Claire Chiang See Ngoh
Singapore
“I am anxious to move this motion on the Chinese challenge in this House because I feel that we cannot dismiss China any longer. If we can hurry up and ride on this economic train to China, we are closer to taking that small little bite in the huge economic pie and find the new pathways of livelihood and business route for Singaporeans.”
“This Bill has kick-started a central focus on safeguarding the welfare of children and responsibility of the family, which in a resource-scarce Singapore state and in view of our declining fertility rate matched against a rapidly ageing population, are significant social pillars in shaping our sustainability.”
“Sir, can I clarify three questions? I am still not convinced why this Bill cannot cover all women and all births. I am not satisfied with the answer. The Minister also said that this Bill precisely is not just about numbers. I wish he would clarify a little more on this statement.”
“I hope this is only the beginning of a process in shaping a child development and family policy in a gradual and comprehensive manner. In that defining process, I hope the governing principles are based on upholding the worth of the child and valuing the contribution of the mother, and that it is not a numbers exercise, whether in expecti…”
“Sir, I am sure those mothers who have more than four children want their children because they are loved and because they want the children. Who is to decide then whether those children are loved and wanted? And if the mothers say they are willing to have the fourth child, would the state not support her?”
“Streaming at an early age has been controversial for many years, but it has always been a sacred cow of the Education Ministry. If we are to start from first principles now and examine every aspect of our education system, I urge that we re-examine streaming and, at the very least, modify it substantially.”
The complete record
Every one of 275 lines we hold for Claire Chiang See Ngoh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“I am anxious to move this motion on the Chinese challenge in this House because I feel that we cannot dismiss China any longer. If we can hurry up and ride on this economic train to China, we are closer to taking that small little bite in the huge economic pie and find the new pathways of livelihood and business route for Singaporeans. If we do not hurry now and embark on this exploration, then we shall soon become irrelevant and by the time we realise our destiny, I think it will be too late. In facing this uncertain and economic landscape, we should all work together to have a single heartbeat and achieve our prosperity.”
“Now the Chinese, especially the young ones, are full of drive. They are responsible, they are hardworking and they can think and adapt to changes. They all want to change themselves, change their environment. With the liberalisation of the media, ideological changes are taking place in China and the young people in China are able to accept new ideas from outside China. All that I have mentioned just now should not be confined to the Chinese Singaporeans. As far as possible, we should also bring up our Indian and Malay compatriots as well, so that together we can go into the China market and take a ride together, so that we can do our best in the China market. With cooperation among the various ethnic groups, we can also achieve higher level objectives in other non-Chinese speaking territories, like the west, the Indian and Muslim worlds. The event on September 11 brought to us a traumatic turning point, reminding us once again of the importance of political stability and multi-ethnic harmony. This moment we must specially cherish in gratitude the prosperity which this government has provided for us in the last 36 years. With 36 years of arduous nation-building effort behind us, the Singapore national identity is beginning to take root. We can stand firm on our multi-cultural legacies, and by integrating the wisdom of the Asian cultures and the creativity of the western culture, we can shape the winners for this millennium. This process does not need to depend only on the State. Community agencies, including the business groups and organisations as well as clan associations, can all play a part in building the bridges in promoting Singapore and Chinese business development and cultural understanding.”
“A few years ago, I wrote Stepping Out, stories of our pioneers who came from China to seek for their livelihood in Singapore. This time round, we should be talking about Going Back. Our pioneers once said, "By stepping out, we will find a livelihood. Today, we must say, "Let's go back and find new ways." When my brother learnt that I was moving this motion in Parliament, he wrote me a letter and urged me to share his experience with this House. He said that when he first went to mainland China in 1989, he came across many difficulties, experienced many setbacks, and witnessed a lot of irrational happenings. However, he insisted on doing things the proper way, rather than going through the "backdoor". As a result, he commanded the respect of the local government and relevant authorities and received strong support from them. After many years of perseverance and hard work, through communication and understanding with the various quarters, everything seems to be smooth and ready for him now, and he has attained certain achievements in his endeavour. As such, he feels the best opportunity for our local SMEs is in China. They can use mainland China as the production base, and develop their products and receive orders in Singapore. However, he reminds would-be investors to China that China would not roll out its red carpet to receive the investors, but it would provide all kinds of facilities to them. Many foreign investors go into China but are unable to adapt to the Chinese environment and they often go in with prejudices. They also come to the wrong conclusion that they are just not compatible with the Chinese environment. He also said that many people, Singaporeans included, feel that the Chinese are lazy and incapable. I think this is all a misunderstanding.”
“I was told that many Singaporeans in China are incapable of reading Chinese documents and reports or taking notes in Chinese. Thirdly, I propose that we create a pro-Chinese economic strategy by starting first with our young persons. I hope the future generations of our students would be given more opportunities to take part in exchange programmes with foreign countries, including China. We must send students and teachers at all levels to visit China so that we should not be seen as being arrogant and harbouring the mindset of "we are better than you". I hope that in our Budget next year, we should have more funds allocated to enable more students and teachers to visit China. At the same time, I hope more resources can be poured into setting up Chinese-language Internet stations, to encourage those who are Internet users to also use the Chinese Internet stations to access the enormous virtual and real marketplace dominated by the Chinese language. Fourthly, we should form a special information resource department to enhance our understanding on doing business in China and assist Singapore businessmen overcome the initial anxiety in their venture into the Chinese market. Fifthly, we should compile case studies of earlier pioneers and investors in the Chinese market and hear their experiences and observations. As a Chinese saying goes, after we have done our homework, we are prepared and fear no consequences. By knowing the differences between China and ourselves, we are more able to win the battles. Upon knowing the differences, we have to learn the ways to manage them - this becomes a required lesson that must be learnt before anyone marches on to China.”
“It is time for the Ministers to take the lead through various activities such as singing, speaking and other activities. I notice that in this House, the vast majority of speeches are made in English. Outside this House, we are talking about bilingualism. Why is it that inside this House, we are not practising bilingualism? We must have people on the top take the lead in practising bilingualism in this House. As the Chinese saying goes, "if people in power champion a cause, there will be many followers indeed." I am not playing up Chinese chauvinism by stressing the importance of the Chinese language. I am English-educated. But since young, I have not abandoned my interest in reading and studying Chinese and have never found it to have in any way diluted my sense of being a multi-cultural Singaporean, or my relationship with the other ethnic groups. When you are facing the economic reality of a huge market of 1.3 billion people in China, we have to come to grips with the destiny and work harder at the Chinese language. When addressing the gathering of World Chinese entrepreneurs in Nanjing recently, the Chinese Premier Zhu Rong Zi said, "To help develop the Chinese economy, we need professionals in all sectors, specialists who thoroughly understand the working of the international market, and who also understand the traditional culture of China." (Lianhe Zaobao, September 20). His pronouncements are worth our serious scrutiny and reflection. Secondly, I propose that we set up a professional translation bureau to provide batches of translators and interpreters equipped with the different language competence to assist the business community in successfully managing business discussions.”
