I think strategically speaking, in every of our elections, the SDP has done very well. We started off in 1980 and we always improve with at every general elections. We have not gone down. So that is a good sign. We did not chicken out at Anson. I have to tell you that. If you think that we chickened out at Anson, you are a very poor strategist. Because if we did chicken out, as you say at Anson, the result would be exactly like in South Korea - none of the Opposition would have come in. Because we on our own accord took a positive step not to split the Opposition votes. As a result, we had an opposition in Parliament. Do you not think that is good strategy? Sir, much has been said about SDP fielding four candidates of one race. Because the circumstances dictate.”
“In the last two elections, there was an increase. In 1980, the representation of Malays was 10%, but in 1984 it jumped to 11%. Sir, in human affairs, as long as there is adequate and effective representation, that is what we want. We do not want to have a mathematical 100% direct representation. The point is that the Malays have always been adequately represented in Parliament. There is no need for alarm bells to be sounded. There is no drastic drop in Malay representation in Parliament. So why all the alarm now? PAP Ministers, Backbenchers, the lot, are very fond of comparing Singapore to Sri Lanka, Fiji and other palces which, I think, cannot be compared to Singapore. We are a more enlightened people. I think we should compare ourselves with more enlightened countries. It is a continual insult to compare us with people who are worse off than us and who have a system which is inferior to ours. So, why do you highlight Cyprus? Lebanon has cited from a prosperous, happy place to a place which it has now engulfed itself in a kind of civil war. Why do we not look at Cyprus? What is the fault of Cyprus? What happened in Cyprus was that there was this movement of enosis, the Greek majority want to join with Greece. And if they had the forsight to call an independent Cyprus and have a multi-racial Parliament or an assembly or legislature, they would not have ended with the ultimate result of partitioning their country. [Laughter] Don't laugh. Because you are going the reverse way. We are starting off with multi-racial and you are going into the reverse. You are going into communal representation in Singapore. Now, what happened was they have a communal representation in their Parliament.”
“All right, there was a slight drop. But in 1959, it was 19%. So it was over-represented there. And since then, the number is around 11%, 12%.”
“I am much oblidged to you, Sir. First of all, I am thankful that this this matter which has very far-reaching implications is now placed before a Select Committee. I think the PAP has wisdom after all. Sir, may I be allowed just to refer to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. He says the purpose of this Bill is to ensure a multi-racial Singapore and that there will be practice of multi-racial politices in Singapore. He is going on an assumption. The assumption is that in time to come the Chinse will vote only the Chinese. And because the Chinese are in the majority, the other minority groups will be edged out. And because the fear of such an event happening, as he has said, one morning we get up we find the whole of our Parliament just Chinese faces. Because of that fear, the Government now is introducing law to ensure minority representation. I shall be happy if he can convince me that such an event will happen. Because Singapore's history does not show that we are racial, it does not show in any way that we vote according to racial lines. Sir, I have taken the trouble to compile the election results in Singapore since 1955 during the British colonial days when there was only Legislative Assembly elections. You will note that in every one of those elections, all the minority races were well represented. In fact, the Chinese were under-represented. You will find that the Indians all always over-represented. In 1955, 12%; 1957, 12.5%; 1959, 11.76%; and 1963,11.76%. Indians again at 1968, 8.62%. But of course from 1972 onwards, it dropped to about 6%. But in 1980, it jumped to 9%, and then again dropped to 7%. But what about the Malays? The Malays are also always well represented. In fact, during the Colonial days, they were over-represented.”
“Sir, the Minister has not commented on the significance of this move. Whatever it is, whether it is the regional bureau or headquarters, the fact is that it has moved away from Singapore.”
“Sir, I read in the papers that the international publication known as the Economist has moved its headquarters from Singapore. Is it not an indication that we will be in fact reducing our efforts to make Singapore a communications centre?”
“What does the Minister say to another allegation that the FEER has been banned in Singapore in fact and it is not really drastically curbed?”
“Sir, is it not true that the allegation of the FEER is that the Government has a right to say who the distributor will distribute the magazines to?”
“But you are not giving us that responsibility. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. tables - BILATERAL EXCHANGE RATES OF NICS AGAINST US$, SINGAPORE TRADE AND CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE, US BALANCE OF TRADE (Cols. 141 - 146)”
“At the moment, all Opposition Members are not given a chance to even manage the CCs. Why is that so?”
“The Minister talks about responsibility. I think I should be given a chance to clarify.”
