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 74 of 85.
“I do not see why this House should be picking on things they do not understand. May I be allowed to continue? We are on the topic of this sale and resale but we have to see why we are coming on to the sale and resale. A motion does not come out of the blue. There must be some relevant factors to it.”
“Sale is a sale from the HUDC to the first owner, and then he wants to sell it again. There is nothing wrong with that.”
“Well, there is a sale and, of course, there is a resale.”
“That is what you say, not me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 5th July, all of a sudden as usual, HDB announces - it never gives prior warning, it drops a bombshell - it does not want to buy back any more HUDC flats which are less than five years old. Naturally all those 216-odd people who wanted to resell back their flats to the HDB were not only very disturbed but were very angry, and some were even completely disgusted. This is evidenced by the response given in the press. You can just look at the press and see how disgusted the HUDC owners were. I will just quote one of them to show the type of reaction to the announcement of the HDB. There was a Bedok Reservoir resident who said he wanted to wash his hands of the HDB completely. He said, I quote: 'I have committed myself to a private property and I am going ahead. I would better advertise and try to sell my flat. I will probably not get the original price but I want nothing more to do with the HDB.' "Nothing more to do with the HDB." Can you see how disgusted he was of the HDB?”
“We do not do things just out of the blue, Mr Minister. We communicate in all kinds of ways.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that the Minister refuses to read in the papers what is relevant. The reversal of policy of buying back the HUDC flats was announced on 5th July and that was a Saturday. If he had read the Sunday papers, he would have known that I, on behalf of my Party, amongst other things, have called on the HDB to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. We received no reply from the Minister in his walkabout, and the only thing he has told us was, "Yes. I have replied to one or two points in this article." But he has ignored this point, which is the most relevant point, and he has gone round saying, "No. We have not breached our faith." He said it was not a policy. It was just a practice. Assistance, is it? Is that what you have replied? Why did you not reply to this point? That is the reason why we are here? So he has committed himself to replying only part of the question but left the more important part out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I move my motion, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for extending the moment of interruption beyond 4.30 pm today. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, *That this House views with regret the Housing and Development Board's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have a clarification from the Minister, please? This is with regard to section 18A(4). He accuses me of not understanding English. I have no mistake here in the interpretation of section 18A(4): '... such number of copies as he thinks fit, and may require such copies to be marked in such manner as he may direct.' "Marked" means mark in any way to obviously blanco the parts that the Minister does not want. Otherwise, if you have got any other interpretation of this section, let us have it.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Whampoa himself is an economic expert. He is neither here nor there after reading all these quotes from the foreign journals. The point of clarification is this. Is he saying that there is economic sabotage? If not, say so. Do not just leave it in the air as if there is or there is not. Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the National University of Singapore we have a department called English Language Deficiency Department. I recommend a course for him.”
“I think you know parliamentary procedure. You have got one hour.”
“This is in reply to your remark. This piece of legislation is exactly a reflection of what Singapore is going to be. You have this control, more controls, just as has been illustrated in this House. I do not think big disaster will come to any of the Backbenchers if one or two of them, let us see, are brave enough to vote against a piece of legislation. And if they are really convinced of that, I would really applaud them and it would be a very good day for Singapore. Thank you.”
“Yes, to be slaughtered one of these days, as probably you have, being toppled from top posts. [Interruption] I thought you were once very close to the Prime Minister. Now you are sitting very far away from him.”
“It would seem to be normal if a few of that one or two voted against, but not all, like a sheep being led down the garden path. An hon. Member: Slaughtered.”
“That is the thing, you see. You have just said out, "You do not understand the system here." What is the system here? As shown in this Parliament, you want all your Backbenchers to speak up, to voice their opinion. And none of them voted against. In fact yesterday we had only one brave ex-Deputy Prime Minister who dared to abstain.”
