Fong Sip Chee
Singapore
“These include the flyovers at Paya Lebar Way, Aljunied Road, and various pedestrian overhead bridges. Their design and erection procedures were all found to be safe. The PWD will in future require all contractors to adopt erection procedures with two or more independent safety systems.”
“Sir, the Museum has been out of the fishy business for quite some time already. Since the establishment of the Science Centre, I believe that all the natural history exhibits have been transferred to the Science Centre in Jurong where they are properly displayed in a better environment. The role of the Museum has changed.”
“Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, with reference to his recent speech regarding increase in water consumption and the possible increase in water rates, whether there is no way of reducing water consumption without raising water charges, and whether he is aware that, as the Public Utilities Board has not ruled out t…”
“The Member for Thomson is absolutely right in his call for the insurance companies to be more active in the area of workers' protection rather than be the most passive party by writing out insurance policies. The Government does the legislation and enforcement. The insurance companies just write out policies.”
“We have also conducted a three-month health education programme, between November 1980 and January 1981, for deep-sea fishermen to educate them on the hazards of using compressed air and the precautions to take. A total of 352 fishermen have undergone this programme. The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation.”
“Sir, the proposed functions of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health are training, consultancy and research in industrial safety and health. A study of how such functions are discharged in some developed and developing countries started in April 1980.”
The complete record
Every one of 433 lines we hold for Fong Sip Chee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Members of the legal profession are also very frequently involved in other business and, just because of mismanagement of his business, or that he has no business acumen (not everybody can be a businessman), or because of his wrong judgment in business opportunities, he suffers financial loss which might lead to bankruptcy. This does not mean that a person who is a bad judge in business should be automatically branded as unfit to practise his profession. It is the same with doctors, architects and engineers who are involved in business. There are instances where their business failed. This does not mean that the capability of the doctor, architect, engineer or accountant is that much less as a professional. There appears to be no provision to cater for this contingency. I think it is unduly wrong. It is unfair to bar a person from practising his profession just because he is not a good businessman or maybe he stands surety for another party who absconds and lets him down. So a blanket statement on bankruptcy which might lead to barring a legal practitioner from practising his profession is a point which the Minister must consider. Sir, I have just been reminded that I have to withdraw my threat as I am not supposed to vote against the Bill. The Whip is not lifted in this case. After the conclusion of the Minister's reply, I shall not be present in this House as a gesture of protest.”
“Perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten the House whether he also contemplates introducing legislation to regulate the professional behaviour of the other professions. To the legal profession which I have no vested interest, I feel that they deserve the same treatment accorded to the other professions. Just because it is entrenched in the rules and regulations of their profession that their cases are to be heard in High Court and with the publicity given to it, they should now suffer the end result of the introduction of this Bill. On the question of voting, Sir, I have no quarrel. It is a good innovation to compel every member to exercise his vote to determine who should be the leaders of their profession. But, very unfortunately, some senior members of the profession had been found to have misbehaved. The provision of a time limit for the Committee of Inquiry to submit its report may well seem reasonable. As the Minister has explained, some Committees of Inquiry take an unduly long time to inquire into a matter. But I should like to invite the Minister's attention to the possible counter-productivity in this matter because the time limit may well force members of the Committee of Inquiry to come to a decision one way or the other, in which case justice is not done. I do not know whether there is provision for flexibility. On the question of bankruptcy, Sir, the Bill does not appear to contain any provision to consider cases of exceptional circumstances.”
“Therefore, the public media are fully informed of the proceedings of an action against a legal practitioner, quite unlike the other professions where they have closed-door sessions. I do not think there is any other profession which is bound by the procedure of disciplinary action being conducted at the High Court. If a bad engineer, a crooked accountant, or a negligent doctor is debarred for six months or a year, the case is not made known to the public. The respective Society just de-registers him; once in a while such a case might catch the attention of the public media and is reported in the press. But the integrity of every member of the legal profession suffers the singular disadvantage of being exposed in open court. Fair though, it may be, that the member can contest and is entitled to legal representation. But I want the House to be aware of this. It is not that there are more crooks in the legal profession. As I said, there is an equal number of black sheep in all the other professions. But why should the legal profession be singled out by the very system of inviting the attention of the media? I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics of the number of black sheep in the various professions who have been disciplined. Unless he has statistics to justify the case that the legal profession is way above the other professions in producing, so to speak, dishonest members, I am afraid I have to vote against this Bill. I wonder if the Minister could also produce statistics from other countries, say, from the United Kingdom from which we derive most of our legislations, as to the number of black sheep in the legal profession and, for that matter, the other professions too.”
“I cannot mention a particular case, as it may be sub judice - perhaps some lawyers would come forward to defend me free of charge after I have spoken on their behalf! There are architects who put up defective designs resulting in a loss of money - invisible to members of the public - and having to make good certain defects of a building. I just wish to point out to Members of the House the peculiar system (I think it is a good system) in the legal profession. It is that the Law Society has the power to conduct a Committee of Inquiry and the law in this regard seeks to place a time limit for the submission of a report on the deliberations of the committee. The Law Society will have to inquire into the matter and establish a prima facie case. I stand corrected, Sir. There are so many members of this profession here in this House - the Law Society has first to establish a prima facie case before referring it to the High Court, and then the disciplinary hearing is in open court. Am I correct there, Mr Minister?”
“Sir, I note with regret that this Bill has to be introduced in this House. I am not a member of any profession and therefore it might well be a good idea for me to speak my mind on what the people of Singapore expect of those who have benefitted from society by the training they get to be professionals. Among these professionals we find many of them in high office, including membership of this House. Sir, there are black sheep in every profession, be it the medical profession, engineering, architecture or accountancy. We have gone through a number of seasons. At one time it was the season of the doctors. We aimed the rifle at them, and then it subsided, and came on again, recently. We had an accountants season, and an engineers season. There was a very brief architects season. But none of those "shooting seasons" culminated in so grave a situation as to justify the introduction of a Bill in this House to strengthen the measures regulating the legal profession. In the absence of any statistics from the Minister on the black sheep in the other professions, I think it is singularly unfair to highlight one profession by the introduction of this Bill. One factor which weighs unfavourably against the legal profession is the custody of a large amount of cash held by solicitors. I wonder if we are not overdoing things. It is agreed that the clients and members of the public who enlist the services of legal practitioners must be protected. We do not disagree with this fundamental right of protection of their clients. In the same way, Sir, a medical doctor can, by negligence, cause the death of a patient. An engineer can, by negligence, cause the collapse of public buildings or bridges.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. I did not suggest accelerated promotion alone. I proposed then that the system could consider double promotion but it would be better if the brighter students were to be creamed off to classes using syllabus as that proposed for those who can complete GCE in four years. There is the difference between creaming-off and downward streaming-off.”
