Eugene Yap Giau Cheng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he would like to put up a fence to prevent trespassing. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: We also do not want to put up a fence because when the land is being built, we have got to tear down the fence. That would be a waste of public resources. We control our expenditure very tightly.”
“Sir, I am making this amendment to stress to the Minister that the ethnic integration policy introduced in 1989 has in some way affected the quality of life of my constituents. I believe this probably has also an effect in old estates such as Queenstown and Bukit Ho Swee.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, not so long ago, in the New Paper, there was a report on a man who was supposed to be the executor of the estate of the deceased brother and he was trying very hard to withdraw the CPF money of his deceased…”
“It means "We are poor people. We do not have CPF. How can we buy our own homes?" Sir, I think we ought to do something for them. When they first moved into these homes, they had no trouble because they were young, the children were young, no space constraints, but today the children have grown up, they become adults - four, five or six of…”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to reconsider the policy of not allowing Singaporeans to rent 3-room flats. This policy is already 10 years old, introduced in 1982, and I recall that when it was introduced it was meant to encourage Singaporeans to own their own homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify a point which he made in his long speech? If indeed the purpose is to subject motorists to some inconvenience by not expanding or building more roads in the city area, then why was there an announcement in the press recently to expand the PIE?”
The complete record
Every one of 386 lines we hold for Eugene Yap Giau Cheng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“They may harbour doubts as to whether the use of electronic voting is a foolproof system, the results of which cannot be tampered with. The electronic voting system may be user-friendly. But there will still be some who do not trust it completely. This may be due to newspapers' reports of glitches in using electronic system, for example, the ATM banking machines. Despite all the safeguards that banks have put into place, there will still be the odd situation of system malfunction. In the case of the election, how can we ensure that the electronic voting system will not fail? Should we not put the electronic system on trial and ensure that the safeguards are adequate before implementing it on a broader basis at the next general election? In past elections, the manual voting and counting system gave Singaporean voters a semblance of assurance in the system. It is not a foolproof system as it can still be subject to human error and hence the need for recounting. But it is a system with human faces, an intervention that the older generation of voters is accustomed to. For them, manual counting is more transparent. Singapore's population is a red dot compared to the United States and the time that we take for counting is within acceptable, accustomed time limits. It is something that we can still tolerate at the next general election. Meanwhile, we can try out the electronic voting system on a trial basis in a few constituencies, with a parallel manual run to give voters the confidence that electronic voting really works. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“I may even consider an appropriate time to return to Singapore and make my contribution in my field of expertise for the best interest of Singaporeans as the linkage has not been severed. Sir, every time local dishes, such as Hainanese chicken rice, char kuay teow, mee rebus, and mee goreng, are mentioned, the knees of Singaporeans who take up residence abroad will grow feeble. Even if they have been away for five or 10 years, they still crave for their authentic Katong laksa, the Malay satay and Jalan Kayu roti prata. Time has no effect in diminishing their taste of what is good and what is Singaporean. Similarly, time should have no effect in diminishing the worth of overseas Singaporeans to vote and the worth of their votes. We should not presume that they would not have the interest of Singapore at heart. We should not presume that, in future, they do not intend to take up their stake in Singapore and take up residence in Singapore again. In fairness, our Government has done an excellent job in getting some of our top brains back home again. For this, I salute the Government for what it has achieved. But I am asking the Government to go one step further by allowing all Singapore citizens the right to vote regardless of the length of residency in Singapore in the run-up period to the election. Sir, I would now urge the Government to go slow in its introduction of electronic voting. I wish to state, at the onset, that I am not averse to changes or the use of technology to keep up with the time. But my concern is that some Singaporeans, especially the older generation, may not be adequately exposed to the IT revolution. Some of our older Singaporeans still stash their money under their mattresses, rather than put it into the bank.”
“Due to the education and the environment, Singaporeans have become global citizens and it is a credit to the Singapore Government that our Singaporeans have become so mobile and acceptable elsewhere. But this should not be the reason to disenfranchise them as, in their own way, they have become ambassadors for our island state and, sometimes, our strongest supporters in the face of foreign sceptics. This would not be fair to those who have been working abroad for a long time and are still sending their money back home. This would not be fair to those who are married out of Singapore, but still maintain close contacts with their families in Singapore and make regular visits back home. This is also not fair judgement on those who still follow the local news via our local newspapers' websites or avidly watch Singapore-produced programmes broadcast in the new country of residence which may be temporary in nature. Sir, the right to vote should simply be a fundamental right of being a Singapore citizen. As long as Singapore citizens do not denounce their citizenship, they should continue to maintain their stake in Singapore Inc. In effect, they should continue to be a shareholder of Singapore Inc. with the right to vote irrespective of where they are and how long they have been there. If I am a top doctor, scientist, or academic, who has taken up overseas residence for many years but I am still a Singapore citizen, I would probably go to the Embassy to cast my vote on election day, if I still have the right to vote for my country. I also value the Singapore Government's tacit understanding of my contribution as a Singaporean outside Singapore.”
“But advancements in communication, technology and IT have blurred geographic boundaries and shrunk the world. Meanwhile, our global participation had led some Singaporeans to take up residence abroad. In this regard, the Government must be given credit for its willingness to keep up with the times. Hence, I am very pleased that the Government has allowed overseas voting. Sir, voting is a fundamental right for citizenship. All Singapore citizens should have the right to vote regardless of whether they are ordinarily resident in Singapore. The two years out of the five years rule is an artificial criterion. The basis for it is seemingly to sieve out Singaporeans who are more genuine Singapore citizens by virtue of their tenure as residents in the period preceding the election. But the proof of longer residency is not a foolproof argument that such Singapore citizens have a greater stake in the well-being of Singapore and that they would cast their votes with the best interest of the nation at heart and with open eyes on the impact of their votes. If this is the case, does it mean that the poverty stricken and the bankrupt in the country should not be given the right to vote because there is very little, if at all, any stake left in it? Certainly not. Because the right to vote is the fundamental right of every Singapore citizen. Conversely, a short period of residency is not a foolproof argument to assume that such Singapore citizens no longer have the interest of the nation at heart, that they are no longer patriotic and, as such, their right to vote ought to be forfeited. Singaporeans work and live abroad for a varied host of reasons which could be the subject of a separate debate.”
