Chin Harn Tong
Singapore
“Singaporeans expect the Ministry to ensure the machines such as cranes and gondolas are properly maintained and operated. Presumably, they are imported for use here only if they are suitable for the purpose.”
“If some employers are too shortsighted to see beyond their pockets, the Ministry should be more active and energetic in rectifying their vision. Practically, every PAP MP in this House, at one time or other, has spoken or written about Singapore's people as being its most important asset.”
“This reluctance is understandable when viewed in relation to the Government's refusal to subsidise commercial activities. However, while the bus companies are private sector companies, the Government has also indicated an intention of privatising the operator of the MRT.”
“I would suggest that the Government consider setting up an Employment Arbitration Court to deal with matters which are now left to the discretion of the Minister and the Commissioner for Labour, and allow individual workers to refer their complaints to the Employment Arbitration Court.”
“In order to be fair to Dr Soin and to be fair to the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I move that Parliament do postpone the debate on this Bill until the Government has introduced the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and we could debate the two Bills together during the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill.”
“For that matter, our Government should channel the water conservation tax into water research and not the general revenue. Even if the levy imposed on consumers using more than 20 cubic metres of water a month does not yield much, the fact that our Government finances water research will serve to underline the seriousness of our water sit…”
The complete record
Every one of 268 lines we hold for Chin Harn Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“The answer is not entirely satisfactory. But since the Minister of State has got the message, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA 1500. Sir, developments in information technology seem to have swamped the Ministry of Communications officials. They seem to be unaware of the use or mis-use of facsimile transmission or they are not doing anything about it. A number of owners or operators have adjusted their facsimile machines to send messages without disclosing their fax numbers. Some advertisers are too ashamed to include their fax numbers in their junk mail which they regularly dump on other hapless owners or operators of the fax machines. However, there are others taking advantage of the ability to remain anonymous for their own nefarious purposes, by courtesy of the Ministry. These anonymous and nameless persons fax religious articles and messages that are bound to cause unrest and provoke resentment among the adherents of other faiths. Sir, we have a law against the purveyors of religious hatred. Yet the Ministry's officials seem to be unaware of the abuse or mis-use of the fax facility in this manner or are not doing anything about it. The Singapore Telecom has been marketing for some time an appliance which enables a recipient of a telephone call to know the source of the call. But unlike the ordinary telephone set, a fax machine enables the recipient of a fax message to know the source of the message without the need of an additional appliance. It should not be beyond the means of the Ministry to forbid and prevent owners or operators of fax machines from adjusting their fax machines to omit the fax numbers when sending out messages.”
“Sir, since the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given us the assurance that we are all safe, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Singaporeans expect the Ministry to ensure the machines such as cranes and gondolas are properly maintained and operated. Presumably, they are imported for use here only if they are suitable for the purpose. At the very least, the machinery should be inherently safe when it is used in accordance with the operating instructions of the manufacturers. If the machinery is inherently safe, then the fault for a mishap must lie with the operators in cutting corners at the expense of safety margin. The Ministry has a comprehensive set of laws and regulations to govern the operation of machines in factories and work sites, including cranes and gondolas. It is obvious that laws and regulations, however excellent and complete in themselves, are not sufficient to prevent abuses from arising in the operation of machines.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SH 1500. Sir, the Ministry of Labour is responsible for ensuring the safe use of machinery in factories, workshops and construction sites in Singapore. The Ministry's officials deserve the credit for keeping Singapore's workplaces safe for workers and other persons. But mishaps do still occur. Whenever I have to drive or walk past one of those towering cranes, I cannot help wondering if it would topple over and crash on top of workers toiling around it or other people passing by below. It is true the number of cranes on work sites toppling over is few and far between. But it is not merely a question of cranes toppling over. At other times, cranes have prematurely and unexpectedly released heavy loads in mid-air. Whenever a crane topples over or displays mechanical "butterfingers", it never fails to make an impact on the local mass media. However, this free publicity will not compensate for the loss of a family member, a friend, a limb or property because of a topsy-turvy crane. While I am on the subject of misfunctioning machinery, I may as well mention the gondolas suspended over the sides of high-rise buildings. They are used by workers when renovating or cleaning the exterior walls and windows. Occasionally, the cable supports for the gondolas may give way when they are not supposed to. If only one end of a gondola loses its support, the workers on the gondola have a hope, unless they have neglected to put on their safety straps. If the supports at both ends of the gondola give way, the workers will go plunging down with the gondola.”
“Even if the vast majority of retirees can meet this requirement in full, I am doubtful the Minimum Sum will yield a meaningful monthly income to the retirees without other sources of income. True, half a bowl of rice is more filling than a bowl of congee. However, with the value of money constantly being eroded, a given monthly income may support a comfortable living standard now but a barely tolerable living standard 10 years hence. Sir, the Ministry should consider alternative schemes to provide a living income for retirees. As our Government's policy is to promote and encourage home ownership, most, if not all, Singaporeans can be expected to own homes. Perhaps our financial institutions may be encouraged to popularise a scheme for home owners to mortgage their homes for a meaningful income until their death. Such a mortgage is commercially acceptable elsewhere. Children who want to inherit their parents' home have to support their parents in their old age. Appealing to the material self-interest of the children is likely to be more effective than threatening them with penal sanction under the Maintenance of Parents Act.”
“Sir, the Central Provident Fund scheme was first set up to ensure Singaporeans are not completely without any independent means of support in their old age. The CPF scheme has now been in operation for some four decades. With the passing of time, the CPF scheme has somewhat varied its objective. CPF savings are now used not solely to provide ready cash for CPF members in their retirement, but also, for example, to buy homes, to invest in shares and pay hospital bills. The CPF Minimum Sum scheme was thus introduced in 1987 to ensure CPF members do not commit their CPF savings entirely to other purposes without leaving enough cash for them to live on. This Minimum Sum scheme may be likened to a scheme within a scheme for retirement purposes. The scheme originally sought to ensure retiring CPF contributors do not withdraw all their savings but keep a minimum sum of $30,000 with the CPF Board or buy an annuity with this minimum sum. This is to enable the retirees to receive a monthly income not less than the amount fixed by the Minister. Retirees do not have to bother about the Minimum Sum requirement if they are prepared to pledge their homes. Now the Minimum Sum has been raised to $40,000 and is slated to increase by $5,000 yearly until it reaches $80,000 in the year 2003. The revised Minimum Sum scheme requires one-half of the Minimum Sum must be in cash. In other words, if the Minimum Sum is eventually $80,000, retirees must either keep $40,000 with the CPF Board or buy an annuity with this $40,000. Retirees must meet this requirement even if they are prepared to pledge their homes worth several times the sum of $80,000.”
