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 7 of 85.
“The election laws after the 1984 elections were changed to introduce Group Representation Constitutencies (GRCs). The purpose was to ensure that there shall always be minority representation in Parliament. But I am asking why the need to have a GRC comprising six candidates when two or three should be enough. In fact, two or three were first mooted. Then they found that it was advantageous and the Government increased the number from three to four, to five and then to six. In a truly democratic system, there is a one-man-one-vote system. The one-man-one-vote system envisages the vote is to be cast for one candidate. This is the essence of democracy. A citizen is given the right to choose the person to represent him in Parliament. In Singapore, the ruling party preaches multi-racialism. All races are asked to unite. We are supposed to be all Singaporeans, regardless of our race. But in practice, the ruling party says that eventually, we shall remain loyal only to our own race. We shall vote a candidate of our own race. The minority races on their own shall never get elected. A Malay or Indian candidate can never get elected to Parliament on his own merit. That is the reason for the GRCs which I myself do not believe. I have pointed out in previous debates on the formation of GRCs that our first Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, was not a Chinese but a Jew. I do not believe that Singaporeans are racialists. Singaporeans shall still vote for a fellow Singaporean regardless of his race if that person is credible and a qualified candidate. If I still cannot persuade the hon. Prime Minister that Singaporeans are not racialists and that they want only to vote candidates of their own race, there may be a twinning of candidates or, at least, three candidates should be enough.”
“Together with what SLA has done with the SSC and MOE, collaborative efforts to open up more school fields and also new playing fields at the Turf Club at Marina South, Singaporeans on a Sunday, whether morning, afternoon or evening, when they drive around the whole of Singapore, will find many people out there playing all kinds of games, including football. Mr Chiam asked about this case that we discussed in Parliament in August last year. He said that it did not look right. In fact, when I shared in this House, I said that the Minister and I also looked at it and felt it was not right that the owners should be paid $1, and that we were relooking at how we could do more. So, I am happy to say that after looking at the case in some detail and talking to the owners, now the owners have been paid much more than $1. So, they are happy, I hope Mr Chiam is happy, and certainly we are happy. Indeed, there will be other owners who would be paid $1. Let us not make any bones about it. As I explained last year in Parliament, there are three or four established categories where $1 will be paid, and these are based on sound valuation principles, including, for example, odd-lots, small backlanes and splay corners or situations where the landowner has already vested the front part for road purposes and then had benefited because of transferred higher GFA. So, these will continue to be paid $1.”
“Indeed, one or two key measures have been implemented, eg, the reduction of TOL fees - I think all of us in this House will rejoice about that - by 70% from the market rates in 2000 and, now, by another 15%, giving a total discount of 85%. Mr Ravindran talked about the portal. We have the State Properties Information Online (SPIO) set up in 2002 to make information on state properties easily available and accessible to all. In October 2002, SLA added an additional feature to enhance the portal's usefulness. This is a dedicated website to facilitate applications by Community Development Councils and Constituency Offices to use vacant state land for community and social purposes. Indeed, there are also plans to enhance this even further, because we are going to have SLA working on a public e-query facility that will allow online checks on land ownership and managing agents for Government-owned land parcels. So, this will be a consolidated information that people can log in to find out how they can use the land. Mr Ravindran talked about the signs on the fields. I think Members will know that SLA has indeed heard the feedback. Instead of the no-trespassing sign that dots a lot of our fields all over the island, for those lands that are in the HDB residential areas and which are deemed to be playable, we have replaced those signs to the effect that residents can go on to the land. But, of course, they must do so at their own risk. We cannot be guarantors of their safety. When they use these lands, residents must, of course, take care. So, that will make more land available.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. Sir, the subject was already debated in this House on 15th August 2003, when I brought up the case of the compulsory acquisition of the 2,000 square feet piece of land belonging to the Faith Assembly of God Church. The compensation paid by the Chief Valuer's Office was $1. The Senior Minister of State justified the $1 compensation under the existing law and the principles of valuation. However, if we just look only at the $1 compensation on its own for a 2,000 square feet piece of land acquired, it would not look right. Just because that piece of land was zoned for road use under the law, it was deemed to have no value to the landowner and was only paid a nominal sum of $1. Sir, the consequence of the law in this instance can be an absurdity. How can a 2,000 square feet piece of land, about the size of land of a terrace house is normally built on, be only worth $1? I call on the Government to amend the law as soon as possible to make right for cases like the one cited above, so that compensation paid to the landowners may be a fair market value. Meanwhile, I would ask the Senior Minister of State to reconsider the case I cited and to pay the owners a fair market rate of compensation. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank both Mr Ravindran and Mr Chiam for their cuts, in particular, Mr Ravindran. I think it is a favourite topic of his, fighting on behalf of many residents who want more land. Over the years, we have heeded the call, because we have made more land available, including one in his constituency which it has been using very well for football and other activities. But we will continue to be proactive and make more land available.”
