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 68 of 85.
“We brought this issue up for the last two years. This is not a new issue. Perhaps the Minister is new. He does not realize that there was a long debate between myself and the previous Minister on this very issue. He might remember that there was an offer for me to build four blocks of flats, and we accepted the offer with 19 conditions. His reply was that every one of them was impossible. He dared not go further with us. Well, we accepted the offer. It is all in your file, I believe. The next issue, the important issue, is this Town Council that has been talked about so much. As I sat there, I have the benefit of first-hand view from the horses' mouth, so to say, of what the Town Council is all about. The Member for Kebun Baru first initiated the idea. As I sat there and listened, this Town Council does not really come up to most people's expectations. It has got a big name. In fact, I think it should more appropriately be called "estate management committee" or "maintenance committee" or, as we have it in case of the private flats, they are called "management corporations". If the HDB wants to be different, you can have the prefix, "HDB management corporation". It is no new idea at all. The first time I heard of it, a big name "Town Council". It was almost similar to the City Council that we used to have until the PAP abolished it. And I suppose you cannot revive it because one of its 11-point manifesto in 1959 was to abolish the City Council. I do not think you probably have the moral right to re-establish one again. But, nevertheless, when the name "Town Council" was tossed about, I thought it was some kind of a local government, but nothing of that sort. And this has been put by another Member, that it is probably just a maintenance agent of the HDB.”
“To be fair to members of the public, in particular those HDB flat dwellers, I think they must be told how much the land has been acquired for, how much out-of-pocket money the Government or the HDB previously had paid for these lands which were compulsorily acquired, how much it cost to clear the land and how much this land was sold to the HDB at the market value. Of course, in the market everybody more or less knows what value has been paid for by the Government, but I think what we do not know is how much the Government has sold the land to the HDB, at the so-called market value. I think this is an important issue and I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that this must be resolved once and for all so that the flat dwellers would know whether there is subsidy. But, of course, the definition of "subsidy" to the layman would mean out-of-pocket money. We do not want some book subsidy. "Subsidy" means actual money taken out from the pocket and paid to the HDB, and not some accounting or juggling with the accounts gimmick or a transfer of high pricing of land at so-called market value. I think I am in agreement with the Member for Paya Lebar. Let us have this issue resolved.”
“I am obliged to you, Mr Chairman. First of all, I would like just to carry on from where the Member for Paya Lebar has left off, and that is the unit cost of a flat. This issue, in fact, has been brought up even before the 1984 general elections. After the 1984 and 1985 elections, I had tried in vain to get the former Minister for National Development to give us a calculation of how this was arrived at. There was some kind of a promise made, that after a new accounting system had come into being, the HDB would be able to give a unit cost. Now we have got the new accounting system and yet today the Minister is unable to tell us the unit cost of a flat, whatever area he may choose. Of course, the excuse he gave was that it was difficult to work out how much a unit costs. But this is an important area and I think 85% of the people who live in HDB flats are dying to know what exactly it costs the HDB; how much it costs to build a flat. Of course, the only answer we got from the former Minister was, "If you all the time say that the HDB has been making profits, we will allow you to build four blocks of flats." That is no answer. On our part we have produced some calculations. If the Minister would like, I would be more than willing to hand a copy to him. Perhaps this is already in his file. We have calculations to show that the HDB does make not only profits but hefty profits in certain areas. As the Member for Paya Lebar has said, let us resolve this issue once and for all - whether or not the Government is giving subsidy to the HDB. Of course, in accounting there are all kinds of things that can be done. Now we hear that the HDB has to buy the land from the Government at market value. I think this is the crux of the matter.”