“At the very least, the public should be fed some scraps of information to affirm the members of the committee are still meeting and talking with one another across the table.”
“Sir, some time back, the Ministry of Labour be set up a Tripartite Committee on Retirement Age. The Committee was set up with attendant fanfare and publicity. Since then, we are in the dark as to the progress the committee has made. Retirement age is a largely contentious issue. Whatever the Government's thinking on this issue, the employers and the workers have their own views. I would have expected at least some sparks to fly, even if no fireworks took place, when the committee began its deliberations. The absence of news on the committee's progress suggests two things to me. One is that the members representing the Government, the employers and the workers are in perfect harmony on the issue of retirement age and do not want to prejudice their deliberations by premature publicity. The other is that the members are so far apart in their views that the committee has not been able to come out with any meaningful press release. Of course, I accept the committee may have its own reasons for not wanting to share with others any information about itself. However, at the same time, the public is also entitled to some signs that the committee is still alive and ticking. Even a statement by the committee that its members have agreed to disagree will be a firm indication that the committee is not only alive but also active. Sir, despite Singapore's reputation for instant trees and prompt actions, I do not think we can really expect the committee to arrive at instant consensus on the issue of retirement age. Nevertheless, the Ministry should ensure that the committee does not treat the issue of retirement age as a matter wholly for the private consumption of its members.”
“Sir, I think Mr Chiam is happy with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“It stands to reason that the new owners of these stalls have to recoup their capital outlay from the patrons of their stalls. The stallholders do it by jacking up their prices outright or, if the competition is too strong, cutting down on the quality or quantity, or both quality and quantity, of their wares. The Ministry's response has been that market forces must prevail if consumers pick and choose carefully the food stalls to patronise. This is easier said than done. The scope for consumers to manoeuvre is less and less, as more and more food centres synchronise their prices. Sir, an apt illustration in point is the seasonal jacking up of prices of goods and services during Chinese New Year throughout Singapore. The only realistic option open to consumers is not to celebrate the festival. NTUC Fairprice was established to keep down the prices of rice, sugar and other basic commodities. NTUC Fairprice achieves this objective by making less profit than it could have made. I would have thought the Ministry would help to keep prices down by not privatising all the food centres. True, the Ministry would have to continue to bear the cost of administering the remaining food centres. But it would be easier for the Ministry to regulate prices in the remaining non-privatised food centres where the stallholders are renters rather than owners of their stalls.”
“Sir, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for ensuring, among other things, that the foodstuff we buy to eat and drink is not harmful to our health. That is why we have a law requiring packaged foodstuff to state the expiry date for fitness for consumption. However, I notice packaged preserved fruits do not have expiry date. There is no way of finding out whether the fruits are still fit for consumption without unwrapping the packaging. Some retailers are gracious enough to allow obviously stale products to be exchanged for more up-to-date products. But it would save the consumers a lot of frustration and inconvenience if the packaged products carry an expiry date in the first place. Sir, I also notice that some canned foodstuff, eg, abalone, do not state an expiry date. It is possible that abalone is an immortal food fit for the gods. But it is desirable that the manufacturers should clearly state, if not the lifespan, at least the age of the canned product. Consumers have the right to choose to buy or forgo a tin of foodstuff that is canned more than three years ago. Now, they cannot so decide, especially if the can is in a mint condition. I am well aware that most packaged foodstuff contains figures or legends which indicate to the manufacturers and the importers the date of manufacture. But these figures or legends are gibberish to consumers. What the consumers need is a simple, intelligible statement of the date of manufacture or expiry of the products. Sir, I have previously expressed my misgiving about the Ministry of the Environment's plan to privatise all food centres. My misgiving is based on my worry that food prices will spiral upwards as a result. Stalls in privatised food centres can be expected to change hands at ever higher prices.”
“Surely, it cannot be because the site is next to Parliament House that the Ministry's officials make sure the contractors carry out this practice. But it is an inescapable conclusion. Contractors in construction sites other than the one adjoining Parliament House seem to carry out in a most perfunctory manner this practice of cleaning the wheels or tracks of their vehicles before they leave the work sites. In some areas, the roads around work sites are perpetually covered by a thick layer of earth from the work sites. Sir, when there is no rain for a few days, passing vehicles on the roads whip up an unhealthy cloud of dust to plague pedestrians and the residents of houses and apartments lining the roads. After a rain shower, the pedestrians and residents have their cloths spattered and their footwear dirtied when crossing the muddy roads. Regardless of the volume of construction work going on in Singapore, it should not be beyond the means of the Ministry's officials to make the contractors ensure their trucks, tractors and other vehicles do not litter the roads with mud and earth on their way to and from the work sites.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500. Sir, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for, among other things, keeping our environment clean and attractive. To be fair, the Ministry has done quite a good job with our environment. However, there are odd lapses, which make for irritating eyesores here and there. Sir, a particular eyesore I have in mind is the trail of unsightly spatters of mud left behind on our roads by trucks, tractors and other vehicles going to or coming from the construction sites. Some may say this is the price of progress we have to pay. Therefore, we must suffer a bit of inconvenience from all the hustle and bustle of construction activities in Singapore. But I have reason to believe that the wheels of the construction industry can keep turning without the wheels of construction vehicles having to dirty our roads as they roll along. Not too long ago, it was the prime movers, not the wheels, of the bullock carts, which were the guilty parties. At least, the bullocks had the excuse of the unstoppable call of nature. What excuse can the owners or operators of the construction vehicles give, except the bottom line of profit? My point is that, with a bit of effort, contractors can ensure their vehicles do not transfer earth from the construction sites to our road system unnecessarily and gratuitously. Members of this House have seen for themselves how clean the roads around Parliament House are, despite having a busy construction site next door to us. This is because the contractors flush away the mud from the wheels or tracks of every vehicle before it leaves the site.”
