Goh Chok Tong
Singapore
“This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode: "The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame...”
“They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them.”
“The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt. PROPERTY AGENTS' COMMISSION RATES 2.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2008, what is the takeup rate for the interim rental housing scheme that is provided to those without homes; (b) what are the reasons given for rejections under this scheme; (c) whether the rental rates were affordable; and (d) how many applicants had rejected the rental…”
“MAS is working with relevant government agencies and stakeholders to study the issue carefully, and to consider the various proposals that have been raised, including the feasibility of introducing a no-fault regime.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on (i) the use of sustainable alternative materials in the construction industry and (ii) the cost of construction materials in view of increasing inflation rates and rising oil prices; and (b) how will the high material and labour cost impact on…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,367 lines we hold for Goh Chok Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 28.
“If you have a land-based radar, you would have inadequate warning time should a hostile aircraft come in low. It will not be detected until it is quite close to Singapore. But if you have this pair of eyes up in the sky, 20,000 or 30,000 feet up, you can see much farther afield. It increases the warning time several-fold. Sir, the very fact that we are buying this airborne early warning system is an indication that we are not satisfied with our surveillance system at the moment.”
“However, those who are interested to keep the volunteer spirit alive, and this is in answer to the question by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, will be given an option for redeployment into normal reserve units provided they are medically fit. In other words, you can volunteer. We will examine you medically. If you are fit to serve, you must then be fitted into a normal reserve unit, not a special volunteer unit. The Member for Kebun Baru showed an important appreciation in the strategy of war, and that is, the surprise element. Surprise is very important in determining the outcome of any conflict, He has rightly asked whether Singapore has an adequate surveillance system to ensure that we are never caught in an awkward situation. He has recounted the tragedy which occurred in the last war when planes could come in undetected and caused untold devastation. Obviously, the fact that we are buying the E-2C or the Hawkeye shows that we are not satisfied with our present surveillance system. Again, without going into sensitive details, let me explain simply, why. The E-2C or the Hawkeye system is a vast complicated early warning system. But I can perhaps simplify it in this manner. It is like a sophisticated pair of eyes up in the sky which allows you to see further afield than eyes on land. There are three reasons why we have considered the acquisition of this pair of eyes in the sky. First, radar waves do not travel in a curve. It travels in a straight line. Secondly, there are no high peaks in Singapore. The highest peak is Bukit Timah Hill though some of our buildings are higher than that. But nevertheless, they are not high enough to overcome the third problem, which is the curvature ,of the earth.”
“First, the volunteers see a lesser need to volunteer because people are being conscripted to serve in the Armed Forces. Secondly, there will be less and less volunteers because there will be less and less people available to volunteer. At the peak of the volunteer movement, the volunteer force had over 1,000 volunteers. That was in the mid-1950's. Today, it has only 68 men left, 23 officers and 45 other ranks. These are the old diehards, mostly over 40 years old. The imminent closing of PDF-101 marks the end of a chapter in our military history. During the early years of our nationhood, the PDF-101 symbolizing the spirit of service and loyalty, helped greatly to induce the people and prepare the ground for national service which was introduced in 1967. In this important role, the volunteers were greatly assisted by the presence of the prominent leaders of those days, among them, as mentioned by the Member, Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers. Of course, there were other community leaders who volunteered for PDF-101. It was an instance of leadership by example. Without this spontaneous support, I doubt whether National Service would have been accepted by the people the way it was, without too much fuss. To me, this is the greatest contribution of the volunteer unit. I want to place on record in this House the sincere thanks of this Government to all those who have volunteered and served. The PDF-101 will march into history with pride and dignity. It will be ceremoniously closed down in a disbandment parade to be conducted at the Beach Road camp on 31st March 1984.”
“Sir, first, let me thank the Member for Serangoon Gardens for his total support of our total defence. May I say that our Defence objective, which is national security and national survival, is not to build up an SAF for the sake of strength. In other words, we are not going to buy equipment just for the sake of being strong. The objective is to build up an SAF that has got the strength to, first of all, deter any potential threats and should that, for some reason or other fail, to have the strength to repel the threat. So we do not just want to buy hardware for the sake of accumulating hardware. The Member has raised two questions which I have to answer. One is whether the Ministry is satisfied with the strength of our Navy. The answer is yes. Of course, this is not a static situation. Whilst we are satisfied with the competence of our Navy, we are always looking into the possibility of increasing the strength of the Navy if we discover weaknesses in the whole chain of defences. We have six missile gunboats at the moment. They are about 10 years old. Obviously we need to do a little upgrading of the engines, the systems on board the missile gunboats and to put in new weapon systems, if necessary. I hope the Member will appreciate that I cannot go into details on a matter which concerns our security - how we intend to go about it. If in the future, there is need for us to purchase more and better missile gunboats, we will do so. 7.15 pm The Member for Serangoon Gardens lamented about the imminent demise of PDF-101 and the volunteer movement. I share with him this sense of sadness that the volunteer movement has got to come to a close. But there really is no choice because once we have introduced national service, two things happen.”
“Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture (a) whether there is a need for the SBCText Service; (b) if he is satisfied with the response so far; and (c) what are the reasons for the apparent drop in the number of its pages.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, AWOL or Absence Without Leave, is a common problem in most Armed Forces. Fortunately, the situation in the SAF is well contained. The number of AWOL cases has been steadily declining from 2,223 cases in 1979 to 876 in 1983. A breakdown of AWOL cases for the period 1979 to 1983 is as follows: Year No. of AWOL cases 1979 2,223 1980 1,818 1981 1,157 1982 931 1983 876 Of the 7,005 cases of AWOL between 1979 and 1983, 739 cases were involved in criminal activities. The breakdown by year is as follows: Year No. of AWOL cases convicted of Crime 1979 159 1980 256 1981 135 1982 104 1983 85 It is pertinent to point out that a number of the Awolees were already "problem kids" before their enlistment for National Service. They have either drug abuse background or criminal records. It is usually this group of Awolees who commit crimes during their absence without leave. But it should be emphasized that in view of their background, this group of individuals would have committed crimes whether they have been enlisted for National Service or not. As for the third part of the question, National Service means universal conscription. Since the types of national servicemen we have reflect the types of citizens found in our society at large, it is to be expected that some of our servicemen would be involved in criminal activities in society. The number of servicemen convicted fluctuated over the years. The figures which the Member requires are: Year No. of Criminal Offences 1979 220 1980 347 1981 340 1982 276 1983 212 ----- 1,395 SBCTEXT (Response) 4.”
