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 9 of 85.
“Yes, I will be finishing. Sir, it would be a waste of money if the Potong Pasir Town Council were to carry out its LUP and then, suddenly, the MND changes its mind and wants to carry out the LUP at Potong Pasir. For this reason, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the blocks in Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, in the Potong Pasir constituency shall be given the Lift Upgrading Programme within the next two or three years. Logically, it is long overdue.”
“Do they also not fulfill their National Service liabilities? Are they not allowed a free choice to choose the one they want to be in Parliament as their representative? The HDB has written to say that the queue for LUP is about 4,000, although yesterday the Minister said that it was 3,500. At 4,000, if the Potong Pasir Town Council were to be last in the queue, it would take something like 333 years before it can get upgrading of the lifts, assuming that it takes one year to complete 12 blocks!”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TI 5100. Sir, the Potong Pasir Town Council had written to HDB in January last year to request that the 29 lifts in the 12 high-rise blocks at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, be included in the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) but, of course, that request was refused. The MND has announced that it has selected 62 blocks for its LUP. Yet, I notice that all the blocks at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, on average, are older than the ones selected for LUP by at least 10 years. The lifts at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, are about 28 years old, and are definitely due for replacement. The lifts there should have early priority for the LUP, but they have been neglected by the MND. According to HDB guidelines, a lift is due for replacement when it is about 25 years old. By these guidelines, all the lifts at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, should be upgraded. The HDB itself has admitted in a letter to the Town Council that all the lifts at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, should be upgraded soon. Many blocks in the nearby Kim Keat neighbourhood and 10 blocks of flats, ie, Blocks 225 to 234 further up the road at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, have all been given their LUP, and yet the lifts at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, in my constituency have been glaringly left out. Many residents in Potong Pasir are asking whether the LUP at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh shall be made an election issue at the next election. Many people are wondering why Singaporeans residing in Opposition constituencies should be discriminated against. Why must they vote for the PAP candidates at the election before they can be entitled to the benefits of the national policies? Do the voters in the opposition wards also not pay taxes?”
“Madam, can I get a clarification from the Minister with regard to HDB Corp? Does HDB Corp take the place of HDB in building public housing? Does HDB Corp operate only like a private company? And if it does, can the HDB Corp still sell public housing at a subsidised rate?”
“May I clarify my speech on the point about the two brothers who went for bypass operations. The one done in Singapore at Mount Elizabeth cost him almost S$30,000, and not S$40,000, as I said yesterday. The other operation done in Malaysia at Johor Baru General Hospital cost him Malaysian Ringgit 500, or S$235 if we take the exchange rate at S0.47 cents to M$1. Both operations were done in 1998. Sir, I have checked with NUH this morning that, for a C class patient in NUH who has undergone a bypass, the estimated cost is about S$3,500 and the stay is about seven days. So even if we compare hospital with hospital, Singapore's cost is more than ten times that of Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to make a clarification on what I said yesterday in respect of the cost of the bypass operation?”
“If that is so, then I would recommend that the HDB and the Government work out special schemes whereby Singapore medical practitioners can benefit lower rentals and those savings can be passed to their patients. The other area I would like to mention is the creative industry. Under this particular section, the report of the ERC gives only 7 short paragraphs. Although the entertainment and film industries are big businesses in other countries, in the case of Singapore, it is particularly weak in this respect. We do not have any film industry of any sort to speak of. Yet other countries, particularly America, are making very good money out of the film industry. On Singapore's part, since we do not have such an industry, we have to buy all our films from abroad, thus losing massive foreign exchange dollars in buying films to fill our television Logically, Singapore should be building a creative industry. Singapore has no natural resources, except its people, and for creative industry, all they need are people who are entrepreneurial and creative. It looks like Singaporeans have to learn to be entrepreneurial and creative so that hopefully we can build a film industry of our own. A film industry is important for Singapore, not because it would make money for Singapore but, more importantly, it can build for Singapore a cultural identity. 12.20 pm”
“As regards medical cost, I hear that the medical cost in Singapore is exorbitant compared to those in Malaysia. I have heard of a story of two brothers, both suffering from heart diseases. One had his heart problem treated in Singapore and the Singapore surgeon charged him S$40,000. The other brother had less money and found his way to Malaysia and had a similar heart problem treated in Kuala Lumpur. He paid only the equivalent of S$500 in Malaysia. Both patients recovered from their heart operations and subsequently both had normal lives. The question one naturally asks is: how can a similar operation be carried out at a fraction of the cost in Malaysia? The treatment in Malaysia was as good as that of Singapore. I cite another instance where I have personal knowledge. I know of a private hospital in Johor Bahru which charges only RM280 or about S$131 for treatment of one-time kidney dialysis. The Johor Bahru hospital is purely run on a commercial basis and is not subsidised. On the part of Singapore, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) clinics here are subsidised and charge one kidney dialysis treatment at about S$400, about 3 times that is charged in the Johor Bahru private hospital. I wonder why there should be such a great disparity in medical cost between Singapore and Malaysia. There is definitely a big difference in cost of medical treatment in Singapore and in Malaysia. The medical cost in Malaysia is very much lower than those in Singapore. I would like the Singapore Government to investigate why Singapore doctors are charging so much more for their services than those of their counterparts in Malaysia. Could it be that our Singapore doctors are paying very high rentals?”
