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 67 of 85.
“No. I mean, we have just all heard. So why not? I will do that. I think Singapore people ---”
“Yes, I will do that from now on. I will make a point to correct them whenever ---”
“And I hope they will publish my letters as it has been written.”
“I am much obliged, Sir. I was just saying that in Singapore we have two standards, as far as the media is concerned. One standard for the Government, one standard for the Opposition. If I hear the Prime Minister says correctly, I think I am very happy to hear that because from now on I will be writing to the Straits Times --”
“I think the question is really double standards we are talking about. The Government expects one standard for itself, another standard for others. For itself, whatever it writes to the foreign press, it must be published. Whatever it writes, of course, to the local press, they will publish obediently. In the case of the Opposition ---”
“I am really happy to hear the Prime Minister saying that because you can check with the Straits Times up to the very moment now I have not written one letter to the Straits Times because I did not bother. Because I know it will be edited. So if the Prime Minister is saying that whatever ---”
“I thought that the headline on Chiam being bowled over was not worthy of a headline. Really, I thought I was the one who bowled over the Second Defence Minister when I said that in Singapore, it is the Land of the Rising Son. I could see his face turn blue, green, yellow. The other thing about the local papers is that their practice is similar to the Asian Wall Street Journal. They have every right not to print any letters that they receive. I have got complaints and letters were shown to me which say, "Look, Mr Chiam, I have sent this letter to the Straits Times and it was rejected and sent back to me." I think it is the privilege of the paper whether to print or not to print letters that are sent to it.”
“I have just mentioned that I have been completely cut out in yesterday's debates. We have only one Opposition here. And if a person were to watch TV or tune in to the radio last night, he would not have heard anything about the Opposition. And he would think that there is no Opposition in Singapore. [Interruptions]. Well, it reported only matters which did not, shall I say, reflect well of the Opposition. Please, you look at the headlines. The way the news is printed and how it is headlined, I think it is very important. But every time you look at the headlines in respect of the Opposition, it is never good. Tell me one where there is a good headline obout any opposition? Perhaps that is a good question to ask the Minister.”
“Recently, I have made a complaint to the Privileges Committee on a wrong reporting. I thought it was wrong. And I think the Committee agreed with me because the reply was not really that convincing. But still the matter was not taken up. I was asked to move a motion in Parliament. I doubt I will get a seconder.”
“I have personally not done so. But friends have written in and they have shown me the letters they have written. If you want, I could show them to you. But I have taken certain other steps though, but not write to the press.”
“Yes, why not? All right. This is a free country.”
“That is press freedom from the definition of the Americans. They are free to publish what- ever they like. That is the American definition of press freedom. But here in Singapore I really do not know what press freedom is. Press freedom here is just to highlight Government policies, Ministers' speeches. Whatever the Ministers say ---”
“Mr Chairman, I am not going to defend the Asian Wall Street Journal. I think the issue is perhaps one of press freedom. It would appear that there are different definitions of press freedom. The Americans have one definition and in Singapore we have another definition. But in the Asian Wall Street Journal affair, it would appear that the PAP Government is being hurt and so it reacts very violently. This is perhaps one of the few times that it has been hurt. I am in the Opposition and we have been hurt almost every other day. I do not know what kind of press freedom we have in Singapore because whatever has been said in this House of the wrongdoings of the Asian Wall Street Journal can be applied to the Opposition. Whatever we say has been distorted, misrepresented and whatever little errors that we make are fully highlighted. Take the recent debates that we had here. I have been accused of not doing my homework. I have been accused of being bowled over for six, and I do not know what else. I have asked a question of the Minister and he says, "You go and look at the textbooks" and that has been published. But I got no answers from the Minister this morning. I wonder whether they will publish that. I notice that in yesterday's paper, a whole chunk of my five-minute speech was completely left out. An hon. Member: That is press freedom.”
“Now it is with regard to the subject of Asian Wall Street Journal. The Chairman: Dr Wang.”