“Sir, film making is a creative art. Normally, if we want to be creative, we must show initiative. We must have no element of fear in us. We must be spontaneous. Whatever comes into our heads, with new ideas, we are willing to express those ideas in terms of art. Most Singaporeans do not seem to do that. I have given the reason why we are not creative.”
“Sir, the learned hon. Member should know that there is, in fact, no film industry in Singapore, so to speak of, as compared to Hong Kong or Hollywood. Perhaps he can explain why.”
“I should say the majority of Singaporeans, not every Singaporean.”
“On foreign maids, the Government imposes a tax of $345 for each foreign maid employed in Singapore. I would like to suggest that the Government uses part of that large sum of money collected as levy to employ qualified psychiatrists to carry out compulsory psychiatric screening of each maid before she can start work in Singapore. This is to ensure that every maid who works in Singapore is psychologically sound. We have read of maids killing the child she is made to take care of, or even recently, a case was reported that a maid, together with another friend, also a maid, killed her own employer. Such murders are probably committed by maids who are not psychologically sound. Those mentally sick maids, when under stress in their jobs, can break down psychologically and can commit violent acts or even murders. Therefore, to prevent such crimes, the Government should use part of the levy collected to screen those maids who wish to work in Singapore and declare them sound before they can take up a job here. I think that would be money really worth spending.”
“As for developing a vibrant creative sector in Singapore, I have not much confidence in that, after over 30 years of strict PAP rule, the majority of Singaporeans have become compliant, obedient and docile which are not conducive to establish the creative sector, in particular, the film industry. Hong Kong and America are more open and liberal societies than Singapore and they have successfully built a vibrant, successful film industry there which employs hundreds of workers and gives them lucrative returns. Singapore can also establish a successful film industry if we are willing to open our society and to be more liberal. I hope that I can see that day come about. I shall briefly mention the procreation policy. Last year, our TFR dropped to the lowest in the world, at 1.26. We had only 36,000 births and we require something like 50,000 babies to replace ourselves. The big question is what is to be done. Many suggestions had been forwarded and most probably are all valid. However, I would like to draw the Government's attention to the complaints of mothers with multiple births. Apparently, from the letters written to the local press recently, they have been unfairly discriminated against. I wish the Government could look seriously at their complaints and to try to put things right for them. I know they are only in the minority but the fact that the Government goes out of its way to help them, other mothers will take note that the Government is really sincere in helping mothers to have more babies and that will give mothers in Singapore more confidence. Who knows, the birth rate will climb in Singapore! I appeal to the Government to look into the complaints of mothers with multiple births to make sure that they are not discriminated against.”
“For a start, I call on the Government, which is the biggest landlord in Singapore, to set an example by lowering rentals of their properties to a fair rent, especially to people who carry out food business in Singapore, hoping that other landowners can follow suit. High cost in doing business in Singapore has its problems. The Government says that foreign direct investments are still attracted to Singapore at about $9 billion a year, but only to open up mostly high-tech industries which are not labour-intensive. This means that they do not employ that many workers. Those workers who are unemployed shall not be very happy when they learn that fewer jobs shall be created. At the moment, the unemployment rate in Singapore remains at about 4.5% or about 800,000 workers. The Government looks to the service sector to mitigate the unemployment problem. The Budget Statement says that the Government is developing established services, such as trading and logistics, info-communications, technologies, financial services and tourism, while trying to expand emergent services such as education, healthcare and the creative sectors. As far as I can see, Singapore should have no problems expanding the education and the healthcare sectors. We have the infrastructure and the talent to make Singapore the education centre and the health hub of the region. We may have already become the education centre and the health hub of the region. Healthcare costs in Singapore are too high and we may lose out to other countries in the region who are quickly learning from Singapore to establish hospitals to compete with us. We, of course, must make sure that we do not lose out to them.”
“Sir, the previous speaker has trawled the whole Budget Statement, so I do not think I can compete with him to cover all the other points. I promise to be short in my case. This year's Budget is pro-business, and there is little for the middle-income and lower-income households. Corporate tax has been reduced to 20%. This is welcome by all businessmen in Singapore. However, personal income tax remains at 22%, with a promise from the Government that the personal income tax rate shall eventually be reduced to 20%. I hope the delay shall not be too long. As regards the lowering of the corporate tax to 20%, whether it is sufficient incentive for those MNCs which are already here to remain here and to attract more new ones to come to our shores to do business, is another matter, because MNCs can now go elsewhere where land and operating costs are cheaper than those in Singapore. The challenge is for the Government to keep costs down. Rentals in certain sectors, especially in the food and retail sectors, are still very high. At my last meet-the-people session, an applicant complained that he and his wife had to pay monthly rentals and service charges amounting to $10,000 for a food stall at a shopping mall in Yishun. I thought to myself: Singapore is supposed to be a first world country and people here still have to slog for 16 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year, except probably for four days of respite during the Chinese New Year. I thought that only workers in the third world countries have to work that long hours to earn a living.”