“So I will have to oppose it because, on balance, whether or not this piece of legislation will benefit Singapore for all the policies that you want to make Singapore to be - a vibrant, dynamic society, brain centre, you want it to be an information centre and the rest of it, I think the balance will definitely weigh in the interest of Singapore not to have this legislation. And I would certainly urge Backbenchers, if they have got any opinion at all, to speak up, and if they speak against, I would urge them certainly not to vote for it.”
“6 million brains are better than one - I am sure the Minister has read that before - do all these things constitute involving in the domestic policies of Singapore? I think Singaporeans must be allowed to think and decide for themselves. We have already seen recently Ministers going to our schools, to our polytechnics giving them lectures, trying to put the Government's point of view across. If the Government has already put up efforts - Ministers going out to give talks to our students, university students, and polytechnic students and, of course you also have the assistance of the TV, the press to sway public opinion - why are you so afraid to allow just a few articles appearing in the foreign press which may deviate from established Government policies? Why would you not allow some kind of a balance? Give a chance to these students whom you speak to. Let them see that there is a different point of view. Is the Government afraid because of the last election results? You will remember that the pendulum has swung. The pendulum has swung 12.3% towards the Opposition and the momentum has already been gathered, and you are trying to stop the momentum. Is it what it is all about? You are afraid that if the momentum of the pendulum is allowed to swing to its logical end, PAP will be thrown out. Is that what you are afraid of? This piece of legislation is not against Singapore's interest. It is against the PAP's interest.”
“Speak for yourself. This is what it is. It is quite clear there. This Police officer has a very legitimate duty. We cannot fault him. It is the law. This is the sort of power we want to give to our police officers. Of course, the standard check in Singapore today is, "Let us have a look whether you have got an identity card. See that you are not an illegal immigrant." That is one of the Police powers. There are many other Police powers. But we are now giving an additional power to the Police and we cannot complain. We cannot complain against the Police. It is there. The Government has already powers. If any foreign journalist whom it thinks is twisting facts, within 24 hours his stay in Singapore can be removed and out he goes. This is being done. I think the latest one was when we had this Hotel New World disaster and this Filipino reporter reported that a rescuer, I think, demanded money before he would drag the victim out. She did not check the facts before she filed that report. And she was sent out, I believe, was it 48 hours? So the Government has already powers by just using Immigration laws. The Member for Anson has pointed out and asked many questions of the Minister. How are you going to classify the things that are involved in domestic politics of Singapore? Perhaps I could add to that list. If a foreign newspaper says that the Government is interfering too much in the private enterprise, is that involving itself in domestic politics? Or if a foreign newspaper says that the invisible hand of the Government is, in fact, interfering in the wage system, not allowing the free market forces to work but controlling wage, and also if it should complain that the Government has put up high costs of production in Singapore, or it says that 2.”
“They can stop anybody and check and see whether there are declared foreign newspapers. One of these days when I walk along High Street with my bundle, it is quite legal for a police officer to stop me and say, "All right, let us have a look at what is inside? I am checking to see whether you have got a declared foreign newspaper." An hon. Member: Playboy.”
“This last one here - he says that there are certain foreign newspapers which would "want to impose its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of the Singapore society." How can they do that? I think most of the press have appeared at least to side the Opposition in Singapore or write in favour of the Opposition because of the character of the mature Western countries which is a tendency to side the underdog. I do not think they want to manipulate our political system here. They look at Singapore and say, "Poor chaps, the Opposition is being downtrodden. All right. Why don't we just give them a boost?" I think that's about it. I do not think it is a massive campaign to manipulate. I am saying that if they did it, it is because of their sense of always wanting to assist the underdog. That is all. What is wrong with that? Any sportsman would know this kind of a thing. It is obviously on your side. You do not play sports. You do not know. What is wrong with that? I think that is it and no more. If there are many occasions in which the Minister thinks that foreign reporters have been trying to impose their ideas of press freedom here, then I think he should give us examples. Let us have them. Which are the articles he is referring to in which they are trying to impress their own ideas of press freedom in Singapore? I think he should come out with that because this amendment is a very serious one which curbs a lot of not only foreign press but Singaporeans. If I remember rightly, Police powers are given to certain officers of the Government, Postal Superintendent, officers of Customs, Police officers, any Police officer, and, of course, other officers authorized by the Minister.”