“Andrew's School - I came from St. Andrew's School, Sir, and I was one of those who was a very keen sportsman, I was Captain of Rugby 15 - one of the lessons we learnt is sportsmanship. When we win, we win happily. When we lose, we lose sportingly. And I would say to Mr Jeyaretnam and my colleagues in the Opposition, let us fight healthily, let us play the game properly, let us win, and win properly. If we lose, we lose properly. One incident I had was with Sarawak Rangers. When they played the game with me, I had the ball with me. They came for me and they punched me under the belt. My principal said, "Play on. Don't scold, don't shout. Push on." And I suggest that we all do the same. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I applaud the Government for its willingness to recognise how globalisation affects the democratic process as Singapore citizens continue to become global citizens. The Government should also be commended for its willingness to leverage on technology through the introduction of electronic voting. The proposed amendment to minimise the need for unnecessary recounting is also a step forward in the right direction. Having proposed all these changes, Sir, I feel that the Government should go one step further. In the same vein as the previous speakers, I would like to urge the Government not to deny any Singapore citizens, regardless of where they are residing in and for whatever the period of time, the fundamental right to vote, so long as they remain citizens of Singapore. I would also like to appeal to the Government to go slow in its introduction of electronic voting. Sir, in earlier elections, overseas voting may be inconceivable due to the logistics and timing involved.”
“Not only were my colleagues surprised, but the candidate who fought me from the United Front (I think he was the Secretary General) was also surprised. But the interesting thing was I had a summons to go to Istana. I use the word "summons" in a pleasant sense - it is not the punishment that we all expect, but a nice little meal with the Prime Minister. Of course, today, he is the Senior Minister, and he asked me, "You won decisively. You won with good results. What did you do? Did you give them vain promises?" I said, "No. I didn't do such things." As you know, SM does not speak very much. But at certain times, you could see, you could feel this silent nod of approval for my results. If SM is so careful with his young little candidate going out there winning results and winning properly, I cannot imagine he would endorse anyone of us, let alone the Minister for Home Affairs, trying to fiddle with the results of the elections. So when I read the press this morning, I said, "Ah, this looks as though there is this very strange message going through that the Opposition feels there is a possibility of us fixing the election results through the computers." Then I thought I better say something, if not, I would not be doing my country a favour. I have kept this for over 20 years. Nobody knew about it, except SM and myself, not even my wife. So when I told her this morning, she said, "Oh, you really had that experience." Yes, I did. So before it fades away from my memory, I thought I would quote this little incident to try to do justice to a truth, and not allow constant repetition of untruths become the truths. One of my colleagues told me this morning that Mr Jeyaretnam probably could have come from St. Andrew's School. I expressed a bit of shock because, in St.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, Mr Jeyaretnam made a statement which I will quote him today. He said, "I had not thought of speaking until I heard the Minister speak", and he was referring to our discussions on the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill. I will quote him. I actually have not planned to speak, Sir, until I heard him. But more so, until I read in the press this morning how nonsensical statements had been given sense in the press today. That is a writing skill which I must applaud the Straits Times' journalist. Why do I speak? Because I thought that there is some message which, if not checked, would have spread and would have done harm to our image as a country. Do we really believe that we would go our way to fiddle or to play around with the election results? I do not think so. I am not so concerned about Singaporeans but I do not believe Singaporeans will be so easily persuaded. I am more concerned with the international readers, the tourists who come to Singapore, pick up a copy of the Straits Times, read and go back and say, "Hey, in Singapore, they do silly things." I think that is not right. Let me use one anecdote which I hope will be able to make my point. In 1979, I stood in a by-election. When I was presented as a candidate, at a press conference I was there with four or five, maybe six, others of my colleagues, and then the press asked me, "What have you got to say as a candidate?" I said, "I have nothing to say." And then the next day, the press came out and said, "Nothing to say, what an MP! What can he do for his constituents?" So a couple of my colleagues got a bit concerned that I might lose my elections. Anyhow, I pushed on. I had a couple of my colleagues come to help me. We fought. What was the result? I won decisively.”
“The beauty of being small in Singapore is that we can reach out to every corner of Singapore and be kept up-to- date with the latest goings-on. After all, we all do that, don't we? We walk our little corner of the island on weekends, we go from home to home talking to our residents, learning from them, listening to them, finding out what they want, what help they need or what help they don't need. So, in a situation like what we have today, we are able to confidently assess and describe how our people are doing and have our fingers on the pulse of the nation. For instance, take Mountbatten, we were concerned with how our people are faring in this economic crisis, because they all have been moved from rental flats into 4- or 5-room flats, new ones, expensive ones too. I guess we must have walked a few hundred homes over a couple of months and I am relieved to know that many of them are still able to maintain their homes, they are able to pay their SC&C charges, their monthly instalments, and so on. But this brings out a very important point. Most of these people who have moved into new flats, they are living in extended families. You have your grandmother, your grandfather, your father, your mother, your brothers, sisters, and so on, and when one person gets retrenched, the others chip in. The strength and virtue of the extended family is still very strong. But there is a present tendency for families to break out into nuclear families. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenge in the 21st century is to find ways and means to see how we can keep family support healthy and firmly in place, so that people will remain safe not only in times of crisis but also in better times as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we certainly do not want to be like what the economist, Mr E. F. Schumacher, said in his book, "Small is Beautiful". Allow me to quote him: "If human vices such as greed and envy are systematically cultivated, the inevitable result is nothing less than a collapse of intelligence. A man driven by greed or by envy loses the power of seeing things as they really are, of seeing things in their roundness and their wholeness, and his very successes become failures. If the whole society become infected by these vices, they may indeed achieve astonishing things but they become increasingly incapable of solving the most elementary problems of everyday existence." In short, we must not allow selfishness, greed, anger to take priority over more important and serious issues. The recommendations put up by the CSC, taken in the right attitude and casting self-interest aside, could, I believe, bring us out of troubled waters and help us weather whatever storms that come in future and ride them out confidently. Therefore, these recommendations can be seen as worthy kiasu measures to ensure our self-preservation and success. We should see the recommendations as something that is good for all Singaporeans. And so I would like to urge every Singaporean to see it in its big picture, because squabbling and quarrelling must be avoided at all costs. We should channel our energies into ensuring that we pull through these tough times and not wallow in them. Mr Speaker, Sir, so far we are all right. If we had been managed by a different band of less than capable people, then I think we would find ourselves in an entirely different position. Yes, we are small, and small is indeed beautiful, but only when it is properly managed. We have a combination of both.”