“The greater our progress in integration, the greater will be Malay participation in the SAF. I am happy at the reactions of the Members of Parliament and also the reaction of the Majlis Pusat Committee which are constructive and responsible towards my statement. I agree with their conclusion that this is an internal problem of Singapore and must be resolved by Singaporeans themselves, not by outsiders. I am confident that we will continue to achieve progress as a new generation of young Singaporeans who are rational in their thinking are emerging now. And if we can discuss these issues in a sensitive and conscious manner, then our success will be that much quicker. 3.00 pm”
“BG Lee Hsien Loong( In Malay): Sir, I will answer the questions raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan briefly. The problem of communalism in the Singapore Armed Forces is a sensitive problem but it is not a new one. This problem has been discussed with Malay leaders, including PAP Members of Parliament over the past several years. After Singapore separated from Malaysia, almost all members of the armed forces and the Singapore Police Force were manned by Malays. In 1977, the then Minister for Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee, whilst answering questions raised in Parliament had spelt out the Government's philosophy in respect of Singapore's defence. He said that a long time was necessary to form an SAF which reflected our multi-racial society. But 10 years later, we have achieved certain progress. Today, each young male Singapore citizen, whether Malay or not, is called up to serve national service, except for health or security reasons. The percentage of Malays in the SAF has doubled since 1977. Malay members of the SAF serve in new areas like in the Commmando Battalion, as stated by the Member for Kampong Ubi. There are more Malay national service officers. Their number is not, in fact, restricted by the SAF but it is because there are too few Malay students who pass 'A' level examinations. That is the reason why there are fewer Malay officers than Chinese or Indian officers. There are four Malay and Muslim officers who have been given scholarships by the SAF to study at the NUS. They were selected not because of their ethnic background but because of their ability. And we are proud of their success. The Singapore Government has to carry out a cautious policy because although Singapore is becoming a matured society, we have not, as yet, achieved a 100% integration.”
“Mr Chairman, he tried to mislead the people of Singapore and also be a hero in championing the Malay cause. I wish to ask him, since when he has been fighting for the future and destiny of the Malays which we have never heard before. He tries to give a picture that we Malay Members of Parliament are all cowards. Mr Chairman, we Malay Members of Parliament are not a group of opportunists who want to exploit every issue for our own political ends. We have fought for the fate and destiny of the Malays long before the Member for Potong Pasir came into this Chamber. Such remarks are not only misleading but also most regrettable. Mr Chairman, the issue of national service, the issue of Malay participation in the Singapore Armed Forces, are issues which are very closely connected with nation building. The Malay Members in this Chamber have been fighting for the the participation of Malays in the armed forces seriously by discussing, debating and making recommendations up to the highest level, with the Prime Minister himself, with the First Deputy Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament. And we have made several suggestions through what we call politics of accommodation, politics of mutual help. This has resulted in the benefits that we see today where there are clear signs that there are changes to basic policies in respect of recruitment into national service and the armed forces. I wish to emphasize that we are committed to our tasks and will continue to discharge our responsibility wholeheartedly without any fanfare or publicising our efforts. That is our modus operandi and we have seen the results of our efforts and I do not see why we should not continue in this manner.”
“What was the reason we embarked upon this massive effort of national education, nation building and total defence in the first place? He says there is no need to tell people to work hard in the national service because they will automatically work hard and that there is no need to encourage them. I do not doubt that he is an exceptionally self-motivated person. But I do not see anything wrong whatsoever in telling every Singaporean how crucial it is that it takes every moment of his training in the SAF, whether full-time or reservist, totally seriously, because he never knows when he will be called upon. The Member may say that there is no threat on the horizon. What would happen if his over-the-horizon radar fails or malfunctions? Surely not an inconceivable prospect. For him, it is easy. He is a professional. He is qualified. He is mobile. If such a threat develops, he has it within him to find another perch elsewhere in the world. I am not saying he will but he has that option. For 2 1/2 million Singaporeans, less perhaps 2% off the top, there is no such option. This is our home and, as the SAF says, Singapore is our homeland. This is where we belong. Either we live, fight and die here or we go no place except into the ocean as boat people. And we can be sure under those circumstances, the Member for Potong Pasir will not be in the same boat. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Sir, before we adjourned, we heard the Member for Potong Pasir giving a picture as if we, the Malay Members of Parliament, have not done anything concerning the issue of national service and Malay participation in the armed forces.”
“I am sure the Government with all their experts and all their Generals, including Brigadier Generals, they would certainly know what to do. I am sure they can train enough men to take care of our armed forces. We have got a regular army and I am sure those people can take care of the key important units. As for the reservists, they will be called up when it is necessary. And what are our schools doing? I think our schools should have a better ECA programme, in the context of sports and make the students really tough. What are our schools doing? They have 10 years in school. I am sure they can be trained at least in the area of physical fitness. Or are you saying that you need this extra time in the army just to build up our youngsters so that they are physically fit? I think our schools should contribute in part to the overall NS programme. BG Lee Hsien Loong:Mr Chairman, Sir, it is absurd. Not very long ago, the Member was complaining that students were over-stuffed and over stretched in schools. And now he is proposing that children in schools should in addition to all their responsibilities learning for examinations, studying to become citizens, seriously, simultaneously become soldiers. We try to take the Member seriously. But it is becoming increasingly a strain. Are we or are we not in favour of national service because we need every Singaporean to be a soldier? The Member suggests that we can solve the problem with regulars. There are 40,000 children born every year. That means 20,000 boys every year. About 20,000 people are called up for national service every year. Does he realize how many regulars we would need in order to replace them? Does he realize what the cost to the Government would be of maintaining a regular army instead of a national service army?”