“Sir, my intention is to give the Member a lecture on Standing Orders while receiving his lecture on medicine.”
“On a point of order, Sir. Will the hon. Member please refer to the Minister for Health as such, instead of by name, as required under the Standing Orders?”
“Sir, I am only interested in the date of the publication as required by Standing Orders.”
“On a point of order, Sir. Will the Member please quote the date of the London Sunday Times so that we can make reference to it?”
“Members have so exhausted their imagination and thoroughly searched their conscience in expounding their views yesterday, today and will do so in the next two days in this House. It is for the same reason that I, with your indulgence, the forgiveness of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and, of course, the tolerance of hon. Members of this House, propose to move the amendment to the Motion before the House. The need for this amendment is obvious. The House wants to be informed of the development of the new system with the earnest hope that we may be able to contribute towards its successful implementation. Sir, I beg to move.”
“It may be argued by the Minister that the two proposals mean the same thing. Certainly it does to a great extent. But if we were to place the emphasis correctly, we will reward those who can cope (the 14%) instead of enraging the 86% by an indictment which they and their parents must naturally resent. I am not trying to split hairs. The sooner the proposal for a Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) is implemented, the better the system will see a more permanent feature emerging. For the brighter students, they can sit for the CSE one year earlier and move on to GCE 'O' level. The recommendations, as contained in paragraph 3.1.2.(b) and (c) in Chapter 6, seem to exempt these cases from the need to sit for the CSE as proposed in paragraph 3.1.2.(d). The CSE seems to be especially designed only for those in the Ordinary Stream, but not those in the Special Bilingual Stream (3.1.2.(b)), or the Normal Bilingual Stream (3.1.2,(c)). But any pupil in these two latter streams who unfortunately fails his GCE examination will end up without even the CSE. This is what I mean when I say that the revised structure is aimed at the minority, though brighter pupils. Certainly, these pupils deserve special attention. We should not waste their time unnecessarily since they have the capacity to cope with the heavier lesson-load. But what about the rest? True, they will be catered for under the other parallel streams, but why the obvious and deliberate running down of these pupils? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are here today to make a commitment to support a system of education so vital for our next generation. It is a commitment not to be taken lightly. It is a commitment for Singapore's future. It is a commitment which we cannot easily unscramble. It is for this reason that hon.”
“I can imagine in future social gatherings and conversations, one may suffer the indignation of having to declare if one is the product of the normal (at present 10 years) course, the extended course, or the streamed-off (11 years) course. 86% of our population will have to live with the stigma attached to them for the rest of their lives. A common course under which everybody must go through, with the brighter ones enjoying the prospect of double promotion or creaming-off to special curriculum classes, is quite a different proposition. The difference between the two proposals is simply this. In the present elitist-orientated system, streaming is done at two stages - Primary and Secondary. The brighter ones are to continue. They gain nothing except that they pass the threshold. For the average and the slow learners, who by no means are beyond redemption, they take one year extra. In the alternative 11-year-common-to-all system, as I have proposed, streaming will mean that the course for the brighter ones will be accelerated by one year. It is a gain for them, whilst the average and slow will continue with the normal course of 11 years at no loss of time, pride and confidence. After all, it means that it is just the other boy getting a double promotion. He has done well. So be it. Both types of courses can be conducted even at the same school. Otherwise, there will be a time when a certain school sparks, a certain school stinks, and some other schools sink! In a lateral movement, this can be done without much difficulty. It provides for the slow developer the ever-present challenge and opportunity to do well. As the proposed revised structure stands, provision is made for movement back into the main stream for those who pick up later.”
“This system takes into consideration the different learning capacity of pupils, and a slower pace of study may well salvage some of the materials who may be re-channelled into the extended bilingual stream at secondary school, although leapfrog promotion from the monolingual stream to the normal bilingual stream appears to be remote. The lateral movements among the three streams seem fair, and no pupil or parent can deny that the opportunity for reward for doing well in his later years has been entrenched in the system. In the Secondary Education System, three streams, or sub-streams or rather exigency streams, are proposed. They are:- (a) the Special Bilingual Stream for the top 8% of the Primary 1 cohort; (b) the Normal Bilingual Stream (4-year system) to cater for the 31% of the cohort, and (c) an Ordinary Stream leading to the CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education). I presume this is equivalent to the LCE. This is a 5-year course. I have always maintained that an education system must be applicable to all. All pupils must undergo the same system, say, a total of 11 years for the combined primary and secondary courses. There can still be streaming. But the emphasis should be on picking out the brighter ones and giving them, say, a double promotion, as proposed by the Member for Jurong yesterday, or be channelled to special classes with a special syllabus to accelerate their studies, while the remaining students will continue to pursue the normal stream. When I say "normal stream" here, it means a normal stream and not the normal stream as proposed in the recommendation of the Study Team. They have a different connotation there. The proposed streaming, if left unadjusted, can cause grievous harm to our next generation.”
“They form the majority. It must be an universal system. The revised structure is still stained with some past defects. It is an improvement with a provision that each pupil will be allowed "to study at a pace suited to his learning capacity." Nobody can quarrel with the principle that each pupil be allowed to study at his own pace. It is a fair approach. A noble objective. It cannot be denied that it is again designed to cater for the minority of 12% to 14% who will make it to the GCE 'O' or 'A' level. It tries to be fair, but I fear it is politically disastrous. A child will be subjected to streaming at, say, Primary 3 under this system. The brighter ones will be allowed to continue in the normal stream whereas the slow or even average learners will have to take on another year. On the findings that about 12% to 14% will eventually make it to the 'A' level, the stigma will be attached to the majority of the 86% of pupils and parents. Nobody wants to be branded as dull. In this system, the whole family - father, mother, and children - are all branded as duffers at one go! Repugnant it must be to them, Sir, to say the least. The recommendations for the Primary School Education System as contained in paragraph 3.1.1.(a), (b) and (c) of Chapter 6, in spite of what I have said earlier, are perhaps, less offensive, when compared to the other system, since it caters for the majority of the 60% of the Primary 1 cohort passing the PSLE without having to repeat any year. The streaming-off of the remaining two categories, that is, 20% each under points 2 and 3 of paragraph 3.1.1.(b), is acceptable.”