“Sir, what is the debarment period? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it depends on the offence that is committed, whether it is possession or trafficking. It can range from two to three years or more. Whatever it is, I think these guidelines are also looked at, and there are good reasons for doing this. Let me assure Mr Chiam that the use of passports is something that all of us want. But, like I have said, it is very important to protect the integrity of the Singapore passport. And whenever abuse is discovered, we will ensure that such abuse must be discouraged. CABLE TV 11. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts as many households are not enjoying cable television due to the prolonged dispute over access to existing fixed line telecommunications network, (a) what is the status of the dispute; (b) whether there is a deadline for the dispute to be resolved; (c) what is his Ministry's policy on fair competition and access to such network; and (d) is there a deadline set out in the licence granted to Starhub Cable Vision to complete the roll out of its services to all sectors of the public.”
“Sir, in that particular case, that applicant admitted to me that he had a drug record. So, is that one of the reasons for refusing a replacement of passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in that case, Mr Chiam must check the facts. Probably it is not a matter of not replacing the passport but his inability to travel. If one has a drug record, CNB will have a debarment period for travelling. So, there is a difference there.”
“Sir, I have one meet-the-people session case whereby a Singaporean lost his passport, and when he applied for a replacement, he was refused. Under what circumstances are replacements of passports refused to Singapore citizens? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in all genuine cases of loss, a Singapore passport holder will be given a replacement. Of course, he has to pay some fees. But I would expect that in that case, if this is really true, then ICA would have done their investigations, and it is not a genuine case of loss. Because we have got people who would make false loss reports. Very often, some of them will sell or give away their passports. Some of them, because they have borrowed money, will give possession of their passports to these illegal moneylenders. So, that cannot be condoned. In cases where after a full investigation and it is discovered that they are not genuine cases, there will be no replacements.”
“Yes. So, is the HDB asking the flat owners or helping them to replace the windows in such dangerous cases? As regards compulsory checks, I read in the papers that a casement window is like a sail catching the wind. So, the wind load is probably heavier for those flats that are on the upper floors. Is the HDB considering banning casement windows, say, from the 10th floor and above, and replacing them with sliding windows?”
“Sir, it was reported in the papers that windows from HDB flats have been falling in the last two years or so. If the HDB had noticed it, did the HDB do anything in regard to those reports, eg, asking the flat owners to better maintain their windows or to replace them? As regards self-inspection, is the HDB asking flat owners now to self-inspect their windows? For the more obvious cases, there is even a need to replace them now. It is obvious that if they are already hanging, about to fall ---”
“Can the Minister please name the 22 precincts?”
“Sir, I do not know whether I have heard the Minister correctly. He says that the accident rate of school buses is very low and therefore the LTA is not taking any further action. I thought even one more death of a school child is already too many.”
“If this is the policy of Singapore, then Singapore should be sending troops to many other countries to make them stable which we can ill afford.”
“Sir, the Minister said that sending of our troops to Iraq is in the interest to Singapore. Can I ask him in what way is our sending of troops to Iraq, which he admits is a nation very far away from Singapore, in the interest of Singapore? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I believe I covered that in my answer. I will, for Mr Chiam's benefit, read that section again: 'It is important that Singapore does our part within our means to help the international community see through the reconstruction of Iraq. This will help the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives, facilitate Iraq's reintegration into the global community, and provide the foundation for a better future for the Iraqi people. It is in our interest that this effort succeeds. Without a stable Iraq, there can be no stability in the Gulf region. Security and stability in the Gulf region has significant implications for issues that are critical to Singapore, such as the supply of oil and the spread of terrorism. We may be geographically distant from Iraq, but how the situation turns out there has a direct bearing on some of our most vital interests.'”
“Thank you. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. Column No : 3224 ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED Resolved, "That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Column No : 3224 ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“I want to clarify that, in fact, the GST is causing hardship to the residents in HDB heartland.”
“Madam, the GST obviously is causing hardship to many residents in HDB heartland. In our Town Council, the arrears of three to six months ---”
“Similarly, as regards this new section 27, will there be stringent procedures to prevent abuse whereby merchants can avoid payment of the 4%, and soon 5%, GST on the goods they import for local use? Can the Minister give us an assurance? Otherwise, there will be unfair advantage to those who can avoid payment of GST due to the said loophole in the Act.”
“Madam, first, may I be allowed to make comments on the GST? In principle, I do not support the GST in these difficult economic times. Despite the various rebates given to HDB flat dwellers, GST is still causing unnecessary hardship on the people. I support those who have called for the delay of the additional increase of 1% in addition to the 4% GST by at least six months from 1st January 2004. The delay will go a long way to help the poor tide over the current economic difficulties, and also encourage spending which may help to bring some life to the slow retail businesses. We all know that GST increases prices, in particular, in Singapore today. We are concerned with any increase in retail prices. Retailers are crying out for help, especially those in the HDB heartlands. As politicians, we should do something to help them. What we can do is to try to stop the further increase of GST. I therefore call on the Government to delay the implementation of the 1% on GST which takes effect from 1st January next year. As regards the Bill itself, I would like to comment only on clause 5 in respect of section 27 which empowers the Minister to make regulations to allow certain taxable persons in the cause of furtherance of any business to import goods without payment of tax. I wish to ask the Minister whether this section of the Act, soon to be enacted, can be a loophole or can be abused by poor implementation of regulations in regard to the collection of GST. We have all read in the recent Slim 10 case whereby Government authorities appeared to allow one batch of slimming drugs to pass through without problems but failed to check on the other poisonous batches which gave rise to lengthy litigation in the court.”