“Even though language is not an absolute barrier against investment opportunity in China, it is nevertheless an important bridging factor in relationship- building. Because Chinese is one of the five official languages of the United Nations, it is incumbent on us to make it a policy to improve our standard and ability to speak Chinese internationally so that we can compete internationally. For example, when Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee went to China, he was able to cite Chinese poems from the Tang Dynasty, and it left an excellent impression on the officials and people of China. We should be able to establish better understanding and communication with the Chinese using the Chinese language which is our mother tongue. If we are clear about this need, is it time now to revitalise our search for cultural roots, seriously review and reform our bilingual strategy, and have a comprehensive overhaul of our bilingual policy? There is a famous Chinese saying to the effect that for a workman to do his work well, he must first sharpen his tools. In the last few years, the political, business and worker sectors had worked in partnership to search for new economic measures. I would like to propose five measures, which are not strictly economic in nature, which in the short-run are immediately implementable, and in the long-run, form the foundation prerequisites in coping with the continuing Chinese economic challenge. I would urge our Ministers and senior civil servants to speak in Mandarin when interviewed by the Chinese media, particularly when it is to be telecast over the Chinese-language television channels. All along, the promotion of Mandarin in the Speak Mandarin campaigns has been focused on the private sector.”
“The new generation of Singaporeans are not familiar with the background, culture, history, law and systems of China. At the operation level, China first entered a business relationship on the basis of human sentiments, followed by reason, then secured by laws. Singaporeans are the exact opposite. Recently, a young reader was reported in the newspaper to have openly expressed contempt of China and denied his own cultural identity. This shows that a segment of our young people are short-sighted in perspective. This incident led to another question which was subsequently raised by many: Will the following generations of Chinese in Singapore become culturally "rootless" in their total acceptance of western influence? If this might have been the result of coping with political, economic and ethnic forces beyond the control of the government and any racial group, then how can this destiny help us now to identify a group of entrepreneurs willing and daring to break into the China market? We have been promoting bilingualism in Singapore. Yet, our standard of Chinese is way below that in Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan. This is evident from the poor performance of our students in the inter-varsity debates and essay-writing contests held recently. Under our present education system, Chinese is only a second language and it has not been given adequate emphasis. Our students study Chinese just to pass the examination, and once the examination is over, they simply discard the little Chinese that they have studied. As a result, our students are not able to read newspapers and magazines and it explains why the standard of Chinese among our students is low.”
“An article appearing on the 20th of August issue of the Yazhou Zhoukan (Chinese version of Asiaweek) ended with this conclusion: "The fast and continuing growth of China's economy will change the economic structure of Asia, and end the era dominated by the four dragons and conclude the leadership roles played by America and Japan in directing the economy of Asia." In other words, China has now become the new leader in the economic fast train in Asia and will affect the growth and prosperity of the region in definite ways. In view of these trends, our top leadership, including Ministers, senior civil servants and business leaders had led many delegations to China to explore new opportunities. The Minister for Trade and Industry, BG George Yeo also made a call to Singaporeans to hurry up and join the ride on this fast-tracked economic train to China. This call has generated a lot of discussions. But to take the ride, you must first buy the tickets for the train. Can you secure the tickets? Can you afford it? From where could you purchase the tickets? Where is the embarkation point and where is the destination point? If we look at the small and medium enterprises, do we have the economic robustness and potential to be aggressive players in the Chinese market? As the Chinese market is dynamic and complex, are our Singaporeans savvy enough to identify the way to go? Even if they have the guts to give China a try, many do not know how to adopt the next step. We all know that this kind of venture into China is a very difficult and arduous one and many give up half-way. Although our forefathers migrated to Singapore from China, the generations after them have changed.”
“Could the Minister elaborate on one query? How do we check the powers of the Director? Is there a mechanism of accountability already set up?”
“This Bill has kick-started a central focus on safeguarding the welfare of children and responsibility of the family, which in a resource-scarce Singapore state and in view of our declining fertility rate matched against a rapidly ageing population, are significant social pillars in shaping our sustainability. Sir, on that basis, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, on the whole, the legal framework, as proposed in this Bill, is comprehensive enough to allow front-line officers the discretion to intervene early to prevent further injury to the child and young person. In order that the law be properly enforced on the ground, it is critical that the responsible Ministries, critically MCDS, MHA, MOE, MOH, have sufficiently comprehensive and coherent guidelines with which to follow through on orders made by the courts. I am glad to learn that following the formation of the Inter-Ministry Committee on the Management of Child Abuse in January 1997, numerous initiatives were undertaken by MCDS in this direction: the launches of the manual for management of child abuse in July 1999 by MCDS, an abridged manual for Professionals and Service Providers Working with Children and a public education booklet "Love Our Children - Prevent Child Abuse" in February 2001 - the booklets are here [indicating], very colourful and child-friendly; as well as this manual which has been told to me that it has been very helpful to service providers - and the recent Child Protection Link in March this year which is a networking platform for key Ministries' officials involved in child protection work. All these are positive initiatives. The Ministry has indeed worked very hard in the last four years. Thank you, Minister and your dedicated officers. We need to continue now to strengthen collaborative training and public education programmes for all involved in child protection work to enhance skills levels and greater communication between agencies. At a broader level, what we need is a positive child-friendly environment at home, in school and within the community. What we need to do more is to help families in trouble.”
“By providing additional sentencing options for juvenile offenders, such as family conferencing and community services, and by ordering mandatory counselling for parents who have to pay for assessment and treatment services of offenders under their charge, the State is signalling a fundamental judicial perspective in upholding parental cooperation and responsibility in the protection and treatment of their children. This initiative I fully support. My final query is why is there no mandatory reporting by doctors, neighbours or other persons to report CYPA offences? The lack of service delivery infrastructure arising from high level reporting and a sense of invasion of family privacy by irresponsible gossip mongers are two frequently raised objections to legislating mandatory reporting. These are not good enough reasons, Sir, because we are talking about protection of lives. In a recent speech made by the Minister, he reported a high incidence of reporting and consultation by professionals who did not hesitate to report suspected child abuse cases to relevant authorities. If this is so, will it not augur well for social responsibility in Singapore to fix a legislation on mandatory reporting among institutional professionals like doctors, nurses, medical social workers, to signal a zero tolerance threshold on violence against children? Especially since in the amendments, the Minister has also made provision to protect socially responsible citizens from civil suits if they act in good faith to report suspected child abuse. Like the Minister himself said, it is better to err on the side of caution than to let a child suffer. I seek the Minister's response on why this legislation leans against imposing such a duty.”