“Well, my only answer to the Second Defence Minister is that I am not a foolish man. Of course, I believe that there must be national defence. But let us not overdo it. In our present circumstances, the position as I have stated, and I say it again, that in my view the initial period of 19 weeks should be enough. If weighed and balanced against the disadvantages, it is overwhelmingly against the 2 1/2-year period. Because I think there is a case for it. I would say that if Switzerland can do it, why can we not do it? I think our soldiers are just as good, just as keen learners as the soldiers in Switzerland and I am sure they can be just as well equipped. I say again that, in fact, Europe has got a history of greater and bigger wars than this part of the world. And I think they know what they are doing, unless you are saying that they are wrong. So why not let us have a shorter NS training period? BG Lee Hsien Loong:The Member for Potong Pasir said that 19 weeks is sufficient on grounds that Switzerland does it. Is he aware that the West Germans do 9 months and are raising the period of national service or discussing it very seriously because they have a population problem? They do not have enough soldiers and therefore they need to do more than 9 months. Is he aware that it takes us more than one year to train an officer cadet and commission him as an officer? Does the Member have a new training syllabus available for our consideration which will create officers within 19 weeks?”
“Why not? BG Lee Hsien Loong: - on the analogy of Switzerland and on the argument of "Why not?" He gave us the benefit of a geo-political tour of the horizon, explaining how there are now no threats in the region and because of this happy conjunction of favourable stars, we should give up spending money on national defence. Perhaps I should ask him, why he stops at 19 weeks? Why not in that case just stop producing soldiers altogether, after all there is no threat? He is totally convincing - Deng Xiaoping is secure, the Chinese are concentrating their energies on economic development. So why does he want an army at all? Perhaps he should go all the way to the logical conclusion of his recommendation and have the courage of his convictions to suggest to the House that he would prefer not to have an armed force. I think that if he would propose that, we can have a serious discussion. Half measures are not worth debating.”
“Well, all right, I will stop there then. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, let me briefly take the points made by the Member for Pasir Panjang. On upgrading reservists from NCOs to officers, no, we do not have a plan to upgrade reservist NCOs to officers. It takes too long, too much effort and already active national servicemen generate sufficient numbers for the ORBAT. We do upgrade reservist NCOs to become company sergeant-majors, regimental sergeant-majors, attend upgrading courses which make sure the battalions are well utilized. Teaching of Code of Conduct - this is still being done. It is done by the commanders, platoon commanders and company commanders. They give lectures and there is also an SAF pledge which the soldiers have to learn. So we have not forgotten the importance of nation building within the SAF. As for the Member for Potong Pasir, I was astonished to hear that he now proposes to reduce the period of national service from 2 1/2 years to 19 weeks -”
“They are together with their female counterparts, the same cohort in the Pre-U. When our young males have to go off on a national service stint, they are left behind in their career. And very soon their girlfriends have gone ahead and got their careers in place at an earlier date and they date someone else instead. So perhaps in a small way, this could help. There is a case really to shorten our period of training for our boys. I hope the Minister-in-charge will look into this. And what I do not understand is why is the Second Minister for Defence always answering all the questions? I wonder what the Defence Minister is doing. [Laughter.] Well, I do not know. It would appear that Singapore is "The Land of the Rising Son", they say. Anyway, I suppose it is the Government's prerogative to delegate whoever they like to answer the questions. But I am only wondering. It appears unusual to me.”
“I said, "Please do not over-react." Of course, those who go into NS will have to take their NS training seriously. We are definitely in peace time. There is no danger over the horizon. So why are we putting our school leavers to this lengthy 2 1/2 years? There is really no need to. You can stretch out the training over a period so that their jobs, their education, will not be disturbed. I have heard it over and over again, especially of a one-man business, a father running a company whether it be a carpentry workshop or whether it is a foodstall or whatever, he needs the son to help him out: but all of a sudden he is called up for 2 1/2 years and the poor father is left in a limbo. And again, we have heard of the educational prospects of our males, of course, our male students, being disrupted. So I think there is a case to shorten this NS period of training. The other point I want to make is that we have already a big pool of reservists. So in case if really there is an emergency, we can always call on this pool of reservists. You see, we have already built up this pool and it is not really necessary to add an equal number to it. Even if the intake is of a smaller number, we have this pool already in hand. So if this intake were to come in smaller doses but it is regular in any event, I think there is a case to shorten this period of training. Of course, you can cut down costs. We are always thinking of money in Singapore. Why not cut down the cost of the period of training? Just imagine, you have to go for 2 1/2 years compared to, say, four months or so, or slightly more. It does make sense. Then we have spoken of our procreation problem. This is one small item which we can assist our young boys. We have heard of it before.”
