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 66 of 85.
“Mr Chairman, Sir, very quickly, I must bring this matter up. We are talking of people in custody. Mr Chia Thye Poh has been in custody for the last 20 years and I would urge the Government to review his case. The Government says that he is a communist, he advocates violence, but he denies that. He denies that he advocates violence. I hear that his health is failing and I think the Government should show some compassion. In a normal criminal case, 20 years' imprisonment as good as a lifetime imprisonment. In Mr Chia's case, he has not even been found guilty in any court of law. He has got no contact with the outside world for the last 20 years and if he were to be released today, how can he create problems? The situation in Singapore has changed tremendously from the time he was arrested. We are now affluent. 85% of our population are now residing in HDB flats. People are going on holiday. And I say again, Communism has got no attraction in Singapore. What harm can be done if Mr Chia were to be released? Assuming he makes a statement and he is released, does it really make any difference to the Government? Or if he has not ---”
“Sir, I have one amendment under this Head. May I be allowed to ask questions outside this present subhead?”
“May I just ask the Minister of State two questions. The first one is more of a clarification. He said that there are many accidents because motorists after passing take on to the road. Is he implying that our training and our standard of testing in Singapore is below par? The other question is, I am encouraged to hear that there is a lot of education of the motorists in regard to road safety. This is an important area. Can he give an indication of how much money is spent on this particular area. I hardly see any TV programmes or advertisement in regard to road safety recently. Can the Minister please give an indication how much money is spent and is the police intending to have more TV programmes to educate motorists in regard to road safety?”
“(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Financing of the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead II-01 of the Development Estimates. The sum of $39,002,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,241,446,400 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head Q -”
“Financing of the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IH-00 of the Development Estimates.”
“Information Division (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IE-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Land Transport (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IC-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“So all in all, I would say that there is a case for bus companies to lower their fares despite the fact that they do promise their shareholders, I believe, 7 1/2 % dividend. Sir, I hope the Minister will take note of that.”
“Sir, I have only one point to make. Before I do that, can the Minister please tell me how many passengers the SBS carry in one day? The point I would like to bring up is that I hope the Minister would urge the bus companies to reduce their maximum fare from 80 cents to 60 cents. I believe even at 60 cents, at the higher end of the ceiling, the bus companies would make a profit. The savings would be fairly substantial especially for those who are in the poorer group. They can save something like 20 cents a trip. That means 40 cents to and fro in one day. I think they can save up to about $10 in a month. It means a lot for those people who can hardly make ends meet at the end of the month. I believe the bus companies can still survive and make a profit if they reduce their bus fares, from 80 to 60 cents for the maximum charge. I understand that individual bus operators are already charging only 50 cents and they can survive. So I am suggesting 10 cents above the maximum fare the individual bus operators are charging. The SBS has almost a monopoly. They have got choice routes. And I believe someone said that Singapore is a busman's paradise. So they got more than enough fares, no shortage of passengers. I believe they also get Government assistance in infrastructure in terms of land. Even recently, we heard in this House that bus bays are built for them. I believe the Government also allows these bus companies to have one-man operation and that saves a lot of costs for them, although it is a strain on the drivers. But nevertheless it is cost savings on the part of the bus companies. I also believe fuel price has dropped drastically, from its 1979 levels.”
“And, please, if you want to take that line of asking me to say anything outside this House, you must know what you are saying because under the law of libel, I am sure Mr Tang will bear me out, you must say the exact words that you want me to repeat. No court of law will uphold just some vague impressions or vague ideas. You must have the exact words. So if you want me to repeat the exact words, let me know.”
“Mr Minister, first of all, I would like to make an observation. You are certainly not up to the mark of the Prime Minister.”
“Unless you want to give me more time. Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order again. The falsehood is that he persists in misquoting the Prime Minister.”
“I assume I was given only 10 minutes. I have got eight minutes left after taking up ---”
“I am not speaking. I have already finished speaking.”
“--- that from now on, whatever I publish they would not cut out.”
“Sir, what I am saying is that the Prime Minister has in this House indicated to the press that if I should reply to the Straits Times or perhaps the Nanyang Siang Pau probably my reply would be printed in full. Is that not the correct position? Some kind of an indication to the press ---”
“What I was saying was that I was never rightly reported in the press. You just look at the headlines. Will the Minister just give one instance where there is a headline, even of a very small report, that is flattering of the Opposition? Can you quote me just one instance?”