“All factors impeding the revival of the good morale of the teachers must be removed. This is of vital importance and if the revised structure of education is to succeed, the Team's recommendations as contained in paragraph 5 of Chapter 6 must be implemented with utmost urgency. A teacher is charged with the difficult yet all-important task of educating and moulding the young. He influences the students, he teaches them, guides them and prepares them for adulthood. His task is onerous and not even the examination results can quantify his contribution one way or the other. It is his intrinsic contribution that we must recognise and, therefore, the sooner the pay scale of the teaching profession is rationalised in the light of their well-earned recognition, the better they become effective digits as front-line educators. Of course, money is not the only solution. But how else can we show our respect and recognition to him in the reality of a materialistic society? Both the proposed primary and secondary structures place emphasis on downward streaming-off rather than upward creaming-off. This is the objectionable part of the otherwise excellent recommendations. The proposed revised structure of education, whilst taking cognisance of the defects in our hitherto diseased education system, is unfortunately still elitist in its spirit and content. Whilst the yardsticks for streaming, particularly at Primary 3 have not been proven to be absolutely reliable, I am prepared only to accept it in the absence of other known and tested methods relevant to our situation here in Singapore. What is the norm of the education system? Ten years, 11 years? Whom do we aim the system at? Education, whatever its system and objective, must be aimed at the average and that should be the norm.”
“The Study Team quite rightly noted the effects of criticisms by the press and the public on the morale of the teachers. I am afraid that some hon. Members here in this House have been equally guilty. Damaging statements were made both inside and outside the House. The Prime Minister once even made a remark to the effect that a man worth his salt and wanted to do well will not join the Teaching Service, in the event, those who remained were the Physical Education teachers - the brawn, he said, and the brains belong to their woman counterparts! A teacher's social status is what a community believes and accords him. In the Malay community, a teacher is always known as Che'gu at whatever social occasion, his recognition spreads across all strata of the community. He earns the high respect and esteem of the people he comes into contact with and even long after his retirement. He is Che'gu all his life. In the Indian community, the Guru is one from whom the masses seek moral and spiritual guidance. The Chinese have always placed high respect for teachers. He is known as Lao shi ( ) all his life, although this title in the present day is being used and confined only to his students. This is a Confucian maxim gradually giving way in direct proportion to the gain of the western idealistic liberalism. In an article I read many years ago in one of our local Chinese newspapers, I was amused by an article by a cynic who wrote about the greetings between a pupil and his teacher in three stages. In primary school, a child greets his teacher with a respectful "Sir". In secondary school, a plain and indifferent "Mister" and after leaving school or in the university, a spirited "Hi!". I suppose none of us today think it amusing.”
“So far, I have not come across any literature on the correlationship between linguistic ability and the innate ability or quality of a person. I will leave this for the experts to ponder. In the meanwhile, streaming must be executed meticulously. If a flair for language or linguistic ability is the criterion to determine a person's intelligence, several hon. Members here, including the Frontbenchers, should not be in this House. Moral teaching is one aspect which has not been accorded its rightful place in the old curriculum. A child is taught the final axiom, and told of the discipline and ethics expected of him. He is not told and, therefore, not able to retain the reasons behind the tenets which have been forcibly implanted into his mind. He does not know why he has to behave or think in a certain manner. He does not benefit from stories or historical anecdotes associated with the final principles he has to remember. But, remember he will, only for as long as the examinations last! It is to fill this semi-vacuum that the Team's proposal on formal instruction on moral education is most welcome. I understand that the syllabus will be drawn up by a Special Committee formed recently under the chairmanship of the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture, and to whom I have sent a few sample materials. On the question of the morale of teachers, the Study Team has identified a number of crucial factors affecting the morale of the teaching profession. Whilst it has been observed that the low morale is more apparent than real, it is equally true that teachers have been a frustrated lot, and for too long a time! That they are able to continue to give of their best in spite of the heavy odds against them deserve our highest salute.”
“Ironically, while there is no English culture to back the English language, the Chinese culture is here, but the language suffers an evident decline. Even Tamil. Fortunately, not Malay as yet. When we have more Chinese, Malays and Tamils speaking English, the cultural values of the communities should not be allowed to subside and eventually fade out. It is in this respect that the fear of deculturalisation is so real that it does not escape the attention of the Study Team. Language teaching is the most difficult of all subjects. The language teacher has to impart not only the meaning - frequently multiple meanings of a word - but also its different usage, the idioms and phrases, the metaphors and the simile. Unlike technical subjects where formulae and equations serve as the basis for solving problems, where H2O means water and nothing else, and where theorems provide proven basis for assumptions. Second language teaching is even more demanding. The teacher has to correlate, interpose and transpose two different languages. If a teacher can really master the effective command of the two languages, he hardly waits to get out of the teaching service! His difficulty is further compounded by a number of other factors, such as reading materials, text-books, pressure from parents and Ministry headquarters, and the pupils' prejudice and fear of the language itself. All these notwithstanding, it is not impossible to evolve a syllabus for second language teaching, particularly the Chinese Language, which is not a phonetic language, can be learnt without tears. Second language teachers are hard to come by in the first place, even more difficult to train. The teacher himself must first possess linguistic ability. Yet the streaming of students is based on linguistic performance!”
“They even boldly advertise their linguistic handicap in nearly every other instruction pamphlet which accompanies their products. But hon. Members should take note: the important thing is that they sell, and the whole world buys their products all the same! And little do we realise that such display of linguistic handicap can be so misleading! It is fair to say that the Japanese progress through the English language. For every latest literature on Science and Technology published in English, the Japanese will produce, in remarkably short time, the translation or their version of it and quickly pass down to their technocrats and technicians. Here is a case of knowledge gained through a foreign language and quickly exploited. This has been possible only because they can progress hand-in-hand with the western world, and in many instances, even overtaking the western industrialised countries without at the same time losing their identity and the verve and vibrancy of their hard culture. It is a case of happy and balanced blending of the two seemingly opposing factors. The Japanese have found the solution. But we have an edged advantage over the Japanese. In our case, English language has been with us and in our system for the last 150 years. It is not a strange language to us. This is our edge. It must be remembered, nevertheless, that even if all of us speak the English language like an Oxon, like the Attorney-General, Mr Tan Boon Teik, there is no English culture here to back up the language. There is no afternoon tea. Some of the gentlemen have been described by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education as Westernised Oriental Gentlemen (WOG). They may have afternoon tea. There are no bowler hats and no pudding!”
“"Landers" means the state's responsibility - quite similar to the cantons in Switzerland which the Deputy Prime Minister described yesterday. There was no common system in the Federation. Dissatisfaction was evident, even among the high intellectuals and the intelligentsia, indeed even very explicit disillusion over the education system there. But to my question as to why the Federal Republic of Germany was able and has been able to produce the high quality of technocrats and literary personalities, in spite of the defects they so vehemently criticised, a high official was quite dumbfounded. I still do not have the answer today, but it was quite a revelation to me. The reason that we have been able to progress so far to what we are today, under the much criticised defective system, must have been due to the sheer determination of our people, their ballast and the ever-present urge to do well. All these virtues are inherent in our cultures. In short, it was a defective system made workable, at least by those who have the tenacity to battle through the highly competitive arena. High attrition rate is the natural consequence in this system. This, of course, is no consolation, and neither do I attempt to exonerate the Ministry of Education and their luminaries for their past misdeeds. What I intend to highlight is that there is that great virtue in our people which has been oblivious to us and taken for granted lightly. In essence, it is the quality of the people that finally decides - a quality which we can exploit to our full advantage and which the new Restructured System must take cognisance of. With due respect to the Japanese, they are said to be poor linguists!”