“If some employers are too shortsighted to see beyond their pockets, the Ministry should be more active and energetic in rectifying their vision. Practically, every PAP MP in this House, at one time or other, has spoken or written about Singapore's people as being its most important asset. Our Government's policy has been to develop this asset through education and training. The training of workers has a direct and immediate bearing on Singapore's competitive edge. As the Ministry responsible for, among other things, Singapore's competitiveness in trade and industry, it is naturally expected of the Ministry to give some priority to the training of workers, particularly, by way of OJT courses.”
“Sir, many Members of this House have publicly spoken on the constant need for Singapore workers to gain new skills, or upgrade their skills. But few, if any, Members have spoken about the difficulties faced by workers in getting up to date qualifications in order that Singapore may keep its competitive edge over other countries. With changes in technology taking place apace, new or upgraded skills quickly become obsolete. Sir, whether or not paper qualifications mean the same thing as skills is a moot point. Unfortunately, in our present system, proof of skill level attained is contained in a piece of paper. But to revalidate qualifications or update skills takes time and money. Most holders of paper qualifications work for a living. Professionals, managers and executives may find it difficult to take extensive time off to obtain better or higher qualifications. It would be more difficult for the less well-paid workers. Sir, I understand not many employers in Singapore have on-the-job training (OJT) schemes for their workers. About only two out of every five employers have these OJT schemes, if I am not wrong. The lack of enthusiasm among employers is disappointing as well as hard to understand. If workers regularly update their skills, in pace with technological advances, not only the workers but also the employers stand to benefit. Sir, trade unions in Singapore have, much to their credit, understood the vital importance for workers always to upgrade their skills. Even union funds have been used to finance training courses for workers. Granted that these union-sponsored training courses are not all strictly relevant to the needs of the employers. The short answer to that comment is that the employers should sponsor OJT courses that are relevant to their own needs.”
“This reluctance is understandable when viewed in relation to the Government's refusal to subsidise commercial activities. However, while the bus companies are private sector companies, the Government has also indicated an intention of privatising the operator of the MRT. As the White Paper has shown, it would take many years and much capital for Singapore's MRT system to be as extensive and comprehensive as the corresponding systems in London, Paris and Tokyo, if Singapore so desires. Until such time as our MRT system can adequately serve the needs of Singapore, I think it is reasonable to expect the Government to do more to help make our system of scheduled bus services more attractive to Singaporeans On the whole, the Government has come out with a White Paper setting out a world class transport system, which I wholeheartedly endorse and support.”
“MRT commuters patronising a less viable line or section have to wait longer for trains, just as bus commuters using less profitable routes have to wait longer for buses. But these commuters should not have to pay dearer fares for less convenient services. The MRT, together with the proposed LRT, is the land transport system that is most suitable and most expensive for a compact urban area like Singapore. The Government has accepted that the overall cost of the capital-intensive MRT cannot be entirely downloaded on the commuters without making MRT fares exorbitantly expensive for the commuters. Perhaps the Minister may wish to consider a similar subsidy, but on a reduced scale, for the bus companies. Scheduled bus services, as a complement and as an alternative to the MRT, are the next most suitable form of land transport system in Singapore. If the bus companies do not have to worry about the inflation component when replacing buses, the lower operational cost will help to stabilise bus fares over a longer period for bus commuters. Companies offering scheduled bus services now do not pay COE, ALS and RPS. When the ERP comes into operation, the White Paper assures that these companies will have their taxes adjusted to ensure their combined payment of taxes and ERP charges will not exceed what they pay in taxes before the introduction of ERP. Taxi owners will not enjoy similar adjustment and private cars, needless to say, will bear the full brunt of the ERP. Sir, it is clear from the White Paper that the Government accepts that the scheduled bus services are a desirable land transport system but seems reluctant to extend to it public funding on the same basis as the MRT.”
“As the White Paper shows, a discussion of the cost of the MRT system should be logically focused on how to share the burden between the commuters as such and all taxpayers. With GST now a regular feature of our tax system, taxpayers must mean practically all Singaporeans. The question of one group of commuters being treated less favourably than others should not have arisen. Sir, I have no quarrel with the proposal in the White Paper on the funding of the MRT. The commuters pay for operational cost and replacement cost of operational assets and the Government picking up the tab on behalf of all taxpayers the construction cost and historical inflation cost. There should be no question of different rates of fares for different lines or sections of the MRT. Bus companies in Singapore apply the same fare structure to all their bus routes. These bus companies are not allowed to charge higher fares for routes with fewer passengers or routes with newer buses, even though these routes give lower profit margin. Otherwise, the situation would have been as ridiculous and absurd as in a country with a galloping inflation by the minute, where one diner has to pay double what another pays for a similar meal at the same restaurant, merely because the former has been served a few minutes later through no fault of his. Scheduled bus services are one system of public transport. The companies which provide these services have to operate less profitable or unprofitable routes without extra cost to the bus commuters, so long as the companies' overall operation is profitable. Similarly, MRT fares should be priced on the overall viability of the MRT system and not differentiated according to the viability of individual line or section.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" in Singapore. It is a policy paper with an inspiring and breath-taking vision. Needless to say, comprehensive and in-depth studies have gone into shaping this vision of the kind of quality land transport system Singapore can hope to have in the years to come. However, what I am interested in is how this vision will be translated into our land transport policy. Or more importantly, how the proposed land transport system in the White Paper will affect Singaporeans in their pockets. The first two paragraphs in the chapter on "Financing Framework" at page 58 of the White Paper are rather illuminating. It would appear the uproar some time back over the probability of commuters having to pay more to travel on the proposed North-East line has been much ado about nothing. While commuters pay directly towards the cost of operating the MRT, all Singaporeans, including the commuters, as taxpayers, ultimately and indirectly pay the remaining cost of constructing as well as operating the MRT. I do not know how the discussion on the proposed North-East line was hijacked into a debate on whether or not commuters residing in the north-east corridor should pay more for the privilege of riding on the MRT than the other MRT commuters. Every new line or extension of the present MRT system is meant to serve all MRT commuters. If it is made relatively dearer to use the new line or extension, then the forecast of fewer commuters using the new line or extension becomes self-fulfilling. The whole purpose of having the MRT is to induce as many Singaporeans as possible to use the MRT as a system.”