“The Ministry of Defence has to work many years ahead of requirements. New aircraft take 3-4 years to deliver, and another 2 years of training to attain operational status. We must continually maintain our air defence capability to ensure Singapore's security in a world of constant turmoil. The F16 is one of the aircraft being considered by our Air Force for the late 1980's and 1990's. Presently we do not have the actual cost data for such aircraft. attached - PSLE RESULTS (1981-1983), GCE 'O' LEVEL RESULTS (1980-1982) (Cols. 395 - 396) Table - A COMPARISON OF CTV LICENCE FEE IN SELECTED COUNTRIES (Cols. 397 - 398)”
“The Ministry of Defence has finalised and is committed on the purchase of the E-2C planes and supporting equipment and spare parts from the United States of America. The purchase is on a Government-to-Government basis at an estimated cost of less than US$450 million. The planes will be delivered by 1987. PURCHASE OF F16 FIGHTER PLANES 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health whether the Ministry proposes to purchase F-16 Fighters now and if so why these Fighters are considered necessary for the defence of Singapore and what the cost to the taxpayer will be for the purchase of these planes.”
“Beyond that there is a large grey area. I have left my reply to the Member for Anson to the last because frankly I was trying to grasp the substance of his speech and I found that there was not much that I could grasp. He has gone back to the usual pitch - for the people outside - that there should be free medical care. Mr Speaker: Your time is up, Mr Goh. Question put "That this House having noted the National Health Plan - A Blue Paper by the Ministry of Health, February 1983 as contained in Paper Mise, 4 of 1983, (1) approves in principle the Medisave Scheme which will enable Singaporeans to set aside their own savings to meet future hospitalization expenses; and (2) recommends that there be periodic reviews in the implementation of the Scheme and that adjustments be made when experience shows this to be desirable.".”
“He also asked the question as to the criteria for determining financial hardship. We do not have a black-and-white rule in the Health Ministry. We do not go just by how much a person earns, or what is his family income, or how many members are there in the family and so on. The black-and-white rule applies only to public assistance cases. If you are on public assistance and if you are on the Council for Social Services' Assistance Scheme, then you qualify for a remission of fees.”
“The way out for us, as he has put it, is to have more doctors, but not to the extent that all bright Singaporeans are channelled into the medical faculty. We have taken the number into account when we came out with the figure of 203 in the National Health Plan. We have no intention of -letting the private sector influence our cost. We are going to be cost-efficient and we are going to be as cost-effective as we can. And they will serve as a drag on what you are charged. The private sector will not serve as a norm for us to raise our fees. Regarding paragraph 46 on the computation of the 6%, the Member for Whampoa asked the question as to what was the figure of subsidy which we used. He was worried that we could be using today's costs and thereby have to up the 6% rate should costs go up. The figure which we used in computing how much each one of us, as a minimum, must try and save is 50% subsidy. This 50% subsidy is used for computational purposes. As I explained yesterday, this does not mean that fees will be increased ever so quickly to attain the level of 50% subsidy. As I told the House yesterday we have no intention of reducing the absolute quantum of subsidy. We are looking towards a more equitable cost-sharing of future increases in cost. So it will take us a long, long time before we can ever attain this 50% subsidy figure. In my own estimate, I do not think we will reach this level within 10 years. There is no time target. We are not saying that we must reach this figure within 10 years or 12 years. It depends on future cost increases. So we should not worry too much about the immediate impact and, of course, if you are looking into the future there should be enough funds provided in the Singaporeans' Medisave account to pay for their hospitalization expenses.”
“We will then up this very gradually, $500 per year. So this will take us 10 years to reach the stipulated minimum of $10,000, or a higher figure adjusted for inflation and cost in the future, i.e. $10,000 in real terms. Do we need such extravagance of hospital care in the Singapore General Hospital and in Kent Ridge? These are historical decisions which we cannot do very much about. But the point is valid. I do not think we should in the future move in so quickly into luxurious hospitals beyond our means. But opinion could be divided upon this. If you build a hospital like the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) you are not building for today. You are building for 20 years' time. By today's standard, of course, the SGH is extravagant. But 20 years from now SGH will still be there. Perception may change. You may say then that it is time for us to build another SGH. So it depends again on your perception of time, whether you are judging SGH against today's standard or you are judging SGH and Kent Ridge Hospital against future standards. The Member is also worried about medical costs being raised as a result of our allowing too many private hospitals to be built in Singapore. He also cautioned that it could be a drain on talent as our doctors leave for greener pastures in the private sector. The question is: Can we contain our doctors and confine them in the public hospitals? They know their market value. They know how much they can earn. They know their own skills. If they can attract patients from neighbouring countries to pay that much for their skills, I think they should be allowed to do so. Why do you want to cut down their capacity to earn?”
“We have taken into consideration the employers' representation that costs must not be pushed up so quickly, particularly when the fear of recession has not completely disappeared. But that does not mean that we should, as I have explained yesterday, defer the implementation of Medisave Scheme. He also made the observation that by allowing the Special accounts to be used for Medisave purposes and stipulating a minimum of $10,000 to be left in the Special account would penalize those who are near retirement age. We came to this decision to allow the Special accounts to be used for Medisave purposes to overcome the transitional problem. This is tied in with his question of why we should be in such a hurry. If we were to implement Medisave from zero, it will take us quite some years before sufficient funds can be built up in the Medisave account for patients to use them. So by allowing them to have access to the Special accounts, we are in fact allowing the majority of Singaporeans to have immediate access to funds which they could not otherwise use. Of course, we recognize that those who are near retirement age, 52, 53 and 54 years of age, will be unhappy because they will not now be able to withdraw their funds. To overcome their unhappiness, I am prepared to consider the phasing-in of this sum of $10,000. In other words, the minimum of $10,000 need not be retained upon implementation of Medisave. This can be a figure which we want each Medisave holder to have in the longer future. I think we can start off with $5,000, i.e. reduce it by half. In other words, immediately or upon implementation of Medisave, the Special account must have a minimum of $5,000 or the actual balance, whichever is less. If you have more than $5,000 you can withdraw the funds in excess of $5,000.”
“As formulated up to now, it would appear that they could not even touch the Medisave fund to pay for their nominal charges, say, $2 a day, in Woodbridge Hospital. I think we can modify the Medisave Scheme to allow the chronic sick to have access to the Fund. If they have got the funds, I think we can allow them to draw on them even though there is already a separate programme for them, a heavily subsidized programme. It is also our intention, having listened to the arguments both inside this House and outside the House, to extend Medisave to cover Class B, B1 and better classes, and later on hospitalization in the private hospitals. The Medisave funds belong to the account holders. So long as we have certain safeguards to ensure that they have enough funds to look after their retirement, we can allow them to opt for better classes. We will also be flexible in the definition of dependants. This will take care of the worry which the Member for Buona Vista had when he talked about the transitional problems and also cases of spouses being abandoned by the husbands. We allow for flexibility. We can allow accounts of brothers and sisters to be used for payment of another member of the family. This does not mean, however, that we will embark on this immediately. We will perhaps operate the Scheme for one year, using the limited family as defined in the Medisave, and monitor the situation before we liberalize it completely; but the intention is to allow for flexibility. The Member for Whampoa, who is not here, has made a number of specific points. He asked why should we be in such a hurry to implement Medisave. The answer was contained in my earlier reply that we were very apprehensive of our quickly aging population. The sooner we can implement the Medisave Scheme the better.”