“We are now able to scan a farther horizon, and politically matured to be able to tackle the problem more objectively without the inherent fear of the prejudices of language and culture. A major political decision has been made. It is up to us to give it the blood and muscle and determination to see it through its implementation, Parliament's endorsement and hon. Members' commitment are sought for this purpose - a decision today will ensure the quality of our next generation on whom the fortunes of our nation will be entrusted. Cultural and other traditional prejudices must now be set aside in the matter of survival of Singapore as a nation. I say this, and say so categorically as a Chinese educated. This is a bold statement which I realise may cause untold damage to my political standing if made in the early sixties. Indeed unthinkable, in the fifties, as the Member for Anson has said. I do so without fear only because I am confident that our people will understand the priorities of survival before anything and everything. Education is a life-long and continuous process. May I quote a Chinese saying: bai nian shu ren ( ). There are enough idioms in the Chinese language to describe education, the teachers and the pupils. Hon. Members are all agreed that there is no such thing as a perfect system in education. We have never hoped to ever evolve one in the first place. (The Minister for Home Affairs may wish to know that the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens has taken over my role by his eloquent exposition on Tamil education). The consideration is simply that of meeting the realities, however painful they may be. When I visited the Federal Republic of Germany many years ago, I found to my surprise that education was a Landers' responsibility.”
“Members would do well not to re-amplify them or bemoan too much the state of the past. It serves no useful purpose. What is important now is whether we have the courage to accept the challenges ahead to ensure that the new structure will bear the desired fruit. The Report, in a nutshell, lists out the deficiency of the system which our pupils have been subjected for many years. Indeed, as responsible Members of Parliament, we should now lend support to rectifying these defects and try to give life to the recommendations. Not a single decision on education in the past had been made without the inhibitions of political considerations and cultural constraints. Discussions in the House were confined mainly to the physical aspects of the various systems and their administrative shortcomings. If hon. Members' views were found to be wanting in wisdom and practical considerations, it was because they exercised judicious care in refraining to test the sensitivity of the subject. Hon. Members are aware of the many meetings amongst MPs on the subject of education. The discussions were frank, and frequently vigorous, if not more critical, than those hitherto expressed in this House. I myself have suffered cuts and bruises in the many exchanges I had with the Prime Minister. My fate of being knocked down every time was almost predictable! Fortunately, I have so far been able to survive the mandatory counts. Some well-intentioned colleagues advised me that I should have instead counted 10 before I ventured my views! Otherwise, the next time it will be a T.K.O. Times have changed. Singaporeans today are an entirely different breed from those in the fifties and early sixties.”
“" No better conclusion can be drawn than the Prime Minister's remarks. Never before has a more critical report on our education system and objectives been placed before the scrutiny of the entire nation. Views in support and criticisms were freely expressed, and MPs' guts were challenged even before they speak their minds. The Lim Tay Boh Report dealt with the exigency of a different era, when political consideration took preference over everything. Hence, its watered-down implementation. In a way, the Report now before the House vindicated hon. Members' criticisms in this House over the years on the education system in Singapore. Not a few Members proffered their comments, some with pungency, including mine. In the process, a few Members emerged languid and flayed; others, who were less fortunate, were scarred by the retorts by the Front Benchers, but nevertheless fought on. To those who have their pride injured, I respect them for their courage and sincerity. They will find satisfaction in the Report which, in fact, is a precis of their comments. They were duty-bound to bring to the attention of this House the effects and defects encumbered in the present system. To the Prime Minister, we acknowledge his continuous concern for the education of our young. We are grateful for his serious and forthright manner in which he dealt with us as he did with this most sensitive subject. However, it is impossible to incorporate all the views of each and every hon. Member. If we do, the final product will be an utopian system or a frankenstein. We are here to seek concord on how best the revised structured of education can be implemented. And concord we will achieve. Criticisms in the past have been many, and hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two amendments standing in my name. The hon. Members for Anson, Moulmein and Jurong have so enriched the House by their in-depth observations yesterday, and their timely chord of warning on the misgivings they have on the revised structure should suffice to enlighten the luminaries (they are all here) in the Ministry of Education. The Deputy Prime Minister himself has also further elaborated on the new structure. Their exercises have rendered the first amendment* unnecessary and I, therefore, do not propose to proceed with it. I shall, however, discuss the rationale behind which the amendment was originally moved. * The amendment, standing in the name of Mr Fong Sip Chee, reads as follows: "To leave out sub-paragraph (1) in lines 3 to 5 and there to insert - '(1) supports the revised structure of education based on a system common to all pupils which will make them as bilingual as they can be, and at the same time allow those with the capability to study at an accelerated pace suited to their capacity.'.". Sir, I now beg to move. "At end, to add a comma and the following new subparagraph - (4) resolves that the Minister of Education do report to Parliament after 2 or 3 years on the progress, unresolved problems and state of implementation of the revised structure of education'.". Sir, today's sitting of Parliament is especially convened for the sole purpose of debating the findings of the Education Study Team presented in Parliament as a Report on the Ministry of Education, 1978. The Prime Minister, in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education has aptly described the publication of the Team's findings and the exchange of letters "a watershed in our history. A generation of Singaporeans is coming of age.”
“I support the Member for Jalan Kayu. I do not think the Minister knows what he is talking about. He said that this special rule applies to the Perseverance Estate only. I can tell the House that it applies to my constituency also, as a result of a representation from me. So it does not apply to that Estate alone. There were cases of members of a family who got married after the cut-off date. A reply from the Resettlement Department said that the man was not entitled to two units. I think I raised this matter in this House during the debate on the Budget Statement. I took up the matter stating that there was no law saying that once a family had been censured for resettlement, no member of that family should contract marriage. I told the officials that I would only agree with them if they could produce the law to me. So in the end the Resettlement Department very kindly (I must thank them for that) agreed with me. They replied, "Because of that, we now allow this family to rent one, two, or three-room flats." So it is not a policy applicable to that estate alone. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of what is going on in the Resettlement Department. There was another matter of policy which I raised with the Resettlement Department. It so kindly agreed with me, again saying, "This is a good policy. However, since the resettlement policy was revised only recently, and that was one year ago, we are not able to bring this matter up again." This reminds me of the time when the Allied forces were nearing Berlin; nobody dared to wake up Hitler.”