“It is really up to the NSAs to think what else they can do, whether it is upgrading training, or in starting a website to showcase its achievements to parents and trainees. I am sure the ingenuity of the likes of Mr Ang and Dr Teo will surface many more suggestions. And I know that this is happening because my check with the ground shows, for example, that the Singapore Karate Association has worked very closely with the Singapore Sports Council to produce a programme called the National Coaching Accreditation Programme (NCAP), which sets out what instructors ought to know when teaching young students including first aid and other things, besides just the core skills. I think this is wonderful. So I do not think, as Mr Ang suggests, that MHA should be the authorising body to delegate the responsibility of registering instructors to any NSA. Let me wrap up. A minor point that Dr Teo raises is that the repeal of the Martial Arts Instruction Act may lead to loss of jobs. In fact, it would not, not in MACU, in any case, because police officers have been doubling up all these years. There is no dedicated MACU unit. So the Police works very hard. And I am sure even in the individual associations, in fact, they would probably welcome this freeing up and whatever staff, energy and time that may be released, I am sure can be very fruitfully used.”
“So there are really six NSAs in the martial arts. And I would suggest that they should see the repeal of the Martial Arts Instruction Act as an opportunity to raise their own profile amongst their affiliate organisations, instructors, trainees and parents. Part of this goal, I would suggest, would be, as Dr Teo points out, to ensure that unhealthy rivalry does not surface. As the Government, in a sense, leaves this area, it creates space for VWOs and NSAs to play an enhanced role. So, I would encourage NSAs to take up this challenge. Of course, on its part, Police will continue to monitor the secret societies situation - I think Dr Teo mentioned gang clashes - that is squarely within the remit and purview of the Police. Definitely all these years, as Mr Chiam himself has said, we have worked on it very hard through a combination of various measures, such as deterrence, enforcement, rehabilitation, prevention and education, in particular, targetting youths in gang who fight. There is a whole range of measures in place. The Police will certainly focus its attention where it should in these areas. Dr Teo and Mr Ang are keen to promote martial arts in Singapore, especially wushu. They ask what MHA can do. Let me just say that the repeal of the MAIA is in itself an assurance to parents that the learning of martial arts in today's Singapore, unlike in the days of old, can take place in a setting where sports considerations are paramount. They no longer need to fear that their children will be influenced by secret society elements through these martial arts classes. That in itself is something which MHA has done. Like I have said, we will continue to keep a tight lid on secret society activities in Singapore.”
“But the real point is that, in any case, with today's discerning consumers, for any martial arts instructor to attract students to his class, I am sure his trainees, and if they are young trainees, their parents, will want to know his background and standing with the parent association. So, I do not see unregistered martial arts instructors or groups proliferating after the repeal of the MAIA, let alone unregistered groups committing unlawful acts. Dr Teo asked for the number of prosecutions under the Act over the last 29 years. Madam, in fact, there were no prosecutions. Dr Teo and Mr Ang are concerned about the maintenance of standards of training of martial arts instruction after the Act has been repealed. Let me say quite clearly at the outset that Police has never professed to have the competence nor is it within its functions to assess the standard and quality of instruction of martial arts. This is the case even now with MACU in existence. I believe that, currently, it is the various parent associations which certify the standard of instructors and who set the grading systems. In addition, I understand that national sports associations (NSAs), such as the National Wushu Federation, which incidentally has 160 affiliated groups under it, and other martial arts NSAs, such as the Singapore Karatedo Federation or Singapore Taekwondo Federation, maintain a register of certified instructors compiled from the lists kept by their affiliate members. Let me say that the NSAs, in fact, can play an important role in promoting sporting excellence in the martial arts, and this should continue. Because besides the associations that I have mentioned, we have got the Singapore Judo Federation, Singapore Silat Federation and Singapore Kendo Club.”