“There is some kind of an indication given to a private company which has got nothing to do with the Government. An indication has been given to an entirely different body. Am I correct on that?”
“Sir, I think that amounts to plenty as far as I am concerned.”
“I am not saying the truth or not the truth. How are we going to know an election result before it is announced? We can only exercise a judgment and I am saying that this reporter has not exercised his professional judgment in that particular case. That is my point. It is not a question of truth. How can you know the truth when the results are not announced? I am asking the Minister that particular question: whether or not a local journalist is able to exercise his professional judgment unhindered. And he says yes. Now I am going to ask him the next question. If that is the case, we were surprised on Friday to hear the Prime Minister giving me some kind of an assurance. He said, "Mr Chiam, we on this side of the House will ensure that whatever rebuttals you are going to make to the press it will be published accordingly." If that kind of a statement coming from the Prime Minister ---”
“I would like to know from the Minister whether, in our present Singapore context, a local journalist is able to exercise his professional judgment unhampered. That is what I want to know. Can the Minister please answer this question?”
“I have a question for the Minister. Can you please answer my question? Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to the best of my knowledge, the journalists in the newspapers work together with the editors. What instructions they get from the editors is the business of the newspapers.”
“Mr Chairman, the Minister has accused me of attacking an individual of the press in this House. The thrust of my argument is that there is no objectivity amongst our journalists because they are working under certain constraints. I am giving this as an example. Does the Minister agree with me that our journalists are, in fact, working under certain constraints? They cannot exercise their professional judgment completely. Does the Minister agree with me on that?”
“Are you accusing me of suffering from schizophrenia?”
“I am sorry. I thought I heard you say "Anson".”
“I have said this Government has got two standards. I do not think they will allow any newspaper companies to have an independent editorial policy. They will not allow that. We have seen examples of at least three papers which have suffered the wrath of this Government - Nanyang Siang Pau, The Singapore Herald and the Eastern Sun. But let us look at what the Prime Minister had to say when he was in the Opposition in the Malaysian Parliament. He asked of the Federal Information Minister this question. He asked whether the Minister's duty was to produce closed minds or open minds "because these instruments, the mass media, TV, Radio, can produce either the open mind receptive to ideas and ideals, a democratic system of life or closed limited minds. I know the open debate is a painful process for closed minds, but let me make this one point, that 5 million adult minds in Malaysia cannot be closed. Definitely, not in the lifetime of the people in authority. It is not possible because whatever the faults of the colonial system it generated the open mind, the inquiring mind." Sir, let us have this standard here in our press and in our mass media. Let them have some leeway in their judgment. Let them have more independence in their editorial policies. Let us have real debates in the press and not the ones that we see which are only one-sided.”
“I am saying that there is no objectivity in our press reporting because they are working under certain constraints. And this reporter is an experienced reporter. He has been reporting on political matters for a long time and I am sure he knows of the ground at the Anson bye-election in 1981. And if he knows of the ground, why did he say, in the front page, that the PAP will win? Unless, of course, he is not proficient, which I am not saying that. I am sure he knows exactly what the situation is. I am saying that our reporters are not able to report objectively because of the constraints in which they have to work under. I believe up till today that senior reporter at the bottom of his heart, I am sure he still felt that Mr Jeyaretnam had a chance to win. But under the constraints in which he was working, he was unable to say that. There is nothing wrong with the majority of our reporters, I have said that.”
“Let me have the words that you want me to repeat. We cannot have some vague accusations in this House. I will not tolerate that. [Interruptions].”
“Mr Chairman, as the Hon. Minister would know, I must know the exact words what he wants me to repeat and I will repeat it outside this House, if they were my words.”
“I will repeat that. I have got nothing to fear.”
“If you will just repeat the words, I will take it down and I will repeat it outside. An hon. Member: You said it.”
“All right. What is it that you want me to repeat? Let me know.”
“I will repeat it if I know the exact words. Don't get me wrong.”
“What is it that you want me to repeat? I have said so many things. As you know, in a libel case you must state the exact words.”
“What exactly do you want me to repeat that I have said in this House and I will repeat it, please.”