“With this Bill, the parents are held responsible and become the offender for not supervising their child in the first place. Is this an appropriate judicial response? I hope the Ministry will review the portfolio of legal sanctions relating to offences committed by the disabled and assess if they are adequate in exercising care and protection over this community. Let me shift the focus to parents who neglect their children. There are two wonderful words in the Chinese language which, in my view, summarise a perspective on parenting. The words are guan jiao (??), meaning to supervise and to teach; and jiao dao (??), meaning to teach and to guide or lead by example. Parents are not supervising nor are they teaching and guiding their children, because they do not have the time or they conveniently think it is the job of the schools; or they may be disciplining their children with the cane without teaching and guiding them, so that children do not understand the mistakes they have made. More often than not, parents just simply do not know how to parent, and as inadequate parents and poor role models, they simply are too afraid of losing their children's affection. So they fail to discipline, reprimand, guide and teach. "Neglect", which is an offence in this Bill, can simply mean being unable or disable in the role of parenting. This is where the new sections of the Bill, sections 44A, 44B as well as 49A, appear the most refreshing and innovative.”
“I hope more recognition and training opportunities can be given to motivate these officers to undertake this difficult challenge. This leads me to one more disturbing point. Sir, for those parents who have no money to find help for their physically or mentally disabled children and yet have to work, sometimes two shifts a day, are they committing an offence when they lock up their children in rooms and let them defecate and scream in private? As there are insufficient public institutions to take in severely mentally handicapped children who are forced to be tied down at home and languish their time away while the adults are at work, is this a form of child abuse and who is responsible for this crime? Sir, these are tough issues but in the context of arguing for care and protection of children and young persons, the disabled community and their concerns form a critical focus. Parental neglect in these cases is beyond the parents' control, because they do not have the money, time and energy to cope with these difficult cases. I hope when the Director exercises his or her judgment, the socio-economic status of the parents can be taken into consideration before judgment is passed. I hope there are financial schemes being set up to support services to children who have to be committed to the homes when parents cannot afford to pay. In the more moderate cases of mentally challenged adults who are chronologically 16 or 18 years old, but have an IQ of a child of 6, how do we handle their public offences, such as shoplifting and touching the opposite sex? As they acted without understanding and an intention to hurt, which of the legal instruments relating to young persons can be judiciously applied to these offenders with special needs?”
“I will be even more confident if a board of governance can be set up eventually to maintain high standards. My fourth point is regarding placing children at a place of safety. The Bill in new section 8 provides broader powers for designated officers to take a victim to a place of safety, but it does not provide indicators to determine the maximum duration and when the offender may be released from the approved home or school. I acknowledge that the probation officers probably know better. I would like to explore a new school of thought which argues that incarceration of children away from home and family constitutes a form of institutional abuse, and does not contribute to the recovery or rehabilitation of children and their families. I hope the Ministry will examine this perspective and propose as part of sentencing options a live-in therapy period, whereby expert facilitators explore with family members new ways of relating to one another in a new and more loving way. This model is already adopted in several countries. I want to emphasise that I appreciate that child protection management is a complex and difficult call of duty. Officers have to contend with the wishes of parents who feel it is their right to deal with their children their way. How we balance this inalienable duty with the rights of the parents against the interest of a defenceless child is understandably the most heart-rending and difficult challenges which our child protection officers have to delicately deal with, and very often under conditions of tremendous duress and humiliating assaults from angry and aggressive guardians. The job of child protection officers is admirable, but unenviable.”
“The disconcerting part arises from the fact that these are serious decisions, because they involve the physical removal of children from homes which, no doubt, would be upsetting to family units. Even though I believe that the Director and his/her officers would be carefully selected and would most likely carry out their official duties in good faith, an inescapable query is who then "directs" the Director and scrutinizes his or her decisions and the decisions of his or her officers? If we have to accept that someone has to be given the authority to pass judgment on our parenting methods, must we also accept that no body of governance is set up to scrutinize his or her decisions? What if the judgment call is erroneous? The Bill is silent on providing some mechanism of accountability on the powers of the Director and his or her officers in exercising the discretion afforded them under this Bill. Instead, the Bill protects them from any personal liability and no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie personally against the Director and other protection officers, as provided in Part VIII, clause 84. I realise that this is a difficult balance that the law is being asked to take here in empowering the Director and his or her officers on the one hand, and preventing abuse by these same empowered people on the other. Either extreme would be unacceptable, as it would mean either injury or inaction. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister can assure me that these officers are qualified by training to carry out professional assessment work and that their judgment will be subjected to experts in the medical and service delivery, including community advocates like informed parents and teachers.”
“I seek the Minister's views on how he reconciles the use of the cane against the sanction of a foul or harsh word that upsets the child. How then can we convincingly persuade parents to accept the judgment made by the Director or his or her officer that they have committed an offence of emotional abuse when all around them there is more violent behaviour that is being sanctioned? Could we consider substituting the words "emotional injury" with "psychological abuse or injury"? Dr Vasoo earlier on had not made a distinction between the two words. I feel that "psychological abuse" is a more appropriate standard to be applied, as it can be substantiated by professional medical opinion regarding the impact of parental abuses on the mental health of the child. My third concern is on insufficient checks and balances on the powers of the Director. The police officer above the rank of sergeant, the approved welfare officer and the Director would now be empowered to effectively pass judgment on parents whom they feel are "unlikely or unwilling" in clause 3(d)(ii), or "unable or unwilling" in clause 3(f)(i) to protect the child from ill-treatment, or are "believed to have committed the offence". Such broad powers being now given to officers to intervene and make moral judgments on the competence of parents are both a welcome initiative as well as a disconcerting one. The welcome part is that the designated officers have broader scope to quickly make decisions on how the child or young person is to be taken care of, whether this be by removal to an approved home, provided in Part VIA, clause 66, or to undergo a medical examination, in new section 71A, etc. All this is done without the paralysing fear of their actions inviting legal repercussions against themselves.”