“And, in the process, those of us who have gone to some of these functions, as Guests-of-Honour to officiate at the testing and grading ceremonies or are in touch with the teachers would know, the trainees also imbibe positive values, such as self-control, discipline and respect for authority. I know, for example, in Nee Soon East, I have got many trainees and the teacher is called master. So there are a lot of values imbibed, besides the skills being imparted. But the point really is, statistics also bear out the fact that secret society links to the martial arts scene is no longer a consideration and, hence, the repeal. But having said this, let me assure Dr Teo and Mr Ang, in particular Dr Teo who made this point, that Police's involvement with martial arts groups will not be reduced to zero. Indeed, any group that wishes to be registered as a society or business to promote martial arts would have its pro tem members or office bearers screened. Hence, this control will continue. Any registered group thereafter which comes to adverse notice or commit any offence will be dealt with in accordance with the law. Like I have said, we have sufficient legislation to do that, whether it is under the Societies Act, Penal Code or the CLTPA. On the flip side, and this is also a concern that Dr Teo has raised, anyone who purports to, on his own, without registering with the ROS or the Registry of Companies and Businesses, conduct martial arts training may run foul of the law. Even though he will not need to register with the Martial Arts Control Unit (MACU), he is likely to be in breach of the Societies Act, eg, if his group has nine or more trainees, or the Business Registration Act or Companies Act for running a business.”
“But I think Mr Chiam came late just now into the Chamber when I was making my Second Reading speech, where at the beginning I stated the background. The situation in 1970s was vastly different from the situation today. In fact, I do not know whether he did some research, because if he had looked at the speech of the then Home Affairs Minister, Mr Chua Sian Chin in 1973, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill in Parliament, he, in fact, cited figures to show that secret society elements had penetrated into quite a number of martial arts societies. Just to quote a section of it. He said, "In a recent study on some 115 pluralistic associations in Singapore, it was found that 33 of these have been penetrated by secret society elements and 10 of them have elements with adverse security records." Hence, it was very clear to the Government at that time that not only did we need enforcement measures, of which, of course, the CLTPA was a good instrument - but that is downstream measure, tackling the problem when the horse has bolted - the situation was serious enough to control it upstream by registration and control. The point is that the PAP Government takes a lot of care in deciding whether or not to introduce legislation and, indeed, is also very open and takes a lot of care in deciding whether or not to repeal legislation. That is why after careful consideration, we feel that we can repeal the Martial Arts Instruction Act. Hence, as Mr Ang has said, in fact, the situation today is vastly different. Martial arts, including wushu, of which both Dr Teo and Mr Ang are the National Wushu Association's Vice-Presidents, have flourished. Many Singaporeans and residents living in Singapore take up martial arts to learn self-defence and improve their physique and health.”
“Madam, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Madam, I rise in support of the Bill. In my view, there was no necessity to enact the Act in 1974 in the first place. At that time, there was already in place section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which allowed the Police to arrest any person suspected of secret society or criminal activities and detained them for up to a period of two years at a stretch without the necessity of bringing them to a court of law. Section 55 was dreaded by those in the underworld. All secret society members and criminal elements really feared that provision of the law. As a result, they all had to lie low and behave themselves and did not cause trouble in public. There were no reports of widespread collection of protection money and gang fights were few and far between. The criminal elements and secret society members were already well-controlled by the 1970s. Presently, the said section 55, in its amended form, is still in our statute books and can be used against secret society members and criminal elements. These days, shopkeepers and the general citizenry are more educated. They understand how the system works and have confidence in the Police to take care of any secret society members or criminal elements who want to prey on them. I agree with the Minister that bad elements in our society are much under control. We can repeal the Martial Arts Instruction Act readily. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First of all, I would like to thank all the speakers who have spoken in support of the repealing of the Bill. I am also glad to see that Mr Chiam See Tong attests to the effectiveness of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the ability of the Police to curb the situation of secret societies.”
“I am referring to the proficiency test. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the purpose of the categorisation test is to assess the fitness of the individual so that we can design a programme in the next phase of his BMT to suit his physical proficiency standards, and this is after three weeks of physical preparation after he is enlisted. But I would ask the Army to look again to see whether there are any areas in the suggestions which Mr Chiam has brought forward which are worth implementing.”
“Sir, with regard to NSman Chew Heng Huat, Andrew, the Minister mentioned that he was obese. So we know that he was probably not very active in sports in school and that he died while doing his proficiency test. He was only short of 30 metres to the finishing line. My question is whether or not for this kind of case, the four weeks' training may not be long enough. Would he look at the period of training? Also, the exercise or the tasks in the proficiency test may be too tough for this type of NS boys. So can he review the tasks in the proficiency test to make them not too difficult for these boys?”
“That is why we have specially designed this basic military training package to cater to servicemen of different physical abilities. The normal basic military training programme is three months long, but the basic military training for those who have not passed the silver NAPFA standard in school is longer than that. And we categorise the servicemen according to their physical fitness and ability, and customise the programmes to prepare them in a progressive way to meet physical standards. Two years ago, I went for the Sheares Bridge run. One of the guys whom I was running with was from the obese platoon. He was an officer. He out ran me. At that time when I spoke to him, he had gone back to Pulau Tekong as a platoon commander for the obese platoon to inspire and to train these young men, so that they can also acquire the same level of physical fitness. So they go through a progressive training regime which allows them to build up their fitness slowly. It is also in the interest of the SAF that we do so because we want as many of our people as possible to serve in combat duties. And by building them up progressively in this way, we get more of them to serve as physically fit and combat fit servicemen.”