“Perhaps at this juncture I should touch on the possible modifications to Medisave, taking into account the various comments made by the other Members today as well as yesterday. Outpatient treatment. Can Medisave be extended to cover outpatient treatment? The answer is no, for two reasons. One is that the bill charged is small; most people can afford it. But the more important reason is that there are some 14-15 million transactions annually. We do not want to create an administrative monster, just to monitor the daily transactions of checking in and checking out from the computer system. I think administratively it is not cost effective. But we recognize that there are certain procedures, like day surgeries, which can be expensive. We can allow the Medisave to be extended to pay for expensive day surgery and similar procedures. So this is something which we can consider. It is a question of how to implement it. There seems to be some misreading of paragraph 35 of the National Health Plan regarding the chronic sick - that Medisave will not be available for the chronic sick. When we made that statement that Medisave funds would not be available for payment of those who suffer from chronic sicknesses, we had in mind that they would not be able to meet the expenses. They must, therefore, be singled out for special compassionate treatment. The subsidy level must remain high, 95%, 98%, in many cases even 100%, because there is no way these Singaporeans can look after their own interest. That is the meaning of the chronic sick being singled out for separate programmes. But it is possible that some of these people have funds in their Medisave.”
“Not all extend the benefits to dependants; and very few, the Civil Service being one, extend medical benefits to employees after retirement. So Medisave which provides funds to workers to look after their future hospitalization requirements is an enlargement of the medical benefits schemes which exist today. We do not think employers should take away the existing medical benefits. I am, however, in favour of some adjustments, but not for the reasons advanced by the employers. I do not accept the argument that because you have paid 3% on your side to the CPF, you can adjust your existing medical benefits. I agree for a different reason, and it is one of philosophy. I think it is good that the first few dollars should come out from the employees, whether it is for hospitalization or for outpatient treatment purposes. At the moment most medical benefits schemes cover every dollar of the employees' medical requirements, subject to a certain ceiling. I think employees will have a greater interest in their own health if they are required to pay the first few dollars; -but this must be just a nominal sum. Beyond that their requirements will be met by the employers under existing collective agreements. And when they retire or if they have dependants who are not covered by the employers' medical benefits, they can then make use of the Medisave Fund. For this reason, I am appreciative of the suggestion by the Member for Clementi that to supplement the Medisave Scheme perhaps the philosophy should be extended to outpatient treatment. I think the "stay well" concept which he raised is a good one. How they can be implemented by companies, we will leave it entirely to employers and employees to discuss and negotiate.”
“But, fortunately, quite a large number remain in Singapore because of a flourishing private sector. These are signs of our inability to pay our doctors and nurses well. Hence the bonding scheme that was introduced to tie down the doctors to serve the Ministry of Health. But how long can we keep on bonding good brains in the Health Ministry? For the first few years maybe, but thereafter when they have acquired the specialist skills, when they reach the level of consultant, they have got the liberty and the means to leave the public sector for the private sector. In short, if we want to have quality medical care we have to pay good doctors and nurses well to stay with us. Just look at the resignation rate of doctors and nurses. The turnover rate for the year 1978 was 12.3%, which is very high. A more recent year, 1981, 9.2%. In 1982, because we have had a hefty salary revision, it went down to 6.8%. For dentists, the turnover rate was 17.4% in 1980, the peak year of turnover rate. In 1981, 12.7%. In 1982, it went down to 3.9%, again because of the salary revision. I think the bonding also has an effect. Without the bonding which we have imposed on doctors and dentists, I think more would have left us. Coming now, Mr Speaker, Sir, to today's debate, let me reply individually to each Member of Parliament on the main points; and thereafter I will give my comments on how some of these suggestions can be incorporated in the National Health Plan on a subject by subject basis. Several Members, especially those from the trade union movement, argued that employers' medical benefits should not be taken away with the implementation of Medisave. What is our view on this? Employers' benefits, as they stand today, apply in a limited way to employees only.”
“But if you are able to translate your savings into development, a better standard of life for the people, then I am not particularly concerned as to whether 50% is high or low. I think Singaporeans have the entrepreneurial ability to adjust, and they have adjusted each time CPF rate has gone up. The Singapore health care model is not entirely different from that of Britain. Our health care system is also financed at the moment from general taxation and we have a high proportion of C class where, as of today, there is a 90% subsidy. In Britain, the subsidy is about 99% or close to 100%. So what is the difference between 90% subsidy and 100%? C class is open to anyone. At the moment, we do not discriminate admissions on the basis of wealth. So anyone can opt for C class and take advantage of the high subsidy. Why do we need to revamp the system now? It is because we can see ominous signs of what will happen if we do not do something now. Even now, there are long queues at our outpatient dispensaries. Never have we had so many polyclinics and clinics and so many doctors in our employ and yet the queues have not disappeared. We also suffer from a high turnover rate of medical personnel leaving the public sector, the same phenomenon as in Britain. And Britain, if we examine the statistics which I do not have with me today, you can see that quite a few thousands of doctors have resigned from the British Health Service and left Britain for other countries over the last 10 years. In Singapore, fortunately because we allow our private sector to flourish side by side with the public health sector, the doctors resign from the public sector to join the private sector. Of course, we have also lost medical personnel to other countries.”
“All of us know that we are heavily dependent on exports, on the export of goods and services. And if there is a collapse of the international financial system or a deep world economic recession, then where do we collect our payroll tax from? So many people will be unemployed! Can this House guarantee that there will be no profligate Finance Minister ever in Singapore? We can guarantee that for the next 10, 20 years but not forever. One profligate government or Finance Minister and the entire resources of the country will go up in smoke. Where then would there be sufficient funds to look after the health service, to pay for doctors and nurses, to maintain high standards in the hospitals and outpatient dispensaries? I am not particularly alarmed by the fact that CPF contributions will go up to 50%. Each time the CPF rate went up in the past, there was the accompanying hue and cry. But are we better off today or in the past? Have we not translated the savings into HDB flats for the people? Without a high saving rate, there would have been no public housing to the extent that we know of today. When I was in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, I remember the criticism hurled at my Ministry for embarking on economic restructuring and "high wage cost policy". Are we better off today economically or would we be better off being stuck to labour intensive low-skilled industries? So I am not particularly alarmed just by looking at figures, 50%, 45% and say it is too high. What is too high? It is all relative. It is tied to the use of your savings. If you save 50% and you are unable to translate his into housing, good environment, better education, better health facilities for the people, then of course it is too high.”