“Sir, the Minister has given a very interesting reply. I agree with him entirely that once a piece of land is gazetted for acquisition, a lot of people would move into it and later claim resettlement benefits. Therefore, the Housing Board has not been able to agree to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Paya Lebar. The census must be taken first. Am I correct, Mr Minister - take the census first, then gazette?”
“It was discovered that rain water and even the water from washing of the corridors flowed down through the lifts and collect at the bottom of the lift well. This is a very serious problem because the machinery below gets rusty, hence, more repairs. I thought it was a very good action on the part of the HDB to build these little humps, but at the same time, people using the lifts have been tripping and toppling all over. This is not to say that these humps are bad. They are a necessity. But this is another example of those administrative lapses which I mentioned in this House before. It is a case of poorly designed lifts from the beginning, and they are now trying to rectify them. I had a private discussion with the Minister. He agreed with me. He thought that the humps could have been done in a more imaginative way. I bring this matter up in this House now in the hope that, having been told that these little humps should have been done in a more imaginative manner, they will indeed be rectified. Instead of making an announcement here, I hope the Minister will actually instruct his staff to try to look into other areas of previous administrative or design deficiencies.”
“I do not know whether or not to blame these workers but the Housing and Development Board should look into this. 6.00 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] On the question of one-room emergency flats, four blocks will be demolished in Chai Chee, and I do have a suggestion to make to the HDB. The surrounding blocks of flats near those blocks to be demolished are of old designs and they do not have void decks. Will the Minister therefore consider using some space left behind to provide a little shade to serve the same purpose as void decks because there are funeral rites and other functions going on there. Certain blocks have the misfortune of having all kinds of activity in their void decks because the surrounding blocks have no such provisions. So all the funeral rites and wedding parties have to be held there. I attended one wedding party in a void deck. I found there were actually three wedding parties going on at the same time. Sometimes when you attend a funeral, you have to go to the next block, because there is another funeral from another block but using the same void deck. I think this situation is unfair to that particular block because they are entitled to some privacy. It is not too unreasonable to request for a simple shed, an arcon structure perhaps, since some land will be available in Kampong Chai Chee, so that all these activities can be confined to that shed or pavilion, thus relieving the agony of residents in that particular block, who have to put up with all the funeral rites and the wedding parties. Recently the HDB built little humps over every opening of the lifts in Kampong Chai Chee. I do not know about the other constituencies. I think this is to rectify an architectural defect in the original design.”
“Sir, as an MP with new and old HDB estates in my constituency, I wish to contribute my observation. I do not wish to disagree with the Member for Henderson. It seems that he gets along very well in more than one aspect with the Minister. The Member has complained that since the Minister has left his old job as the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and Development Board, things have got worse. In my experience, things have improved. I will prove it to you, Sir. I have excellent cooperation with the Area Office which is in charge of Chai Chee Estate. There are good people there. I wish to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of their cooperation, not only with me but also with the Residents' Committee and the Citizens' Consultative Committee. We have a very cordial working relationship there. Notwithstanding that, there are a few snags here and there. The Minister mentioned the question of lifts. In old Chai Chee Estate there are four blocks of flats using a certain brand of lift. These are the only four such lifts in the whole estate. I was given to understand that those lifts were under experiment. In the end, they were not chosen. Another brand was accepted by the HDB. The end-result was that in these four blocks of flats, that peculiar brand of lift suffered very frequent breakdowns. There was even the case when a lift was vandalised by the repair contractor's workers. In one day alone, workers had to be called about three or four times to repair that same lift. The workers themselves got a little bit annoyed and after repairing the mechanism of the lift - it worked after that - but certainly the walls of the lift were not the same as before they were repaired. I thought they themselves vandalised the lift just out of frustration.”
“Sir, just to keep the record straight, may I have your permission to speak for a few minutes? Two years ago when the Citizen's Consultative Committee of Kampong Chai Chee raised the question of improving street lighting along Jalan Eunos, including that portion of the intersection of the Pan-Island Expressway, the matter was referred to the District Office, which in turn liaised with the PWD. We received a reply that Jalan Eunos would be widened this year and that the improvement of street lighting would be incorporated in the project. When I look at the Budget, I find that the provision is only for the improvement of the Kampong Kembangan section of Jalan Eunos. We have raised the question of improving the street lighting but it has not been taken into consideration in this year's provision. I see, therefore, that not only is the Member for Kampong Kembangan confused as to his boundary of the electoral division but the PWD is equally confused. I think when the Minister for National Development was the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing and Development Board, he was in charge of the re-delineation of the constituencies. Perhaps he would like to re-delineate that portion of Kampong Chai Chee which he has refused to improve as a result of our suggestion and put it under another constituency. Our job will then be a whole lot easier. Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I hate to be a spoilsport. But I hear a lot of requests for improved and better street lighting. Surely hon. Members are aware that we have an energy crisis on our hands.”
“Sir, I have no intention to highlight the inadequacy of any Member. I only hope that if the Backbenchers can have enough controversy among themselves, my job will be very much easier as it proved to be the case. We do have campaigns but it is not the kind of campaign that the Member for Mountbatten has in mind, because if we were to mount a national campaign we will find that about 2% of the exhibits will be relevant to perhaps 2% of the workers and the rest, 98%, will be totally lost. Because of this, we mount campaigns on an industry basis. For example, we have campaigns in the shipbuilding, construction, metal working, and the woodworking industries. These are the four industries which are most accident-prone, so that our efforts can be appreciated and also the knowledge imparted to workers in these industries can directly and immediately benefit them. For instance, a woodworking industry worker will not have to burden himself with a study of the machines in the shipyard. There are, however, certain features in industrial accidents, like failing from heights and being hit by falling objects which are very common in the shipbuilding and construction industry. We do have campaigns on that. Cost-effectiveness-wise, I do not think it is good for us to organise mass campaigns on industrial safety and health. It is time-consuming and the effectiveness is questionable. If we were to do that, I do not think the Minister for Finance will give us more funds next year. We would expose ourselves to this folly.”
“I hope the Member is not referring to C6H6 - Benzene. I think the Member meant b-e-n-z-i-n-e. In gasoline - petrol, there is some quantity of organic lead, about 0.08% per litre, acting as a kind of anti-knock agent in gasoline, and benzene is part of the grade. There is lead in benzene, but more frequently they use petrol. Organic lead is unlike inorganic lead. I hope the Member for Kampong Kembangan is following me. The only way a person can get organic lead poisoning is through acute exposure. That means he is suddenly exposed to a large dosage or through wounds. It is not like inorganic lead where a person can get lead poisoning through a chronic low exposure, i.e. accumulative exposure over a long period of time. That only applies to inorganic lead. So when we talk about organic lead of 0.08% in the substance that the Member referred to, there is very little danger of lead poisoning. We conducted a survey in 1977 and found that there was no incidence of lead poisoning through the use of petrol. This is a frequent practice though. I agree with the Member for Kampong Kembangan that it is not a good practice. It is a bad habit. There are other cleansing solvents or cream available in Singapore. I have got a list of the brand names here. For fear of being accused for being a salesman for these products, I will hand it over to the Member personally if he desires. So there is a little danger in that. But if we were to go to the battery shops, the electro-plating establishments, the danger of lead poisoning is very high. In fact, we were compelled to take action against a few establishments in the past. As for the Member for Paya Lebar, may I have your permission, Sir, to reply in Mandarin, so that it would be easier for him to understand.”