“Hopefully, with the recommendations of the CSC, we will be able to avoid the worst and pick ourselves up again as quickly as possible, and be in the front of the race when others are still picking themselves up. While figures show that some 40,000 are expected to be retrenched by the end of the year, I think we are still relatively fortunate. The estimates are not very much higher. Meanwhile, the CDCs (Community Development Councils) will do all they can to find as many jobs as possible, to ferret them out, so that they will be able to find alternative jobs for those who lose their jobs or are being retrenched. For instance, in the case of Marine Parade district, last year, we helped 30 Singaporeans to find jobs; this year, in 1998 up to now, about 700 jobs. So who says that there is no one Singaporean that has lost his job? Thanks here to Ministry of Manpower, NTUC, ADECCO (ADECCO is a private international employment assistance company), and MDIS (Management Development Institute of Singapore). In fact, these two private organisations have done more than their fair share. What they have done actually is also to organise courses so that workers who choose not to go immediately into another employment can also choose to be trained or retrained. Mr Speaker, Sir, I said at the outset that the most important point is that the majority of Singaporeans are still having their jobs. And I think that this is a very important point, and I attribute this to the kiasu attitude of Singaporeans and the Government. Contrary to common perception, kiasuism need not necessarily be bad. Who says it is bad? It is bad only when it makes the Singaporeans ugly - when they become greedy, self-centred, selfish, envious, discourteous and unkind.”
“They all looked to the ship as unsinkable, just as many governments, corporations and people in this part of the world looked at their economies as though these economies were invulnerable. The celebratory mood among the passengers continued into the voyage and as the ship sailed towards its destination, the passengers wined and dined. They indulged in pleasures without a care in the world - just like some governments, some corporations and people around the world, especially this region, preoccupying themselves with mega-borrowings and spendings. The passengers on board the Titanic were enjoying themselves to the extent that they were blinded to the fact that the ship could be in danger. When warning signals became apparent and the captain was told of them, he dismissed those dangers as nothing more than nuisances, as he did not believe that the Titanic could be in trouble. As the danger became more and more apparent, the captain and the people on board still chose not to heed it but carried on with their preoccupations. Finally, because of their over-confidence and slowness to react, the Titanic went smack into real danger - just like what happened to many countries and many economies in this part of the world that were caught unawares by the quick rises and falls of the markets caused by the way money was transacted at lightning speeds around the world. Mr Speaker, Sir, amidst this current regional economic crisis, Singapore's economy has also been affected. While we have not emerged unharmed, fortunately, we have not been seen as badly hit as our neighbours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I recall a conversation I had 10 years ago with the Chief Executive Officer of a very huge Japanese multi-national because I wanted to understand the bottoms-up philosophy among the Japanese workers. And he told me, "It is not as simple as you think because normally workers will be told what their leaders want and they will know what to do." Mr Speaker, Sir, in these economic tough times, it is heartening to learn that Singaporeans understand and accept the need for painful wage cuts. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim summed up these sentiments very well in The New Paper of 18th November and I would like to quote him here: "The general feeling is that people understand and accept that there must be wage cuts. They are glad to have a job that pays less, than no job at all." Yes, isn't it better to have a job that pays less, than to have no job at all? But I would also like to stress that what is very important is that most Singaporeans today still hold their jobs. Fortunately for us, Mr Speaker, the prudent policies and financial foresight of our Government have spared us from an economic meltdown of Titanic proportions. We should be glad that our Government and people did not see our economy as the Titanic's captain, crew and passengers did their ship in 1912. It has happened, it will happen again if we are not careful. So, therefore, it is worthwhile to recall that voyage made by the Titanic and its maiden voyage that was filled with exhilaration. Spirits were high, the air was heavy with excitement and jubilation. The crew and the well-heeled passengers were fortified in their belief that they were on the safest ship ever built in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he would like to put up a fence to prevent trespassing. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: We also do not want to put up a fence because when the land is being built, we have got to tear down the fence. That would be a waste of public resources. We control our expenditure very tightly.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.15 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TI 1500. In moving this amendment, I would like to know from the Ministry of Law if they could consider raising the financial ceiling imposed on applicants for legal assistance. I feel that it should be raised so that it will be a more realistic level that can cover more people who genuinely require legal aid but do not qualify for it under the existing financial ceiling. The existing financial ceiling was set in 1956 under sections 11 and 12 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Chapter 160). In those days, I think the population of Singapore was less than 1 million. Today we are about 3 million. There should proportionately be more people we would like to help. Sections 11 and 12 stipulate two financial limits. The first financial limit provides legal aid to people who have got disposable capital of $500 and disposable income of not more than $1,000 per annum. It is on a per annum basis. Members will agree with me that this has probably no practical significance today and the ceilings are quite unrealistic. Even if we want to help more people, we can help them under section 12 which is a more generous section. But it is still tight. Section 12 allows the applicants to have a disposable capital of more than $500 but less than $3,500 and his disposable income can exceed $1,000 per annum but it cannot exceed $3,000 per annum. So this is a case where the spirit is willing but the law is weak. And I think the best solution to this scenario that we are in today is to have a review, a total look at the Legal Aid and Advice Act and amend the Act accordingly to help more people.”