“Sir, the Minister says that in the last 10 years since 1993, 24 training-related deaths occurred. I can understand NSmen dying from premature explosion of ammunition or even struck by lightning. But I think death from lack of physical fitness is really unacceptable. I can understand why. Some of the boys who go into NS have not taken part in sports at all in school. How can they, within four weeks, be fit to run five miles and complete it within a certain time? I think it is quite impossible. I have done a lot of physical training whilst I was in school. And to be fit, we had to go for training almost every day. Within four weeks, how can these boys build up their physical fitness? I think it is just not possible. Unless, of course, they have been doing some physical exercises in school. An obese person, obviously, has not been involved in sports in school. My question is whether the Minister is willing to talk to the Education Ministry to see whether some of these boys can build up their physical fitness before they go into NS. Otherwise, there will be deaths from lack of physical fitness again. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I can assure Mr Chiam that I have done so very often. I have spoken to the Minister for Education, sometimes even in my sleep, over this subject. Mr Chiam will know that we have the Trim and Fit Club which has managed to maintain obesity rates in Singapore among young children to around 10%, which is quite remarkable compared to other countries which have the same level of development and access to good rich food, compared to even countries like China, certainly when compared to the United States. Even for this group who is obese, we try to bring them up to a physical standard which allows them to contribute to the nation in national service.”
“It shows that their brakes are not in order. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in fact, we do have the Road Traffic (Bicycle) Rules where rules have been set down governing cycling behaviour. For example, if you are cycling at night, your bicycle must have proper lighting. Also, you cannot cycle against the flow of traffic. The rules are there. It is a matter of enforcement. The Traffic Police is mindful of the need to ensure road safety. Of course, it is also a matter of usage of resources because, in terms of road users that cause the greatest harm, it is really the motorists who speed or drink drive. So, let us leave it to the Traffic Police to do their job. Ultimately, the main point is that all who use Singapore roads should have that assurance that if they do their part, their lives will be safeguarded.”
“Sir, I wonder whether the Minister is willing to tighten and enforce the traffic laws in relation to cyclists. I notice that cyclists are cycling haphazardly on the roads. They turn and cross the road wherever they like. I also notice that bicycles are badly maintained. In the dark roads, many of them do not have any light at all. I live at a place where the road is going down a slope and I can hear these cyclists screeching down the road.”
“No. Just a clarification. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMMISSION ON PARLIAMENT STAFF”
“Madam, I would like a clarification from the Minister. Not that long ago, somebody complained in the local newspapers that he had to pay about $2,600 for his building plans to be approved. My question is: why should such an application be so costly? I also understand that if the applicant's plans are rejected, all his application fees shall be forfeited. Why should this be so?”
“The Senior Minister of State has been talking about deciding whether a document is a secret document, but I think the more important issue now we are discussing is whether that document contains a public interest. So who is to decide what is public interest? I think that is the issue. The words "public interest" mean a lot of things to many people. For a defendant, if his life is at stake, this is an important issue, and you cannot go and get a manager of a statutory board or the AG to decide. I think the judge should be deciding. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Madam, I think I have answered the points already. If Mr Chiam looks at the specific section, it is not a matter of the production of documents, the consideration is whether the disclosure of communications made to him in official confidence will be detrimental to public interest. And he decides not in isolation, but in consultation with his superiors in the organisation and the Attorney-General's Chambers. I think that is the best I can do in terms of assurances. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.00 pm”
“Chin Tet Yung: Would the Senior Minister of State agree with me that if there was any claim that any party can think unjustified, their claim that public interest has suffered, was an unjustified claim, such a party can actually bring a constitutional action to say that the public officer or the officer in the statutory board had acted either capriciously in bad faith or otherwise? Is that not true? So there is actually a legal remedy for such instances even if the discretion is subjective. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Of course, there are these administrative actions and judicial review. If you can satisfy the court that you have locus standi, as Prof. Chin says, there are other actions which you can pursue.”
“Can I get further clarification from the Senior Minister of State? I believe the practice in England is for the judge to decide which document is of national interest. I think that is a better practice. Because if you leave it to the head of the Government department and it goes to the AG to make a decision, it cannot be seen publicly that this is going to be an unbiased decision. What happens if there is a decision that is going to embarrass the Government if it goes in one way? Can the AG or the head of the department still decide with impartiality? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First of all, let me say that different jurisdictions will have to find different approaches to questions like that, which involve national interest. We cannot just pluck examples from other countries and say they must apply in Singapore. Secondly, as I have said, the courts actually do have a role. It is not as though they do not play a role. And, indeed, there have been cases which show there is an established test as to how the courts would look at the question. Let me just briefly say that, from the cases, the courts would apply a two-stage test to determine whether the privilege can be claimed. First, the court must be satisfied that the communication in question was, in fact, made in official confidence. And, second, while it is for the person claiming the privilege to determine whether the public interest would suffer by the disclosure, the court must be satisfied that such determination was, in fact, made in good faith. So ultimately it is not a matter of the court not having a role. Assoc. Prof.”