“I think the age of the offender at the point of the commission of the alleged offence must be a determining factor in directing which court the offender should be tried in, and this must not be left to the discretion of the public prosecutor who has the difficult task of balancing the interests of the State against the interests of the child. In the event that a child is brought before the District or High Court, perhaps it should be the offender's legal representative, instead of the public prosecutor, who should apply for the case to be tried in the Juvenile Court, as he would know the offender better and would be in a better position to act in the interest of the child. Second, my concern is on what constitutes an "emotional injury". While emotional abuse is a common form of abuse which must be stopped to prevent it from escalating to physical battery and from causing more damage to the self-esteem of the child, I wonder how, in the complexity of the diverse parenting styles which different families adopt, our enforcement officers would be able to determine cases of emotional abuse. My concern is that the application of the standards in determining "emotional injury" is a largely subjective exercise. Are parents who push their children very hard during examinations by locking them up to study and depriving them of leisure, food and drinks, emotionally abusing them? Further, if caning is accepted by some parents and school teachers who believe it is a positive child disciplinary measure, is it consistent that we now introduce a "softer" standard of "emotional abuse", stating verbal abuse as an offence under the Act, whilst the affliction of physical punishment by the cane on the body of a child is not?”
“Sir, against the backdrop of enhanced powers being given to the state, institutions and officers in passing judgement and directly impacting the lives of family members, I would like to raise my concerns and seek the Minister's clarification. Like what Prof. Chin said, on matters as important as a legislation related to the children and their families which the Ministry and AG's Chambers had taken four years to deliberate on, it is not discharging my due diligence not to raise my concerns, even though it would take longer than my previous colleagues. Sir, I seek your indulgence. First, on some jurisdictional points in clause 33. Under the current Act, a "child" is defined as below 14 years of age. A "young person" is between the ages of 14 and 16. Any young person 16 or older will be tried at the High Court or District Court, except in those cases where the public prosecutor decides to try the offence in the Juvenile Court. My question is: is the age of the offender when the offence is committed the determining one to decide which court the offender should be judged in, or is his age during the time of the hearing a determining one? The Bill is unclear, and therefore may be unfair, given the differences in sentencing options in both courts. For example, if a child or young person committed an offence when he/she was 15 but turned 16 by the time the child was brought before the court, would this child go before the Juvenile Court or the District or High Court?”
“Sir, I am sure those mothers who have more than four children want their children because they are loved and because they want the children. Who is to decide then whether those children are loved and wanted? And if the mothers say they are willing to have the fourth child, would the state not support her?”
“Sir, can I clarify three questions? I am still not convinced why this Bill cannot cover all women and all births. I am not satisfied with the answer. The Minister also said that this Bill precisely is not just about numbers. I wish he would clarify a little more on this statement. If it is a stillborn, the Minister said that maternity leave will be given to help the woman to recuperate. I would like to know whether it is paid maternity leave. The third question is: would the Minister influence and appeal to the public hospitals not to increase hospitalisation charges for baby No. 4 and above?”
“I hope this is only the beginning of a process in shaping a child development and family policy in a gradual and comprehensive manner. In that defining process, I hope the governing principles are based on upholding the worth of the child and valuing the contribution of the mother, and that it is not a numbers exercise, whether in expecting an outcome in the number of births or limiting the amount of dollars to be paid out as support for mothers.”
“I hope the Minister will amend Part IV, under Miscellaneous, clause 17, to provide some protection for employees caught in these circumstances. Sir, some of these points are clearly administrative and perhaps procedural details, which will be addressed and regulated by the Minister afterwards. And I know it may be too late now to make these necessary amendments, as the Bill will be passed by the end of this session and the Act comes into force by 1st April, as already announced in the papers. I would just like to put on record these concerns, and hope, where possible, they could be scrutinised over time to help tighten up the intent and application of the Act so that we do not leave too much leeway for unclear interpretation. What is most puzzling to me, and this perhaps reflects the nature of lawmaking in having to provide policy makers an avenue to manoeuvre and adapt to the uniqueness of a situation, is the section on "exemption" in Part IV, clause 2, which states that, "The Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as he may specify, exempt any person from complying with any requirement of this Act". While appreciating the need to give the Minister some discretionary power to exercise judgment, the mandatoriness and forcefulness of this Act became immediately diluted when it is silent on the terms and conditions under which the Minister will exempt the person from complying with the terms of the Act. I wish the legal provisions on this point can be clearer. Sir, I support the sentiment of this Bill in recognising the need to offer some financial support to mothers. Obviously, more should be done for a larger number of women to benefit.”
“What if three women in their third pregnancy during a week before their delivery due date, one found out that her husband is having an affair and decided to file for divorce; the second decided to put a stop to her husband's physical violence and filed for divorce; and the third whose husband was killed in an accident, making her into a widow during her pregnancy, will these three women be entitled to the maternity benefit? I would like to hear the Minister's position on these issues. On Part IV, Miscellaneous section, would the Minister clarify how and when will the women be paid, Sir? If the employers are the ones to first fork out the money to pay to their employees, and wait to be reimbursed by the Government, which can take as long as two months, is this not stressing some of the SMEs' cashflow situation, especially if it is higher level staff claiming legitimately as much as the total $20,000 cap? The cashflow gets tighter when more women make such claims within the same period in the same company. Can we consider the payment to be directly paid out to the employees by the Government instead, like the way we manage our own income tax claims? What is needed is setting up a special unit, or let it be part of the functions of the Work Life Unit already set up in MCDS, to attend to such claims. On the point relating to the failure of employer to pay a female employee, the Bill is silent what it will do with the money after it is recovered by the Government from the offending employer. Will the money be paid to the employee then? The present provision appears to leave the mother in the cold as there are no provisions to divert the payment to her.”
“Can we look at how we could protect pregnant employees in such situations by including further amendments to the Bill? In another extreme example, Sir, what if it is a premature birth for a new employee who has served maybe less than 180 days in a company, will she be entitled to the benefit? Or in the case of a pregnant mother who has served the company for more than 180 days, and she delivers a premature baby who survives in an incubator for the first month and dies afterwards, will she be entitled to the benefit, particularly, the four weeks benefit due to her before the accidental birth? In normal births, if a baby dies and therefore no "birth" has occurred in the literal sense, will an employee enjoy the maternity benefit and be paid regardless of the outcome? Sir, in the case of miscarriages during the third child pregnancy, would this benefit apply? The physical exhaustion and emotional torment of a miscarriage is already distressing enough. It would be doubly punitive to take away what she would be entitled to which nature has forbidden. For self-employed women, MCDS will pay them directly based on their claims. I would then ask: how does the Ministry verify the amount to be paid out to a hawker or a consultant employee who may not file accurate income tax forms in the first place? Will they accept face value declaration based on the claim forms? Sir, my last query is on Part III, clause 9(3), relating to the qualifying criteria for receiving payment. "Being married" at the time of the child's birth is a critical determining factor.”