“If the Health Minister nags the Finance Ministry for more funds, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for National Development and all the other Ministers must do likewise. Somebody then has got to sit down and decide on priorities. If you sit down to decide on priorities, you have first to ask a question: where do the funds come from? How is wealth created? We are all in this together. We have a collective responsibility to make sure that one area of interest to Singaporeans is not at the expense of other areas of interest. If Payroll Tax can be used for health, what about the Skills Development Fund? What about other sources of revenue, specific sources? I do not think we should tie one source of funds to one particular Ministry. We should regard the national resources as one and each Ministry will have to argue its own case and, more important, take into account the overall requirements of the country. The Member for Rochore is not here. Anyway, I want to ask him several questions. One is, if payroll tax funds, which he thinks we have ample today, are not sufficient in future to pay for the Ministry of Health's expenditure, will he support an increase in Payroll Tax or other taxes? Can he guarantee continuous economic growth at 8% per annum? Can he guarantee that Singapore will never face unemployment again? We should not forget that it was not so long ago that we experienced an unemployment rate of over 10%. To- day, several third world countries are heavily in debt, Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Venezuela and several other countries, Have Members wondered at the possibility of one of these countries defaulting on the loans and thereby bringing down the whole international financial system? If that happens, what is the impact on the Singapore economy?”
“By 1980, because we have discharged our social responsibility as a Government and looked after the health of the people very well, the life expectancy has increased to 69 for male Singaporeans and 74 for females. In a short time frame of 23 years, we have made the Singaporean live longer by about nine years. By the year 2000, provided we have the means to maintain standards, not just in the Ministry of Health but in the whole country, environmental considerations, housing, employment, we forecast that the Singapore male will live on the average up to 71 years and the female 77 years. Between 1980 and the year 2000 we shall be adding three or four more years to life expectancy. So add this to the increase in elderly population in Singapore and multiply this by three or four times because each person over 60 years old is on the average likely to be admitted to hospital three or four times more frequently than a young man of 30 or 40. The enormity of the problem worries us, which is why we are now moving in to ensure that by the year 2000 we have enough resources as a country, not just as a Ministry of Health, to look after the interest of all Singaporeans. I do not think we should fall for the juggler's trick, trying to move funds from one area to another. I do not think I can agree with the Member for Rochore's suggestion that the Health Minister should nag the Finance Ministry for more funds, that we should not worry about where the funds come from and that it is our responsibility to look after the health of Singaporeans, and that we should just nag the Finance Minister for more funds. I think the same observation was made by the Member for Anson. This is not team work.”
“But it does not mean that you discharge your social responsibility by dispensing free medicine or heavily subsidized medicine. There are various ways of discharg- ing our social responsibility. I do not think we can accuse the United States Government of being socially irresponsible because they practise a different model of health care, one whereby the private indi- viduals pay for their own health care through voluntary insurance. I believe he has left his telescope behind when he moved out of the Health Ministry, or maybe we are talking at different wave lengths or at cross purposes. I say that we are taking a long-distance view of the problem, and I believe he is bogged down by today's situation. He examined the financial status of Singapore and argued that we have enough funds to pay for the entire budget for the Ministry of Health. He suggested that there are enough funds in payroll taxes to cover the entire deficit or even the entire health budget. I think we have got to take a longer view than merely looking at the present. Let me embark on a journey to the year 2000. Just look at our demographic pattern alone. Consider this basic fact. In 1982, we had 183,000 persons over 60 years or 7.4% of the population. By the year 2000, there will be 306,000 persons over 60 years or about 10.4%, an increase of 123,000 elderly Singaporeans. What does this mean? This means that fewer and fewer Singaporeans will be working to support more and more older Singaporeans. And life expectancy will be increasing. Life expectancy of the Singapore male was 60 years in 1957. For the females, it was 65 years.”
“The feeling of Members of Parliament who argued that health care must be given to people who fall sick, at cheap rates, perhaps arose out of their compassion for those who fall sick, but it is dangerous logic. You may fall sick not because you want to fall sick. But that does not mean that when you fall ill you should be treated completely free of charge. Surely it depends on your financial status. If you are a millionaire and you fall sick, you have to pay a fee even if you come to a Government hospital. But if you do not have the cash, you are genuinely in need of treatment, you are a genuinely poor Singaporean, then you will be given access to health care without any charge. You can apply for remission of fees. Why must the Government, or any government for that matter, land itself in a position where it has to provide free medical care or free medical service purely because a person falls sick by himself? If we accept that logic, then we are opening Pandora's box because a man can come forward to the Ministry of Health or to the Ministry of Social Affairs to say "I have got 10 kids despite my practising family planning. Now, can you feed my 10 children? They came along despite my intention not to have them come along." And what about those who cannot pass their Primary School Leaving Examinations? Will they not come forward to say, "I tried. I studied very hard but I failed despite myself. Can you get me a tutor, or can you push me up?" So the logic to me is faulty. I now move on to the spirited comments made by the Member for Rochore. His primary thrust is: health is a social responsibility of any government. I do not see how we can disagree with that. Health care must be the social responsibility not solely, but primarily, of any government.”
“The former is not. I think he has misunderstood the need for Medisave with financial motivation. The whole aim of the National Health Plan and the Medisave Scheme is to ensure that we can maintain high medical standards for our population and to give all Singaporeans the necessary means to have access to proper medical care. Sir, we cannot run away from financial considerations. But trying to establish a better relationship between fees and actual costs does not mean that that is our motivation because there are many ways whereby we can increase our funds in the Treasury: higher payroll tax, higher income taxes, higher contributions to the Skills Development Fund and so on. These are much simpler ways than to use Medisave. Sir, the philosophy behind Medisave has got to be understood. He also criticized the Scheme for having assumed that everyone could avoid illnesses, and this theme has been picked up by several other Members in this House. I think it is unfair to come to this conclusion when you read the National Health Plan. The Scheme does not assume that everyone can avoid illness. We all know that people do fall sick. We all know that accidents can happen. We all know that people end up in hospitals despite themselves. But there is a lot that all of us can do for ourselves: not smoking too many cigarettes a day, not over-drinking, not being overweight, watching your diet, proper exercises, wearing seat belts, driving carefully - all these can reduce the episodes of admissions into hospitals. So to criticize the Plan by saying that one of its basic assumptions is that people enjoy being sick shows a lack of interest in trying to understand the deeper issues. It is just political talk, trying to nit-pick certain words.”