“My Ministry is, in fact, studying this to see how we can move from a flat fee system to a system where those who generate more waste bear the responsibility for paying a higher cost for that greater amount of waste to be managed and treated. This may include a charging and rebate system for town councils and a paid bag system for private housing. My Ministry is studying this and at the appropriate time we will put forward this proposal. On the subject of cost of waste management, I would also like to make a point that we have to charge the correct economic cost for waste disposal. Otherwise, that will be tantamount to subsidising waste generation. If we charge too low for waste disposal, what it actually means is that it costs you very little to throw something away. In fact, this might well encourage people to throw more things away which they might otherwise re-use or re-cycle. So it is important to charge the appropriate economic cost for waste disposal, otherwise we will be inadvertently subsidising waste disposal and disadvantaging those who are setting up recycling plants or those who are carrying out waste minimisation efforts. 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. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. DEPARTMENTAL TITLES (Motion)”
“So we cannot afford this sort of thing to happen in this service. The other matter is about charging according to the quantities collected. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: My apologies to Dr John Chen for not having addressed these two issues. Sir, today 47% of the solid waste generated in Singapore is collected by private operators. I think Members may not be aware of this. My Ministry collects 53% of the solid waste generated and this comes mainly from domestic and trade premises. Private collectors collect 47% of the solid waste generated from industrial and commercial premises. So there are already private operators who have the skill and ability to operate at quite a large scale. We have the confidence that given two or three years' lead time these larger private collectors in particular would be able to gear themselves up to provide the service. Because there are quite a number of large private collectors, we believe that when we do open this up for competition and privatise it, there will be sufficient alternatives available in the event that a private collector is unable to provide the level of service required or he defaults. We will also provide sufficient guidelines, measurement of quality, service standards and so forth when we put up the operation for tender. Dr John Chen has raised a very valid point, which is collecting by volume. This is something which my Ministry fully supports. Today, we charge a flat fee for collecting refuse from households and apartments - $20 per month for households and $8 per month for apartments regardless of the volume of refuse that is generated. What Dr John Chen has proposed is a good idea.”
“Mr Chin was also concerned about different charges being levied on households which may be in shouting distance of each other, as he put it. Yes, when competition is introduced in 1999 or the year 2000, the possibility will arise that different areas adjacent to each other may well be charged slightly different rates. But we do not expect that there will be wide variations. For example, town councils today have differential rates for service and conservancy charges but they do not vary very widely. The key point is that if the rates are different, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Because the competitive pressures will help to keep the cost down. It will allow us to select the most cost-effective, the most cost-efficient, operator to provide the service. Mr Chin also expressed some concern about nightsoil collection. The reason for deleting this from the Act is that my Ministry has stopped collecting nightsoil since the mid-80s. We stopped when the service was terminated. We did so, I am told, with some fanfare. There was a small ceremony and the last bucket is on display in my Ministry. Members are welcome to inspect it if they wish. Basically, we are no longer providing the service. The provisions in the Act are no longer necessary. And those who provide portable toilets on the Padang and elsewhere provide a total service, and that includes bringing the waste to the proper treatment facility. So there is no longer any requirement for this provision in the Act. Sir, I believe I have answered the main points that have been brought up by both Dr Chen and Mr Chin. Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, the Minister has not addressed my concern about the possibility of private refuse collectors defaulting. It is a distinct possibility and we see it happening in other industries.”
“Dr Chen also asked about empowering residents to enforce anti-littering laws. I would encourage residents to take an interest in the cleanliness of their neighbourhoods and to advise those who are living there and who continue to litter to stop doing so. But my Ministry will have to look very carefully before we go on a widespread scheme of empowering residents to enforce anti-littering laws, and this is something which I think we will do rather slowly. We will do it step by step. We will empower those who are already in some position of authority, eg, bus drivers, conductors and ticket inspectors. Mr Chin Harn Tong raised a concern on the same subject about how the driver of a one-man operated bus can be expected to enforce the anti-littering laws. Sir, I would expect that the bus drivers must continue to concentrate on their primary duty which is to drive the bus safely. However, the fact that the bus driver can book a littering offender will be a strong deterrent for anyone who thinks about littering in a bus. And I am sure that the bus driver will have no difficulty in picking out blatant cases of littering and this alone will help to reduce the amount of littering in buses. We cannot, of course, expect a complete solution. Mr Chin Harn Tong also raised some concerns about licence fees which may be charged to those companies which bid for waste management. I can assure Mr Chin that we will consider his proposals. His concerns are valid ones. And when we devise the scheme, we will make sure that we do not load unnecessary extra costs into the system. We are going to corporatise my Ministry's solid waste management department in 1996 and we will take about three years to work through the system before we go for open competition.”
“2 billion, this site will last us perhaps 30-40 years if we keep the waste low but it still has to be paid for. At the rate at which we continue to increase the amount of waste being generated in Singapore, we will also have to build one new incinerator plant in approximately every five years. An incinerator plant to deal with 3,000 tonnes of rubbish per day costs about $1 billion to build. Currently, we are operating three plants which are slightly smaller in scale but we will soon be investing in our fourth plant. So costs like these have to be covered when we are talking about managing solid waste and costs will rise if we do not minimise the waste and if we do not carry out waste management efficiently. Corporatisation will help us to do this efficiently. Competition will give the extra edge, the extra pressure, to keep costs low. Dr John Chen also raised the question of mechanisation for collecting solid waste. We have done this. In our new public housing estates, for example, there are centralised refuse chutes and we no longer require workers to take the refuse from the refuse chutes to the central bin centres. In fact, what happens now is that my Ministry's collection vehicles can drive right to the central refuse chutes and there is an automatic transfer from the central refuse chutes to the waste collection vehicles. And this has helped to reduce the amount of manpower. We will continue to explore other such possibilities. But, of course, we also need public cooperation, especially in the private housing estates, the landed properties, where if each household does a little bit more to help either package or place the waste in a convenient way, it will help my Ministry's public service workers to collect the waste more quickly and more efficiently.”
“RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank Dr John Chen and Mr Chin Harn Tong for the great interest they have shown on this subject, in particular, specific aspects of the subject which I did not expect would attract so much interest. Both Dr John Chen and Mr Chin have expressed concern about costs and whether there are subsidies in the system today, and whether corporatisation will result in an increase in costs. Currently, my Ministry charges rates which are sufficient to cover our operating cost and the capital cost based on the Government's system of accounting. So I do not expect that as a result of corporatisation alone that costs will rise. But I would like to bring to the attention of this House that costs for managing solid waste will be expected to rise in the future for a number of reasons. The first reason is simply that households are generating more waste year by year and therefore the cost of disposing and collecting this waste from each household can be expected to increase. Secondly, the cost of managing the waste will increase. There are basically two components. One is the operating cost and the other is the infrastructural cost. The operating cost depends very critically on the availability of manpower and how much we have to pay for labour. And this, as Members know, is in short supply in Singapore and is becoming more expensive. The second aspect is the infrastructural cost. Members are aware that we are building in Pulau Semakau an offshore landfill and this will incur a cost of $1.2 billion to be spent over the next five years. This will replace the current landfill site in Lorong Halus which is being priced on an historical basis. For $1.”
“I do not think the Government intends to throw the law book at these toddlers even before they know how to read it. Ticket inspectors are random birds of passage on buses. Sir, my point is that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for bus drivers to prevent littering. It would be scary if the bus drivers are to keep one eye on the road and the other eye on the passengers behind them all the time they are driving. Even assuming some bus drivers have superhuman vision to see through the peak-hour crush of passengers and catch a passenger littering in their bus, what are the drivers to do about it? Bring the bus to an emergency stop wherever it is, and quickly rush to the back of the bus to apprehend the culprit? Or drive the bus with all the passengers to the nearest neighbourhood police post? Sir, I am not being negative or frivolous about this particular amendment. I know littering is a perennial problem, as the other Members in this House can vouch from their own town council experience. But I do not think an impractical solution will help to deal with the problem. It may be more effective, though costly, to employ more professional litterbug-catchers. It may also be more effective, if administratively inconvenient, to make the Corrective Work Orders fit the crime, eg, by making litterbugs in buses clean the buses during the graveyard shift in bus depots. Alternatively, the convicted litterbugs may be made to sweep bus terminuses or bus stops at peak periods. Sir, other than the comments I have just made, I am in favour of the Bill.”
“In the light of the recent Government statement that the public must pay a realistic price for the services they use, householders will most likely pay different rates of charges for refuse collection services, depending on where they live. When two householders occupying comparable premises within a shouting distance of each other may have to pay different rates for the same services, it would be an anomalous, if not invidious, situation. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill delete the reference to "nightsoil" in the principal Act. I am not sure how this deletion affects the portable toilets that are conveniently available at the Padang during National Day parades, Chinese funeral wakes and other outdoor functions. I am sure these portable toilets must from time to time contain a bit of nightsoil. I am also equally sure that the Government does not intend to let this occasional bit of nightsoil be transported about without any control. Regardless of whatever statutory provision governs these portable toilets, my point is that the explanation given for the repeal of section 13 of the Act, ie, "nightsoil collection is no longer carried out", completely ignores the importunate call of nature. Sir, another provision of the Bill, ie, clause 17 amending section 110A of the Act, also needs to be clarified, as far as I am concerned. The intention to empower an operator of a public service vehicle to enforce the law against littering is commendable. But I am not too sure how this commendable operator is expected to enforce the law? "Operator" here must usually mean the driver, as practically all public service buses are operated by drivers alone. Buses with conductors normally ferry kindergarten school children.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. The focus of the Bill is on the preparation for the privatisation of waste and refuse collection and disposal services. I suppose privatisation is an inevitable trend. My concern is that householders may have to pay needlessly more for their rubbish to be collected. It is clear from the Bill that the Government has no intention of corporatising the Environmental Public Health Division in the Ministry. Clauses 3, 9 and 13 of the Bill envisage a more likely situation of a number of private waste collectors taking over the Ministry's waste and refuse collection and disposal services. Sir, my concern is that the private waste collectors would incur an extra cost that the Ministry presently does not bear in rendering the same services. The proposed new section 23(4) in clause 9 and the proposed new section 31(5) in clause 13 state that the Ministry may impose a payment or payments on waste facility operators and waste collectors. If these payments are imposed and are substantial, the householders and other end-users of these services would be footing the bill. If these payments are extraneous, they seem to be a new form of indirect taxation. Clarification of the purpose of these payments is badly needed here. Another alarming feature of the Bill is that it does away with the present nation-wide scale of fees for waste collection or disposal. Under the proposed new section 23(3) and (5)(c) in clause 9 and the proposed new section 31(4) and (6)(d) in clause 13, the licensees may have to obtain their licences by public tender and will fix the fees payable by the end-users.”
“In order to be fair to Dr Soin and to be fair to the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I move that Parliament do postpone the debate on this Bill until the Government has introduced the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and we could debate the two Bills together during the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. (In English): Sir, I would like to move a motion.”
“I think if the victim in a family violence seeks help from the Police, there is no cause for criticism. However, if we legislate to allow any third party to give information to the Police upon which the Police must commence investigation and intervene in the matter, there will be serious sequelae. After Dr Soin has introduced this Bill, the Government also announced that it was going to amend the Women's Charter to offer more protection to the victims in family violence. The brief contents of the proposed amendments were announced in the newspapers only on 27th October 1995. The Acting Minister for Community Development said in a dialogue session that family violence was not a new issue and that the Government had been looking closely into this matter since 1993. Why is it that after looking into the matter for such a long time, the Government has not been able to legislate effectively? This is indeed most regrettable! Now I am unable to know the exact contents of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter, and I am not sure whether the amendments would incorporate all the details and provisions in the Family Violence Bill. I am also unable to determine whether the amended Women's Charter will be more effective in dealing with family violence matters than the present Family Violence Bill, especially clause 20(1) of this Bill which deals with how enforcement officers could better help victims in cases of family violence. Will the amended Women's Charter make it easier for victims of family violence to lodge a complaint? Or will it be just giving the victims some false hope and feeding them on illusions?”
“In legislating, we have to take into consideration the legal procedure and the appropriateness of the unit responsible for enforcement of the law. The Workers' Party supports the principle and spirit of the Family Violence Bill, but with regard to the contents of the Bill, we are unable to accept the following provisions: First, clause 13 of the Bill provides that upon receipt of a complaint of family violence, the Police can arrest the abuser without having first to obtain a warrant of arrest from the court. We agree that the Police can interfere in a case of family violence, but only at an appropriate time. It will not be prudent for us to legislate in such a way as to allow the Police to arrest the party concerned without a warrant of arrest. Besides, when a family dispute becomes very heated, it would require someone who is very mature and experienced to deal with it. So, who shall be the best person to handle such a situation? Do not forget that nowadays a lot of policemen are young national servicemen. Do they have enough experience and a sense of judgment to interfere in a case of family violence and not to make things worse? Second, clause 19 of the Bill provides that anyone who has reason to believe that family violence is being or has been committed may give information with respect thereof to the police. Upon receipt of the information, the Police will have to investigate into and intervene in the matter. This provision can easily be abused. When someone gives information, the Police starts its investigation, and may make a wrong decision and even decide to arrest a certain member of the family. Then a simple dispute in a family may escalate into serious trouble just because someone informs the Police, resulting in the breaking up of the family.”