“What is so attractive about this scheme, that is different from any other savings scheme, Sir? Can the money in this trust be invested for the child? On third child benefits in Part III of the Bill, Sir, would a third adopted baby by a self-employed or working mother qualify to enjoy this benefit, although it is not natural maternity, assuming that all the other conditions are met? The entitlement is only served to a working woman who absents herself from work during the period of 4 weeks immediately before and the period of 4 weeks immediately after her confinement. The provisions in Part III, clause 9(1)(a) and (b), seem to be materially similar and therefore require some editing to omit redundancy, in my opinion. What is peculiar is the provision which states that every female employee shall be entitled to absent herself from work "during the period of 8 weeks, as agreed to by her and her employer". If this Act becomes mandatory to be complied by all employers, why is there a need for employees to reach an agreement with employers to realise their entitlement? The entitlement is only given to women who have served the employer for not less than 180 days, as MCDS has explained in the papers, "the purpose is to encourage employees to stay with the same employer for a minimum of six months, which is usually the norm for confirmation of employment." Sir, what if a six-month pregnant woman had to leave a previous job to join a new company, because the company went bankrupt and she was retrenched? Would she lose the entitlement of a third child maternity benefit in the new company, which she only served 120 days before the birth of the baby? This Bill does not provide for such cases. It would seem to be that she lost out on two counts, for reasons beyond her own designs.”
“On the one hand, we want more babies and, on the other hand, public hospitals charge 150% more (from $400 to $1,000) for the fourth and subsequent births. I would like the Minister to clarify his position on this policy decision. Given the Bill, as it is, I would like to raise a number of queries. First, on the co-savings scheme in Part II of the Bill: If the child is the absolute beneficiary of the trust, at what age will the child be freed from parental or trustee control over this trust and the regulatory control implemented by the Government? The Bill appears to be silent on stipulating a cut-off age in transferring the trust to the young adult. What should be the guiding principles for the use and application of these funds? Can the parents who need money desperately, say, for example, to pay for medical expenses incurred by a third child, access this trust? Can they access this fund at all for other purposes? If, at the age of 21, the member, now a young adult, incurred gambling or business losses, can he, at this legal age, use this trust to pay it off? If it becomes a court case against the member, can the judge demand the seizure of the trust? If one parent dies before the member is 21 years old, can the trust be transferred to the other parent? Or if both parents die, can a guardian be appointed to take over the trust? Sir, I would like the Minister to help me understand these queries, because I feel that unless there are legal provisions over the structure and ownership of the trust, I am not sure Singaporeans will step forward and pay up for this co-savings scheme, or it may be subject to abuse. Moreover, do we know the savings pattern of Singaporeans? With whatever money they have, would they prefer to put them with a life insurance scheme instead?”
“The second component of the "Baby Bonus" scheme is the children development co-savings scheme, whereby the Government co-pays by matching contributions from parents. Here, I again question why do we not extend this incentive coverage to include first-borns and the fourth, fifth child and so on. If parents are willing to save to do this, why do we not encourage them? For low-income families in particular, which may only have one child, the co-savings scheme will represent a significant social insurance scheme. The next family-friendly initiative is instituting a third child maternity payment for only working married women. This is an initiative which we all welcome. But if the objective of the Bill is to encourage more children, then why limit the special benefit, again, to only the third child, and not the fourth, fifth and so on? Given the trends in fertility pattern - delayed marriages, older ages on first births and smaller families - incentives, like granting maternity benefits to working women for the fourth child and above, may not invite that many takers in the first place. There seems to be a conservative measure being applied so as not to impose a significant drain on our national resources. Would it not better enhance the fertility trend if we broaden the base to extend these various schemes to all women and for all births? And what we also achieve is a consistency of social policy in upholding our recognition and support for mothers. Included in this process should be appropriate counselling programmes to help couples in making family planning decisions according to their ability to cope. This should be a role that community agencies can actively play. Sir, we must resolve our contradiction in our procreation policies.”
“Sir, the Minister has referred to the alarming trend in our fertility rate. And if the grand objective of this Bill is to encourage women in Singapore to have more children, then should the Bill not cover all women and all births? The first component in the "Baby Bonus" scheme is a direct cash payment which applies to all women who deliver the second and third child born on or after 1st April 2001. Sir, why discriminate against first birth, baby number four and after? For low-income families, some extra cash during a first baby's birth is always helpful. If this first experience is unpleasant and burdensome, then young couples will not warm up to the idea of a second conception. In short, I am suggesting that we give something for the first child in order to promote a positive psychology towards a second. For larger families, the issue of affordability is a concern. But who is to decide on affordability? Is that the only determining criterion for having children? What about the desire for children factor? If the family enjoys four varieties of dishes for a meal, and there are many others who enjoy just two dishes, maybe some families only one dish, because they want to save the money so as to have a fourth child, why do we then not encourage them? It is important, Sir, that we signal to all mothers, whether homemakers or working, that their maternity role and having children are worthy of State support. No groups will feel discriminated or left out. Instead of having one cash amount for all, the State could consider designing an earnings related scheme, so that there is not too much of a drain on national resources. And for wealthy families who do not need this money, maybe they could re-donate the money to the Community Chest, for needy causes.”
“On top of that, they need to find more money for furniture installed outside of the "supported areas", including office installations. What is peculiar to me is, for a group such as the Spastics Association which is tasked to equip the disabled with basic self-management skills and cooking being one such critical skill, the space designated as domestic science classrooms is not funded by MOE. Yet, the Ministry funds mainstream schools which conduct domestic science classes. Sir, I think we need to revamp, assess and fix new space norms for special needs. Sir, given that a budget surplus of $4.4 billion has been forecasted for the coming financial year, and if there is another severe economic downturn, I hope the Minister will focus on the lower 10% segment of the population and support the social services. My last wish, Sir, is that the representation of women parliamentarians and female community leaders and directors at all levels, will increase in order to provide a multi-layered perspective to social and economic policies. Their increased participation may help to highlight more questions on the social sector which I hope will be given more priority to be raised in this House. If families are the pillars of social cohesion, then women's role in forging this cohesion is critical, as they are the primary care-givers tending to the needs of the young and the old. They know the challenges of keeping families intact. They know the impact of economic upswings and downturns on family cohesion. If we listen to what women have to say and want, gentlemen, we would have helped to solve literally half of the country's problems.”