“So we have subsumed his point of view under the broad term "Preventive medicine" or "Preventive measures" to look after the health of Singaporeans, And, of course, "Singaporeans" include all workers. If we single out workers for special mention, we have also to mention the self-employed, the employers. There will be no end. It is all Singaporeans' health, including the workers' health which the National Health Plan caters for. He also touched on the need to subsidize the chronic sick. I shall come to this later on. He wanted to have a list of illnesses which can be classified as chronic illnesses. I think it is not necessary because he will know that very often it is difficult to distinguish one from another. An acute illness can lead to chronic illness, and maybe vice versa. As far as the National Health Plan is concerned, the Medisave Scheme is meant for hospitalization and, by definition, "chronic sick" refers to those hospitalized in Wood bridge Hospital, Trafalgar Home and View Road Hospital. I am grateful to the Member for Henderson for his very warm and vigorous support of Medisave. His may be a simple view, to use his own words, but he has understood the deeper philosophy of Medisave. His illustration of the benefit of CPF to the workers and how the CPF funds are translated into hard real housing for the people is very apt. The same concept would apply to Medisave. The funds would be translated into real high standards of medical care for the population. The Member for Alexandra criticized the National Health Plan for "being purely motivated by financial considerations." The headline says: "A money-minded plan". There is a distinction between a "money-minded plan" and one that is motivated by financial considerations. The latter, I think, is more acceptable.”
“The main argument is that they might not be cost-effective. Some other Members also share the same reservation but, of course, there were other Members of Parliament who thought the concept a good one. At this stage the concept of community hospitals is an idea. We have to examine the cost-effectiveness of this particular idea. This will be done carefully before we embark on building community hospitals. We will probably try out a pilot scheme, not necessarily a full community hospital but somewhere between a polyclinic and a community hospital. In other words, it is possible for us to put up one more floor to an existing polyclinic, like the one in Toa Payoh, or we can have some beds for patients where simple surgeries can be done. Regarding his observation on community health teams, my only reservation is whether we can attract enough GPs and volunteers for such teams. But as a concept it is worth exploring further. The Member for Thomson lamented that the National Health Plan has not incorpo- rated a statement to his satisfaction regarding occupational health in the interest of the workers. He said that not enough mention was made of preventive measures in industries to look after the health of the workers. I have not forgotten the promise which I made to him during the Budget debate. But when we discussed the draft health plan - it was not a Blue Paper at that stage - with individuals and representatives of other organizations, there were many requests for inclusion of their particular points of view. So if we were to include or to mention the occupational health interest of the workers under "Preventive", others would also want their points of view to be mentioned - the dentists, the pharmacists, the social workers, and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank the hon. Members who have spoken on the subject. I have listened to them carefully. There were some useful suggestions which my Ministry and 1, and of course the Minister for Health, will take into consideration. I would also like to thank the other Members for having so patiently listened to the arguments for Medisave, for the National Health Plan, and of course to those who held a different view. I am a great believer in brevity and clarity. I do not believe in stretching my speech if I can make it short. On a subject matter like the National Health Plan and Medisave, it is the substance which I am interested in, not the fluff. I have got the advantage of the cooperation of the press. They have highlighted the important points of the speakers yesterday. So I shall go through the salient points and give my answers to them. The Member for Ayer Rajah has given us a lengthy discourse on the first part of the Health Plan. The nub of his observations is that the community must take greater responsibility in looking after our own population. He touched on community health teams, on how the community can support the patients who are discharged from our hospitals. I cannot agree more with his observation. He is an idealistic person with a strong social conscience. His idealism has to be tempered with realism. We shall therefore have to examine the various suggestions which he has made for their practicality and, wherever possible, these will be incorporated. But I would like to caution that he should not expect immediate implementation. These plans have to be carefully considered and even though they are valid it will take quite some time before we can implement them. He has certain reservations on community hospitals.”
“Moreover, the genuinely poor needing frequent or prolonged hospitalisation can seek a remission of their hospital bills. In other words, within the limits of our resources, all Singaporeans will have proper access to medical treatment, regardless of his ability to pay. Sir, Medisave as presented in the Blue Paper is not something fixed and final. We will work it and through actual experience identify the problem areas. It has, therefore, the flexibility to accommodate further refinements and additional features. Medisave is not the panacea to our health care problems. But it will at least ensure that the vast majority of us have enough funds, at all times, to pay for a high standard of hospital care. For those who do not, the State provides the safety net. May I conclude by emphasizing that it is not the present we are worried about. It is the future. We want to ensure that Singaporeans will always have a good health care system to turn to. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“We expect it to increase because of expenditure on preventive programmes and the chronic sick. This gap will continue to be funded by general taxation, which means those who earn more pay more. The lower income wage earners will, therefore, still be heavily subsidized for their health needs. It was our intention to implement Medisave from 1st July this year. This would have meant increasing CPF rate from 45% to 50%, distributed as follows: Ordinary account : 40% Special account : 4% Medisave account : 6% Due regard, however, was given to the state of the economy, the capacity of the employers to absorb the cost increase, and the desire not to reduce the employees' take-home pay. Accordingly, CPF rate has gone up by only 1%, to 46%, distributed as follows: Ordinary account : 40% Special account : 6% There is no need for us to defer the implementation of the Medisave Scheme until the CPF rate has gone up to 50%. To do so is to hinge Medisave on the uncertainty of future economic performance and wage increases. To get the Medisave going immediately, the Government is allowing the Special Account to be used for Medisave pur- poses. However, at the age of 55, an account-holder must leave behind a minimum of $10,000 or the actual balance in his Medisave Account, whichever is less. This will allow wage earners immediate access to funds for their hospitalisation needs, because you can now make use of your Special Account. My Ministry fully sympathizes with the small minority who, through no fault of their own, may not have enough in their Medisave Accounts to meet their entire hospitalisation needs. They need not lose any sleep over this. They will be treated first and allowed to settle their hospital bills from future contributions into their Medisave Accounts.”
“We have no choice but to gradually reduce the level of subsidy. But let me make it clear that in absolute dollars and cents, there will be no reduction. In fact, we expect the absolute quantum of overall subsidy to go up. Let me explain. For every $100 we spend on a 'C' Class patient, we now charge him approximately $10. We subsidize him $90. We will not reduce the present absolute quantum of subsidy of $90. But if costs go up to, say, $115, there must be a more equitable sharing of the increased cost of $15. Let us say he bears $10 and the Health Ministry or the State $5. He will now pay $20. We continue to subsidize him $95. This will go on each time there is a cost increase. In other words, although the patient will have to pay more, the subsidy will in fact also increase. May I emphasize that this formula for cost-sharing will not be implemented mechanically and insensitively. How much of the cost increase at each occasion should be assumed by the patient will have to take into account his ability to pay. We will have to see the balance in his Medisave Account; of course on a national basis. May I also add that we are talking only of annual operating costs. Capital expenditure on land and hospital facilities will not be reflected in hospital fees. Each hospital bed costs about $400,000. This cost will not be amortized or defrayed into fees. Capital expenditure will continue to be funded from general revenue. So will expenditure on prevention. In 1982, the Ministry spent $304 million on health care. Fees collected from OPDs and hospitals amounted to $72 million or 23.7% of the Ministry's operating cost. Even with increased fees, we do not expect the absolute gap between expenditure and revenue of $232 million to be reduced in future.”