“You have to pull down the whole building and rebuild, if you want some more rooms, like what you see is going on in the private housing estates. Although not a betting man, I would prefer to put my money on the Women's Charter as the Act with a scope for future expansion. Taking the liberty of reading between the lines of the Ministerial statement on the Women's Charter, I like to believe that there would be further amendments to the Women's Charter. One amendment I like to see is that the Women's Charter includes provisions on Muslim marriage, divorce and maintenance. Another amendment I like to see is the incorporation of the Maintenance of Parents Bill into the Women's Charter. But one amendment I particularly like to see is the renaming of the Women's Charter to reflect the increasingly bisexual character of its provisions. Sir, a change in the name of the Women's Charter seems to me inevitable if the Act is to be amended also to regulate family violence and, possibly, maintenance of parents, regardless of sex. However, the main thing is that there should be some legislation to regulate family violence and related matters, be it Women's Charter, Hen-pecked Husbands' Charter or whatever other name. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we believe that anyone who uses violence in the family should be punished. Therefore, the Workers' Party supports legislating to protect the weaker members in the family. At the same time, we feel that family violence concerns not just violence, but also the individual character and personality of the members of the family as well as the complicated aspects of human relationship.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to comment on the Family Violence Bill. I think Dr Kanwaljit Soin must be commended for bringing up to the attention of this House a matter which seems not to have been covered in our laws. On her own initiative and with her own resources, she has prepared a Bill for this House to consider. Now the ball is at our feet, so to speak. When the Bill was first moved, I believe there was some reaction against legislating on family violence. This objection is based on the ground that family violence is not all that common in Singapore. As the Acting Minister for Community Development has confirmed his intention to amend the Women's Charter to reflect the tenor of the Bill, there should be no more argument about the need to regulate family violence. The question before this House is the actual form of legislation to be adopted - making a new Act or enlarging an existing Act. The Minister has given his cogent reasons for the Members here to believe that his proposed amendments to the Women's Charter will serve the desired purpose. Sir, I myself favour the proposed amendment of the Women's Charter because this Act is meant to serve as a framework for the protection of women and children. As such, the Women's Charter can serve as a basis for future consolidation of legislation on related matters. Though the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter do not contain all the provisions of the Family Violence Bill, I support the amendments on a longer term view. I see the Women's Charter as a building with a strong foundation and a strong framework to permit more storeys to be added on later. The Family Violence Bill or, for that matter, the Maintenance of Parents Bill, is like a structure that is designed to be a single-storey or double-storey building.”
“I would suggest that the Government consider setting up an Employment Arbitration Court to deal with matters which are now left to the discretion of the Minister and the Commissioner for Labour, and allow individual workers to refer their complaints to the Employment Arbitration Court. At the same time, the parties shall not be allowed to engage lawyers for the arbitration proceedings. Although some provisions are made in this Amendment Bill to clarify the existing Employment Act, a number of provisions in this Bill can actually do more harm than good. I do not support the Bill.”
“More seriously, this provision deprives the female worker who has been unreasonably dismissed of her legal rights. I am against this provision. Clause 12 of the Bill states that if an employee volunteers to work on a rest day and if the number of hours worked is not more than half the number of working hours in a normal working day, then the employer needs to pay only half a day's basic salary to the worker. If he works more than half the number of working hours in a normal working day, then the employer will pay one full day's basic salary. Although there is a similar provision in the existing Employment Act, I understand that the practice is such that when a worker works on a rest day, he is paid double that of the normal rate of pay. Why should we make provision in this Amendment Bill that in certain circumstances, the employee cannot enjoy double pay when working on his rest day? I would like to ask the Minister when this provision will apply whereby an employee who works on a rest day is not entitled to double pay. Will this be abused by employers to exploit the employees and is it really necessary to have such a provision? Mr Speaker, Sir, although this amendment has raised the salary ceiling of coverage from $1,250 to $1,600, a worker whose salary exceeds $1,600 will have no avenue of recourse if he is unreasonably dismissed, or is dismissed without appropriate compensation under the Employment Act. Although he can instruct a lawyer to sue his employer in court, the legal cost may well exceed what he can claim from his employer. As such, he will have to settle the matter by leaving it unsettled. So for those people whose salary is neither too high nor too low, it is very unfair.”
“As clause 43 of the Bill enables allowances to continue to be paid, if they have been so negotiated, even if contrary to the Bill, an anomalous situation may arise in future. Two workers doing identically the same kind of work in the same kind of circumstances may have different rates of pay. One may enjoy a statutory rate and another a negotiated rate. Instead of a single "rate of pay", we now have a "basic rate of pay", a "gross rate of pay" and a "negotiated rate of pay". It will be difficult, if not impossible, to talk about the rate of pay in a particular company or industry because the Employment Act in future will not even define "rate of pay" without qualification. However, other than the two negative features I have pointed out, I think the Employment (Amendment) Bill is a timely piece of legislation. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 28 of this Amendment Bill empowers the Minister to order the employer to re-employ those female workers who were unreasonably dismissed just before they were due to deliver their babies. This is a protection for the married career women. However, the Bill also stipulates that the Minister's decision on such matter shall be final, and the female workers who were unreasonably dismissed will not have legal recourse against their employers irrespective of how much hardship they have suffered. Clause 28(5) even went to the extent of stating that so long as the Minister ruled that the female worker had been unreasonably dismissed and ordered that the employer should take her back, it would amount to depriving the said worker of her right to sue the employer for damages in court. I really do not know whether this provision is meant to protect the employee or the employer!”