“We have just read they have got leadership problems there, and they have got China to contend with, just to the north of its borders. Also it has got a massive reconstruction programme going on and therefore there is no chance at all of an attack from Vietnam. After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, Mr Deng Xiaoping has taken over and since 1979 or thereabouts he has embarked on the fourth modernization programme and he has also embarked on this open-door policy. They have disclaimed the policy of exporting revolution. So who are we preparing our Armed Forces for? I think the PAP, as usual, is just over-reacting. We have got peaceful neighbours. We have a good relationship with them and yet we are arming ourselves almost to the teeth, so to say. Our school leavers are told a hundred and one times, "You must take your NS training seriously."”
“I am obliged to you, Mr Chairman. I have got two points to raise under this head of Armed Forces. The first is the period of national service. I would advocate that this period of 2(r) years be shortened. I believe in Switzerland they have an initial training period of only 19 weeks. If they can do it, I do not see why we cannot do the same. Surely the principle must be that NS training should not interfere or disrupt the education or the jobs of our young citizens, in particular, in the Singapore context today where education and jobs are so very important when compared, say, to Switzerland where they have already a very high educational level. The reasons I would like to put forward for my proposal are as follows. I would say that there is really no great hurry to build up a big army. In fact, we have already got enough reservists. We are in peace time and everybody assures us that we have got good neighbours. We have just heard the Second Defence Minister say that we have good relationships with Malaysia and with Indonesia. So who are we preparing war for? Now we go further up - Thailand. Is it our potential enemy? They have their hands full. They have a very hostile neighbour in Vietnam. I do not think they would be marching down the Peninsula towards our direction. Burma, of course, I do not think it can embark on a war adventure. Then we have the Philippines. They have problems of their own. I do not think they can really start any war at all. And I think President Aquino at this moment has no such ambitions. I think that is least in her mind. They have so many other problems. Now we look up to Vietnam. Vietnam has its own internal political problems.”
“What was the commitment you got from them?”
“He says that I am inciting, some very strong words to that effect. Where is it? An hon. Member: Go through the Hansard again.”
“Who started it all? Please. Somebody must have started this debate. So I am just continuing the debate. I am not inciting -”
“Yes, I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“What about the commitment? Come on. When are you going to put the Malays in the key positions? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the Member asked for commitment. I have explained the philosophy on which we work and the progress which has already been achieved and I think if we continue along this path, step by step, in 10 years' time further progress will be achieved.”
“More daring, more reckless, more irresponsible abandonment of the policy which we have done, that we will have to leave to a Defence Minister from a different political party.”
“I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have stated our position carefully, unambiguously and, I think, frankly. I have not said that we are enemies with anybody. I have said that we live in Southeast Asia. I do not think even the Member for Potong Pasir would find that an objectionable statement. He has drawn wild consequences, implications, from this statement. The Members will have to judge the merit and validity of his implications. Singapore is on excellent terms with both Malaysia and Indonesia. We make no enemies. We seek no enemies. But we acknowledge geo-political realities which will not go away and we take precautions against threats whose exact nature cannot be specified until it is far too late to do anything about them. The Member says that on emotional matters, hurt cannot be healed. It is not like building a mountain. I do not think, with due respect, that the proverb was intended only for material things. It is precisely because emotional hurt is very difficult to repair. Because if we upset the very delicate and patient efforts at conciliation, nation building, confidence building which we have done for so many years, it will take us decades, if not generations, to repair the damage. That is why we move slowly in the SAF. That is why we incrementally increase the role which the Malay community plays, not in Total Defence of Singapore - they already play a major role there - but in the military defence of the nation. I have explained we have not reached the end of the road. We are not in a final configuration. Progress will be made gradually, cautiously, sure-footedly.”
“It is high time the Malay MPs in this House spoke up for the Malays without fear. That is what I am asking them to do. Otherwise they will all be out the next time they come into this House.”