“Press freedom. I still do not understand what the Minister means by "own ideas of press freedom". Do we have a different type of press freedom in Singapore? Obviously, we have. The sort of press freedom in England, the sort of press freedom in Australia, the sort of press freedom in America, is obviously different from the press freedom in Singapore. What type of press freedom do we want to follow? Russia or China? Since you are against press freedom of the West, I would like to ask the Minister, "What sort of press freedom does Singapore really want to have?" I think the Minister afterwards in his reply should let the House know of what he has in mind. But is it necessary to amend the law? There is already enough law and it has been published in our local newspapers. There is enough law already to curb all these problems. On racial sensitivities, I think the Internal Security Act is taking care of that. There is no communist threat to Singapore these days. So what is the Internal Security Act for? Perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs can tell us. I believe it is to curb the communal problems, and this is the No. 1 problem. Why do you need to amend the law? Then what about interference in our institutions, especially our courts? There are already precedents. Newspapers which have printed matter affecting the impartiality of our courts have been hauled to the court and charged, and they have apologized. What more do they want? What extra powers do they want? After being charged in court and fined and apologized, do you think they will continue to print matter which will affect the impartiality of our courts? Certainly not. They are responsible newspapers.”
“I got it straight from the Straits Times "when it imposes its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of Singapore society." Is that correct now?”
“It is definitely the views of freedom of foreigners and they have not taken into account the local conditions.”
“" What does this last one really mean? I do not understand.”
“The Member for Whampoa is a professor. I think he can read this new subsection (4) in page 2 of the Bill, and this is the power that is going to be given to the Minister. This is the power that he will have and he can exercise that power by blacking out any part of a declared foreign newspaper if he likes. Is he going to deny that? I am saying that if this piece of legislation is passed in this House and he exercises the power, this is exactly what will happen. We want to encourage tourists to come to Singapore and I am just painting a scenario that can happen. Many of these tourists are not just ordinary persons. They are thinking persons. They talk, they publish, they write when they visit a country and they will go home, maybe to Norway or some of the other less known traditional places where our tourists come from. They will go home and write, "I made a visit to Singapore. The place was clean. There are many tall buildings. Nice beautiful cars. But they have also press censorship". They will say this. And I am not surprised if they said that. Just one statement like that when they go back to a country which has strong democratic institutions, how would the people there think of Singapore? They would think, "There is a Police state over here." Do the Minister and all the legislators here in this Parliament want to create this kind of impression of Singapore? The Minister says the purpose of this Bill is to curb people printing or playing up on racial sensitivities and highlighting the problems of a minority race. Then he says that they will discredit some of our accepted institutions, like the courts. The third one is interesting. He says, "foreigners may impose their views of freedom on Singaporeans by not taking into account the local conditions.”
“Once a declared foreign newspaper gets approval under the new sub- section 18A(2), the Minister may require such number of copies as he thinks fit "to be marked in such manner as he may direct." What does that mean? It means that he says, "All right. All these paragraphs, all these sentences will have to be blacked out before you can distribute." So one of these days when we open the pages of a foreign journal, we might say "Why are all these pages marked in black?" And the people will get even more curious. They want to know why this is blacked out. It is obvious. Curiosity is part of human nature. And what will foreigners who come to Singapore as tourists think when they buy a journal from the airport and open it up and see certain places are blacked out? What is their reaction? Their first reaction is that there is censorship in Singapore. It may not be, but this is how an objective and reasonable person will react and foreigners ---”
“Yes. Of course, they will be allowed. It is only when they propound views which the PAP does not think suit them, views which are perhaps canvassed by the Opposition, that they say these papers are engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore. How are you going to judge this sweeping law "engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore"? Who is going to judge? Are we going to have a panel? Are we going to have a few persons to say, "Well, this is engaging in domestic policies and this is not?" Who is to set the rules? It is obvious. This is a political piece of legislation, no more, no less. This is to curb views which are against the Government. Once they curb views against the Government, they have got this amendment here which says "declare them foreign newspapers." Blacklisted. That is all. And once they are blacklisted, they are finished. The most you can carry is five copies, and even when you carry five copies of this newspaper, you have got to explain that you are not going to sell and you are not going to distribute them. The onus of proof is on you. They are finished and if they really want to publish again, they have to come to the Minister begging, "Please. We would not publish that kind of news again." This is coercion, no more, no less. At one time, I was told, some newspapers went into Indonesia with whole paragraphs blackened out. What sort of impression do I have of that country? I say that is a terrible country, of course. They openly declare that it is a guided democracy. They are quite sincere about it. They said, "We are a guided democracy." So are we having a guided democracy in Singapore now? The Minister may restrict the sale or distribution of each issue of any declared foreign newspaper granted approval.”