“We just cannot increase the penalty or enforcement action through sheer anger. We need to examine the situation very closely before we come down to a decision. Certainly the matter is very much alive in our mind. We hope there will be no need for us to impose too strict a punitive measure, but if circumstances demand it we have no hesitation to do so. The Member for Kampong Kembangan is particularly concerned about lead poisoning. The Member said "benzene". May I find out from the Member whether he means "benzene" or "benzine". They are, chemically, two different things. One is quite remotely related to the other.”
“There am a number of equipment and machinery now being handled by workers who are not required by law to first acquire a certain degree of competence or expertise. For example, drivers of tractors, excavators and even some operators of lifting equipment like the crane, are not required by law to obtain a certificate of proficiency. There have been some accident cases in this area. We have even liaised with the Registry of Vehicles to try to impose some control. Unfortunately the law says that so long as the vehicle is not on a public road, the worker is free to operate those huge vehicles even without the knowledge of safe handling. We did organise some courses for dumper trucks and excavators, but I do not think that kind of ad hoc solution will help. It is hoped that after a period of time all these people handling heavy machinery and equipment, like tractors and overhead cranes, will be licensed or be subjected to a course of proficiency and certified fit before they are allowed to operate. If we were to impose the requirement now, it will completely upset a lot of our industry. We are very mindful of this. It will be done, particularly when the Institute is in operation. The Member for Serangoon Gardens appealed for strict observation of safety rules. He also asked that more severe punitive measures be imposed. May I remind the Member that sometime ago the penalty under the Factories Act has been increased from $5,000 to $10,000 and that the custodial sentence has been doubled from three months to six months. We are reviewing the situation and might even further enhance the penalty. But in so doing we must bear in mind many other criteria which I do not think it worthwhile to discuss today.”
“We are considering now whether or not to make it compulsory. But there are very enlightened managements. After the exercise they mount their own campaign, and they conduct their own surveillance at their own expense. Perhaps the Member for Mountbatten will agree with me that we do find enlightened employers here - I am not apologising on behalf of the other Members - but there are employers who do respond to our efforts and to them I say a big "Thank You", maybe through the Member for Mountbatten. On the question of solvents and chemicals handled by our workers, the number of cases is increasing. Let me refer to some statistics. Very fortunately we have only a few cases last year. On solvents, chemicals and other solvents, there were five cases last year, one in 1977 and seven in 1976. The other cases were minor. The main problem was noise-induced deafness and industrial dermatitis, which gave us a total of 583 confirmed cases. But very rarely did the damage due to industrial dermatitis become permanent. If they had undergone a course of treatment and be isolated from contact with this process, they could have returned to normal life without any loss of capacity. Unlike noise-induced deafness, where there would be some loss of hearing. On the question of occupational cancer or carcinogenic programme, mentioned by the Member for Kim Seng, I am pleased to inform him that the programme has been launched. We have managed to get the staff. We will first have to compile a register of those establishments and surveillance will go on. This is a long term exercise. I only hope that I can report to the House every year that the statistics will always remain at zero. This is another programme on general safety situation.”
“This leads me to the point raised by the Member for Kim Seng. He appealed for the setting up of a kind of body to coordinate efforts. I am pleased to inform him that since he raised the question in this House last year we have now been given the green light to proceed with the establishment of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. It has still a long way to go. We have to re-examine once again our objectives so as not to over-do things, and to draft the necessary legislation to give final birth to this institute. Right now we are undergoing a period of labour pains on this. Sir, I will not pick bones with the Member for Kim Seng on this issue of noise-induced deafness. I am in complete agreement with him. He quoted 177 cases for 1977. Last year 1978, the number of cases was 257. This shows an increase. It is not because we have failed in our duty but rather noise-induced deafness surfaces only after a period of constant exposure to a noise level beyond 90 decibel. The increase in the number of cases confirmed last year goes to show that our surveillance programme is proceeding very well. It is estimated that 20,000 workers are exposed to very noisy environment. Since we launched the hearing conservation programme, about 13,500 workers have been screened. We have repeated follow-up cases of about a few per cent, let us say, 3,000. It can be said that since we launched the programme in 1976/77 we have gone through about half the number of workers in the establishments which have a very high noise level. The difficulty here is that in discharging this particular duty we have to seek the cooperation of employers because it is not compulsory or mandatory by law that they must subject their workers to a screening test.”
“We also participated in the University post-graduate course by giving lectures on this aspect of work, hoping that in the higher levels of management the knowledge and commitment of industrial health and safety would be evident at meetings of the board of directors. Members can therefore see that we have gone through the different levels of training for those people involved. Sir, before I go on to the other points, may I just share my feelings with the Member for Anson. If I do seem to be trembling later, it is not because I cannot provide answers to Members but because I do feel the cold myself. 6.30 p.m. May I now go on to the various specific points raised by the various Members. It is very prudent of the Member for Kim Seng not to go into the Spyros case because a number of people have been charged in court. I do not think we should touch on this subject at all. If we were to exclude that disaster, we will find that last year the industrial safety situation showed a very minor improvement of 0.5%. This improvement is negligible but it shows some effort. The increase of 10 posts in the Factory Inspectorate is, of course, welcomed and they will be put to good use. But the main problem is not so much an increase of staff every year. The Ministry of Finance will not be too kind to us if we keep on increasing staff. The problem is that both the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Division not only have to discharge their enforcement duty and functions but they are also involved in training, providing educational courses, training courses, as well as educational and promotional activities. Sometimes they also provide consultancy services to enlightened managements who seek assistance, out of their own volition and without any compulsion.”