“I do not think I will be speaking on the Asian Wall Street Journal.”
“Junior College Education (17) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-03 of the Main Estimates.”
“Secondary Education (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Primary Education (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“I think it is an evident fact that parents do play a part in the education of their children. We always hear the parents say, "Well, the schools must do something for the child." And then the teacher will say, "No. It is the duty of the parents." But I believe both have an equally important role to play. And what better for the pupils than for parents and teachers to come together to discuss the problems of the child and perhaps to, even if there are no problems, make improvements in the school environment. But, of course, I understand that there are already certain committees in Government schools like the School Advisory Committee, and now there is a new committee called the School Executive Committee. I do not know exactly what these committees are formed for. Perhaps the Minister could explain. But I have always the impression that the School Advisory Committee was more of a fund-raising committee. Whenever the schools are short of funds, they run to the School Advisory Committee, either they can foot certain bills for certain projects or help to get the funds. I am not exactly clear as to the School Executive Committees, whether these comprise of the parents, old boys or old girls of their schools. I understand that the Ministry is also setting up this school link - I believe it is a good thing - where the Ministry has got a central computer and it is linked to all those schools with computer terminals. Perhaps the Ministry could enlighten us on this set-up. Thank you.”
“At one time, of course, the Chinese schools were the hotbed of communist ideas. The situation is no longer so. Our standard of living has gone up. We are affluent and communism is no longer an attractive ideology. I believe there is really no serious danger to have so strict an Act because we have come to a stage where we must have more education. We want to give citizens a chance to open schools. I am sure many of them are highly qualified and they want to open schools. But because of all these restrictions they are not inclined to do so because to start a school you not only have to do a lot of organizing but also money has to be sought and a huge sum of capital laid out and half-way through he is told, "You are prejudicial to the interest of our Singapore." What happens then? All his money that is sunk into a project may be lost. So I am urging the Government Ministry to look again at this Act and see whether it could be amended to make the situation in Singapore more conducive to opening up more private schools and perhaps educational facilities in Singapore so that they can really make this place a brain centre. The other point I would like to touch is PTA (Parent-Teacher Associations). Again in the Mission schools, I believe PTAs are well established and there is good rapport between the parents and the teachers in the school. But in Government schools, I think more could be done in this area. The best way to do it is for the Government to speak out loud and say, "Yes, we encourage Parent-Teacher Associations. By all means, go ahead and establish them." If this kind of encouragement is forthcoming from the Ministry, I am sure more Parent-Teacher Associations could be formed and those already in existence could be more effective.”
“Yes, all right, I am much obliged to you. We are talking about control of schools. I had a look at the Education Act and what does it say? It says that all schools that are not Government schools must have a committee of management. In the mission schools I believe they call them school boards. Of course, in other private schools I suppose they just call them committee of management in accordance with the Act. This is the basic difference in regard to school management between Government schools and non-Government schools. On the one hand, for non-Government schools, on the surface at least, we perceive that the school board can manage the school itself. But in the case of Government schools, they come under the direct control of the Ministry of Education. Of course, in truth, really all schools are very tightly controlled in Singapore. Teachers and managers of schools all have to be registered. As I said, teachers, managers and other personnel in schools come under close scrutiny of the Ministry. This scrutiny sometimes can be arbitrary. You look at this section 32(f). A person can be disqualified as a manager if the Director in the Ministry of Education feels that he is "prejudicial to the interests of Singapore or of the public or of the pupils of the school that such person should be so registered." This is very arbitrary. How are you going to say that a teacher or some personnel in a school is prejudicial to the interest of Singapore? Usually, as far as Government practice goes, no reasons are given. I do not know whether the strictness of this Education Act should be relaxed but I am of the opinion that it should because this Act was, I believe, first passed more than 20 years ago and conditions have changed.”