“Indeed, NCSS and MCDS, as well as MOE, are the institutions tasked to provide new guidelines and seek more funding for services on behalf of these vulnerable communities. I remember the Minister for Finance told me last year that he never failed to give money away if there were good reasons, but only if they were being requested by the various Ministries in the first place. I urge the officers to take this point seriously and help to champion the needs of the community. There is a need to thoroughly review outdated regulatory mechanisms and planning norms. Let me illustrate. The financial support of 90% capital funding for a special school and rehabilitation workshop for the disabled is based on what the MOE and MCDS define as "supported" areas. These supported areas are based on space norms which were fixed during the seventies, at a time when physiotherapy and occupational therapy were based on high touch and simple equipment. Today, with better and larger physiotherapy equipment, more space is needed, but VWOs will not be funded for this increased space requirement, as the space norms remain unchanged. Believe it or not, this rigidity applies in setting space norms for details such as toilets. And different Ministries set different space norms. For example, for occupational therapy functions, MOE funds 42 square metres for two persons, and MCDS funds 18 square metres. VWOs today find the norms too outdated, limited and restrictive. So, in order to develop a building with the desired features optimal for the comfort of their clients who are on wheelchairs, for example, a social agency ends up paying close to 40% of the capital funding, instead of just the 10%.”
“Should Government adjust the current 50-50 co-sharing scheme for subsidising the operating expenses of a VWO to a 60-40 funding formula considering that operating costs are rising faster than Singaporeans' willingness to donate to charities? At the level of service providers, will the Government allow a VWO to operate a school for drop-outs to promote second chance education? Will the Ministry of Education fund it partially? If a VWO is willing to deliver occupational therapy services to homes and charge for its services, can it do so without losing its funding from the Government? There are many suggestions which can enliven the social service sector and make it more dynamic and market-driven, if some of the regulatory restrictions on the operations can be re-assessed. Can we move away from the comfort zone of making small step incremental changes to policies and instead map out new working models which place VWOs at the core of the delivery infrastructure? In our effort to professionalise and upgrade social services, we need to address the remuneration structure of the sector to incentivise more to join and remain in this sector. In similar arguments which we have used to keep civil servants or teachers in their jobs by paying them well, we need to consider paying social workers well enough to ensure that they deliver quality service to those in need. Should we also rationalise a policy on eldercare after so many dialogues and workshops were conducted last year? Who is designing a policy on disability and addressing the critical need for rehabilitative and residential needs of the severely mentally handicapped in order to lighten the burden of parents who need to go out to work?”
“Another urgent need is to enhance the channels of information sharing and coordination of services between prisons and the community-based voluntary agencies in dealing with special needs of children and their families made vulnerable by both their parents' incarceration due to drug offences. These children, about 850 of them, are left unattended by their own parents. Sir, the fragmentation and duplication of efforts at all fronts is wasteful and frustrating for all the officers involved. Third, in view of continuing labour shortage in the services sector and particularly higher attrition rates among social work graduates, we may need to develop social work skills within our communities. I propose that we set up a Social Service Training Scheme in each CDC to design adapted social work curriculum to be conducted in various family service centres and community centres, with the objective of producing a larger pool of social service personnel to meet specific needs of that community. Housewives, retirees, mid-life adults wishing to change careers, retrenched mid-40s who have no paper qualifications, retired teachers, nurses and youths can be tapped and trained through modular programmes, to deliver paid social work duties. By introducing social service skills training programmes outside of tertiary institutions and locating them within the community, with proper supervision and accreditation status, we can effectively match the right people to appropriate skill modules. Fourth, set up a once-off Parliamentary Committee to review and rationalise budgetary, regulatory and professional issues related to the social services and its delivery infrastructure. Let me raise specific issues.”
“We need now to give substance to PM's call for a caring society by starting to construct a new social contract through specific measures. We can begin by committing resources to tracking a range of social exclusion indicators with the objective of monitoring whether we see a permanent underclass emerging. In addition, I would like to propose four measures. First, after a decade of dialogues and workshops on the family, we need some closure by enunciating a clear family policy that addresses the needs of families. This will generate an ethical movement to help Singaporeans re-focus on family values and encourage the start-up of a range of services and industries to cater to the needs of working couples. Like the $500 million Lifelong Learning Fund which was set up to develop a slew of programmes to upgrade our workers, we should set up a similar $500 million Family Fund to implement the numerous recommendations on family-friendly programmes. Second, set up an Inter-Ministry Fund to sponsor joint projects which need to be addressed in a concerted effort by all Ministries and civil servants. For example, in our effort to implement an effective care plan and rehabilitation programmes for domestic violence victims and perpetrators, we need to draw the IT resources of the various Ministries to produce a central database on domestic violence cases and their profile. We have talked about this project for four years and the progress has been slow, because there was no ownership by any one Ministry due to a lack in funding. Other projects include the collaboration among MCDS, MOM, NTUC and SNEF to set up formal structures, processes and activities to facilitate implementation of pro-family practices at workplaces.”
“Is this, for example, related to income at all? Or is it a stress condition caused by school pressures which affects all social classes? These are the "untidy", no-simple-answer social complexities which are masked by macro-economic statistics such as per capita GDP. Now that we have arrived as a nation and achieved the highest per capita GDP in the region, we can do more than meeting the basic needs of Singaporeans by addressing the numerous challenges due to globalisation. It is not just the low-income families which are struggling, the impact of modern day stresses claims its casualties in all social classes in different intensity. However, the low-income or socially disadvantaged families need integrated solutions to their inter-linked problems. As Dr Hu himself had said in a World Bank meeting last year that a "new social contract is needed as distribution of wealth and opportunities cannot depend solely on free market" (June 7, 2000, Business Times). This initiative requires a belief in the worth of the individual by offering to those who fall behind a second chance and additional support to move on. The Government had identified training as an important support but we also need to know what are the socio-psychological barriers to learning and retraining and why are the older workers not stepping forward to retrain. Education is provided for even for the poor with the Education Fund proposed in the Budget, but what about those in the 60s and older who are beyond training and expect to live for 15 to 20 years more? How are we going to share our prosperity with them? Will they get farther behind us as our nation is hurtling into the new era?”