“Sir, I am making this amendment to stress to the Minister that the ethnic integration policy introduced in 1989 has in some way affected the quality of life of my constituents. I believe this probably has also an effect in old estates such as Queenstown and Bukit Ho Swee. All I want to ask the Minister is whether he is prepared to be flexible in this policy, ie, achieve your policy by all means, but where there are a number of vacant flats that have been empty for some time, allocate a few of them to make a few people happy.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, not so long ago, in the New Paper, there was a report on a man who was supposed to be the executor of the estate of the deceased brother and he was trying very hard to withdraw the CPF money of his deceased brother. Today, after 12 years, he still has not been able to withdraw those moneys, for only one reason, and that is he does not know who the nominees are and the CPF Board has refused to tell him who these nominees are, although he is the executor of the estate. What I want to suggest, therefore, is that the CPF Board consider listing all nominees in the annual statement of accounts that is sent to all members. I do not think this is a difficult job for the CPF Board because, one, they are already fully computerised and, two, they are already sending statement of accounts twice a year to members. If we can do something to make life of Singaporeans a little more convenient, why not?”
“It means "We are poor people. We do not have CPF. How can we buy our own homes?" Sir, I think we ought to do something for them. When they first moved into these homes, they had no trouble because they were young, the children were young, no space constraints, but today the children have grown up, they become adults - four, five or six of them - and conditions become cramped, the environment charged, perpetually unbearable and especially when a little conducive environment is required for recuperation or for someone who wants to study. The question is: what can we do for these people? There is something we can do for them. After all, we are already opening these flats to Malaysians, foreigners. My point is that the foreigners come here not as whole families but they come as disparate individuals. They do not need the 3-room flats. They can take the 2-room flats and Singaporeans can be given the comfort of the 3-room flats and the children can grow up in a better environment and we all benefit but, please, not at market rate.”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to reconsider the policy of not allowing Singaporeans to rent 3-room flats. This policy is already 10 years old, introduced in 1982, and I recall that when it was introduced it was meant to encourage Singaporeans to own their own homes. Since 10 years have passed, I think the policy has achieved its objective. Those who can buy would have bought, and those who cannot buy, they are the ones I am thinking of today, they are the ones who will be left back in their 1- or 2-room flats. These are the ones who come to you, all of us, in fact, and say, " An hon. Member: What does it mean?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify a point which he made in his long speech? If indeed the purpose is to subject motorists to some inconvenience by not expanding or building more roads in the city area, then why was there an announcement in the press recently to expand the PIE?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Hopefully, this can be a way to ease the financial load on Singaporeans. To conclude, Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to relentlessly look for that missing factor that will make the equation a better solution for various problems. I hope the Ministry will remember that although the price mechanism is a sound method to control demand, we are not only here to solve an economic problem efficiently. We are also politicians and we have a political problem to solve as well. The Ministry of Communications is not the only Ministry. There are also other Ministries that are similarly resorting to the price mechanism to regulate demand. We should therefore regularly monitor these little price increases and ensure they do not have adverse cumulative effects on Singaporeans.”
“It is a good rational idea that makes economic sense, but there are problems. Some businesses will pass cost to consumers and household expenditure will keep increasing, accumulating to a point where things become intolerable. Also, school children and university students, who need to use the telephone, not only for SDU purposes, but for computer networking, for example, would incur the wrath of parents who previously may not have objected to their children using the phone. The telephone could very well be a bone of contention and disrupts the once existing family bliss. There is also an apparent hidden social cost. For example, will the number of phone calls among relatives, among friends, be reduced? Will the old and lonely be afraid to use the phone for fear of cost? These problems must be addressed. But, Sir, past records have shown how promptly the Minister has heeded the public in their request for shortening the evening ALS, conversion of weekend cars to normal cars and vice-versa, concessions to Terminal I when Terminal II was built and businesses channelled there. There were further concessions too, during the Gulf War. I hope that the Minister will heed the call of Singaporeans to allow them the use of that handy telephone with no worries of having to pay a big bill at the end of the month. I join them in their call, for being able to communicate and interact freely is just one of the few remaining privileges which the Government can afford to give to its people. Can the Ministry, therefore, reconsider its intention to levy a charge for use of the telephone? If not, I note that Telecom has done very well year after year. Some gains have been achieved through increased productivity. How about passing some of these gains back to Singaporeans?”
“In land transport, the Government has devolved its responsibility vis-a-vis MRT and buses, but it must still maintain an interest in the running of the MRT and the bus companies to ensure that not just the welfare of the majority of Singaporeans is catered to but also that of the few. Today, Singaporeans find travelling by MRT expensive. Some cheaper alternatives have been removed. I am aware of the existence of the Public Transport Council. They are doing a good job. All I want here to register is that in going about their day-to-day work, the Public Transport Council should give sufficient attention to the difficulties that may affect the minority in any changes to the transport patterns of Singaporeans. Knowing that fares are not likely to be decreased, let me suggest, no, strongly urge the Government to ensure that transport companies maintain their prices for as long as is possible. And for some of the so-called inefficient bus routes, let us retain a few for the convenience of commuters. Hopefully, the Ministry will not maintain a hands-off position with respect to the MRT and the bus companies, thinking that they are private companies and Government has no hand in it. Sir, I think it has become a favourite practice of the Government to regulate demand by the price mechanism. As I have mentioned previously, this has taken the form of car quota system, ARF/PARF and so on. Albeit being the most efficient method of controlling demand, in certain cases, it may have an adverse effect on productivity, progress and the fabric of our society. Take, for example, the recent announcement about the change in the form of telephone charges, that is, according to usage by time. This would mean further adjustment financially for the individuals, the family and the business.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, no rational Singaporean is so ungracious as to deny the numerous achievements chalked up by the Ministry of Communications - in telecommunications, our telephone network, air, sea and land transport. These achievements in themselves are significant sign-posts, spelling successful administration of infrastructural development which have facilitated trade and boosted our economy and brought about a better quality of life for all Singaporeans. Seen in the proper perspective, the achievements far outweigh the problems and disadvantages encountered. Therefore, in theory, there should not be any complaint. Yet around us, we do hear voices of discontent. Actually, it is quite understandable. What with the PARF/ARF system, then the car quota system, increases in car park charges, postal services, increase in TV licences, and so on. I suspect that these have caused Singaporeans not to view the Ministry of Communications with much favour. Sir, I believe that we have inadvertently achieved economic efficiency at the expense of equity. Of course, economic efficiency has its place in the running of things, yet, we should strive for equity as much as is possible. The Government has a moral responsibility to control inflation. But the Government is not seen to be doing this, or at least, not manifestly so, although I know that our inflation rate may be low compared to some other countries. Singaporeans are experiencing some more price increases in services that affect their daily life. So, not surprisingly, we hear some people bewailing the increases in charges on this and on that.”