“The people of Singapore have attained a high level of education and Singapore should exploit its know-how in education and make Singapore the education hub of the region. The Government must make sure that the people who are engaged in the education industry in Singapore have the highest quality of honesty and integrity and not be allowed to exploit foreign students. Instead of giving good value in education, some of our private schools are, in fact, misleading foreign students. A Chinese student came to see me as a Member of Parliament. She complained that a private school in Singapore has cheated her of $3,600. She paid that sum of money so that she can pursue an English course, but the private school made her sign a hire purchase agreement to buy only a few textbooks and a few brochures. The hire purchase agreement did not include the English lessons she was entitled to. In the end, the foreign Chinese student failed to study English in Singapore. If Singapore is to build a good name as an education centre, then the Ministry of Education must make sure that private schools here in Singapore are properly regulated and supervised and they do not give Singapore a bad name in the region as an education centre. As far as I know, most of our best and brightest students chose to study medicine. Therefore, our best brains go to take up medicine. Accordingly, I would imagine we must produce the best doctors and best surgeons that we can possibly produce. Singapore should exploit this great talent pool of healthcare givers. Singapore should have, by virtue of having such a great pool of medical talent, become the medical centre of this region. But I hear that because of our high cost, even much of our medical business is being taken away by Malaysia.”
“The PSA Corporation has trimmed its workforce. As a result, 800 port workers were retrenched. We also hear of massive retrenchments at the HDB and also at Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Limited, which is the world's third largest chip foundry. Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Limited is a listed company of which Government-owned Singapore Technologies holds 60.5%. The retrenchment of about 500 jobs, or 14% of its worldwide workforce, at Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Limited is due to the closure of an old wafer plant this month. These rates of retrenchments perhaps mark the end of the iron ricebowl in the PSA Corporation and other Government-related companies. Business people are calling this phenomenon "the Singapore squeeze", resulting in job losses and affecting the island's economy. Singaporeans must understand that our job losses at home is due to the harsh business environment in the neigbouring countries, the region and in China. Singapore's businesses are being squeezed by competition, especially from China. Singapore must find its new niches in business and the bio-technology industries that are now being encouraged and developed in Singapore. However, it is going to take time to develop. Meanwhile, Singapore must lower the cost of doing business here. Businessmen are disappointed that the personal income tax and corporate tax rates are not cut by at least 1%. Lower corporate tax rate and lower personal income tax rates would have encouraged MNCs and foreign talents to remain in Singapore. It would also appear that the middle income Singaporeans are not benefiting from this Budget. The Report of the Economic Review Committee does not seem to highlight much on promotion of education and healthcare.”
“Much obliged. I am thankful to the Minister of State for the assurance that whether or not you are in the Opposition, as far as the business environment is concerned, there shall be a level playing field. Sir, the unemployment figures are perhaps the worst Singapore has ever seen since the oil crisis in 1973. There are about 4.2% or about 84,000 workers out of job in Singapore today. Some economists are saying that the unemployment situation may even get worse by the end of the year, to 4.8% or even 5%, about 100,000 of our workforce would be out of job by the year-end. The bad employment situation is evident at my weekly meet-the-people session. In the past, when times were bad in 1985, 1991, 1997 and 1998, there were talks of unemployment but at that point of time, I did not get residents coming to see me at the meet-the-people session to ask for jobs. But these days are different. Almost every week, there is at least one resident who comes to see me to fix for him/her a job. The worst is that these days, residents who ask for jobs are not just manual workers. University graduates are also looking for jobs. Only last week, a lady in her mid-40s, a Business Studies graduate from England came to ask for a job. It looks like the Government must make creation of jobs one of its urgent priorities. Yet, this year's Budget is not a stimulating one. There are no indications to push the economy forward. The Budget does not address or to spur consumer and business spending and expand the economy. On the contrary, we see that the Government is rather complacent when MAERSK Sealand Shipping Line moved its operations to the neighbouring port of Tanjung Pelapas. The PSA did not seem to see our neigbouring port as a dangerous threat but, obviously, it does now.”