“It is not even the interest of the Government because public interest really means the national interest, ie, the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, like you and me, and Singaporeans out there. So that is the context in which section 126 has operated for many years and as I have said, it has operated satisfactorily. It has not been invoked willy-nilly, but only after careful consideration, in good faith, and only with regard to information, disclosure of which will harm public interest. In other words, not all information that reposes in the 23 selected statutory boards will be subject to this section. There will be careful consideration whether or not this privilege will be invoked. So there are safeguards, both in the process as well as in the courts playing a role. Prof. Chin mentioned the role of the courts in other countries. In Singapore, in fact, there have been cases where the courts have shown how they will play a role. For example, the court will decide whether or not the communication or information has been given to the officer in official confidence. That they will do. And, secondly, the determination of whether or not disclosure will harm public interest, as Prof. Chin rightly said, will be for the person to decide. But it must be made in good faith. I do not think Parliament should circumscribe how the courts will decide the application of the section. But from the decided cases, it shows that the courts do play a role. One more point is that Prof. Chin mentioned the National Heritage Board. I am sure he knows the National Archives is part of the National Heritage Board. In the National Archives will be found many unpublished Government documents and other Government documents which need the protection. I think I have covered most of the points.”
“That is an important point because we are basically taking an approach that has worked. The section has been there for many years, and how section 126 has been operated will give an indication as to how new section 126(2) will be operated. Now we need section 126(2) because, and this is in answer to Prof. Chin's point, the officers in the statutory boards will no longer be public officers. So they are not covered under the current section 126 and that is why we have a new section 126(2). Even though, prima facie, on the wording of the section, the officer himself decides - if you look at how section 126 has been operationalised over all these years - if and when an officer receives, as Prof. Chin will know, an application for interrogatories or discovery of documents or information, or subpoenaed to give evidence in court, or subpoenaed to produce documents, he will, of course, consult his superiors because he is doing it on behalf of his organisation. And he will then decide whether or not the disclosure will harm public interest, with the benefit of legal advice, which will include the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers who after all is the custodian of public interest. So, that is how in practice this process will continue, both under section 126, as it has been for many years, and under the new section 126(2). What is public interest? Mr Low Thia Khiang gave certain examples of whether or not if the officer feels that disclosure will harm his own interest, would he then say it is public interest? As I have described the process, this will never happen. Public interest is certainly not the interest of the officer concerned. It is not even the interest of the organisation itself.”
“Before the conversion, the officers who were part of the Ministry of Law would have handled confidential information as public officers. And in the case of the Land Office, it would be information that can impact, for example, market sensitivities and policy decisions on how we acquire land. After the conversion to a statutory board, these officers who join the statutory board would be doing the same thing. They would still have access to such information. So, we are saying, "No, this is not a satisfactory position." We have to continue to protect this information from compulsory disclosure in court if it is against public interest. That is the first point. The second point is these 23 statutory bodies have been carefully selected. If you look at the list, which is set out in the Official Secrets Act, there are 23 bodies listed there. So it is not 70 bodies. I think Prof. Chin mentioned 70 bodies. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: You mentioned that there were 70 bodies. With the possibility of all of them on it, that would make 70. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Correct. But to the Ministries' credit, a careful analysis has been done to ascertain which are the statutory bodies that handle information that is vital and disclosure of which, if it is not controlled, would be detrimental to the national interest. So, for example, you will see statutory bodies there such as MAS, Defence Science and Technology Agency, Singapore Land Authority, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Jurong Town Corporation and others. So it is a carefully selected list, showing that we have taken a targeted approach. The approach we take in the new section 126(2) is really based on the existing approach in section 126(1) or the current section 126.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am not making a speech. I just want a clarification on a practical point. How does an employee, in a protected organisation, know which documents are subject to the protection of section 126(2) of the amended Evidence Act? There are so many documents floating around. And if it is by chance that an employee takes out a document from the office, he may be charged under the new section 126(1). In case an employee takes out a document, how does he know that the document is protected under the Act? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Madam, first, I think I can deal quite quickly with Mr Chiam's point. If we look at the amendment under discussion, it is a situation where a person has been asked to participate in court proceedings to either give information on the stand, or through interrogatory or discovery, to produce documents before the court. But if, in his view, the disclosure would harm public interest, then he will say, "No, I can't do it." What the provision says is that the court would then not be able to compel him, because he is exercising a privilege. That is the context of the section. There are three general points that I want to make first. The first point is that the thrust of the speeches of the Members who have spoken is that the section is too wide, either because public interest is not defined or on the question of who is to decide. But the backdrop to this whole amendment is that we are restoring the former position, before a Ministry or department is converted to a statutory board, eg, the Land Office in the Ministry of Law, which was converted into the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). The SLA is one of the bodies listed in the Schedule.”