“Sir, Budget 2001 is a generous one. As this is my last Budget speech in this House, I would like to express a few wishes for this House to consider. Sir, by adopting as a starting principle in S21 that "everyone matters", we have, as a society, explicitly recognised that, while we should continue to nurture the elites, the very smart children and big or leading-edge businesses, we must now equally focus our attention on ways to enhance the quality of life for many other Singaporeans who are not so smart, not so capable and also the small businesses like what Mr Seng Han Thong had argued for. Fortunately for us, there is no abject, absolute poverty in Singapore. However, poverty, as any sociologist or social psychologist will attest to, is a relative measure of well-being. And even in the richest societies, so long as there is competition and a free market place where some are better off than others, there will be pockets of underclass, the disadvantaged and the marginalised. That is not something to be ashamed of or to hide, but instead, to try to reduce it by first understanding what is happening, and then how to deal with it. We need better and more sophisticated measures of relative poverty, such as the impact of the length of time families spend in so-called "poor" status, on the mental health of various family members and suicide rates; or the impact of low income on educational opportunities, even within a meritocratic society. We need to explore the complex dynamics between drop-out rates from school, crime rate, family break-ups, poorer housing conditions and income levels. The recent release in the Straits Times on the rise of children as young as pre-primary and primary levels seeking psychiatric help is a disturbing trend.”
“Sir, may I respond? Mr Deputy Speaker: You may not respond. If you want to make a clarification, I will allow you. Mr Simon Tay.”
“This is from a summary report from the National Council of Social Service, which probably obtained their data also from the report.”
“Streaming at an early age has been controversial for many years, but it has always been a sacred cow of the Education Ministry. If we are to start from first principles now and examine every aspect of our education system, I urge that we re-examine streaming and, at the very least, modify it substantially. The recent report by the Teachers' Union published on 15th September, offered numerous insights and discussions on the principles of education which are worth reflecting upon. Some aspects of our education system need to undergo creative destruction. With declining fertility, it is all the more important to focus on every young Singaporean, and maximise his or her full potential. That potential, I would argue, is certainly more than a Primary 4 or 6 education. Let us make sure that every single Singaporean completes a qualifying education programme up to 16 years old - is that too ambitious or unrealistic a goal, Sir?”
“Empirical evidence has shown that this integration benefits even the advanced students who will learn to respect differences and reach out to offer a helping hand. This is a start in nurturing graciousness, a subject that Dr Lily Neo had eloquently spoke about in the last session. I make one plea to the Minister, to put the agenda of the integration of children with special needs in mainstream schools as one priority in his next plan on the desired outcome of education. Let me now turn to a slightly different, but no less controversial issue. In the context of fixing compulsory school attendance at primary school level, is it an opportunity for the Minister to rethink the school assessment system by examining if the streaming exercise is disabling students from wanting to go to school and killing the joy of learning far too early? Surely, it is not an intended outcome that our educational machinery becomes a sorting device that celebrates the examination-smart ones at the expense of committing emotional damage to children as young as nine years old who have other kind of aptitudes? Sir, can we think out of this habitual box which entraps our thinking, and look at other ways of enhancing competences and skills without channelling children into gifted, express, normal, above-average, average and below-average streams? Certainly, for the past two decades, we spoke of our students as digits in an industrial economy, as manpower to be efficiently produced for industrial needs. But, surely, when we now talk about creativity and maximizing our young peoples' potential in a knowledge-based economy where they will undergo several different careers in their lifetimes, some of which have not even been created - how can streaming be appropriate for this new environment?”
“Will the Ministry of Education's experts be the final decision-maker, or a panel of outside experts? It would be useful to have this spelled out. I am glad to read in the Straits Times an informative reply by Mrs Mok Choon Hoe from the Ministry of Education about the development of nine more schools for children with special needs. It reflects the Ministry's strong signal that the State regards them as a precious resource and does not shirk from its responsibility in giving them the education that they rightly deserve. I also hope that some of these schools are built next to the mainstream national schools to minimise the social stigma and exclusion of children already disadvantaged, by encouraging some designated area of shared activity and study to enhance peer interaction and motivation. Another concept of a satellite school, meaning a special school within a school catering to the moderately handicapped class of children who will not benefit from the segregated schools for the severely handicapped but also cannot completely cope in mainstream schools either, would be very welcome. There is sufficient evidence, Sir, that children with moderate learning disabilities thrive under mainstream school settings and interacting with other children; over time, these children will grow up to be useful citizens, and less of a liability to a society. In the USA, for example, between 1986 and 1996, the percentage of children with disabilities who were educated in regular classrooms increased from 26% to 45%. I hope the Ministry will broaden its multi-tier approach to special education by encouraging and committing more resources to schools which wish to integrate children with special needs within a normal teaching programme.”
“By creating more teaching and learning institutions of a broader range to meet the diverse and changing expectations of the growing numbers of "Generation Y" youth - those currently under 20 years old - we will not risk losing precious human resources due to a restricted school assessment structure, but instead we will gain by complementing the mainstream education structure with other flexible, open curriculum which taps the multiple intelligences and interests of our young population. We will also clearly uphold the fundamental principle of meritocracy which our society thrives on and that is - to each according to his or her own capability; and live up to the S21 promise that everyone counts, by helping each individual structures his or her learning. This is one critical step in bridging the digital divide between the more-educated and the less-educated in a KBE. It achieves in an overall sense, an even higher level goal beyond economic ones, that is, the goal of educating for the good society. Let me turn now to the exemption of children who have disabilities or special needs. I agree that Compulsory Education must have exemptions as long as we put in place safeguards on setting the appropriate standards. However, I would like to know how is the term "children with special needs" being defined. How do we balance the judgement of parents with that of an educationist or vice versa, in the case of a marginal child who has merely slower learning capabilities but not limiting enough to stay home or attend a school for the mentally challenged? The Bill is silent in defining this category and in imposing restrictions on those parents who neglect to send their children under the cover of giving them "home tuition".”
“The importance of continuing secondary school in reforming young offenders is shown in studies on the after-conduct of a cohort of probationers. The report published by MCDS in July 1999 showed that probationers with post-primary education had consistently higher completion rates than those with primary education, and those with upper secondary education were more likely than those with lower secondary education to complete their probation. I propose that we commit resources to provide for youth drop-outs to attend some kind of courses or academic institutions which are able to help them realise their life interests apart from pure academic pursuits. Here, Compulsory Education at the secondary level would take on a more flexible perspective. As long as a teenager under 16 who dropped out of a mainstream school due to various personal, family and academic reasons, continues to be engaged in an accredited teaching institution, not necessarily government-run secondary schools, to learn a skill, a vocation, an art or other subjects of interest, he or she has more of a chance to become a useful and worthy Singaporean in the long run. Denmark's continuation school and liberal education curriculum catering to youths of diverse needs and aptitudes as well as a diverse programme in challenging the gifted and building the capacities of the average student in the US are good case studies worth learning from.”