“This Government has an abiding duty to look after the health of Singaporeans, not only today, but 20, 30 years down the road and way into the 21st century. Young Singaporeans are born today. When they grow old, they must not be made to wait one or two years for an eye operation, a hip operation, or for hernia repair. How do we discharge our duty? First, we have to maintain medical standards, both now and in the future. Then we have to make sure that there are enough funds to pay for good doctors, nurses, facilities and medicine, in order to maintain standards. If the Treasury runs dry, standards must go down as doctors and nurses leave for greener pastures in the private sector, and even overseas. When standards go down at the public hospitals, the average Singaporean must suffer, like our British patient with the detached retina who cannot afford the cost of private treatment. We have no intention to let him suffer in the future. We must therefore save when we can, put a few dollars aside every month when we are working, save as an individual, as a nation. This is the basic idea of Medisave - to provide funds for our citizens to pay for their future health needs, for them to buy an umbrella when it rains; and even before it rains. If our Singaporean patient has funds in his Medisave account, he can even choose private treatment if he likes! We must all be more aware of the true cost of medical treatment. An appendix operation costs about $2,000. But the patient pays only about $200. We therefore think surgery is cheap. It is not! There must be a better relationship between fees charged and the cost of treatment. Otherwise, the health care service must sooner or later run out of cash. And when cash runs out, standards must go down.”
“West Germany West Germany has a Statutory Health Insurance System which covers 90% to 92% of the population. The insurance system is financed by contributions in the form of earmarked payroll taxes as a percentage of wages, 50% from employer and 50% from employee. In terms of percentage to wages, i.e. the rate of contribution as a percentage of wages, in 1970 it was 9.2%. As a percentage of West Germany's Gross National Product, it was 3.7%. In 1982, the contribution rate went up to 12.1% of wages. As a percentage of GNP, it was 5.7%. In Singapore, we have never been enticed by the permissive "come hither" look of free medicine and free beds. We have always resisted their seductive advances. We charge for outpatient treatment and 'C' Class beds. We have, therefore, restrained spurious growth in demand for medical attention. We have kept costs down to 3.3% of Government revenue, and 1.0% of our GDP. This had misled many a knowledgeable person to conclude that there is no need to revamp our present health system. I have heard arguments that in fact we have underspent on health, and can even afford to increase or subsidize health expenditure further. This is myopic perception. It is like arguing that we need not save for old age because we are working now. It is like believing that there will be no rain tomorrow just because the sun is out today. Is there any divine law to guarantee that our economy will grow by at least 8% per annum for the next 20 years? Will the number of people over 60 years of age remain forever small? In 1957, only 3.8% of our population was over 60 years of age. Today, it is 7.4%. In the Year 2000, it will be 10%, or one in 10 persons will be over 60 years of age.”
“There is really no such thing as free health care - whether in Britain, West Germany or USA. Every person who works pays for the country's health care system. If he gets it free at the point of utilization, it is because he has paid in advance for it, either in the form of taxes, compulsory national health insurance, or voluntary health insurance. The result of this illusion of "freeness" leads to unrestrained growth in demand, spiralling health costs and of course queueing for services. In Britain, a patient was diagnosed as a case of detached retina two years ago. She still has no appointment for her eye operation. She is forced to wait for treatment from the National Health Service simply because she cannot afford the cost of private treatment, and there is a long queue waiting for eye operations. (This case was reported in the 11th August issue of The Listener.) In a sense, she does not have proper access to the National Health Service even though she has paid for the service, in advance through taxes. As for escalating health costs, the governments concerned can only watch helplessly as more and more resources are poured into what seems like a bottomless pit. I will give you two examples: one from Britain and the other from West Germany. Britain In the year 1965, Britain spent a total of o1.3 billion on the National Health Service. In terms of per capita expenditure, it was o23. As a percentage of her Gross Domestic Product, it was 4.1%. The two key figures are o23 and 4.1%. In the year 1981, the total expenditure went up by about 10 times to o13.4 billion. Per capita expenditure has, of course, shot up by about 10 times to o240. And in terms of percentage of her GDP, it has gone up from 4.1% in 1965 to 6% in 1981.”
“Let me quote from its opening two paragraphs: 'As Europe enters the last two decades of the 20th century, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has no option but to warn that there could be a health crisis by the year 2000 unless radical steps are taken by the public, the professions, industry, and the governments of the Region. This is no idle warning. A careful analysis of trends in health and disease, made over the past three years by representatives of the medical profession and the health ministries of the Region's 33 Member States, has produced ominous signs that our health policies since the Second World War have set us on a dangerous course. The glittering attraction of high technology and the public's demand for "miracle cures" have meant that we have almost abandoned the principle of self-care in a "caring community". We have inflicted wounds on ourselves, in the belief that science, doctors and hospitals would find a cure, instead of preventing the very causes of illness in the first place. Of course we cannot do without the medical care facilities that actually save life, but let us be clear that they do not add to our "health" - they stop us dying. Hospitals can only "cure" probably between 10% and 20% of disease. Instead of promoting health and preventing disease, we have invested the bulk of our health budgets in "disease palaces" [in other words, hospitals] which have really only cured our acute illnesses. Moreover, some countries have not only built hospitals that are too expensive for the return they give in terms of health, they have also built too many.' Europe faces a health crisis because the welfare model of free medicine has not worked. Free medicine does not reward those who make an effort to stay healthy.”
“The Paper deals with ideas and not the minutiae of health care. Its conciseness makes for easier reading. The National Health Plan aims: (i) to build a healthy, vigorous, active and physically fit population through healthy living, prevention of illnesses and community care; and (ii) to give all Singaporeans proper access to efficient health care services at a cost the individual and the country can afford. This is not just a pious hope. It can be achieved with realism and compassion. The heart of the National Health Plan is the Medisave Scheme. In conceiving the Medisave Scheme, the details of which are spelt out in Part 11 of the National Health Plan, we have the advantage of perfect hindsight. Many developed countries, for example, Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Australia and Japan, have implemented different variations of a liberal "cradle to grave" health care service. We have studied the efficacy of these welfare models 30, 40 years after their birth. We have seen their quick degeneration from their first youthful blush to their present pallid state as the cash runs out, and the services run down, unable to meet ballooning demand. We will be silly not to inoculate ourselves against this nationally disabling, degenerative disease. Where is my evidence for this indicting statement against the health care systems of the advanced countries? I have here a World Health Organization publication written by an English freelance journalist, Peter D. O'Neill, entitled "Health Crisis 2000".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this House having noted the National Health Plan -- A Blue Paper by the Ministry of Health, February 1983 as contained in Paper Misc. 4 of 1983, (1) approves in principle the Medisave Scheme which will enable Singaporeans to set aside their own savings to meet future hospitalisation expenses; and (2) recommends that there be periodic reviews in the implementation of the Scheme and that adjustments be made when experience shows this to be desirable. Health care concerns everyone. Healthy living, preventing people from getting sick and curing those who do is the responsibility of the whole State and all its citizens. It is for this reason that I have moved the above Motion only after many months of public discussions on the subject. The National Health Plan, in particular the concept of Medisave, was finalized as a Blue Paper only after my Ministry has brain- stormed it with a cross-section of people - medical personnel, members from the mass media, employers, workers, unions, and the consumers as represented by the CCCs and the RCs, and others. Even then, it is not in its final form. After its release in February this year, we have received further feed-back, and studied the considered views submitted to the Ministry by several individuals and organizations. My Ministry thanks them all for their valuable contributions. I hope hon. Members will be free this afternoon with their observations, suggestions, criticisms and comments on how to improve our health system. A common observation about the Blue Paper is its brevity and lack of details. The broad brush strokes were deliberate.”