“In time to come, this can be related to commercial activities. I am talking about the experiences that I know for sure. If I, Mr Chiam See Tong, am going into business, will I be put last in the queue for any permits? Will such a thing happen? Because there is a feeling that if a person is in the Opposition, he may be victimised by the Government. Can the Minister of State clarify on this?”
“Well, I am glad to hear that. As far as our constituency is concerned, there are many examples. Whenever we apply for a permit to use a field, it will take a long time.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, Dr Tan Cheng Bock has observed that, to the Malaysians, no solution is their solution, and I believe Dr Lily Neo has alluded to the loose talk of war. The situation of no-peace no-war is not good for both sides. There may be an accident and a war can happen. In 1914, hon. Members would know that the First World War was started by just the shooting of one man. So, in our case, I think we should not allow this kind of a situation, where there is no-peace no-war, to exist. In this light, I would like to know whether or not Singapore is willing to make a standing offer to Malaysia to have the outstanding matters arbitrated or to go before the International Court of Justice, since the Minister has said that it needs the consensus of both sides to go to the help of a third party. The other question is: has the situation at Pedra Branca improved since the recent statement of the Minister for Defence, Dr Tony Tan, with regard to intrusion of Malaysian naval vessels in our Singapore territorial waters?”
“Sir, will the Minister please tell us whether the rates of the fares for the North East Line will be the same as the other lines?”
“Sir, the Senior Minister of State says that the school gives guidance and counselling to pupils. Does this counselling include the help of a psychiatrist? The purpose of employing a psychiatrist is to find out the underlying problem of a child, and whether he apparently has disciplinary problems. There may be some very good reasons for the disciplinary problems of a child, and I think a psychiatrist is the best person to find out what is the problem of the child. Is the Ministry thinking of employing a psychiatrist to give counselling to students?”
“I support the Government's firm action taken against members of the Jemaah Islamiyah. My party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the White Paper on the JI detentions. The White Paper provides the factual background to the detentions and show how appropriate the Internal Security Act is in dealing with threats to national security. I agree with the Government that counter measures must be taken against the terrorist threats. Terrorists have international connections. The JI in Singapore has connections with outsiders which have an international character. It is therefore only right that Singapore seeks the assistance of other countries in combating terrorism in Singapore. As regards promoting cohesion and religious harmony, my party hopes that, with the discussion of the issues in the White Paper, Singaporeans can understand that increased religiosity need not necessarily lead to religious militancy. The SDA urges the Government to develop all avenues to increase religious and racial tolerance so that Singaporeans can strengthen the social fabric. In this way, Singaporeans can achieve social cohesiveness with the ability to identify and reject ideology that preaches violence and extreme hatred. The SDA also hopes that the Government, whilst taking care of the interests of the majority, does not neglect the interests of the minority or simply brush aside, especially the interests of the minority that concern the practice of their religion.”
“Should even a single bomb, which escapes detection, go off is one too many. In the 1960s, a terrorist bomb went off. It was during the time of confrontation with Indonesia. At that time, I was purchasing a book at a bookstore called Marican & Sons at Orchard Road. The building in which the bookstore was situated had since been demolished to build a hotel. The bomb went off in the building known as MacDonald House, about 400 yards from where I stood. Even at that distance, I could hear the loud blast, and the doors of the shop shook. I believe a bank employee was killed in that explosion. Of course, the planting of that bomb was utterly senseless. There was no strategic importance in that building which was mainly used as a bank at that time. Then, that was the way the terrorists operated. The other incident which I would like to recall was also in the 1960s, also during the Confrontation period. Luckily for me, that bomb planted by terrorists at the beach at Katong did not go off; otherwise, I may not be standing here today. On that night, I was sleeping in a room in a block of flats situated about 10-15 metres from where the bomb was placed. My room was facing the beach where the bomb was planted. I was told later that it was a 25-pounder and that if it had gone off, the whole wall of the building facing the beach would have been blown off. I think I would have been killed by the blast. Such is the devastation that could be wrecked by a 25-pounder. I am just wondering what havoc would have been wrought with a bomb comprising several tons of explosives, which was reported that the Jemaah Islamiyah members were trying to purchase and make. Yes, Singapore must be vigilant. We must not allow even one bomb to go off in our country.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Home Affairs Minister. The scourge of terrorism affects every nation in the world. Even the superpower countries, like the USA and Russia, are not free from terrorist attacks. There were terrible terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center in the USA, the Moscow Theatre in Russia, the blowing up of the American Embassy building in Nairobi, Kenya, and the recent bombings in Bali. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost to those dastardly attacks. Terrorist threats to Singapore are real and serious. No civilised country in the world is immune from the attacks of terrorists. Singapore is no exception. With the infiltration of the militant Jemaah Islamiyah groups into Singapore from Indonesia, Singapore shall always be in danger of terrorist attacks. Singapore must do everything it can to defend itself. Although our present situation is not as serious as that of Israel, we must learn from Israel's example. Every man, woman and child in Israel is taught to be alert and to be able to identify possible dangers posed by terrorists. I have an Israeli friend who visited Singapore. I took him to a shopping complex. On entering the building, he immediately pointed out to me the plastic shopping bag that was lying on the floor and the rubbish bin that was not emptied. He said that those items carelessly left in our shopping complex would not be allowed to be similarly left in a building in Israel for fear that bombs may be planted in them. I hope that we too in Singapore can really be on such an alert situation. I hope that all terrorist infiltrators that come to Singapore can be nabbed in time and not be given a chance to plant any bombs in our midst.”