“Granted that the expressions "rate of pay" and "ordinary rate of pay" have given rise to rather unbreakable bones of contention between employers and trade unions, the underlying cause of the disputes may not lie in the expressions themselves. The attitude of the parties to the disputes may be also a factor. Whatever the reasons for the disputes, I think the introduction of a basic rate and a gross rate may serve to muddy further the water of industrial relations. The difference between the two rates seems to be that the gross rate includes all allowances other than travelling, food or housing allowances while the basic rate excludes all allowances. I should have thought the expression "rate of pay" is meant to be an objective definition for the guidance of persons affected by the Employment Act. Sir, in the same way, a "speed limit" is meant as a guidance for road users. Just imagine the utter confusion on the road if there is a basic speed limit for economy cars and a gross speed limit for petrol-guzzlers. Of course, the comparison is not quite appropriate. My point is that the Ministry of Labour may be tackling the problem from the wrong end. As I see it, the problem of deciding which of the allowances to be included in the rate of pay for work at different times or days cannot be settled through friendly negotiations. This is understandable, as even spouses cannot always see eye to eye. Therefore, legislation has to be invoked to cut through the tangle. I should have thought it would have been more logical to spell out the circumstances when and what allowances are payable, without changing the "rate of pay".”
“It may seem reasonable to let market forces prevail as the employer and the worker or his union should know what terms of service are best in their own mutual interest. One problem is that a transferred worker may be particularly vulnerable at the time of transfer of employment. Even with full employment, a worker in his 40s or 50s and having skills or experience no longer in demand in other places of work will definitely not be mobile enough to be able to bargain. Faced with the prospect of premature retirement when he has many years of active working life left in him, a worker may have to knuckle down to the new employer's offer of inferior terms of service. True, no one physically compels the worker to accept the unfavourable terms of service, except the impersonal coercion of market forces. I am very much concerned that the new section 18A(12) may serve as a backdoor for an employer wanting to cut his workers' pay and other benefits. The employer only has to transfer his business from one company to another company. It is a ploy that has been used, is being used, and will continue to be used. It would be preferable if the new section 18A(12) has been couched in a more positive form, as in clause 19 of the Bill, where the amended section 53(3) provides for employers and workers to agree to more favourable terms of service relating to leave. It is one of the few negative features in an otherwise commendable Bill. One other negative feature I will touch upon is the splitting of the "rate of pay" into "basic rate of pay" and "gross rate of pay".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Employment (Amendment) Bill, which is of interest to many Singaporeans besides the employers and the workers who are affected by it. The standards or principles enshrined in the Bill may be benchmarks for employment contracts outside the scope of the Employment Act. Sir, clause 6 of the Employment (Amendment) Bill dealing with the transfer of employment is, I think, good news for the workers as it brings along with it an overdue change of wind. The existing section 18 of the Employment Act was originally lifted out of context from some British legislation in 1968. Since then, the original British legislation has changed beyond recognition while our section 18 remains uncorrupted and undefiled by changes. Nonetheless, during these past 27 years, this section 18 does serve to some extent the purpose it must have been intended for. Section 18 is, if I may say so, a rather puzzling provision. It holds a lot of promise of protection for workers, but it falls short when it comes to actual delivery. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new section 18A which, in a manner of speaking, fits the formerly toothless section 18 with a brand new set of dentures. I should think these dentures will give workers a better bite on their terms of service during a transfer of employment, unless they meet with a very tough nut of an employer. I am very much concerned with the probable effect of the proposed subsection 12 of the new section 18A, which enables a new employer and a transferred worker or his trade union to agree to "different" terms of service. In this context, if I am not mistaken, "different" can mean either "more favourable" or "less favourable" than the terms of service enjoyed by the worker before the transfer.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For that matter, our Government should channel the water conservation tax into water research and not the general revenue. Even if the levy imposed on consumers using more than 20 cubic metres of water a month does not yield much, the fact that our Government finances water research will serve to underline the seriousness of our water situation. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the 1995 Budget.”
“The Mentri Besar of Johor seized the opportunity to reassure Singaporeans, since Johor is our main fresh water supplier at present. Sir, I do not doubt our Government has reason for being overly anxious that we use up more water than we really need to, as Singapore has very limited fresh water resources. Understandably, the public may be at first puzzled why the intention of our Government, as reflected in the Budget, does not match its vocal concern on the subject of water. The local press reported the Minister for Trade and Industry has now informed us that the desalination of sea water has been actively canvassed. I only wish an indication should have been given in the Budget of our Government's efforts to find alternative sources of fresh water. Our water supply is a matter that concerns the whole nation and not merely a statutory body. Singaporeans who have visited Hong Kong may be aware that one of its solutions to the problem of limited fresh water supply is to have separate plumbing systems for flushing toilets and for drinking, cooking and bathing purposes. By using sea water for flushing toilets, Hong Kong cuts down on the use of fresh water. Of course, an objection to the use of sea water for this purpose is that we in Singapore do not flush raw sewage into the sea and we recover the toilet-flushing water for industrial use. Undoubtedly, we have to do more research and study to find ways of cutting down on the use of potable water that are suitable in our circumstances. Our Government has set aside about $740 million for crediting the CPF accounts of eligible Singaporeans. I should think that, in the long-term interest of Singaporeans, setting aside another sum of money for water research would be very much in order.”