“In that sense this argument cannot be used against the workers. Supervision is the most important ingredient in safety management. This is particularly true in the construction site where safety supervision is very frequently "an experience in twilight zone", so to speak, because in one construction site there may be 10 contractors, each not knowing who is responsible for safety. I take this opportunity to emphasise again that it is a question of supervision. The Member for Kim Seng and the Member for Serangoon Gardens raised the same point in direct opposition to the Member for Mountbatten. They seem to place the responsibility on the employers. Whilst I agree that the safety and health of workers should be a tripartite effort, principally it is a matter between the employers, the workers and the unions, because the Ministry of Labour cannot be everywhere all the time. It is important, Sir, that each of us should not merely pay lip service but to give our moral commitment to the question of industrial safety and health. There are employers who engage a safety officer or supervisor merely to satisfy the requirements of the law. Our view is that mere compliance with the law is as good as nil, if a safety officer is there just as a figure head and, in fact, some of them do not have sufficient knowledge of industrial safety and health. Because of this, the Ministry conducted many training courses at different levels of safety management in the various establishments - from safety officers to safety supervisors, even industrial first-aid course.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just comment generally on a few points commonly raised by various Members. Perhaps I should begin with the Member for Mountbatten because his comment really stands out. After so many years, this is the first time we hear a voice defending the employers. Perhaps the debate will be quite different from now on, when it comes to this subject of safety and health of workers. I do not know whether the Member would extend his coverage to other aspects of labour legislation on employers. But I would seriously advise him to be more prudent and exercise his discretion. I appreciate, Sir, his concern too, but generally most employers put the blame on the workers for failure to observe safety rules and regulations and good practices. This seems to be quite acceptable on the surface, but if we were to look deeper into the question, then we would find the real crux of the problem lies in supervision or the insistence, at least by the employers through the supervisors and safety personnel, on the workers to put on safety apparels. There was only one case of a worker who was disciplined for failure to comply with safety regulations. If the employers were to exercise the control which they ought to, then I do not think the problems of workers failing to observe safety regulations would arise as quoted by the Member for Mountbatten. I have heard many arguments, including those from statutory boards that the workers are difficult to control because they are semi-illiterate, illiterate, and of low education. I think there is a big fallacy in this argument. It is precisely because of their educational level that they are workers. Otherwise they should be executive directors or chief executive of the board.”
“On that note and with the hope in mind that the Senior Minister of State will respond to this suggestion to check the various lapses in the Ministry, I rather reluctantly associate myself in supporting the financial statement. It is painless and a rather mild surprise, because the pain will come afterwards. 6.49 p.m.”
“The principle should be that whilst no one should benefit from resettlement, neither should the people suffer as a result of it. It is therefore important that this special unit be set up as quickly as possible because as we increase the tempo of development, the officers tend to be more and more indifferent and they follow the book more and more. "After all, I draw a day's pay. I follow the guide book. If certain things cannot be done, they can see their Member of Parliament." A Member of Parliament can only offer to his people his sincerity, his willingness to work hard for his people, but he cannot offer all the solutions, still less provide answers for administrative stupidity. I do not think that is the role of the Member of Parliament. Fortunately, our meet-the-people session is a good bridge between the people and the Government. From our experience, we can gauge the general feelings of the population. But I do not think that is enough, Sir. What should be done is that the various departments should have their own guidelines on certain cases, particularly citizenship. It is a serious matter, and yet these guidelines are absent. They are merely following rules. And if the Minister for Finance can allow a provision in the MSD - first of all, the MSD themselves must be enlightened - and if all the Ministries were to suffer the same fate as the Registry of Companies where all the officers have direct lines, then we have to find another MSD to advise the MSD. It is important, Sir, that these lapses here and there should be checked. And it is all these grievances that sway the general mood of the people.”
“But they are based on past experiences to help the officers to discharge their duties in the most efficient, expeditious and humane way. But unfortunately, some of them allow themselves to be tied up in knots by the same Instruction Manual which is designed to help them. The examples which I have quoted are not that serious, but if we do not check all these minor lapses here and there, many citizens will be wronged. In the example of the identity card case which I quoted earlier, if that citizen were to approach a Member of Parliament who is not conversant with Chinese culture, she would have been wronged for the rest of her life. For one citizen to be wronged, that is bad enough, Sir. There is no recourse to litigation because if she were to go to court she could not prove that it was her certificate until a little detective work on culture was done by an MP. These lapses should remind us that there should be some check lists in the various Ministries. If they are confronted with a situation there should be a check list with which they can go through the various points before taking the rather unpleasant action, say, revoking the citizenship of a person. It is a serious matter, Sir. Regarding my query on how many more such cases, there was no answer. Since we spend $603 million on manpower and salaries, should there not be a special unit set up, perhaps under the MSD, to look into lapses like those I have just mentioned? The unit can propose some guidelines as to the degree of flexibility that can be allowed under certain circumstances. It is an unpleasant thing to have to resettle people but they generally accept that resettlement is for the benefit of the State.”
“On the same argument each of them obtained an additional unit. Fortunately or unfortunately, their brains did not stop working, as far as the resettlement officers are concerned. To my amusement, one day I received a letter from the Department in reply to a similar case of a request for an additional unit. It stated, "We regret to inform you that we are not able to offer you an additional unit on the grounds that your marriage was not consummated." Sir, for 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have never come across such logic or argument, I replied to the Department and, among other things, I stated, "Since civilization began, a matter such as the consummation of a marriage is not normally done in the presence of a witness." The Housing Board took on the role of the High Court. They almost nullified the marriage. Only the High Court can decide whether or not a marriage is consummated and only upon a complaint by either of the parties. In this particular case, although there was no complaint, they ruled that the marriage was not consummated! See how do they justify a blunder? The reply to my two-page letter was indeed very short. "Please refer to your letter dated so-and-so. I am pleased to inform you that the couple has now been offered an additional unit." As I have said, I can go on giving examples. My intention here is to bring to the attention of the Ministry of Finance, the MSD, and particularly those people who implement policies, of the need to be flexible, humane, and to bear in mind the kind of people they are dealing with. Strict adherence to the rules is good. But they should allow some flexibility. Rules are made to guide the civil servants to work more efficiently and expeditiously. The Instruction Manual runs into three volumes.”
“After some months the younger brother bought all the timber, planning to move in on to the new piece of land. But the elder brother said, "Don't, this land is again being acquired." So the younger brother did not move in, but in the end he lost all his claims for the original compensation on the grounds that he had failed to take occupation of the land offered. But the land offered was once again acquired. The matter lasted for six years until I went to the constituency. I charged the Resettlement Department for expropriation and then they agreed in the end to pay what they call "ex gratia payment". They cannot call it "compensation" because that would mean admitting their mistake. They had to justify their mistake by calling the payment "ex gratia payment". That is one example. Another example is that frequently we find that in resettlement cases a family will approach the Resettlement Department saying, "Can I have two units because my son is now married?" The standard reply reads, "When we did the census, there was only one family unit. We cannot now give you another unit." I took the matter up with the Resettlement Department and asked them to produce the law which says that once a family has been censured for resettlement, no member of the family can contract a marriage. I do know, Sir, that in my old constituency some places had been censured for resettlement but no clearance for ten years. We do not expect a young maiden to wait 10 years to get married! Does it mean that if a person gets married, he or she is not entitled to a house? Sir, on that argument the Resettlement Department relented and agreed to offer an additional unit, albeit on a rental basis. At least the family has a place to stay. There were several similar cases.”