“Where was the objectivity of that reporter? Where was his professionalism?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I said at the close of the last sitting of this House that our local journalists are a talented lot. They are good. But unfortunately, as I have mentioned, they cannot work objectively because of the difficult conditions in which they have to work and they have to work also under difficult constraints. I believe they are unable to exercise their own professional judgment, in particular on political and other sensitive matters. That is the very reason why they cannot be objective. I was about to cite an example the last time when the time was up. This is the case of a very senior journalist. I believe he was also a sub-editor in the Straits Times. He specializes in political reporting. I came to know of him the first time only when I entered the political arena. But before that I was reading his articles and I thought that he had a high proficiency in his craft and I respected him for that. The first time I met him was when he attended our first press conference of my Party. In fact, I felt flattered to have his presence. Then there was this bye-election in 1981. My Party and I were active at that bye-election and I believe this very senior reporter was also doing his work at Anson. And I am sure he knew the mood of the voters just as I knew the ground at that time. My assessment of the situation was that there was a 50-50 chance for the Opposition to win and I am sure that senior reporter also knew that. But on polling day, what did he write? Under his own name, he reported in the front page of the Straits Times under this headline, "PAP will win". That was his assessment of the situation. Of course, we know the result. The PAP candidate lost and that candidate has never been heard of since. But that is another matter.”
“May I know what is the estimated cost of each of these overhead bridges? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir wishes to know the estimated cost, he could table a Question and I would be pleased to answer it. WIDENING OF JALAN KAYU AND SELETAR ROAD/ ANG MO KIO NEW TOWN LINK 3. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to (i) widen Jalan Kayu and (ii) connect Seletar Road directly to Ang Mo Kio New Town.”
“Sir, may I just comment on where we left off the last time. I was going to speak on something else but there are only two minutes. Basically, I was not attacking any of our journalists. Generally, I hold our local journalists with high esteem. There are one or two, of course, who are exceptions. But generally I am saying I do respect our local journalists. They are very talented and, in fact, they have been complimented on by none other than Mrs Graham herself. She is the owner and publisher of the Washington Post and also the owner of Newsweek. She said that our journalists are as good as any journalists in the world. They are alert. They are knowledgeable. But unfortunately, I think many of them are unable to write objectively under our present restraint. I will give you an example. In the 1981 Anson by-election, this journalist who is experienced and has been covering political affairs for a long time must have known, being an experienced journalist, that there was a 50-50 chance --- The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, there are only two minutes left. Can we carry this over ---”
“Mr Prime Minister, I have already said I agreed with what the Minister has said. I believe in open society and the right of reply. I believe that. I said so. Since the Prime Minister has given me that assurance again, I will certainly reply to that letter. Thank you.”
“Please, Mr Prime Minister, last time you said that you were asking me and not asking Mr Jeyaretnam. My turn now is, I am asking him and not asking you! [Laughter].”
“Mr Chairman, I am very dissatisfied with the answer. That is no answer at all. Does not the Minister have an opinion? Surely he must have one. Whether it is fit or not fit for publication?”
“Mr Chairman, I am asking the Minister a specific question. Firstly, I asked him whether he has read that letter, and he said yes. Now I am asking him whether or not he thinks that that letter is fit for publication in a newspaper like - don't look at the Prime Minister, please - do it on your own![Laughter].”
“No, I am asking you. I am asking you whether you think that that letter is fit for publication?”
“Now, in your view, do you think that that letter is a trivial letter, a letter of the Straits Times of such prestige and high standing, do you think that that letter is really fit for publication in your view? Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I mentioned a moment ago that it is up to the newspaper to decide ---”
“Can I be allowed to ask a specific question of the Minister? There was a letter in the Straits Times, I think it was yesterday, and the headline says something about "Puzzling about whether there is a Potong Pasir across the causeway and Potong Pasir in Singapore". Have you read that letter, Mr Minister?”
“Mr Chairman, certainly I agree with these two principles. We cannot fault these two principles at all. I hope the Government will get our local press to apply these two principles to the Opposition as well, please.”
“I think there is no need for the Straits Times or any of our local press to highlight wrongly, put in a bigger print the bad points about the Opposition because the people of Singapore today, I believe, are mature and they can decide for themselves. And if the Straits Times wants credibility, I think they should be fair. I am not asking anything more. They should be fair to the Opposition.”