“The people are definitely in need of assistance now and the Government should show some care and compassion. And I would advocate that the Government not only continues with the various relief programmes, pay out the ERS, and as announced now, it has put on hold 1% of the GST increase, something of course is better than completely nothing, so 1% is some improvement on the 2% increase. I believe that if the 2% implementation of the GST was postponed for one year, it would definitely help the economy, and especially the retailers will be the happiest people in Singapore. If there is a hike restraint, to a certain extent it will ease the flow of Singaporeans to Johor Bahru to do their shopping. To some extent the Government has heeded the plea of the people this time, but the point I think I made earlier is that if the Government is unsure of itself, why does it want to increase the GST at all? 2.18 pm”
“Sir, I am happy, of course, that the 2% GST increase has not been implemented, but only 1%. Still, 1% is 1% more than is really necessary. Many people in Singapore have lost their jobs. It was reported in the papers that about 4.8% or about 100,000 of our workers are unemployed and the economic situation does not look good and the situation is not improving. There is talk of double dip this year. The war in Iraq is looming and oil prices may rise drastically, which does not help the US economy at all, and which is not good for us because our businesses are dependent on the US economy. The economies of the region are also in dire straits and, in the circumstances, they do not help us either. Many people have written to the press and say that this GST increase does not help us at all. In fact, in this difficult time, the people must be encouraged to spend and not save. And if the GST increase is implemented in full, there will definitely be price increases in goods and services. With higher consumer prices, of course, people will spend less. In these hard economic times, people should be encouraged to spend so as to revive the economy, and not to spend less. It would appear that if the GST were to be increased by 1%, the Government is, in fact, making things worse and not better. Nearly all of our retailers, from statistics taken by the Straits Times in a recent poll, complained that businesses are poor and the rentals are high. The Government, being the biggest land owner in Singapore, is not setting an example of lowering rentals of business premises. In fact, the Government's policy appears to me to be just to accumulate wealth for itself. The question is: what is the point of accumulating so much wealth when it does not use it in time of need for the people?”
“Anyway, with the 1% increase, I still think that the majority of Singaporeans shall be entering the New Year with long faces. If there is no increase, then it will be a big welcome for the New Year. Even now, many Singaporeans are already suffering hardship. The curious thing is that if the Government is not very certain whether to increase it by 2% or 1%, why does it want to go on with the increase at all? The Government complains that it would lose revenue. I think it is something like $1.3 billion from the reduction in corporate and personal income tax. But now, probably it has changed its mind and said that it can absorb some of the losses. Therefore, not a 2% increase but only 1% increase in GST. In any event, the Government has got huge surpluses and it is definitely not in deficit. But as Jennie Tay, President of the Retailers' Association, has said, the people and businesses in Singapore are already in deficit. In fact, during my meet-the-people sessions, many of the residents have come to tell me that they have lost their jobs and that they cannot pay their children's school fees and their utilities bills. As a result, their lights and water supply were cut off. I am certain that there must be many others with a similar fate in other constituencies. Those families, with lights and water supply cut off, are not living in the first world, as the PAP has touted. But they are still living in the third world without the benefit of electricity and running water from the taps in their homes. At least, when Singapore was in the third world, residents could still go to the roadside standpipe to take water. These days, there is no public water supply. They must go to their neighbours for water which can be very embarrassing to them.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. I was not here when the Minister for Finance announced that the full 2% increase in GST will not be implemented, but rather to phase in 1% increase first, and the other one percentage point I do not know when. An hon. Member: 2004.”