“You cannot read this. You can only read what is printed in the Straits Times or the Chinese press. This is preserving the paternalism in Singapore. Of course, this amendment is against the free flow of information. Of course, it is against freedom of the press. There is no two-way about it and we say we are going to make Singapore a brain centre. How can we make a brain centre when we restrict information? You must look at the good, the bad, the ugly, then you can have a good brain. You grow plants in a green house and you expect the plants to be sturdy. It is those plants that are planted outside, having been beaten by the wind, the rain, the snow, the hail and can still stand firm, these are the plants that we can say are really strong. Our people are still being kept in the green house, and how can we have a brain centre in Singapore? We want an education centre. It is not in the interest of the country to extend Police powers, to de-politicize the people, to live in fear. How can we have a vibrant, dynamic society when we restrict information? On the one hand, we have got the interests of the nation. These are the things that we want to build. But on the other hand, we have got the interests of the political party. It does not want too many people who are politically motivated and who have got plenty of knowledge of politics. What does this amendment want to do? It really wants to blacklist all foreign journals that do not speak well of the PAP. That is all, no more, no less. What happens if the foreign journals engage in the domestic policies of Singapore but speak highly of the PAP? Will they be restricted?”
“--- without any honesty in their beliefs? They only say. They only speak out. But it has been said, people will judge you by what you speak, and what you do also. So if Members who have got some opinions and who feel that certain amendments should not be passed in the interest of Singapore, then I would urge them to be fearless and vote against those amendments. I think this is good for Singaporeans. We cannot breed a double-faced Singapore type of person. In a later part of the day, perhaps when we debate on the HDB we will show that, in fact, even Government bodies tend to take different views of one certain policy. This is the sort of society we are breeding. It is not often true that the interest of a political party coincides with the interest of the nation. I think this can be said to be quite true. What is the interest of a political party? Of course, the interest of a political party is to be in power all the time, as many years as possible, and it will do all sorts of things to make sure that it is in power. Balanced against that, we have the interest of the nation. What sort of nation do we want to build? Do you want to continue to have this paternalistic style of government in Singapore where every citizen has to be told what to read, how to think, how to behave? Do we want to continue all this while? This amendment is exactly what it intends to do.”
“I think there is a Mr T.S. George who has written a book about Singapore. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country, I think the people have to be very slow in handing too much power to the government. I think, through the history of democratic countries, the people have learnt that. They do not want to hand every power to the government and they themselves have got nothing left. There must be a balance, a balance between the people and the government, a balance of power. We cannot hand over all powers through many legislations to the government in which the government can act, almost literally if it so wishes, in any way it likes; even in this small amendment which I shall refer to. So I think I should ask the people of Singapore to be very slow in giving too much power to the Government. Of course, we have got two Opposition Members here and we always are watching the amendments to the various Acts here which come in fairly quick sequences. The Backbenchers here may on the one hand rise and oppose the amendment but on the other hand they vote for it. What sort of Members are they? Where is their integrity? I think they should resign. If I were them, I would resign. On the one hand, they propose a stand, "This is what I believe", loud and clear, over television, over the press. They say so. But when it comes to voting, they vote against exactly what they have said. Are we breeding such Members of Parliament ---”
“Well, if you want to know, there are people who have written books about Singapore. An hon. Member: Name one.”