“In the past 10 years, 23 warning letters were issued to parents who failed to bring their children back to school without reasonable excuse. No court proceedings were necessary because all parents complied with the requirements of the attendance orders. This information was obtained from the Education and Manpower Bureau in December 1999. Sir, only with a Compulsory Education policy can we guarantee that a youth will stay in school to be protected from the snares of street gangs. By compelling parents to act, a compulsory school education restores, not take away parental responsibility. And if finance is an issue, let the community step in to help. Judging from the pocket fund initiative organised by the Straits Times - and I congratulate their success - we note that Singaporeans are generous and they will contribute to help a child get the education. I urge the Government to rethink the extent of coverage of this policy and if this House today so decides that the Bill is sufficient, and I am a reluctant consenter to it, then I would request for serious intervention effort by the school administrators to reinforce counselling services in schools or work with parents and neighbourhood VWOs to track school leavers at the secondary level to try to bring them back to school. I know that schools are already working hard toward this direction, and projects like Project Bridge organised by the National Youth Council are targeting this problematic youth segment. But I also know that their effort will be all the more effective and fruitful if they are backed by a strong Government policy and adequate community resources committed to upholding a compulsory policy.”
“The objective of this Compulsory Education Bill is hence limited in scope and myopic in reach, because it fails to send out a strong enough signal that a minimum education of at least 10 years to the equivalent of an 'O' level is what a Singapore youth must be assured of and be equipped with to meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy. Not having had a Compulsory Education Bill for so many years, if we now adopt one, it should not be to simply redress past oversights, but to signal our society's intentions for the future. If we had this one chance to fix a policy, why not aim for the ideal? Why instead settle for pragmatic compromises, an incremental tweaking of a policy? And for those who say that the State should not compel young people to do things and it should be left to the family, then why do we have laws governing the social behaviour of minors, such as smoking and drinking? I would in fact argue that sanctions regarding minimum levels of education are more important and have longer and lasting impact than sanctions on smoking and drinking! Indeed, parents have the moral responsibility to make sure that they have the best interests of their child at heart by sending them to school. However, on a matter as significant as education which is the cornerstone of nation building and considering the huge sums of capital as well as human resource investment involved, the State has to assume the primary role in shaping the direction and management of the educational experiences of youths. In Hong Kong, since the enforcement of Compulsory Education up to Form 3 secondary level 20 years ago, only one case has been brought to court and the parent was convicted with a fine of HK$400. The student resumed school after the sentence.”
“Apart from those living or studying overseas, or schooling in madrasahs, private schools or enjoying home tuition, there remained 700 children who were deprived of education due to family-related or individual problems. Other than these unregistered children, there are about 2,000 premature school leavers every year, the majority are from secondary schools and about 200 are primary school drop-outs. In short, the Compulsory Education policy, as it is, will affect or sanction a student population of only 200 at the primary level while there are more than a thousand at the secondary level who will fall out of this policy net. These are unlikely the exact numbers as there will be more drop-outs whom we could not track. Under this Bill, no adult, including parents or an institution, is empowered to compel a recalcitrant teenager to go back to school to get the common core knowledge for further education and an educational experience which provides them an outlook in life that serves as rudders against an uncertain future. They are the likely candidates for becoming dysfunctional adults. In many countries in Europe, the current debate is about keeping children longer in school up to 19 years so that the right social outlook and values can be inculcated to prepare their youths for life, not simply to score 288 points in PSLE examinations! I am afraid the Bill, as it is, falls short of targetting the student population which is more problematic and critical in our overall concern with manpower shortage and a growing digital divide.”
“Sir, I would like to raise several interconnected issues relating to first, the objective; second, the duration; and third, the coverage and content of Compulsory Education. Within the context of a broader discussion on how to sharpen Singapore's global competitiveness, the Minister for Education must be congratulated for taking a fresh approach towards a range of issues which impact on the learnability and creativity of students from pre-school to tertiary levels. The policy of Compulsory Education being introduced at this juncture is therefore timely. I want to thank the Prime Minister for paving the way. This will be a millennium initiative which he will be remembered for. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.05 pm What bewilders me still, Sir, is the rationale for fixing the compulsoriness up to Primary 6 only. As several categories of children are already exempted, the cut off level is not a relevant issue for them. However, for those who have no reasons to be exempted, how is six years of primary level education sufficient to make a person prepared in any way to meet even the most basic challenges of our knowledge-based economy? There is no need for me to convince this House that a 12-year old is not equipped to face the real world. For those of us who are parents to teenage children, we know that the ages between 13 and 16 years are critical formative years when teenagers need good instruction, strong guidance and enforced discipline. The Report of the Committee on Compulsory Education in July 2000 showed that in 1997, there were a total of 1,677 children not registered with national schools or special education schools at the end of Primary 1 registration exercise.”
“I would like to seek a point of clarification with the Minister. Why does the Minister see the setting up of a credit on-line as a strategy on distribution or welfarism? Because we are not giving to the people, we are lending them money although on extraordinary low interest terms, does he not see that this is also a strategy of growth because we are allowing the 10% to have a sum of money upon which they can start a new venture? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, it is not my intention to reject offhand Mdm Claire Chiang's proposal. What I was saying is that there is an interest subsidy involved and whether an income subsidy should be provided through reduced interest rate is something that we have to look at very carefully to ensure that there is no moral hazard associated with it. I am not saying that it should not be done. What I am saying is that it is not an idea which can be implemented without very careful thinking of the consequences following downstream. Many of the lower income families will not be able to pay back their loans, in which case they may have to be declared bankrupts. Do we want that to happen? Is that a good idea?”
“I would like the Minister to suggest ways where the part-time schemes can be seen as attractive and how we can go about doing that.”
“I would like to clarify the point that I was not talking about wage discrimination. I think the marketplace decides the differences and so far, I cannot see any evidence of clear discrimination, and that it has been fair. I am talking about promotion to the next job rank. And from some of the doctors that I speak to who opt to do part-time services, they feel that their full-time colleagues who started on the same level get promoted faster.”