“I was asked by the Second Defence Minister to answer him. He says if I were the Prime Minister, what would I do and I told him exactly that. What is wrong with that? An hon. Member: Before that.”
“Certainly. I think if our Malay Singapore citizens, our fellow brethren, our fellow countrymen are suited for the job, put them there. You advocate meritocracy. On the one hand, meritocracy is only for certain people. Meritocracy is not for the Malay community, and they are our very substantial minority, and I think it is important that for regional cooperation, and for regional harmony we should be seen to allow our Malay community here, if any one of them should qualify for SAF posts, they should be put there, by all means. I think it is a short-sighted policy, for the sake of regional harmony, not to do that. I am sure all the Malay MPs here agree with me. Let them say no.”
“First of all, let me make it clear. I have got no ambitions of being the Prime Minister of Singapore. What we want to see is democracy. What we want to see is nation-building. What we want to see is a Singapore that can prosper. But what we are seeing here is discrimination. I feel very unhappy about it and I would speak out. You were saying, "What should I do?" What is wrong with including the Malays who can qualify for key positions to put them there? What is wrong with that? You just tell me. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I am not saying that there is anything wrong. I am merely requesting a clear statement from the Opposition Member that the day after he is elected as Prime Minister of Singapore, should it ever happen, he will issue an instruction to rescind this policy. That is all.”
“What last election speech. Please tell me what last election speech?”
“Mr Chairman, are you saying that I am a potential Prime Minister? Well, I never had that ambition. An hon. Member: Your last election speech.”
“Mr Chairman, I have on my own accord voluntarily gone over to Malaysia to work in the East Coast there for two years amongst the Malays. And I am proud of that. I went there on my own. So I have full trust in the Malays, Singaporean Malays as well. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not asking this question to humiliate the Opposition Member. I merely wish to know what a potential Prime Minister of Singapore wants to do.”
“We are all Singaporeans. We should not discriminate against the Malays. Put them into key positions immediately. BG Lee Hsien Loong: May I ask the Member to confirm that, were he the Minister for Defence, would he abandon our existing policy immediately? An hon. Member: If he were in charge. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Let us assume he were in charge. Perhaps the Minister for Defence has not this authority; the Prime Minister does. Were you the Prime Minister, would you abandon this policy immediately?”
“This, Mr Chairman, Sir, certainly depends on how you look at it, whether you are a Malay or a non-Malay. If you are a Malay, of course, you would see it as a discrimination against them, and there is no two-way about it. Of course, if you are a Chinese, you look at it as caution. An hon. Member: We are Singaporeans.”
“Just like a child, when his emotion is hurt it is going to be there for a long, long time. I do not know whether it can even be healed. In some cases it is not healed and the child grows up into a man who cannot fit in, socially. I hope this is not the case in regard to our Malay community. Of course, when they join the army they are expected to fight. It is an operational role. They do not just join the army and march up and down on National Day Parade. That is quite understandable. So the best way to build a nation is in fact to show trust to everybody. If you show trust to somebody, that trust will be reciprocated. There is no doubt about that and I am sure many of the Malay MPs here would want a commitment from the Government as to the time frame. In fact, I think this policy of putting Malays into key positions should be corrected and implemented immediately. That is the only way we can have nation building. There is no other way. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I seek clarification from the Member for Potong Pasir. He has made many points. I just want one basic issue resolved before we enter into details. Does he fundamentally agree with our policy of caution and gradual, steady progress? Or is he recommending that we abandon our present cautious policy?”