“But whatever that is given in the Presidential Address is all for the good of the future, all for the good and happiness of Singapore according to their aspirations. The Singapore Government has got the new Singapore spirit and we want to bring Singapore to a higher level to give a better life for our people. Singaporeans seem to be paying too much attention to what is going on in the Gulf. I think they must also learn from the experience of Sri Lanka and look forward to the future.”
“If we have such a study group, then we will have a mirror to show us how we look like and to show us how we may be better able to weather through the storm. On education, Sir, I personally feel that streaming at primary four is certainly better than streaming at primary three. It is a wise move. But if the Government can consider streaming only in primary six, I think that will be even better. I have heard from parents that the development of children varies in pace and in degree. Young children, especially boys, may be naughty when they are young. They may be too active to sit down for a long time, desk-bound to do their reading and study in the early stage. So I hope that the Government can consider this point that after experimenting with streaming at primary four, consider postponing streaming only at primary six (if streaming at primary four does not achieve the desired results). Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress that there should be joint monitoring of our school children at the streaming of primary four to decide whether they should go into secondary school or vocational school. On vocational schools, I hope that the Government will inject more funds and pay more attention to vocational schools. There should be more comprehensive vocational schools so that our children will graduate from such schools with good skills. Our schools should also teach our children from young, that all jobs are equally respectable and all jobs have their own elite. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Presidential statement we can see that the present Government is a very unselfish one. As BG George Yeo has said, in future it may not be a PAP government, it may be Mr Chiam See Tong's party which comes into power.”
“What we do not need is a cultural melting pot, a rojak. I cannot understand Mr Chiam. I do not know what kind of Singapore society he wants, what kind of Singapore he wants. I do not know. He wants a monolingual Singaporean. I want to ask him. Why is he unhappy about a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual Singapore? How is he going to reconcile the differences among the various ethnic groups? What kind of religion is he advocating? What kind of food is he advocating? What kind of attire is he advocating? Unfortunately, Mr Chiam was not with us on the visit to China. Mr Davinder Singh and I had visited China. We were there for about two weeks. We could see very clearly that he is still what he is. He is a Sikh. I am a Chinese by our ethnicity. We have differences in our way of living. But I do not believe that Mr Chiam would like to be like Mr Singh, to wear a turban in the morning or to miss the curry that his wife cooks for him. Mr Chiam is a believer of a cultural melting pot. So if Singapore is to be ruled by him, then Singapore will become topsy-turvy. It will be neither fish nor fowl. There will be no future for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we need is a place for every group, a cultural heritage for every community. We must have mutual tolerance and acceptance. We must have common cohesion. Only then will our country have vitality and the ability to forge ahead. Here I would like to propose that the Government set up a small unit to specially study and do research on how Germany and Japan have achieved their present leading positions and to study their future, how they take up the challenge of the future.”
“At the same time, the Government also says that it will pay attention to the moral and civics education of our children so that when they grow up, they will be growing up in the atmosphere of common shared values. These shared values will determine not only the economic growth and our competitiveness but also the strength of our national unity. This is a very wise move indeed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address has reminded me of the revival, emergence and the present leading economic position in the world of Japan and Germany. This is a very important reminder because we can appreciate the reason for their success, and that is, the revival of a nation does not only depend on the possession of strong gunboats but also on the spiritual software which includes the quality of the people, their cultural ballast, their planning capability, their dedication to, the respect of work, team spirit, education, the rule of law, and institutions. We must use Japan and Germany as our model and do our very best to shape and nurture a new generation of Singaporeans so that everyone of them will have the proper cultural ballast, character, and confidence. To achieve these, we must have a proper environment to nurture, an education system to cultivate, and a good social system to encourage the growth of this software. We must lay the foundation. We must do our very best to lay a good and strong foundation. "When a child is brought up uneducated, it is the fault of the father." So if we want to have cultural heritage and values, then the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Information and the Arts must study the various backgrounds, ie, the cultural background and historical background of the various communities in Singapore in accordance with the needs of our people.”
“Many of the specific steps to deal with loneliness, dispiritedness and illness in the elderly are in the Report of the Advisory Council on the Aged, and the National Council on Ageing must be empowered to devise ways to meet the needs and tap the potential of an increasingly greater proportion of elderly in our society. Finally, a few words about proportional representation. Sir, proportional representation implies disproportional represen- tation is its antithesis. The first-past-the-post system undoubtedly leads to disproportional representation. However, its great merit is that it amplifies the rule of the majority and facilitates strong effective government during its tenure. The great merit of proportional representation is that wider views and interests can be promoted. Its recognised failings are that Government may be fragmented, a pivotal minority may exert disproportionate influence, and sectorial behaviour may become overly accentuated. Clearly, proportional representation can be, and has been, applied when circumstances are favourable. It need not be rejected out of hand, or accepted blindly, based on extreme arguments, but can be retained as a future option by this or another government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Mr Davinder Singh's motion. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, to thank the President for his Speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address clearly shows that the Government is marshalling all resources to pay attention to education and training. This is very praiseworthy. The attention to be given by the Government to bilingualism and the teaching of the mother tongue is also encouraging.”