“As a result, after the deduction of $2 which I owed them, they now owe me $11. I received a reply enclosing a receipt for $2 and $1 cash. That $1 is still in my file. I shall have to frame it up. (i did not indulge in illegal activity on receipt of the $1, Sir. I was tempted to do so, but as a good Member of Parliament, I did not.) I managed to get $1 out of a Government department. But I lost $19 in the end. I wrote them a letter, this time on my letter-head, saying that I did not do so in the past for the reason which I have stated earlier. Now that commonsense finally prevailed, there was cause for celebration. I did so in the form of a donation of $20 to the ROV Officers' Sports Club. $19 was my own donation and the $1 from the Government department for their penance. It was yet another justification for a mistake! They make a mistake, you pay for it, being a good citizen. I can go on, Sir, giving many other examples. But I am afraid you will rule me out of order. We have to confine ourselves to discussion of the general principles of the Budget Statement. The examples which I have quoted do illustrate that at times there are lapses in the Civil Service in implementing Government policies. We spend $603 million on manpower and salaries alone this year. I must state here, and I think the Minister for National Development would be pleased to hear it, that I do enjoy extremely good cooperation from the Resettlement Department. These officers were or are - I hope they still are - quite enlightened. But at times they can only be enlightened after I have enlightened them. There was a case of resettlement. A farmer was offered an alternative piece of land. There were two brothers and two pieces of land were offered. The elder brother moved in first.”
“The subject matter read: "Re: your car number .... short payment, $2. Please see the undersigned on receipt of this letter with your registration book ....", and so on. They made a mistake, and I received a cyclostyled letter saying, "Come and see me with your book" So I wrote in, not on Parliament letterhead for fear of being accused of browbeating the civil servants. (The Minister for the Environment here had accused me of trying to be a hero. I will come to that point later.) I inquired from them as to how I had short paid $2. They replied that the tax should be this amount and not that amount and so I had short paid $2. I wrote again saying, "When I approached the officer, I paid the amount as demanded. Therefore, there was no question of a short payment." They replied that there was a change in the tax rate and the officer in charge had miscalculated it, resulting in an under-collection of $2. I contended that "under-collection" is quite different from "short payment". In the case of a short payment the liability was mine. I asked them under which provision of the law that a member of the public has to pay to rectify a mistake of the Government. A reply came promptly, "Please be magnanimous. Pay the $2." We have to pay for our magnanimity! I wrote back saying, "In the spirit of magnanimity I will pay, but only on condition that you promise by return of post that you are prepared to pay for my transport cost to get down to your office, my time taken to attend to this matter and the cost of one registered letter." A reply came back again, "Please pay in order to be magnanimous." Finally, I told them that in the spirit of magnanimity, I would waive all charges except $3 as a token fine for their mistake.”
“" This also happened in my proposal for the provision of canteen space in multi-storey buildings. I raised the question with the Ministry of the Environment at a meeting chaired by my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, with the URA representative. Their impression was this: "We build a multi-storey building. To put a canteen inside is un-becoming of a good architect?" The answer was no. It took them three months to reply to the Ministry of the Environment who conveyed their decision to me that it could not be done. A multi-storey building should not provide this kind of service because they expected the clerks and the sales girls to eat at the restaurant in that building? They would probably eat up their salary in three days! But, four months later it was declared as a matter of policy that multi-storey buildings should have canteen space for the staff! So they will slaughter you first, have the idea re-hashed, or re-born, so that it will be one up for that ministry. i am not challenging them for doing good work. Neither do I envy them. What I wish to inform Members is their attitude towards suggestions from Members of Parliament. Here is another very interesting case. We know that it is very difficult to get money from the Government. Sir, I claim the credit of getting one dollar from the Government. I was to be blamed, Sir, for delaying payment of my road tax. When I decided to pay, the tax went up! Rather unhappily, I went there to pay my road tax. The officer said, "Well, you have to pay so much now." Reluctantly, I paid. Six months later I received a letter. The only politeness in that letter was the word "please". It was a cyclostyled letter. That means there were many similar cases.”
“I cannot transfer the call because this is a direct line." For every six telephone calls I make, according to the law of averages there will be five wrong numbers! All this just to save the cost of a telephone operator? Justification of a blunder? They say it is efficiency! I remember when I was the Member for Stamford and before my "resettlement", I made a proposal to erect an overhead bridge at the High Street junction, so that traffic could proceed ahead. The only function of the traffic light there was to stop the traffic just to allow the pedestrians to cross the road. I received a reply saying that it could not be done because the site there was encumbered with underground services and they had no money. A few months later I saw construction work going on there. I rang the PWD and asked what was being done in my constituency. They said, "Oh, we are going to construct an overhead bridge." On hearing this, I vigorously opposed the idea. After about ten minutes of discussion, the officer said, "Well, if I am not mistaken, Mr Fong, it was your proposal that we are now talking about!" I said, "But then you told me the site was encumbered with underground services." He said, "Oh, we have now found out that it was not so." then while they were building the bridge, they issued a statement saying that the PWD was building it, I have nothing against them, Sir. They were doing good work. It is a natural tendency of the so-called experts and professionals that every time a layman, and an MP in particular, proposes an idea, they will not implement it even if they agree to it, because if a layman can provide a solution when the experts cannot, they should not be there any more. This is a typical example of cutting you down first because "we will do it ourselves..”
“They replied that the date of birth on her old identity card did not tally with that in the Birth Certificate and she could not therefore prove that it was her Birth Certificate. Subsequent letters of appeal were written and I got the same reply. I sensed that this woman was wronged and so, in one of my meet-the-people sessions, I asked my staff to borrow a Chinese almanac from next door. On going through the almanac, I discovered that the date of birth on her old identity card was exactly the same as that shown in the Birth Certificate but it was based on the Chinese calendar. This is an old practice! So I wrote to the National Registration Office and Citizenship Registry and she got her citizenship back. My next question is: How many more such cases are there? The point is when we deal with our people, we must understand their cultural background. There should be a checklist so that even a non-Chinese officer who comes across such a case would be able to go through the checklist first before revoking the citizenship. I asked, "How many more such cases are there?" The officer replied, "We don't know, Mr Fong. I really don't know myself." This is one goof. How does one justify this? Then there is the Registry of Companies. The Management Services Department moved into the Registry of Companies and recommended that to save costs, the Registry should do away with the telephone operator and that each officer should have a direct line. So if you want to ring the Registry of Companies to speak to an officer on a certain subject, you will just have to ring any of these lines. But the very senior and highly paid "telephone operator" at the other end would say, "Sorry, this matter does not concern me. It is the other officer. Please ring this number.”