“I would imagine that it would be more rational if the Bill specifically states that the Minister must choose members of the Authority from certain professions or occupations. That would make the Authority more representative and more balanced. I think the Minister should include in the membership of the Authority representatives from the local arts circles, the universities, parents' associations and the different groups. As regards the functions and duties of the Authority mentioned in clause 11 of the Bill, I would urge the Government to use a light hand rather than a heavy hand. The Government should have, as its aim, to eventually do away with censorship and make Singapore a truly Renaissance City, when Singapore shall bloom as a city renowned for its art and culture.”
“For an enlightened regulatory model to be accepted by the majority of the people, it is best that the Government should not take into its own hands the duty of drawing up the regulations but, rather, get all sections and representatives of various interest groups to draw up the regulations. In this way, once the regulations are made and enforced, it cannot be said that they were the sole work of the Government, but rather they are made by the general consensus of the people and shall be more acceptable by the public. Whatever it is, I would like to urge the Government to stop treating Singapore as a nanny state, but to open up the society and give Singaporeans a chance to mature. I should now like to comment on some of the provisions of the Bill. I note that the enforcement of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), after the MDA Bill is passed, shall no longer be under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I hope that MITA shall be more flexible than the MHA in interpreting the provisions of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, and allow me, as an Opposition MP, to make speeches at my Party dinners held in my own constituency. Can the Minister in charge of PEMA give me an assurance that, as an Opposition MP, I shall not be gagged in future but shall be allowed to make speeches at functions organised by my Party in my constituency? I wish to refer to clause 5 concerning the membership of the Authority. Clause 5 cites that the Authority shall comprise "a Chairman and not less than five but not more than 16 other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister". In other words, the Minister is given a completely free hand to choose whoever he wants to be in the Authority.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, many people in the arts circle and the media industry hope that the Government would not maintain the very strict stance on censorship and hope that the Government would lean more towards a less strict regulatory model in relation to the media and the arts. But it would appear from this Bill that it is not going to be so. Typical of the authoritarian and paternalistic style of the PAP, it wants to continue with a strict censorship regime. In these modern times, with the proliferation of the computer and fast widespread communication with the Internet, I do not think that strict censorship can be effective. In fact, it is holding Singapore society back. Singapore wants to be a modern, urban society. The Government wants to make it a Renaissance City. The Government wants the city to be dynamic, vibrant and creative. But while promoting these enlightened aims, the Government still wants to maintain the nanny-state status of Singapore. How can the arts and the media progress, grow and compete with those of other countries, if the Government continues to treat its citizens like children? It is true that while we all agree that pornography, unhealthy and destructive pronouncements in politics touching on issues of race, language or religion have to be curbed, and we also believe that our children have to be protected from harmful smut and pornography, this does not mean that there should be a blanket strict censorship. It is time the Government started to review its policy of strict censorship. The Government should consider, in the alternative, a model of regulatory devices, noting the conservative sensitive nature of certain groups of our population.”
“Sir, the Minister says the number of eviction of lessees due to default of payments is very small. Can he please tell us how many of such evictions were there in 2001 and up to the 10th month of this year?”
“Sir, I do not think that there is anything wrong for Singaporeans to leave Singapore and live abroad, and they should not be labelled as "quitters". I think we should not be unduly worried if Singaporeans do go abroad to live. I believe that many of these Singaporeans who go abroad to stay there still maintain their Singapore citizenship. They all still view Singapore as their home. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many Singaporeans living abroad have given up their Singapore citizenship. I believe the number is not that many. Sir, it is a pity, on the one hand, the Singapore Government encourages Singaporeans to be entrepreneurial and to go abroad to the region and even further afield to live and do business and, on the other hand, we tend to label those who go abroad to stay as "quitters". So, I think the Government in some respect is giving confusing signals to the people. The Government should not label Singaporeans who go abroad as "quitters" at all. There is, in fact, nothing wrong for Singaporeans to go abroad either to stay or to do business, or for the sake of their children's education. Going abroad is not an easy thing. It needs a lot of courage. It needs a lot of effort to go abroad. And I think the Government should be glad that Singaporeans are going abroad or are courageous enough to go abroad. In the long term, if Singaporeans do go abroad, it should be a good thing for Singapore, as the world will then be open to Singapore, but so long as they remain committed to Singapore.”