“The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all know that the Member for Potong Pasir is very keen to prove his manhood.”
“The PAP has said many a time, "Confidence is important", but obviously you do not have any more confidence left in yourselves. Let us not just talk of confidence but let us see you put to the test your confidence. The Opposition, I can tell you, is prepared and raring to have a good fight at the by-elections. Are you ready? No answers. We are ready. The voters in Anson and Geylang West have paid their income taxes, their conservancy charges and all other outgoings and they are good, law-abiding citizens. Then, please do not deprive them of the right to choose a representative of their own choice in Parliament. As it is, both these constituencies already have been deprived of a true MP for a year, or close to a year in the case of Geylang West. They must be given a chance to have a say in this regard. The PAP has no right to send a caretaker MP to Geylang West or get a prospective candidate to act as a caretaker MP at Anson. If that is right, if that is the proper thing, then why bother to hold by-elections at all? By the same token, MPs can just be appointed and not elected by the people. They can just be sent down to the constituencies. I am just wondering whether the PAP really and sincerely believes in the true spirit and essence of parliamentary democracy. The Government has preached the concept of excellence which I fully support, but why leave that concept of excellence out of our political system? If the Government believes in parliamentary democracy, then let us have excellence in the practice of it. When by-elections are due, let us hold them and not hedge, dilly-dally, or make all kinds of excuses. Please do not make any kind of excuses any more. Let us go on with the by-elections and prove that you are men.”
“I hope an assurance can be given by the Government that Singapore will maintain a democratic Westminster style of parliamentary system and not tamper with the Constitution with a view to changing the system to a system where the basic democratic rights of the people and the supremacy of Parliament are lost to us forever. When that day comes, it will be a black day for Singapore because we would have embarked on the road to a dictatorship. The Minister for Trade and Industry in an international conference held in Singapore recently said, "If the PAP loses, nobody can assume that the political system will remain." I will assume that the political system referred to by the Minister is our present parliamentary system. If that is the case, what he said is also true of the PAP. I can also say that if the `PAP wins the next general elections, we cannot assume that our present parliamentary system will remain intact. The Minister also said, "No Opposition party offers a plausible alternative government." How can the Opposition offer a plausible alternative government if the ruling party keeps all doors shut to them? Why does not the Government hold the by-elections this year and it may be the start of the Opposition on its road to form a plausible Government. On the one hand, the Government does not play by the rules. On the other hand, it says the Opposition can never win. I say this to the new leaders of the PAP: If you are men, let us have the by-elections. If you do not, I would say that you are all still boys. Why are you so afraid to lose just two more seats? You have the full Government machinery, the press, the radio, the television, on your side, yet why are you so scared?”
“The Hong Lim by-election was held within one month of its becoming vacant on 16th July 1965. So also the by-elections in Jurong, Bukit Timah and Joo Chiat were held within one month of their becoming vacant on 7th October 1966. Why does the ruling party refuse to hold by-elections in Anson and Geylang West this year? Many have said that the new leaders have no confidence in themselves. Unlike the old leaders or the old guards, I am sure they know that they may lose the by-elections, just as in Hong Lim and at Anson, both held in 1961. And yet they went ahead with them but, of course, they lost both those constituencies, the former to Ong Eng Guan and the latter to David Marshall. I believe that the new leaders cannot take any electoral defeats before the next general elections. With two more defeats coming after the two defeats at the last general elections, they probably believe that the ground may just slip from their grasp at the next general elections. Also, a defeat in Anson and Geylang West may not mean just a loss of two more seats to the PAP, it could well mean a vote of no confidence in the Government and that could spell the end of the PAP era in Singapore. For the reasons given, the ruling party will never hold by-elections in Anson and Geylang West. This must surely cast doubts on the PAP whether they really believe in the Westminster style of parliamentary democratic system which we now have. As long as the Government is secure under this present system, the system will remain intact. What happens if the Government is threatened with an imminent defeat at the polls? Will the Government still maintain the present form of parliamentary democracy?”