“Unless our family ties are strengthened, the ageing Singaporean can expect the same. The best way for an elderly person to retain respect is to have meaningful work. Yet in Singapore, in the younger old aged 55 to 74 years, 55% of men and 88% of women do not work. Unless our work environment is prepared to accommodate the different needs of the older worker, we will not be able to retain the services of our ageing citizens for as long as they are able and willing. If the elderly can remain providers longer, even for themselves, they will become dependants later, and the dependency ratio will improve. More than anything, most elderly people fear illness which may bring pain, disruption, uncertainty and, worse of all, permanent disability and dependency. Our preventive health services should promote healthy and vigorous lifestyles in the elderly. Medical care for the elderly, who often have limited finances, should be appropriate, adequate, affordable, and audited to ensure all these. About 60% of Singaporeans, mostly the old, will suffer and die from cancer, heart diseases and stroke. These are chronic and expensive diseases. Many families have been totally disrupted when a member if afflicted. Often, hospital care is expensive, intermediate care is inadequate, and home care is difficult. We need to put together a spectrum of intermediate care home-based services, involving district clinics, day-care centres, family physicians, home nursing, and social service providers who can arrange hot meals, laundry, home help and visitation.”
“In Singapore, the number of elderly aged 60 years or more is expected to increase from 8% now, to 11% by the year 2000, and 26% by year 2030. These quiet statistics have staggering implications. Countries which today have just about 15% elderly, such as those in Western Europe, are already having to adjust to the realities of a grey society. In stark numbers, in 1988, one aged Singaporean dependant was supported by 8.2 economically active persons aged 15-59 years. This will drop dramatically to 2.2 in year 2030. If we do not prepare, the lap after the next will be a piggy-back race. Increased longevity and low total fertility means our society nearing 2030 will have far less workers and soldiers, and far greater need for welfare facilities and services. This is a nightmare scenario threatening our national competitiveness, our economic life, our security and our social harmony. The old will compete with the young for scantier resources; the young may desert the old or, worse, the society they find increasingly effete and burdensome. We must see that this is a challenge of immense dimensions, and that the solutions must be worked out and worked on now. Our solutions must bear the marks of a civilised and compassionate society. In some primitive societies, when the time came, the old were left in the snow, or walked out into the desert. Bizarre solutions such as Soylent Green have been imagined. Our solutions must ensure that growing old will not be a wretched time. In the main, the elderly fear loneliness, loss of respect, and illness. In a 1980 survey in Britain, 52% of the elderly lived with their spouses in two-person households, and 34% lived alone. Only 11% lived with children or relatives, and 3% lived in residential or hospital accommodation.”
“Within three days, the Iraqi occupation army crumbled. Each day of this conflict has cost more than a billion US dollars, and hundreds and thousands of lives. This enormous cost was borne not merely to liberate Kuwait, but to help free all sovereign nations from the threat and temptation of wars of aggression. I salute our small team of medical support personnel who exposed themselves to great danger in defence of an important principle. Their efforts must not be undermined by our self-doubt. If the Scud missile which killed more than 30 American soldiers in Dhahran had killed 30 Singaporean medics in Riyadh instead, our doubts would have demeaned their commitment. The challenge of the post-war period is to win a lasting peace in the Gulf, so that ordinary Kuwaitis and Iraqis, poor Arabs and rich Arabs, Jews and Palestinians, have a chance to rebuild and enrich their lives, their countries and their cultures. Closer home, Sir, the President's Address, in scope and sentiments, captures closely the mind and mood of Singaporeans who are eager and ready to climb the next phase of national and social development. One of the traits of social maturity is the manner in which society responds to its weak. My concern today is with the elderly. In youth, the future stretches forever; in the aged, the next lap is the final lap. For the elderly, peace, health and happiness become far more important than ambition, power and wealth. As they near the hour, the elderly must make peace with their past and with life itself. The most fortunate do this while enjoying health and happiness, with their daily needs met, in the company of family and friends. Sadly, for many, this may not be so.”
“Koh will need a committee of wise men and women drawn from a wide cross-section of our community to help him, and they can be a kind of a jury to advise the Government. In most cases I think Government will accept their advice. Sir, we need a whole array of such committees and civic organisations, at home and abroad, to help Singaporeans govern themselves, so that Singapore can be governed with a light touch and not a heavy hand. This was the way the book "The Next Lap" was put together. I remember meeting a few of our newspaper editors not long after they had read the book. They complained, "Look, no headline material. Nothing dramatically new. Why is that?" They forgot that they themselves helped to produce the book, that they themselves were part of the process of consultation. This is the general approach Mr Goh Chok Tong's Government will continue to take: to involve as many Singaporeans as possible so that as many as possible feel they are in charge of their own lives. Sir, we are a small but remarkable country. Kuwaitis, despite gleaming skyscrapers, did not fully appreciate what it meant to have a country, until they lost it. Now, amidst the rubble and the ruins, they weep tears of joy. They are lucky. We hope we will never be subject to such terrible trials. We may not be as lucky. But the stronger our instinct to stick together and look after each other, the less likely will we be put to such a test. I support the motion, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Maurice Choo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, almost exactly 40 nights after the expiry of the Security Council's deadline for Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from occupied Kuwait, and following intense air bombardment, a massive Allied land campaign was launched early this week.”
“I hope that there will be more Davinder Singhs speaking up to put moral pressure on our different institutions, so that standards will be kept, and in this way we have a much more stable and much more agreeable situation than one where Government departments pontificate. After a while, a pattern will settle. I remember as a student in England that when you go to the barber shop you find girlie magazines as standard fare. You get them in barber shops, but you would not find them in the waiting rooms of clinics or in lawyer's offices. You would not find "The Sun" in a city bank. And this is the way it should be. A community decides what its key value institutions are, and these institutions put up the pressure on maintaining standards. Then Government can take a more detached role. Indeed, among our local newspapers, a pattern is already setting. So some are self-consciously high-brow Establishment, maybe not as high brow as Mr Shanmugam would like, and others would move down market to capture mass circulation. On the issue of censorship, I will ask Prof. Tommy Koh to chair a committee to advise MITA, on the way we censor videos, publications and performances. On film censorship, MITA has already decided that we would proceed to introduce a system of classification later this year. It has been on the boil for many years now. Prof. Koh is the right person. He is very well respected, both in Singapore and overseas. He is happily married, with two sons, and neither too young nor too old. He has already agreed to chair the National Arts Council when it is formed. In fact, he is helping me now draft the Bill to be presented to Parliament. We have to update our censorship rules if we want the arts to flourish in Singapore. Prof.”