“But, Sir, I must say that the more important issue is whether or not the degrees obtained from distance learning are as high a standard as those obtained by the students going overseas to study. The Government must make sure that those organising distance learning give degrees which are of high quality and recognise them, so that our students need not go overseas. Once they go overseas, of course, there is a greater tendency for them to live overseas. Sir, in the case of law degrees, the Government has stopped recognising external law degrees, that is, those degrees obtained by distance learning or through correspondence course. Those degrees that are obtained by correspondence are not recognised by the Government. So, this kind of a policy, of course, forces more of our students to go overseas to study. Once the students have gone overseas to study and experienced overseas life, it would therefore be more likely that they will migrate if given a chance to do so, since they have already lived overseas before. Sir, I do not think it is fair to call those wanting to live overseas as "quitters". In fact, all our forefathers were "quitters". Have they done something wrong by leaving their homeland? I certainly do not think so. They left their home country to find a better life in the South seas. In fact, if it were not for those so-called "quitters", Singapore may not have been what it is today. Nearly all our first generation political leaders were "quitters". Their forefathers migrated to Malaysia and, in turn, they came to Singapore from Malaysia. In fact, many of our judges and top administrators can also be termed as "quitters." They were mostly from Malaysia.”
“I think the issue is whether or not Singaporeans are committed to Singapore. Why is the Government so alarmed when there are professionals emigrating from Singapore? I can understand why the PAP is so alarmed. Probably they think that they will have less talent pool to select their election candidates. I think one of the strongest reasons why young professionals are leaving is because they are not rooted here. There must be something wrong with the education system that does not make them emotionally attached to this country. Of course, the physical environment has completely changed. Probably in the earlier years of these youngsters, they saw a different Singapore. Their early physical surroundings have all been destroyed. We see that old buildings are so readily torn down to be replaced by high-rise flats, condominiums and shopping complexes. Their old surroundings are completely gone and the whole place is unrecognisable to these youngsters. Young Singaporeans have become strangers in their own homeland. Some of the influences that cause Singaporeans to migrate are Government policies which force some of them to go overseas and want to remain overseas. One of such policies is that the Government does not recognise university degrees obtained through distance learning. I have been told that degrees obtained through distance learning are as good as the ones obtained from actually going overseas to study. But, unfortunately, the Government does not think so. The Government's excuse is that distance learning does not involve the intermingling of these students with other students. The Government feels that the intermingling of students when one goes overseas to study is important.”
“Sir, Ms Irene Ng just now has mentioned that SM Lee Kuan Yew, who was then the Prime Minister, in 1967 had also spoken about stayers and quitters. At that time, the British were withdrawing their troops. That meant that Singapore was losing something like 20% of its income. In the face of that very difficult condition, I think when he mentioned "stayers" and "quitters", it was a challenge to Singaporeans to stay behind and help build Singapore. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong also alluded to stayers and quitters in his recent National Day Rally speech. But, this time, he is referring to the younger Singaporeans who apparently have not known hardship. SM Lee mentioned the words "stayers" and "quitters" something like 35 years ago. They were different times. At that time, Singaporeans were very poor and unemployment was rife. It was definitely difficult even to get a job. But I believe the class of people that SM Lee referred to 35 years ago, the people whom he wanted them to stay behind to help build Singapore, were in the same class as the people that PM Goh has mentioned today. They were the educated and professional class. They were needed in Singapore to help build the country. But, of course, not all left when the chips were down. Many were still committed to Singapore. But, however, apparently today, young Singaporean professionals are leaving our shores. There is an increase in the number of Singaporeans migrating, a rise from 14% last October to 21% this July. It would appear that basically Singaporeans are still the same and have not changed. In bad times, some also want to leave Singapore. And even in good times, they also want to leave Singapore. So the issue is: Is there anything wrong with that? I personally do not think so.”
“Sir, I am glad to hear that the Government is introducing this orientation programme for maids. I am certain that this will be a very useful programme. I also note that some of the maids employed in our households are rather young. Will the Government consider a minimum age below which they cannot be employed? As regards training, I understand that the training given by the agencies to the maids comprises only one day. I am certain that it is not enough. Will the Minister consider asking the agencies to probably double the period of training?”
“Members have made many credible suggestions and I do not think it is wise of me to repeat them. The Government and unions should explore them. Whatever it is, I think it is wrong not to restore the CPF of the workers between the age of 50-55. I hope that the ERC shall rethink this issue in the meantime before the restoration of CPF comes into effect. Sir, it is strange that I should be speaking, as an Opposition, for the restoration or non-cutting of the CPF because, as far as I can remember, it was the Opposition in the early days, when the CPF was as high as 50% of the workers' salary, that we, at that time, were asking for a cut of the CPF. Times have now changed.”