“I say there are. Some hon. Members: Name one.”
“I had the opportunity, together with the Member for Anson, of meeting Mrs Graham. I am sure people who talk about the foreign press would know who Mrs Graham is. She is the owner of the Washington Post and also the owner of Newsweek. Newsweek, in fact, has been the subject of a contempt action in our courts. Certainly I cannot say that she is trying to manipulate our public opinion here or consistently present a biased judgment, opinion or analysis. They may, through the over-enthusiasm of some of their reporters, have occasionally. I think this is no fault of the reporters. Some reporters have been involved in contempt, slander suits, but that does not put them all in one sweep into one category, and say that they are out to create havoc in Singapore's nation building effort. Again I think this may not be very true. He says foreigners have little knowledge of Singapore. How does he know that? There are many specialists who have put Singapore under the microscope and studied Singapore. I think many of these foreigners know more about Singapore than many Singaporeans. They are specialists who come here and make a study of it. An hon. Member: Name one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he made a statement and I am just pointing out that these prestigious journals do not engage in a campaign against Singapore. They certainly do not. And he says "foreign manipulation of public opinion." Again, is this true? What interest do journals have in wanting to manipulate our public opinion in Singapore? The word "manipulate" means there is a policy. It goes out, not just by chance but by planning. Certainly, I do not think you can accuse any foreign press of wanting to manipulate our public opinion. Then again he says that the foreign press are politically funded and motivated. These are very strong words. Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Point of clarification, Sir.”
“I have just said that he said that the foreign press consistently gave biased judgment, opinion and analysis. Perhaps he should produce the evidence and not just make sweeping statements. I do not think this is true, especially when we are referring to prestigious foreign journals, like the London Times, or the New York Wall Street Journal, or Newsweek or Time Magazine. Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose -”
“Yes, I think it is high time that the Government should produce such evidence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate? I rise to oppose the motion. May I, first of all, be allowed to make certain comments on what the Member for Bukit Timah has just said. He has made such sweeping statements about the foreign press. I am not protecting the foreign press in any way and I have to declare that I have got no connections with any foreign press. But let us hear what the Member for Bukit Timah has said. He says that the foreign press has consistently given biased judgment, opinions and analysis. Is this true? Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister is going to produce it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister is serious about what he has just said, I will write to the Law Society.”
“I think if you were to ask some legal members of the Bar, it is not just $200. There might be 10 attendances and then, after that, he writes a letter; and you say "$200". I am protecting my profession, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“I must reply to this. I think the Member cannot just say "$200." An hon. Member: Which lawyer is this?”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Minister not aware that we lawyers are bound by the scale of costs in conveyancing? We just cannot undercut another lawyer. I was suggesting to the HDB that perhaps if the HDB were to give up this work, then it could arrange with the Law Society for a special scale of costs, perhaps in line with the HDB cost. I was not saying that we want the business. What I am saying is that the HDB at the moment has got its hands full, and I personally know that. Conveyancing is not just a transfer of names. You telephone the HDB and the clerk says, "Oh, very easy. It is only a transfer of names." It is not as simple as that. It is a transfer of interests, title, share in the property. And when they get into all kinds of jam, they then come to us to unravel the jam for them. Is it not a fact? You know that, is it not, Mr Minister? There are many cases like that.”
“There are occasions where you can forfeit, can you not?”
“Yes, that is the way to do it, is it not?”
“If a person wants to go from a top floor to a bottom floor --- An hon. Member: That is the way to do it.”
“A point of clarification, please, Mr Minister. In the case of this particular new paragraph (m) in clause 9 under the Penal Code sections, must they all be convicted first and pay a fine and then the HDB takes action?”