“The Government should be honest with the people of Singapore and come out truthfully and say, "Yes, we refuse to hold by-elections at Anson and Geylang West because we are going to lose two seats in Parliament." If the Government had said that, I would certainly have more respect for it than the lame excuses offered by Ministers. One excuse was that the Government would make a decision in the latter half of the year. I suppose that decision, today, has already been indicated. In any event, that announcement was made on the 4th March in this House. I say that is an excuse. Because we have now come to the end of the year and the year-end is already around the corner and I still believe probably there would not be any by-elections. As for the formation of group MPs, that is also another excuse. What has the election, by grouping constituencies together, got to do with the by-elections? The by-elections by group MPs will only take place probably, at best, next year. In the meantime, for the whole of this year, is it right to deprive the voters of Anson and Geylang West to choose an MP of their own choice? In February 1967, there were five by-elections, namely, in Bukit Panjang, Havelock, Jalan Kayu, Tampines and Thomson. One year later, in February 1968, there were general elections, just after a lapse of one year. The next general elections will certainly not be held in December. At best, probably it will be held early next year. So the voters in Anson and Geylang West have been definitely deprived of the services of an MP which they want to choose for themselves for one whole year. In the 1960s and the 70s, almost all by-elections were held within three or four months of those parliamentary seats becoming vacant, for whatever reasons.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the original wording of the motion was: This House disapproves the refusal of the Government to hold by-elections at Anson and Geylang West constituencies. This is pursuant to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 28th July 1987 [Hansard, Vol. 49, cols. 1415-6] when he said "no by-election will be held in Anson and Geylang West constituencies." Sir, in the first three years of the 1960s, the PAP was fighting for its dear life. At one stage, it had one seat less than the Opposition in the then Legislative Assembly. By 1968, after three years of Singapore's independence, the picture was completely different. In that year's general elections, the PAP won all 65 seats in Parliament, albeit 51 seats were returned unopposed. The Prime Minister was not altogether jubilant. In fact, he expressed disappointment because there was a lack of Opposition. He pointed out that 30 of the PAP candidates had not experienced "the tough, vicious and ruthless fighting the Communists had shown in the past." We are now in the 1980s. We have no Communists or their proxies to fight in the polls. But we do have the Opposition in Singapore who believe strenuously in getting into Parliament by constitutional means. The Opposition in Singapore are certainly not vicious or ruthless as the Communists but they are tough and enduring. And more importantly, the Government knows that they do have a big support at the ground today, and that is the real reason why the Government refuses to hold by-elections in the vacant constituencies of Anson and Geylang West. If by-elections were held this year, the ruling party's candidates in both those constituencies I would say, and to use a boxing term, will be knocked out in the first round.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would not take this kind of aspersions. If you want to debate, let us debate on the facts of it. Do not just say something personal against another person.”
“My contention is that they have got no such powers to dissolve the Club and distribute the funds. That is my contention. But you are turning and saying now that the intent is there, which is completely different. You are misleading the public.”
“I think this statement clearly states that the dissolution is possible. It clearly states there. There is no question of intent whatsoever in the Finance Ministry's statement. You are now saying that the intent is possible. The intention is possible.”
“Therefore, would you agree that in fact this statement put out by the Ministry of Finance is completely misleading? Then it should be withdrawn. But it is not withdrawn.”
“Sir, I still maintain that if this statement were true according to this report, then I say the Ministry has misled the public because members of the Turf Club have got no such powers. There is no such risk involved because there is no provision for a dissolution of the Club. Therefore, they cannot divide the money amongst themselves. They can never do that. If they want to include a provision to dissolve the Club, they must get the clearance of the Registrar of Societies first. So there is no such risk.”
“May I be allowed to ask a point of clarification. According to a newspaper report, there was a statement issued by the Ministry of Finance that the Singapore Turf Club members numbering around 600 can dissolve the Club and share out its accumulated funds and reserves. Is this a true statement? Because my knowledge is that the Turf Club has got no such powers in its constitution, and if it wants to amend its constitution it must get the approval of the Registrar. So if this statement is wrong, it is misleading.”
“Because I have got dignity and decorum in me. Sir, another important issue in this is: what sort of system are we having in Singapore? I do not think we are a democratic system. Where is the democracy? This is an example. Let us take this example. So with one big swoop, over $800 million is taken from an organization. What kind of a system is this? I think we already have received a lot of criticism on the high-handedness on the part of the Government, even if it is doing good. I think people should be consulted and that is the essence of a democracy.”