“Before I go on to the topic, I think this matter has to be cleared up. It is of importance because I say that schools do not teach the subject of democracy and the Minister says that they do, and this is taken up by the press and ---”
“I asked him to get the point clear. He says he is replying.”
“Whatever level. We can always present it in a palatable form. Perhaps we should get this clear unless the Minister is misleading the House. Because as far as I know, there is no such subject in our schools and the Minister says that there is. Let us get this point cleared up.”
“I am not satisfied with the Minister of State's answer. This "Good Citizen" series teaches the pupils to know more about themselves, their own strength, their own weaknesses and to know their own potential. The stress is basically on the character of the person. We are talking of a government. We are talking of how Parliament works. We are talking of the Constitution of Singapore. We are talking of the rights and duties of a citizen. These are the sort of things that concern the running of the country and these are the concerns of the things that will promulgate democracy in Singapore.”
“I have one point which I would like to clear up which I brought up yesterday. I say that democracy as a subject should be taught in schools. The Minister just brushed me off and said, "Go, look up the civics book." Well, I have gone to try to look up. But I was informed that Ethics and Civics are no longer taught in our schools. Moral education has taken its place. Can perhaps the Minister clear up this point? If, in fact, moral education has taken the place of civics, then I do not know whether we have been misled.”
“Last question. I think I have a right to ---”
“Does the Minister accept that a newspaper's internal policy is to choose which article to publish and which article not to publish? Does he accept that as an acceptable practice in the business of printing newspapers?”
“Does the Minister agree that that article was a report or a reflection of opinions that that reporter obtained from business circles in Singapore?”
“All right, Sir. How does the Minister reconcile this? On the one hand, the Act is to prevent a newspaper from circulating matters which are purported to be meddling in the affairs of the politics of Singapore and, on the other hand, he allows this newspaper to be circulated if it were to be given away free of charge. I think I have got a third question.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was to prevent foreign papers from meddling in our politics. As I had noted, the article published in the Asian Wall Street Journal was in relation to Sesdaq. How does the Minister say that this is meddling in the internal politics of Singapore? The other question I want to ask is something which I really do not understand. The whole purpose of the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is to prevent the circulation of articles which may be prejudicial to Singapore and yet the Minister says that the Wall Street Journal can continue to circulate.”
“They were qualified for certain faculties but they were not allowed to go in. Isn't that true?”
“Can I make a point of clarification? Is the Minister advocating educational centres with political aspects to that? Is he advocating that the education system can be politicized? This is what my objection is all about. I am not objecting to providing educational service.”
“Oh, we have got an admission. I hope the Minister will come out and say that. So Government money is to be spent to train our students to be future PAP ministers. Let the electorate know that. Independent school, as I say, is not a new thing. Before the PAP came into power there were many independent schools. The Member for Queenstown has mentioned this. In fact, he came from an independent Chinese school. I think all the Chinese schools in those days were independent.”
“What do you mean by "why not?" These poor kids got no choice. They have to go out whether they like it or not to wave their pom-poms. They have a pressure put on them to do it. If not, out they go. They probably cannot attend the kindergartens. So what choice have they got? I hear, at some other walkabouts, the same thing occurred. So the PAP is using all these poor kindergarten kids for their own political purposes. Is this right? If this kind of standard has been set for one political party, why not allow other political parties also set up kindergartens with all their logos put up? I think it is not correct to allow kindergartens to be politicized. This question of independent schools has been talked about, but under the present circumstances I think more than one Member has mentioned that as long as the Government controls the purse strings there is no real independence in these schools. It will just have to follow Government policy, although the name is "independent" it can never be really independent. So I do not know whether these so-called independent schools are set up more for the purposes of the Government than for the sake of good education, as they say, "excellence in education". But I have my doubts. Probably, it is more to get the cream of students, keep them and hopefully get them into Government service and in the end probably sitting here as Ministers. An hon. Member: What is wrong? That is the whole idea.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Chairman. May I just mention something about the kindergarten schools found in our housing estates. I notice that many of them have got PAP signs outside their premises and exercise books have got the PAP logo printed on them and the PE outfit has the PAP logo on it. This is politicizing the kindergartens in our housing estates. This is not a new thing. In fact, in the early days I believe some other political parties attempted this and the PAP objected vehemently. Now the PAP is copying those left-wing communist orientated political parties and they are doing exactly the same thing today. I think this is not right and I hope the Minister will do something to remove all the PAP logo from education centres and let us not make education a ground for political work. We read in the papers the first walk-about of the Second Defence Minister. He was welcomed by about 300 kindergarten kids waving pom-poms.”