“Sir, I thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, despite what the Minister has said, I would like to speak on the issue of the non-restoration of CPF for the older workers. I also, like many of my colleagues here, feel for the older workers. They have given their best years to build Singapore to what it is today. I think it is very unfair of the Government not to give them their due in respect of their CPF. I do not think the 4-percentage point savings on the part of the employers will be an incentive to the employers to want to employ older workers if they do not need them in the first place. Employers employ any worker if he can contribute to the bottom line of their companies, regardless of his age. More importantly, I think to deliberately cut older workers' CPF, which is really their salary, is a wrong move. By doing so, the Government is sending the wrong signal to the business community. The Government is really telling the employers that it is all right to discriminate against older workers regardless of whether they can do the job. I also think that, from the legal point of view, this cut in salary is quite unconstitutional. Article 12 of the Constitution says that all persons are equal before the law. By cutting the CPF, the Government is making the law discriminate against older workers. I think the unions should look into this. The older workers do realise that in these difficult times, when they get retrenched, and if they are offered an alternative job, they will most probably be offered a lower pay. Most of these older workers accept that. However, with the cut in CPF, as pointed out yesterday, I believe, by Mr Sin Boon Ann, they shall suffer a double penalty. They will get a lower pay as well as their CPF will be taken away from them. Hon.”
“Sir, in view of the many properties in the market that are left unsold, would it be more rational not to add more new flats into the market? Probably, the Government can make sure that SERS programmes are carried out rationally so as not to add more property into the market.”
“Sir, I understand that 4-storey walk-up flats are also involved in this SERS programme. If these walk-up flats are pulled down, naturally high-rise buildings would be put up in their place. Would that not add to the glut in the property market if high-rise buildings are built in place of the walk-up flats?”
“Can I clarify with the Minister of State that for these functions, MPs have got no role to play with regard to the invitations? Mr Chan Soo Sen: MPs, as advisors to the grassroots organisations, do have a role to play in recommending grassroots leaders to be invited, but the final list is worked out by the People's Association before it is sent to the President's Office. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND BOARD (Madam Jenny Koh's claim) 11. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the CPF Board had made a mistake in rejecting Madam Jenny Koh's claim initially; (b) if so, has the Board apologised to her for causing so much distress at a time when she had to deal with the loss of her husband; and (c) what steps is the Ministry taking to prevent similar incidents from arising in future.”
“Sir, are the invitations sent out directly to the grassroots leaders or through the MPs?”
“Sir, in fact, I attended one of these National Day functions and was asked by a PAP MP. He said, "Chiam, what happened to your grassroots? Why aren't they here?" I want to ask the Minister of State whether or not PAP grassroots leaders are invited, other than the ones that he has mentioned.”
“My question is whether or not Opposition constituencies are discriminated, as libraries are not allowed to be built there.”
“Sir, I expected the answer. Again, it is a refusal. The refusal has been so consistent that I am beginning to wonder whether or not Opposition constituencies are discriminated against.”
“Sir, in these difficult times, is the Minister willing to waive the interest if the member consents to it?”
“I just want to seek some clarification from the Acting Minister. Just now, he said that the particulars of assets of the members of the CEC of the PAP are handed to the Prime Minister. If I am not mistaken, the PAP is a private political party, just like any other political party in Singapore. I believe also that Petir is a publication of a private organisation. It is not a Government publication. How is the law being complied with when it is required that all the CEC members must submit their assets to SBA, but in this case, it was submitted to the Prime Minister? Another clarification. When the details of assets are submitted to the Prime Minister, is it submitted to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, or is it submitted to the Prime Minister as the head of the PAP?”
“Madam, I have only one question for the Minister, and that is about the innovative kindergarten in Denmark. I read in the papers that a team from the Ministry of Education has visited Denmark and that they have also seen the innovative kindergartens there. I believe the members of that team have found that Denmark's innovative kindergartens have some relevance to Singapore at this point of time. Denmark, although a very small country with only five million people, slightly more than Singapore, has produced 11 Nobel Prize winners. That speaks a lot for the education system in Denmark. I think it is good for us to study the education system there. I certainly would like to know whether the Minister shall be introducing some of the important features of the innovative kindergartens that the Singapore team saw in Denmark. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.”