“Yes, given to charity. I think that is their mistake. It is a very big juicy plum and it is very tempting. So probably that is their one big sin and that is the reason why the Government is stepping in. In addition to this huge sum of money, I believe the Turf Club also has got 338 hectares of land. This land is in prime area, Bukit Timah area. I think it can easily be sold for $500-odd million. So within three weeks, from the 9th to today, the 30th November, with one swoop the Government is taking over $800 million. This is a very fast exercise. I think if the members of the committee are not consulted the Government is in breach of what is known as natural justice. If you are going to affect the interests of somebody, I think you should give him a fair hearing first before you pass the Bill. If none of the committee members or none of its members have even been told about what the Government is going to do, I think the Government has really breached the rule of natural justice. This piece of common law is as old as the English legal system. In fact, it is a very serious wrong when anyone commits a breach of natural justice. Because you have affected somebody's interest and you have not consulted him. I think it is only fair that the committee members should be called upon to perhaps make some suggestions. Hear them out first, before this Bill becomes legislation. Sir, of course, there are all kinds of rumours going on as to why the Government all of a sudden is taking this step. But I do not think I would like to mention it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to move that this Bill be placed before a Select Committee. But, first of all, I would declare that I have no pecuniary interest whatsoever on this matter. In fact, I am not a racing fan. I have never stepped into the Turf Club. My disposition and my upbringing is, in fact, against gambling. Why do I say that this Bill be put before a Select Committee? I have been informed that the Government has not consulted any of the committee members of the Turf Club on this Bill. This is my information. This is a very high-handed way of doing it if it were true. As it is, Singapore is renowned already for this kind of system. In fact, I think this is one example of it. Sir, the Singapore Turf Club, I believe, was founded in 1933 and it has been in existence for 54 years. I believe there have been no complaints of any misdeeds on the part of any of its committee members. If there is any, it is not within my knowledge. As far as I know, there were no misconducts although I believe there were two investigations on two of their members recently on charges of CBT but I believe nothing came out of those investigations. The Turf Club is a very rich body. According to reports, it has got $286 million in cash. This is a very big sum of money. I think the Turf Club made one big mistake and that is not to have disposed of all those assets long ago. An hon. Member: To charity.”
“In view of the depressed property market, is it not wise for the Ministry to slow down the process of demolition at the moment?”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Minister, from the experience of his Ministry, could tell us what is the waiting period between demolition and the final sale of a piece of land.”
“Sir, what opportunities do older workers have to learn new skills?”
“Let's arrange for it now. WORK PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM SMALL BUSINESSES (Criteria for approval) The following question stood in the name of Mr S. Chandra Das - 9. To ask the Minister for Labour whether he is aware of difficulties faced by small and medium-sized Singapore companies to obtain work permits for foreign workers; and what are the general guidelines for granting the necessary approval to these companies.”
“That is not the issue. The issue here is the holding out of the Government. It tells the public that when I back the price of a share at a certain price, there is a value of that share at that price. But it does not appear so now. That is what the issue is all about. An hon. Member: Give him a primer on stockbroking.”
“Nobody will believe the Government anymore.”
“Is it not true that when the Government issues a share, the Government is holding itself out and telling the public that the value of the share is that price? Is it not so? Otherwise the confidence of the Government will go.”
“Will the Minister please tell us whether or not the Government has a responsibility in regard to the higher value of the shares in SIA which were sold at $13?”
“I believe the Minister has not really looked at my question properly. I believe the Government must surely have a responsibility, as in the case of the SIA shares, when the Government sold them, I believe, at $13 or thereabout. Surely the Government must give the public some confidence ---”
“Sir, how many prosecutions were made by the Ministry for the year ending 31st December last year?”
“We must solve the problem. Mr Tang See Chim: Sir, the Minister admitted that some shops have been tendered and retendered. Does he not realize that this is really caused by his admitting new entrants into the tender system? These people had no idea of the economics of the retail trade and just tendered high rentals which they could not afford to carry on later.”
“Sir, it is obvious that the Government has not solved this problem because there is still much dissatisfaction. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be willing to reopen the case because the problem is still there. And if he does reopen the case, I hope he can give the Opposition a chance also to join in and look into the matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a real problem in resettlement cases, even the existing shopkeepers in HDB estates. In view of this, would the Minister be willing to set up a committee to study their plight with a view to pegging a reasonable rent for these shopkeepers?”
“Why is it that they impose this kind of a condition only at this stage? I believe previously private individuals were allowed to arrange this kind of an agency.”
“Am I to understand from the Minister that in all these Muslim countries, only official agencies can do this kind of business? Is that the correct position in regard to other Muslim countries?”
“All right. In view of the fact that there is already a lack of Malay entrepreneurs in Singapore, would not this kind of agency, in fact, kill whatever little entrepreneurial spirit there is in the Malay community?”