“Teacher/ Study Total madrasah) teacher KGMS Grant $ $ $ $ $ $ 1980 88,988 5,550 24,600 47,773 24,645 191,556 1981 142,900 5,555 28,650 62,505 26,561 266,171 1982 122,600 8,200 37,400 70,694 48,676 287,570 projections - PROJECTED ENROLMENTS OF TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS, 1982 - 1990, VOCATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARD PROJECTED ENROLMENT BY COURSE 1982 - 1990 (Cols. 1359 - 1374)”
“Therefore MUIS does not have a complete record of all Singapore citizens and permanent residents currently pursuing higher religious education overseas. However, as at January 1982, 36 students were known to be attending different courses of religious studies, 23 in Egypt, 5 in Saudi Arabia, 2 in Kuwait and 6 in Malaysia. Of these, 13 students were in receipt of bursaries from MUIS. 9 bursary holders were studying in the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, 3 in the University of Malaya and 1 in Nilam Puri Institute in Malaysia. There may also be some students pursuing religious courses in Indonesia, but MUIS does not know how many. (viii) MUIS is aware of the need to ensure an adequate supply of religious teachers. Based on available information regarding the number of students taking up religious studies abroad, there is no reason to expect a shortage in the near future. (ix) Until sections 81 and 82 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act are brought into force, MUIS will not be able to formulate or introduce a proper scheme of service for religious teachers. (x) MUIS is satisfied that, in the foreseeable future, there will be enough candidates to fill all the key religious posts in Singapore. (xi) The amount of Zakat-Fitrah collected in the last 3 years was: 1980 - $844,308 1981 - $970,847 1982 - $947,258 The amount spent for educational activities during the same period was: 1980 - $191,556 or 22.69% 1981 - $266,171 or 27.42% 1982 - $287,570 or 30.36% A breakdown of the amount distributed as bursaries, aid to madrasahs, grants to religious teachers and study grants is at Annex below. Annex AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES FROM THE ZAKAT FITRAH COLLECTION 1980-1982 Capitation Annual grant grant Religious Year Bursary (aid to Reg.”
“Dr Ahmad Mattar: (i) There are 16 Islamic religious schools in Singapore registered with the Ministry of Education of which 8 are full-time and 8 are part-time. (ii) The total enrolment of these 16 schools is 1985. The details are as follows:- Full-time Part-time Pre-school NIL NIL Primary 873 936 Secondary 159 NIL Pre-U 17 NIL Total 1049 936 (iii) The total number of teachers teaching in these schools is 91. A breakdown of their qualification is as follows:- Full-time Part-time Completed secondary 31 4 Completed post-secondary 14 0 BA Degree 20 0 Others (not ascertainable) 5 17 Total: 70 21 (iv) A breakdown of the salary/allowance paid to these teachers is as follows: Full-time Part-time $ 50 - 99 8 5 $100 - 149 5 5 $150 - 199 13 5 $200 - 249 4 4 $250 - 299 5 1 $300 - 349 11 0 $350 - 399 5 0 $400 - 449 5 0 $450 - 499 7 0 $500 - 549 0 0 $550 - 599 2 0 $600 - 649 0 0 Over $600 1 0 Voluntary 4 1 Total: 70 21 (v) A breakdown of the salary of the graduate teachers is as follows: $200 - 299 2 $300 - 399 7 $400 - 499 6 $500 - 599 2 Over $600 1 Total: 18 Two graduate teachers are receiving allowances only. (The lowest paid teacher receives a salary of $235 pm). (vi) Religious schools in Singapore do not use standard textbooks. The majority use textbooks compiled by local teachers. Three full-time religious schools, Madrasah Aljunied, Madrasah Al-Maarif and Madrasah Wak Tanjong use textbooks published in Egypt. Some primary religious schools use textbooks published by Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka, Malaysia. (vii) Muslim students who wish to pursue higher religious education abroad are not obliged to inform MUIS of their intention before departure.”
“pre-school; primary; secondary; others; (iii) what is the total number of teachers involved, giving details of their highest educational qualifications; (iv) what is the salary they receive, giving the information in the form of frequency distribution; (v) of the graduate teachers, what are their salaries, in frequency distribution; (vi) what textbooks are used and where are these books published; (vii) how many Singapore citizens and permanent residents are now undergoing degree courses in Islamic universities, giving the names of the universities and types of courses they are taking; (viii) if Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura will investigate into the trend on the decreasing number of competent school-leavers who are qualified to be trained to become Islamic religious teachers, and state what steps, if any, will be taken by MUIS to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of religious teachers to cater to the needs of over 85,000 Muslim children in the 5-15 year age group; (ix) whether MUIS, in cooperation with appropriate Muslim organisations, religious schools and others, will formulate and introduce a proper Scheme of Service for religious teachers; (x) whether MUIS considers it necessary to have a scheme that aims at ensuring that there will be sufficient numbers of highly educated and competent learned men of Islam who are capable of occupying the key religious posts or functions in Singapore, and therefore can render religious guidance to the Singapore Muslims in the context of the dynamic and modernising climate of our Republic, and, if so, what steps are being taken or planned; and (xi) of the funds collected through the Zakat-Fitrah (since the introduction of the computerised system of collections), how much has been spent for purposes of educational activities or programmes of the different types, giving the absolute and percentage values.”
“Of these, 25 are attending Polytechnic courses, 141 are in NUS and NTI, and 78 are in overseas universities. The breakdown by rank is as follows (Table 2): ______________________________________________________________ Rank at time Polytechnic Local Overseas Total of award University University ______________________________________________________________ COL and -- -- 2 2 above LTC -- 1 -- 1 MAJ -- 20 2 22 CPT -- 30 9 39 LTA 1 62 22 85 2LT -- 22 28 50 OCT -- 6 15 21 SGT 5 -- -- 5 CPL 19 -- -- 19 ______________________________________________________________ Total 25 141 78 244 Table 2: SAF servicemen on degree/diploma courses, 1983 ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS 2. Encik Mansor Haii Sukaimi asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs if he will state (i) how many Islamic religious schools there are in Singapore, stating whether they are full-time or part-time; (ii) what is their total enrolment with breakdown details on level of education by types, i.e.”