“I hope that at least this year, the Minister will say that he recognises that large class size is a problem in our schools and the Ministry shall start to look into this problem, rather than brushing it off year after year and hope that this problem shall go away. Unfortunately, it shall not go away unless the Ministry does something about it. 2.45 pm”
“Sir, this subject of class size is not a new issue. I have brought up this issue of class size many times in this House. As a former teacher, I know that it is impossible to teach effectively a class size of 40-44 pupils. I am certain the Minister is also aware of this. But, year after year, the Minister adamantly defends the huge class size that we have in our Government schools, except the independent schools where the average class size is much smaller, at about 25 pupils per class. 25 pupils per class is a good class size. But I am only asking for a reduction from the present average of 40 pupils per class to 30 pupils per class. This is a reasonable compromise between an educationally acceptable class size and the cost of building more schools and the problems of recruitment of more teachers. I believe that much of our problems of low education amongst a large section of our workforce can be traced to our large class size that is still found in our schools. Despite rigorous streaming in our schools, there are still sizeable dropouts from our schools at the Primary 6 and the lower secondary school levels. These children normally come from non-English speaking homes. The English language is a foreign language to them and, due mainly to lack of family support, they just cannot cope with the English language, neither can the teachers in the schools help them because of the large class size. The teachers do not have the time in such a class size to give more individual attention to the slower pupils in the class. They, therefore, year after year, fail badly in their English language tests and other subjects. In fact, English language to these pupils has never really taken root. They will join the pool of dropouts in our schools.”
“I have one more suggestion. I wish that the park-and-ride idea be revived as land costs are high. The Government can construct high-rise parking lots near MRT stations so that car owners need not drive into town. They can park their motor vehicles in those high-rise parks and ride the MRT or bus to town. In this way, traffic problems in town can be abated.”
“More ERP gantries shall be constructed, like those which have already gone up along Dunearn Road, the cost of HDB car park lots and car park lots outside HDB estates throughout the island shall be quickly increased. As far as I can see, car ownership in Singapore shall never be cheap. The Government has used motorcars as a phenomenal revenue source and it shall continue to exploit that source for revenue with more creative means. The Government has earned a lot of money from motorcars and I think the Government should plough back some of those revenues to the people in the following ways: Firstly, the Government should build bicycle lanes in all HDB housing estates so that residents there can safely cycle in their estates, whether to go shopping or to visit community centres, or whether to go for a swim, visit friends or whatever. The people in other countries like Denmark and Holland use the humble bicycle extensively as a mode of travel. When costs of motorcars remain so prohibitively high and beyond the reach of the ordinary HDB heartlanders, I am sure that the construction of safe bicycle lanes shall be gladly welcomed by the people there. I hope the Government shall look into the possibility of constructing safe bicycle lanes in all HDB housing estates. 3.45 pm The second suggestion I would like to make is the Government should persuade bus companies to use low-capacity buses to ply in private housing estates to pick up passengers to bring them to bus-stands or to the nearest MRT stations.”
“The Government uses two ways to control congestion on our roads. One is the control of car population, and the other is to control their usage. We have heard that the Government is switching its emphasis of car control from that of ownership to that of car usage. I believe that whatever method the Government uses, the car population in Singapore shall be at a fairly high level because motorcars are a good source of revenue for the Government. Almost everyone in this House, I would say, drives a car and we all know that our roads are not entirely congestion-free. In fact, there are perpetual traffic jams in certain of our roads. Prominent examples that come to mind readily are the CTE towards Braddell Road and at Toa Payoh PIE and Upper Serangoon Road. I must say that the quota system, imposed by the Government, supposedly to control car congestion on our roads, to me, is more a system for collecting revenue than the control of traffic. Under the so-called quota system, the cost of motorcars in Singapore has escalated to levels where the costs of motorcars in our country are the highest in the world. The Government does not seem to be unduly concerned or worried of the high car prices in Singapore. Why should it? High car prices are good business for the Government. The prices of COE shall be higher when the car prices are high and the Government can rake in more money. The Government intends to reduce taxes on motorcars. I say to car owners, "Do not be too elated", for this reduction of revenue, most likely, shall be made good by the increases in revenue from car usage.”
“" Then I quote again, "These people who do not have a complete understanding of the problems at hand want the Government to stop the supply of water and take confrontational action." It was further reported in that newspaper that, "It was an open secret that if Malaysia cut off the water supply to the Republic, Singapore would use its airforce to attack Johor, try and wrest control of the water treatment plants and occupy that state." These are very dangerous words - going to war between the two countries. What must we do? I would suggest that if Singapore is able to take the initiative to form a committee with representatives from both countries and all questions of relations between Singapore and Malaysia be brought to this Committee and not dealt with by the press. In any event, Sir, such words or talk between Singapore and Malaysia going to war must be stopped.”