“Is this true, the question we want to ask, whether or not this conflict of religion comes into play? We look at the war that is raging in Iran and Iraq. Probably they will say they come from different schools of the Muslim religion. Yes, I was anticipating that. But nevertheless they are Muslims. We have seen in other countries where the people are deeply religious and yet they go to war against another country which has the same religion, like in Europe where many of them are Christians and not only Christians but they are of one particular sect, Catholics. So I do not think this argument about the conflict of religion really holds. We import a lot of foreigners into key positions. We have just heard the other day that we have got a Gurkhas battalion here taking charge of key positions. We trust all kinds of foreigners but we do not trust our own Malay citizens. This is surely something I think the Malays are going to find it hard to stomach. In our Constitution we have got an Article which gives a special position to our Malays. What special position is there, as far as the SAF is concerned? They are our step-children. Where is the special position? Perhaps one of the Malay MPs here should take this up in our court and challenge what the SAF is practising is unconstitutional. As far as I know, the only special position the Malays enjoy today is only in regard to education, and I believe nothing else. What we are actually hurting our Malay brethren in Singapore is not material. Material things can be corrected fairly quickly. So when the Second Defence Minister quotes a Malay saying that a grain of sand at a time can build a mountain or something, that is in regard to material things. But we are talking of emotions.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I would just like to have certain clarifications because this is a very important topic from the Second Minister for Defence. There is much talk of the interference of Singapore's internal affairs by foreign politicians. We have to ask ourselves the question, Why? Unless there is a reason, they do not react that way. The statement made on the 23rd February by the Second Minister for Defence has the effect that if the Malays were put in key positions in the SAF they would have a conflict of interest. Their emotions would be tested - whether to side the country or to be on the side of their religion. So this is the issue. This has got strong implications when the Second Minister for Defence said that. This would imply that our enemies are not from Vietnam or from China or from some distant countries where they have got no Muslim religion there. This implies that our enemies are of a Muslim religion. I see it as quite an obvious implication of what is said. This is the reason why our neigh- bours, the Muslim politicians, are so angry. This is the implication - that we do not want Malays in key positions in the SAF. Why? Because it is a question of religion that is involved. If the question of religion is involved, that means our enemies whom we are fighting are also Muslims. So I think that is one of the reasons why they are so annoyed. This is a very sensitive issue and for a long time it was never put that way, and now after 26 years it has come out. I do not know what is the reason. Perhaps there might have been some other good reasons for it.”
“Well, you gave one assurance on taxi fares. But it did not work out.”
“These are the points I would like the Minister to comment on.”
“I think these Members are intelligent enough to know that when I talk of parking fees, it means car parking fees.”
“Yes. The other thing is: what has the Minister got to say as regards parking fees? I believe taxi fares and road tax have been covered. What about parking fees? Will that go up, or will there be legislation made whereby certain routes are monopolized by the MRT and not other means of public transport?”
“All right. That is the first question - whether or not money put into MRT ---”
“Yes. I am going to ask the Minister: how is he going to assure members of the public who put their money into this MRT that they are not putting it into something which they would not see any dividends paid at all? Because No. 1 he says operating costs are going up by 30%. The other thing is that the MRT, when it functions under Phase 1 and 1A, the trains will only carry something like one-eighth, am I right, of all public transport passenger trips? And then by 1990 ---”
“Yes. In fact, I think I caught your eye right at the beginning. So I think this Standing Order must be put into practice. Let's put up our hands in an orderly fashion instead of everybody, like school kids, rushing for sweets. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you ask your questions, please?”
“If you want to talk about Standing Orders, I would not like to mention it but since the former Leader has mentioned it, I want to bring up a point of order. According to Standing Orders, those who want to ask questions must catch the eye of the Speaker. Everybody is rushing up. That is not the way to catch the eye. They must put up their hands, isn't it?”
“All right. They are not doing their work, up to now.”
“I have got to bring up all these points and then I will ask the questions.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I bring up the point of privatization? The reason is that it will be more efficient. But would there not be a conflict of interest? MRT trains are for public service and once it becomes a private company, shareholders want a profit from it. So there will be a conflict of interest. On the one hand, there is the public service to be given; on the other hand, there is the interest of the shareholders - they want a profit. In the case of Singapore Bus Service, the Prime Minister assured the shareholders that there would be a minimum dividend paid each year. So members of the public, especially those using their CPF, are willing to buy SBS shares. But in the case of the MRT, the Minister has said that those with CPF can buy the shares. But I am just wondering whether they are putting money into a company which may not see any profits made. According to what has been announced, the total transport cost will go up by 15% when Phase 1A is completed, and later on when Phase 2 comes in, total transport costs will go up something like 30%. If transport cost is going to go up when the MRT gets more and more into function, naturally either ---”
“Sir, I think this question of smaller classes in our schools today is a genuine pressing problem. I am not bringing up this question just for the sake of bringing it up. It is a pressing problem and I brought this matter up more than once in this House. But nothing concrete has been done. Perhaps the Minister could give some kind of a commitment, whether or not some concret steps have been taken to reduce the number of pupils, say, to 30 for a start.”
“Does the Minister of State not think that it is more important to have small classes first rather than to have single session schools with big classes? What is the position?”
“May I ask the Minister that if that is the position ---?”
“But they were asked to leave, were they not?”
“Just answer the question. You say that they were pollutive.”