“Over the last five years, a total of 239 servicemen have successfully obtained University degrees and Polytechnic diplomas through the SAF education upgrading scheme. This scheme provides educational opportunities up to university level to SAF personnel seeking higher education. Under the scheme, servicemen are given scholarships and training awards, or are granted no-pay study leave with loan and grant. Of the 239 personnel, 79 obtained Polytechnic diplomas, 75 obtained local University degrees and 85 obtained overseas university degrees. Among the 85 overseas university graduates are 30 SAF scholars who attended Oxbridge and other UK universities, and 3 senior SAF officers who obtained Masters degrees in the United States. The breakdown by rank is as follows (Table 1): ______________________________________________________________ Rank at time Polytechnic Local Overseas Total of award University University ______________________________________________________________ COL and above -- -- 3 3 LTC -- -- -- -- MAJ -- 3 -- 3 CPT 1 7 15 23 LTA 13 48 12 87 2LT 1 16 29 46 OCT -- 1 26 27 SSG 4 -- -- 4 SGT 12 -- -- 12 CPL 32 -- -- 32 LCP 12 -- -- 12 PTE 4 -- -- 4 ______________________________________________________________ Total 79 75 85 239 Table 1: SAF servicemen who obtained degrees/diplomas 1978-82 The university degrees are mostly in Science, Arts and Social Sciences, Business Administration, and Engineering. The Polytechnic courses are in electrical and mechanical engineering. Total expenditure incurred was about $4.6 million. The number of SAF servicemen being put through higher education has been increasing year by year. Currently there are 244 servicemen in various stages of polytechnic and university education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is listed in the 20-year Health Plan. PRE-FABRICATED FLATS (Construction) 8. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Minister for National Development if he will report on the progress of the flat construction schemes by the pre-fabrication methods, stating whether the schemes are progressing as scheduled and the number and time of completion by various zones that are served by the pre-fabrication schemes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no immediate plan. But a site in that area has been reserved for the future possibility of building one.”
“Chandra Das asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what cause or causes led to the major nation-wide power failure on Saturday, 5th February, 1983; and (b) what steps will be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.”
“I thank the Member of Parliament for Ayer Rajah and the other Members of Parliament before him for the continued concern over our national servicemen's welfare. The question of national service allowance has been debated in this House on numerous occasions. MINDEF has studied the problem carefully, weighing the pros and cons. Members may wish to note that an increase of $10 per month in the allowance would result in an additional cost of over $7 million a year for MINDEF. Nevertheless, we have now decided to make some adjustments to the initial allowance of $90 for National Service recruits. Details are being worked out. We expect to finalize them before the middle of the year. Notwithstanding our decision to revise the allowance, two important points must be stressed. Firstly, national servicemen's allowance must not be confused with wages or salary. The allowance is meant only as contribution towards personal upkeep and expenses over and above those borne by the SAF, like food and lodging for those staying in camp. It is not for services rendered. The element of sacrifice on the part of national servicemen must be stressed. Their reward is peace and security for their country and family. We must continue to remind our national servicemen that it is their duty and honour to serve the nation. At the age of 18, they have enjoyed 18 years of peace and progress made possible only by the sacrifices of their elder brothers, cousins, friends and neighbours who served the nation before them. Secondly, as in the past, every national serviceman who experiences genuine financial difficulties in his family will be assisted through loans for those who are single, and outright grants for those who are married. NATION-WIDE POWER FAILURE ON 5TH FEBRUARY, 1983 17. Mr S.”
“It would be no less convenient for Hindus to make their regular contributions to the Hindu Endowments Board through the POSB. Leaders of the Hindu community are confident that they can raise the money they need for their projects by means of voluntary contributions made through the POSB. It will not be necessary therefore to introduce legislation to allow these donations to be collected through the Central Provident Fund Board. (b) The Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura does publish the accounts of all monies collected through the Central Provident Fund Board from Muslims for the construction of mosques and of monies collected for other purposes. These accounts are included in the Annual Report of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura. The report for the year 1981 has already been published and presented to Parliament. Appendix I QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER (not reached by 3.30 p.m.) BIGGER HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIFTS (Need to accommodate first-aid apparatus) 13. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that sick residents who need to be carried by stretchers cannot get into the Housing and Development Board lifts and that patients on wheel-chairs have difficulties getting into such lifts; and whether the HDB has any plan to provide bigger lifts in the future.”
“For the same reason, the Central Manpower Base cannot specify the call-up date for each registrant, other than observe the general rule of enlisting as many as possible at the first opportunity after they turn 18, and of giving one to two month's notice of enlistment. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HINDUS FOR TEMPLES, ETC. AND MONIES FROM MUSLIMS FOR MOSQUES, ETC. 6. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs (a) following the recent call made by the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs to Hindus to contribute to a central fund for the building of temples and other projects, will the Ministry of Social Affairs consider making arrangements for donations to be collected through the Central Provident Fund Board, as is done in the case of contributions made by Muslims for the building of mosques, which will be more convenient for those wishing to contribute rather than through the Post Office Savings Bank; and (b) whether accounts have been published of all monies collected through the Central Provident Fund Board from Muslims for the construction of mosques and of other monies collected directly by the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura for various purposes and, if not, why not. Dr Ahmad Mattar: (a) Contributions from Muslims towards the Mosque Building Fund are collected through the Central Provident Fund Board pursuant to the provisions of sections 75A to 75F of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 42) and the Administration of Muslim Law (Mosque Building Fund) Rules, 1975. When these provisions were introduced, it was clearly intended that the concession was a special one and will not be a precedent for other religious or ethnic groups.”
“There are four national service intakes each year, at the end of March, June, September and December. MINDEF's policy is to enlist national service registrants at the first opportunity after they reach 18 years of age. They are given one to two month's notice. Generally, all male citizens, other than those who have been given notice of exemption from national service on medical grounds, can expect to be called up by 18 years 3 months. But there are two exceptions: the first comprises those who are deferred from national service for approved reasons like full-time study, temporary medical unfitness, and temporary financial hardship. They are enlisted soon after expiry of their deferment period. The second group comprises those who are deliberately called up later, so that there may be a spread of quality and quantity of national servicemen among the four intakes. They are normally enlisted before they turn 19. Any registrant who is liable for full-time national service but has not received his enlistment notice by 19, can always contact the Central Manpower Base to find out whether he will be called up. MINDEF has always been willing to inform the registrant, and even his prospective employer, his national service status. This arrangement has been working well. There is no compelling reason to change it. The Central Manpower Base cannot state definitely before a registrant attains 19 years of age, that he will not be enlisted for full-time national service. This is because the numbers required for each national service intake cannot be finalised many months in advance. Applications for deferment often come late. Some registrants want to repeat school examinations. Others who were medically fit have become unfit. The list goes on.”
“Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development why his Ministry had served summonses under the State Lands Encroachments Act on occupiers of properties in the Kaki Bukit estate before they were allocated alternative accommodation.”