“Yes, overall passes all the way. What I want to know is up to secondary, 'A' levels, and up to university level, have we improved since the Report was published?”
“More stringent laws will have to be enforced to keep this type of people in place. I think it is a very good thing that the number of pupils in the classroom is becoming smaller. If there are too many pupils in the class, it also does not encourage creativity. There is no motivation for innovative teaching. It will always be mechanical. This is not good as far as education theory is concerned. What is the aim of education? Of course, it is to bring up students so that when they come out of school, they will have, what they call, an all-round development. What does it mean? It means that he is physically and mentally developed. He will be a good citizen. I think I did not hear the Minister mention that. In fact, one of the main aims of education is to teach students to think. That is very important. At the end of the day, what we want are students who are self-confident, who can think and who can solve problems by themselves. These are very important aims of education. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind. In Singapore's context, another important area which is not touched on in our schools is the teaching of democracy. I believe Germany suffered a totalitarian type of government and after the war, when the Allies gave independence to them, they had this subject in the schools - what democracy is all about. Teach the students our Constitution, our parliamentary processes, their rights, their duties as citizens. If we really want to be a democratic society, we have to include this in our schools. I think it is very important and I hope the Minister will bear in mind and have some things done in this area.”
“I am glad to hear from the Minister that steps are finally being taken to reduce the class size. I believe 30 at the moment is a realistic figure although we know that the smaller the number the better. But I have no quarrel with the number of 30 in the class in Singapore's present context. But I would urge the Minister to implement this policy as fast as he can because as long as there are 40-45 pupils in the class there will be very bad results. What will happen will be that a teacher who is confronted with 40 pupils in the class will be indifferent. He just simply cannot teach. He will not volunteer to do extra work and he will lose interest. There is less motivation and in the circumstances the authority will probably put pressure on the teacher and say, "Look. You have to do this amount of work." The teacher is forced to give so many essays and so many sums a week. This kind of method will in fact make the situation even worse. With a bigger class, things will always get worse and it would not be better. There will of course be no effective teaching and that is why in Singa- pore we have got such widespread private tuition. Recently we have read in the papers that even someone at Primary 5 level is employed to teach a Primary 4 student. The situation as regards private tuition in Singapore is really bad because it stems from big classrooms. Too many in the class. Of course, economies of scale in school management is an unwise policy. You try to save and the situation is made worse. What will be the result? The students who come out from such large schools suffer from apathy. They do not seem to have an interest in anything. There is a lack of social consciousness and it will be difficult for the authorities.”
“Financing of the Housing and Development Board (30) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Resettlement (27) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“I thought that if you want to attract birds, you must plant trees either with berries or with some kind of a fruit to attract them. Surely, the Minister must also know that you do not plant flowering shrubs to attract birds. Where there is the food for the birds, the birds will be attracted there. I hope they will bear this in mind in respect of attracting birds. The other question I would like to bring forward is this. We have tried to plant one tree at Potong Pasir and the last Minister had it uprooted and rudely thrown in front of my MP's Office. Fortunately it was a very hardy tree. It is still surviving after over a year. We planted it in a pot. Since then the HDB has planted many other trees in that area, and this poor tree was left out. There is no excuse really to say that there is no provision for just one more tree. Perhaps would the Minister of State consider giving a space somewhere in the Potong Pasir Estate for this tree, which is really a worthwhile tree to be planted.”