“This is why it will take a long time for China to achieve democracy, because democracy is not in the great tradition of Chinese civilization. In this regard, Taiwan which is having a very interesting experiment right now is ahead of China and we are ahead of Taiwan. The more we are self-governing as a people, the more stable our democratic institutions will be. Then we do not ask what Government is doing. We ask what we ourselves are doing. A strong sense of common ownership and collective responsibility is absolutely necessary for such a public spirit to develop. Take the problem of censorship. It falls on my laps because MITA has oversight responsibilities, but I do not think MITA should appoint itself as a guardian of public morals. Yes, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there are minimum standards, that we do not allow pornography, excessive violence or themes that inflame racial or religious hatred. That is, I think, the general view of Singaporeans. But it should not be the Government's or MITA's responsibility to set, let us say, the moral tone of some of our women's magazines, for example. I cannot even agree with my wife. How can anyone in MITA pretend to decide on such issues, and even if they can decide, why should members of the public accept their decisions? Mr Davinder Singh alluded to a certain newspaper trivialising its reporting of the Gulf War. Whose responsibility is it to maintain standards? I am not saying that there should be no standards. There should be standards, but often it is better for the community to decide what these standards should be.”
“They had no more than two or three weeks, but they said they would do it. I was quite taken aback by their enthusiasm but agreed that if they wanted to do it, we should help. So I checked with Times Publishers. They said, yes, it was very tight but it could be done. They would facilitate the effort. So it was not MITA, but our local press who took the lead, because they feel deeply for this country and for our multi-racial ideal. They said this document is a seminal document, far too important not to have in all the official languages. I think this is the reason why we must always make a distinction between our domestic press and the foreign press. The domestic press is part of our Establishment. They are shareholders of Singapore. We cannot expect the foreign press, however friendly they are, to be as passionately committed to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must separate commitment to Singapore from commitment to the PAP. Yes, it was the PAP Government which created much of the Establishment that we have today, but the Establishment is not the PAP. And if the PAP wants to remain in Government, it must work closely and reflect the views of the Establishment. In the long-term, there could be other Establishment parties. Maybe the SDP could become an Establishment party. When that happens, it would not matter very much whether it is the PAP or some other Establishment party that governs Singapore, because whether it is one or the other the essential conditions to safeguard our economy, our prosperity and our security will be met. It will take time, of course. The Chinese who make up 76% of Singaporeans are more used to being governed than to governing themselves.”
“How can it be when so many Singaporeans, most of them non-party members, were involved? Many years ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew acknowledged very starkly that the men who ran Singapore could fill only one jumbo jet. So very thin was the Establishment. It is a much thicker layer now and one increasingly held together by certain common instincts about what we have to do to compete in a very competitive world. Whether we are in the public sector or in the private sector, whether we are in our 60s or in our 30s, whether we are men or women, in uniform or in mufti, CL1 or EL1, we share quite similar ideas about what we have to do, first, to make a living, then to look after our security. I am not talking about details, about whether there are too many photographs in the book, about which there is bound to be disagreement among honest men, but about the basic principles underlying our multi-racial society, about our economy, about our education system, about our foreign relations and about our national defence. Take the publication of "The Next Lap" for example. As a Parliamentary document, we intended to have only an English edition. It is the main Addendum to the Presidential Address. The Presidential Address is in English, so the Addendum should be in English. When I briefed our local press less than two months ago, I gave them an advance copy so that they would have more time to translate the parts they wanted for publication in their newspapers. At that meeting which I thought was a routine one, the Chinese press said they would like to translate the whole book. They would pool resources, give it top priority and produce a Chinese edition. When the Chinese press said that, the Malay press and the Tamil press said they too would do the same.”
“Right now, as long as data and information is selectively given to PAP MPs, then the debate will always be between a heavyweight and a lightweight in terms of information. And if we want Singapore to go through the next lap successfully, then PAP MPs and Ministers should be able to work together to improve the work of each Ministry. Sir, should we not see our Parliament evolving into an entirely different Parliament from the English Parliament or similar Parliaments elsewhere in the world? If we do not get out of this mind block, then forever consensual politics here in Singapore will not bloom well. Sir, I join my colleagues in thanking the President and congratulating him for his message. His Speech is indeed a reflection of his and the Government's concern for all Singaporeans, rich or poor. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon all Singaporeans to rally behind our President and Government to ensure a bright and prosperous Singapore in the future. The Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an unusual debate. Most of the points raised are points already raised, either in the Presidential Address, in the book "The Next Lap" or in the various Addenda. Members are not pressing Ministers for specific answers and Ministers feel little pressure to respond or defend particular policies. What we are engaged in is a conversation, a conversation about our future as Singaporeans. No Member, no Minister wants to pretend that he has a monopoly of wisdom. This is more like a philosophical discussion about how we should govern ourselves. We are in broad agreement, even Dr Lee Siew-Choh, who showed it by complaining that "The Next Lap" is an election manifesto.”