“The Minister has been referring to all these crimes in a neighbouring country, not to Singapore. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Because we are more effective in the control of illegal immigrants, this serious situation does not occur here. If we do not control the illegal immigrants, I think these things will happen.”
“I do not know whether this is meant for shops and commercial units, but under this rule it is so wide. You just serve a notice to quit and there you are; you can compulsorily acquire. How can this kind of legislation be good? Certainly it cannot be. However you look at it, it cannot be good. So I would again urge the Minister to perhaps hold the matter in abeyance and have another look at it.”
“Well, I think you should take lessons in botany. It is not a banyan tree. It is a very aesthetic-looking tree and it has got good use. If the HDB seriously wants to make HDB housing estates a safe and comfortable place, let us please do it together. Give us a chance, give the Opposition a chance to do it. We will show you how, and do not tie our hands, please. I shall not go into each of the individual amendments. Almost every one of them is thoroughly bad, and I can only sincerely plead with the Minister - I know of course this Bill will be passed as usual. The Whip is there, party discipline is there. In the heart of hearts I know most of the Members here who have got housing estate in their constituency know that this Bill should not be passed at all. I think as a compromise perhaps it could go to a Select Committee and I would be the first one to volunteer to look into it and maybe find a better solution other than the heavy penalties, inequitable penalties, and take away the Sword of Damocles from over the heads of all HDB residents and HUDC residents. Because if you look at the new section 48I at page 8: 'Where the Board has given notice to quit or notice of breach of condition, covenant or undertaking under a lease or licence agreement or any other agreement or notice of intention to compulsorily acquire, forfeit or re-enter any property provided under this Act, [HUDC units are included] any money paid to the Board after such notice has been given shall not be construed as a waiver of such breach or intention to compulsorily acquire, to terminate a lease or licence agreement or to forfeit or re-enter.' We remember that all HUDC and all HDB flats are under a lease. It is not necessarily a shop lease. It is a lease. Technically it is a lease.”
“Yes, I am coming to that. Thank you for reminding me. Now we see here an amendment to the rules and conventions of the HDB. If I now go and replant that tree, I will be caught by one of these rules and I will be fined $4,000. Is that what it is meant to be? Planting one tree can certainly not do any harm for a 47-hectare piece of land. And you are saying "it is a nuisance, trespass" and all the big words. But when confronted, I asked them, "Where is the nuisance?" No reply from the HDB. An hon. Member: You are planting a banyan tree.”
“That is another issue altogether. We can come to that if you want to. If the HDB is going to have all these rules of forfeiting flats and debarring citizens from owning flats, it is going against their own policy of 100% home ownership They are going to debar so many hundreds of people, 337 so far. So how are you going to achieve your 100% home ownership, Mr Minister? You are defeating your own policy. Now what about a safe and comfortable place of residence in these housing estates? I think the way to go about it, as has been mentioned by one of the Members, is to have more education. More education in community living, living in a dense and crowded place. Japan has got this problem. Their main problem is how to live orderly, peacefully, in a dense and crowded place. And they have succeeded. Why? Not because of all this law and more and more laws. I remember the Leader of the House, when he came into this House, said there was a law which overkills. I think this is exactly what it is. What has the HDB done in respect of education of the residents in the housing estate for good community living? What has it done? If the HDB is unable to do it, at least it should give some of its Members of Parliament a chance to do it, especially Members of Parliament in the Opposition, and not tie their hands. An hon. Member: Planting trees.”
“For an easy conveyance which can be completed easily in six weeks, it will be dragged on for months, no completion date. We do not know when the matter is going to be completed, six months, eight months. It is obvious that the legal officers there just do not have the time to cope with the volume of work. And many of them are new. They are unfamiliar with the law. And when confronted with the law, they just come to a standstill. When there is so much expertise around, why does the HDB want to monopolize everything? As regards development also, I think there are many private developers who will be very willing to develop for the HDB under the same terms as the HDB is developing. An hon. Member: You were offered.”