“As regards the Minimum Sum scheme, I see that the cash component of $40,000 would eventually be increased to $120,000 by 2013. My feedback in this difficult economic climate is that, in fact, many CPF members are clamouring to have their cash component paid out to them. They said that they should be allowed to use their money, especially for legitimate purposes, such as for their children's education, to pay their debts or even to start a business. I hope something along this line can be considered. As regards the Political Economic Risk Consultancy Limited's (PERC) report, I think the Prime Minister should not be unduly disturbed by it when it says that Singapore's wage cost is higher than those of America and Australia. That report is not very accurate in that it takes into account the higher paid workers, ie, executives and white-collar managerial workers in Singapore. Those people are paid higher than the equivalent in America and Australia. But the pay of a general worker or a tradesman in America and Australia is, on average, much higher than those in Singapore by, at least, I would estimate, 30%. Those of us who have visited America and Australia know that the workers in those countries are definitely paid more than the Singapore workers. It is true that the cost of doing business in Singapore is high, but certainly not due to the alleged high cost of wages of our factory workers.”
“It has become a lucrative source of income for the Government, especially now that we hear the Government is going ahead to increase the GST by a further 1% next year. I am just wondering why the Government needs to build mountains of surpluses every year. The surpluses are supposed to be national savings for rainy days, but we are now seeing black clouds and showers thundering down on us. Still, the Government wants to accumulate wealth, all at the expense of our workers. Singapore's surpluses are purportedly estimated at about US$150 billion. If that is truly the case and Singapore is such a small country, it has the world's second largest surpluses - second only to Japan - which has about US$200 billion. It would appear that the Government's exercise of accumulation of wealth is for its own purpose, and not for the purpose of helping the people. I note that even the interests accrued from the net investment income are untouchable. SIA, DBS and SingTel all say that they shall benefit from the CPF cut. Their savings range from $18-$45 million. It would appear then that the biggest beneficiary of the CPF cut shall be the Government, since it is the biggest owner of Government-linked companies in Singapore. The Government must share its gains with the workers of Singapore. I hope that the Government-linked companies will pay good bonuses this year to the workers. A CPF cut, originally touted at 6%, shall not solve our cost problem. Someone wrote in the Today newspaper that a 6 percentage point cut in CPF would only reduce our wage rate by 2%. We still cannot compete with China, India or Vietnam. We have now heard that the Government is not implementing the 6% but only cutting it by 3%, from 36 to 33 percentage points, and also on a staggered basis.”
“Wage cut is only one component of the total cost structure. The Government should look at the other factors which keep costs in Singapore up. They are mostly due to Government policies. High wage cost, in the first place, was due to Government policy. It was thought in the early days that the Government should only attract higher value industries, but they did not come in the numbers expected. The costs in Singapore have remained high since then. Setting up business in Singapore is also high. Rentals, land cost, transport and utilities are all higher than our neighbouring countries like China, India or Vietnam. However we cut the CPF rate, we still cannot make our wages lower than the neighbouring countries. But this step of cutting the CPF rate can cause grave hardship to our workers and should not be implemented at one go. It should be made gradually. The Government should not again make our workers bear the full brunt of reviving the economy. The Government should seriously look at other areas of reducing costs, such as lowering of rentals, keeping land prices affordable and keeping transportation, utilities, administrative, legal services and other operational costs down. After the last elections in November 2001, there was a slew of price increases in rentals, transport, utilities, health and other operational costs. None of those price increases have been trimmed down at all, making the cost of doing business in Singapore prohibitively high. It is high time that Government relooked at those cost increases and trimmed them down whenever it can be done. GST is another high cost factor. The GST, as originally proposed, was supposed to be revenue neutral and not painful at all for the people to accept it. But it is now no longer revenue neutral.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, the Prime Minister has said that Singapore is now at the crossroads and is making important decisions with regard to CPF. He also says that the CPF changes made are the most drastic to the CPF system. In the light of these comments, this topic that we are debating on is of course very important. May I commend that, in future, if we do have such important debates, Members of Parliament, especially the Opposition, have a look into the changes, so that we can be more prepared to debate them, and not be given at the last minute this table and we hardly know what it is all about. Sir, in 1954, the PAP, when it was in the Opposition, stated in its Party Manifesto, that it shall resist any attempt to pass on to the workers by way of wage cuts the burden of any economic recession. The Minister for Labour in the 1980s told this House that the CPF was sacrosanct. They were the wages of the workers and that the CPF rate could not be cut. He said that the cutting of CPF rate was tantamount to cutting the workers' salary. At that time, the CPF rate was 50% of the workers' salary. Many, including myself at that point of time, thought that the CPF rate of 50% was too high. I asked for the CPF rate to be lowered, with the hope that the take-home pay of the worker might be higher. I was roundly told off for recommending the CPF rate to be cut. It can be seen that the ruling party has said many things about preserving the CPF rate, but they have not been consistent with what they have said. Our problems in Singapore today are, one, high unemployment and, two, high cost of doing business in Singapore. The Government proposes to take the easy way out by slashing the CPF rate. The question is: can this help?”