“Compare this with PAP Ministers who are full time having the backing of a whole host of first-class civil servants working full-time for him. If PAP MPs are to discuss matters on par or at a level as high as the Ministers are capable of, then they must have sufficient staff to support them. I think it is about time to persuade all Singaporeans to view Parliament proceedings in this light. If we can take ourselves a little higher and discuss issues with logic and facts, then the days of stone-throwing debates in Parliament, as we had the opportunity to witness sometime ago, will be put into history and we start a new chapter of logical discussions here in Parliament. Here, I must of course reiterate that as PAP MPs we have been doing quite well in the past. We are only seeking to do better. I therefore hope to see every GPC given two or three full-time research workers to back up the GPC, either through research in libraries, at Ministries or tap the full potential of all our resource panel members. The Government is in the best position to help the growth and development of Government Parliamentary Committees, rather than to leave it to the aid of, say, certain commercial institutions, as it would just invite unnecessary pressure lobbying. Data and information I again presume here that if it is the Government's intention that the GPCs play a more prominent role, then each Ministry should, where Government MPs are concerned, be able to share data and information with the relevant GPC. Access to relevant data and information is the key to a more evenly matched debate here in this Chamber. We should strive for debate on a more equal footing.”
“If we can achieve this, then debate between the Government frontbench and backbench can generate new and better ideas to take Singapore successfully through the next lap. I hope that the GPCs will evolve to bring about a more balanced, effective and constructive debate in Parliament and demonstrating to the people of Singapore that the PAP MPs are earnest in striving to do their best for them and for the country. If we succeed, then we will demonstrate to all Singaporeans that the PAP MPs are capable of an even better level of debate and we keep improving all the time. I believe that the PAP MPs have up till today contributed much more and more constructively in Parliament to bring about a better Singapore for all, and I am sure that Singaporeans have discovered this too. But doing our best alone would not be good enough. There will have to be some con siderable backing of some kind. I suggest the following: (a) recognition and stature; (b) some financial support; and (c) more data and information. Recognition and stature As the President has mentioned that he wishes to see GPCs play a more important role, I take it that the Government will eventually think of all kinds of ways to accord recognition and improve the stature of GPCs. I will not further elaborate. Financial support This can be quite a tricky matter knowing what Ministers for Finance are capable of. But I certainly hope that the Prime Minister who is today synonymous with consensual politics will be able to find a way to support the growth of GPCs. I think we want to bear in mind that the resource panel every GPC has attached to it is made up of voluntary workers. PAP MPs are also part-time workers.”
“Otherwise, how can they discuss matters at a level that can match up to a well-established machinery comprising one of the world's best civil service. I think my fellow Backbenchers will agree with me that we should be able to match the Minister, or even at least come very close to him, if we are given more tools. Without more tools, even the views from the members of the public, who may be experts in their own fields, the GPCs will be hard put to come up with some alternative solutions worth considering. I think this situation could well be like the war between the American-led allied forces and Saddam Hussein. But please do not get me wrong. I am not, for one moment, suggesting that there should be war in Parliament, or that there should be confrontational politics or debate here in Parliament. Neither am I extending my sympathies to Saddam Hussein. But luckily for us we have no wicked Saddam Hussein in our midst, although there may be one look-alike. The point I am trying to arrive at, Sir, is that if we do not have more tools for the GPCs, then debate from this side of the Chamber will probably be like scud missiles falling miserably and ridiculously short of target, or Patriot missiles fired from the Minister's end, exploding them into smithereens, with fragments falling on this floor of Parliament and of course in the process causing some casualties. But I am glad that up till now, since the formation of the GPCs, and with clever strategy, the PAP MPs have been able to perform well enough to avoid such Patriot missiles. But I think we can do more for Singaporeans. To help the GPCs to develop, we should work towards a win-win situation between the Government frontbench and the Government backbench.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak on a more important topic, and that is, on the President's Speech. First, I would like to say that I am very happy that the President has delivered such an important message in this Parliament and one of the topics he covered was on GPCs. He said that GPCs would have to play a more prominent role here in Parliament. This is his wish. It is also the Government's wish. I am in total agreement with the President. However, quite disappointingly, I was not able to locate a chapter devoted to politics. Even more disappointing is that there was no mention of the future development of GPCs in the book, which is called "The Next Lap". But incidentally this book "The Next Lap" very aptly defeats the saying: A picture is worth more than one thousand words. Sir, we are moving into the 1990s and consensus will be the hallmark of the way we are going to carry things through. I think because of that, it is important that the book should at least have had a chapter touching on politics and how we intend to build up consensual Government through the GPCs. For myself, I believe that the GPCs should be able to contribute more in Parliament and, like what the President said, they should be in a position to carry through the significant amendments to improve legislation. I am confident that they can. The GPCs are evolving. However, they have reached a point of time when they need more solid food, befitting adults, in order to further develop. To follow the President's wish, I urge the Government first to give the GPCs more tools to deliver a little more clout. Hurry the building of a new extension to Parliament, but right now, give the GPCs a venue to house the staff and facilities.”
“I am sorry, Sir. But I just could not take it that he calls the Party I belong to "selfish". And as I have said, I thought that I should be the one who should be more disappointed than he is. But on second thought, I do not think, for one moment, that the leadership is unfair to me because I think they are considerate in the sense that they feel that maybe I do not have the time, maybe I need all the time to make money, and that is the reason why I have not been over-involved. I am very surprised that being a very busy lawyer, Mr Chiam can spend so much time on Parliament work, although he normally comes late.”
“Act of God. So the way I look at it, Sir, he should not in any way be complaining at all. It should be me who should be complaining. As I said, I have been left out of the Select Committees, I have not been taken out overseas last year.”
“I do not know how many, but I know that he was supposed to be on the China trip but, by act of nature, he ended up with chicken pox. An hon. Member: Act of God!”
“Mr Chiam calls the PAP "selfish" and wants the PAP or the Government to help him to become the Government. In fact, to me, if anybody should be disappointed at all, I think it should be me who is disappointed with the Party leadership, and not Mr Chiam. And I will tell you why, Sir. If you look at the number of Select Committees that Mr Chiam has been included on the various Bills and the trips that he had been taken out, he should not for any moment think that the Government is selfish. But, poor me, Sir, I have been left out of the Select Committees ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I find Mr Chiam very amusing although, as I have said, not as amusing as Dr Lee Siew-Choh.”
“Sir, how can the Minister speak on behalf of the refineries?”