“Sir, may I just ask the Minister of State what sort of balance in housing estates do they have when they are planting trees in regard to flowering shrubs, in regard to beauty and also in regard to attracting birds? Do they have this provision?”
“I have got two questions for the Minister regarding land acquisition. The first concerns the case where land has been acquired for a certain use and the Government has found that that use no longer exists. Would this piece of land be returned to the original owner? Or what does the Government normally do in such a case? The second question is: if land has been acquired, under what circumstances will the Government return either the whole piece of land or part of the land to the owner?”
“You say "Robin Hood". My goodness? Please explain what you mean by that. I really cannot understand your logic. Please explain what you exactly mean by "Robin Hood". You are taking from the landowner at $2 and you are selling to the poor HDB flat purchasers at $80, and who is the Robin Hood? The Government pockets the vast profits out of the sale of the flats, and now you say that you are giving these flat purchasers a subsidy. I really cannot see your logic. Now we are sure that there is no out-of-pocket subsidy. It is only a book subsidy. I think this position is very clear now. An hon. Member: Acquire his house!”
“All right, you say yes. So this is book subsidy. Who is the person really giving the subsidy? It is the poor landowner as you have taken the land from him. If you have not forcibly evicted him, he could have sold the land for $80. So who is giving the subsidy? Let us get all this straight now. It is the landowner. He has lost the land.”
“We are seeing the ghost of Mr Teh Cheang Wan here speaking. We have been asking for this matter for the last two years and yet the Minister at this time is unable to tell us. Now he has given an example of selling my house at 20% above cost. Now I will give him an example. This is just an example. It is possible that Government acquires the land at, say, $1 - I know they are paid 90 cents but, say, $1 and the clearing costs another $1. So it is out-of-pocket by $2. Assuming the market value is $80 per sq ft. When the Government builds HDB flats in that area, it says, "All right. It does not matter. We will charge the HDB at $60." Therefore, are you saying that this difference of $20 is the subsidy? Is that not correct? That is the position?”
“Mr Chairman, I am much obliged to you. I have got two questions. I shall be grateful if the Minister could tell us that in any HDB housing estate the cost of the land per sq ft, including clearance cost, ie what it costs the Government, and the cost at which it is being sold to the Government. Can you just give us some figures? What is the cost of acquiring and clearing the land per sq ft of any housing estate you may wish to name, and what is the market value which has been pegged to the selling price of the flat? That is the first question. The other question which you have not answered is whether or not this Town Council that is to be formed will have to manage also the land and perhaps even the car parks in the estate.”
“There is probably no autonomy, no self-government. I do not think the PAP would allow it because it is an authoritarian type of government.”
“Why is the PAP making such a big fuss and trying to tie up elections of group MPs with this Town Council? What are its duties? Nothing more than just management and maintenance of the housing estates. Now, again there is a big difference between private flats run by a management corporation and this supposedly Town Council to be run by elected MPs. The management corporations only manage and maintain the common property and not their own individual units. Common property means the walls outside, common walls, common corridors, staircases, even the roof is common property. Then we have got the common pipes, sewage pipes, water pipes, and we have of course the common ground or carpark. In the case of the management corporation, the land belongs to all the flat owners. But HDB does not sell the flat together with the land. There is the distinction. Once this Town Council is formed, do the residents have to pay also for the management of the land which does not belong to them? Maybe you can say that they have an interest in the common property in the building itself. But what about the land? It does not belong to them. So in principle, the Government is asking residents to maintain something which does not belong to them. In the first place, when they first bought these flats, were they told that eventually they would have to maintain these pieces of land? They were not told in the first place. Now suddenly a new thing pops out - "Well, you have to pay also for the maintenance of the land." This is certainly not in the contract of the sale and purchase. This is a new term which is included in the contract and which the residents will have to abide. So we now know that this Town Council idea is not, in fact, a form of local government.”