“We have always prided ourselves on our guiding principle of self-help. We had plumped for a wholly contributory provident fund scheme rather than a fully or partly state-funded pension scheme. While our Singapore Government may pat itself on the back for avoiding a potentially fiscal nightmare, some Singaporeans see only a nightmarish future when they retire. Whether we like it or not, money loses some of its value over time. Our currency, fortunately, is relatively stable. Nonetheless, even a slow but steady rate of erosion of monetary value over several years must adversely affect those who are dependent on frozen incomes. People who are economically active have incomes, that is, profits or wages, that rise or are adjusted to compensate for the shrinking value of money. Retirees and others with frozen incomes have to tighten their belt. I know our Government has been urging Singaporeans to hedge against their retirement by wisely investing their CPF money. But it is easier said than done. The recent report by the CPF Board shows more CPF investors lose than gain by trying to increase their CPF savings. While the factors responsible for monetary depreciation are not all necessarily within the control of our Government, I hope our Government will be able to find a way of keeping up the progress of Singapore without unduly reducing the purchasing power of our currency. Otherwise, the future will be bleak for our senior citizens who will form an increasingly larger component of our population. Sir, this year's Budget similarly refers to our need to conserve the use of fresh water without touching upon a non-fiscal solution. Even before the Budget was announced, this need to save water has been publicly stressed and voiced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Minister for Finance's budgetary statement for 1995. As we have learned to expect from the Minister's past performances, he has expertly and deftly put together a package which manages to accommodate the competing and, sometimes, conflicting needs of different interest groups. The 1995 Budget was praised in the press as a far-sighted one. However, some businessmen seem to think the Budget would have been better with more tax cuts or tax breaks. Nevertheless, the message underlying this year's Budget is that Singapore prospers because we make it so. Implicit in this message is that the 1995 Budget is meant to help all those who are economically active. As I see it, that is the rub of this year's Budget. The Budget is silent about the Singaporeans who are not gainfully employed and are not welfare recipients. When we glibly talk about the economic success of Singapore, we tend to forget that not all Singaporeans benefit from this economic success. This is because Singapore does not function like a giant lift. If it were so, we would be all in cloud nine, because when a lift rises upwards, all the persons would automatically rise up with it. Unfortunately, in real life, it would be apt to liken Singapore to a nimbus-cumulus cloud or rain-storm cloud. As Singapore soars upwards on free market forces, the dynamic or enterprising Singaporeans will soar much higher than the rest of their fellow Singaporeans, while some hapless Singaporeans may even drop below the bottom of the cloud. Sir, I am not suggesting we give them golden parachutes like those the multi-national CEOs give themselves. Singaporeans have to find whatever handholds or safety straps they can to hang on for their dear life as Singapore rises even higher in the sky.”
“It may be necessary to provide for the periodic conduct of emergency drills, on the line of fire drills for high rise buildings, boat drills on passenger ships and life-jacket drills on commercial flights. A slight disruption to the production schedule of a factory will be justified by the workers gaining hands-on experience of dealing with an emergency situation, which may occur despite the provisions of this Bill and the principal Act. My third comment is that tightening the provisions of the principal Act will not by itself ensure a safe system of work. Factory owners and operators must apply these provisions not only to the letter but also in the spirit they have been made, that is, ensuring the safety of factory workers. Two events speak for themselves. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the fire and explosion at Sembawang Bethlehem Pte Ltd on 9th August 1994 showed that safety rules had not been observed. The Jurong Shipyard was recently fined the maximum of $25,000 for flouting the principal Act in a flash fire on board the British Adventure with a loss of ten lives on 8th February 1994.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Factories (Amendment) Bill, I must say, is a necessary piece of legislation as it ties up loose ends and simplifies administrative and enforcement procedures. For example, the ship-repair and related activities, which have been responsible for some bad accidents in recent years, are brought more squarely within the ambit of the principal Act. I am pleased to note that the Bill strengthens the provisions of the principal Act in protecting the life and limb of factory workers. For example, the Bill includes excessive noise as a hazard to be safeguarded against and relates the penalty for contravention of the Act to the severity of the consequences. However, I have three comments to make on the Bill. The first concerns clause 6 of the Bill which repeals and re-enacts section 14 of the principal Act dealing with ventilation. The underlying presumption of the proposed section 14 seems to be that the atmospheric air will be the source of fresh air. What will happen if this source is polluted by the haze we experienced during the months of July to October last year? I hope the Minister's reply is not that the proposed section 14(4) will come into play. The second concerns clause 21 which repeals and re-enacts section 58 on "First-aid" and clause 22 which repeals and re-enacts, among others, section 60 on "Toxic substances". These provisions are satisfactory in themselves except they are silent on the need to familiarise workers with the safety aspect of these provisions. First-aid facilities and handling directions for toxic substances by themselves may not enable workers to deal with an emergency arising from a spillage of toxic substances.”
“So I urge Members to think with their head and not with their heart in deciding where we stand vis-a-vis the Bill. I support the Bill. Still, with the interest and the concern generated, I would also support the motion that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee. 2.20 pm”
“I wholeheartedly agree with the view that education, upbringing, persuasion and social pressure are more desirable ways of inculcating feelings of love and filial piety for one's parents. And Government will certainly continue to do what it can to facilitate all this. And we will continue to promote family values. It is not as if with the passage of this Bill we just drop all tools and forget what we have to do for the family and for the aged. But despite all these, Sir, there will be children who neglect their obligation to maintain their parents even though they are well able to do so. Admittedly, the number is small. Will the problem grow? I hope not. But if it does, we will at least have another mechanism to deal with it. But it would certainly be unwise to wait and, to quote an MP who spoke yesterday, until the problem becomes "prevalent" or only when it becomes a "national problem" before we embark on such a legislation. We must remember that the proportion of the elderly in the population continues to increase, and despite what we do, I suspect that the children-do-not-ask-to-be-born syndrome and the one-should-be-able-to-choose-what-one-wants-to-do sentiment are likely to gain more followers in the future. Given these circumstances, there is therefore increased probability that the incidence of parent abandonment could rise in future if we are not careful. We must therefore be prepared. Yes, all this is an indictment of the state of our society. Yes, it means that our society is not perfect. The only consolation is that we are not alone in this predicament. Indeed, our condition is better than many societies when it comes to the value we place on the family and on family relationship.”
“Indeed, it is initiated by a Backbencher, and not even a PAP Backbencher at that. This view, I think, is mischievous for the unjustified pot shot it is taking at the Establishment and for the suggestion that it is Government's job to look after senior citizens whose children do not care to maintain them even when they are able to. Sir, this Government is concerned about the condition and the future of our aged. It has and will continue to look into measures that will increase the chance of our senior citizens to grow old gracefully, healthily and financially independent, for as long as possible. It will also continue to find ways to make the lives of the aged as enriching and fulfilling as possible. The destitute aged need not worry as the Government will do all it can to look after them. We will also assist those whose children, for one reason or another, are unable to care or maintain them. But it is wrong to expect Government to assume the responsibility of children to at least maintain their parents when they are able to do it, out of love, out of moral duty. Government will, in fact, only exacerbate the problem of abandoned parents should it relieve children of this responsibility. Sir, someone succinctly described our dilemma in dealing with this Bill when he said, "My head tells me this Bill is necessary, but my heart has difficulty in accepting it." There are obviously emotional barriers to the acceptance of this Bill, not least of which is the high regard most of us have for our families and our parents, such that it appals us to even think that such a law should be passed to force children to maintain their parents. It is an affront to the habits, to the values which most of us hold dear. It challenges what we wish our reality would be.”