Hwang Soo Jin
Singapore
“I remember that soon after the Blue Paper was published, a career woman came to see me at one of my Meet-the-people sessions. Speaking for some friends, she complained to me that after hearing the news concerning the Blue Paper, they could not sleep for several nights as they were apprehensive that they would not be able to maintain their…”
“To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether he will direct the Housing and Development Board to look into the need to construct more public lavatories in that part of Ang Mo Kio New Town which falls within Jalan Kayu Constituency, especially in areas where senior citizens regularly meet: (b) what is the number of complaints o…”
“Sir, permit me to just make a short observation. Listening to hon. Members, it gives me the impression that maybe we should forget the whole MRT study and save all the millions of dollars and instead spend it on carrying out a study on the operational efficiency of SBS, Like the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I thought that the answer give…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is still too much of a delaying tactic here as far as I can see. Probably next year the same words will be said again. I just like to remind the Hon. Minister for the second time that the police post at Ang Mo Kio is the result of the closure of the police post in Yio Chu Kang in my constituency.”
“Sir, a rather more pertinent question to ask is whether the handcuffing procedure should not be looked into or reviewed so as to make sure that it is not applied indiscriminately and causing unnecessary embarrassment. I think this is the point of the Member for Radin Mas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether you call it an impasse or foot-dragging or whatever, we have been hearing the same words for more than a year. Last year, the Minister said exactly the same thing. Last year he said that we gladdened his heart, and again this year he says we gladden his heart and we are on his side.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Hwang Soo Jin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“I remember that soon after the Blue Paper was published, a career woman came to see me at one of my Meet-the-people sessions. Speaking for some friends, she complained to me that after hearing the news concerning the Blue Paper, they could not sleep for several nights as they were apprehensive that they would not be able to maintain their livelihood in a few years' time when they retire at 55 because their employers had indicated in no uncertain terms that they would not continue to employ them. Only after my repeated assurance to her that I would raise her question in Parliament that she finally left my office. I sincerely hope that she would be relieved and would sleep well again after reading the press coverage of the debate these few days. 4.29 pm”
“And, after a brief period of sacrifice, the people have been able to see the benefits from such measures for themselves. In consequence, their confidence in the Government has been increasing day by day. With such unreserved support, the nation as a whole has been able to march towards the same goal with one body, striving for a better future. However, ever since the publication of the Blue Paper, unfortunately, the impression was conveyed that the recommendations in the Blue Paper represented Government policies because the Committee was chaired by a Minister and some sections of the population have their confidence in the Government shaken. This adverse reaction can be attributed to one common factor, that is, what they say, "i have earned this sweat money in the hard way, sacrificing many years of higher standard of living. How can the Government not keep its promise by giving back the money that I have worked so hard to earn when I attain the age of 55?" I hope that at the end of this debate, paragraph 3.2 of Chapter 3 of the Report, namely, the recommendations regarding the withdrawal of CPF savings would be withdrawn or reasonably modified. The result of the debate in this House today will go to show whether public opinions are still respected in our country. My belief in our deep-rooted system of democracy has given me the confidence to predict even at this stage that public opinions are respected in Singapore. Lastly, I would urge the Ministers that in future they should give detailed and a clear explanation of the legislative process involved in publishing any important paper which requires approval by Parliament so as to avoid creating unnecessary confusion amongst the people and increasing their anxiety and mental burden.”
“It creates the impression that the members of the Committee are over-anxious, and lacking in-depth planning about the problems of the aged. Due perhaps to their over-anxiety, they appear to have jumped to the conclusion dogmatically that when a person reaches the age of 55, we should still regard him as a child, and hence he must not be given the right to control his own finance so as to prevent him from squandering overnight all his hard-earned savings of a life-time resulting in his not having adequate means to support himself for the remaining years of his life. Like the Member for Thomson, I would like to know how has such a conclusion been arrived at? Has the Committee carried out a comprehensive survey? As nothing about this is mentioned in the Report, it would seem that the conclusion in the Report is tantamount to guesswork and conjecture. Irresponsible people, there will always be but in making such an important recommendation we must have sufficient facts and figures to support. We should never generalize on the basis of a few isolated cases. Is the situation as bad as what the Committee thinks? If so, then our streets will be inundated with old beggars, especially bearing in mind the fact that those who retired more than 10 years ago did not have much balance in their CPF, if any, at all. Our Party came to power 25 years ago. We have been pragmatic. We have dared to do what other people dare not do. So long as it is in the long-term interest of the people, the Government has had the courage to do what it thinks right regardless of the immediate political gain or loss. All along, the Government has, however, been able to persuade and convince the people before adopting unpopular and bold measures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the Blue Paper produced by the Committee headed by the Minister for Health is very weighty and constructive. The Committee was able to consider the problems of the aged from all angles. Most of the recommendations and measures will be acceptable to the great majority of the people. Although some people may think that we should not legislate to ensure that the children should support their aged parents, I think the recommendation on this point in this Blue Paper is somewhat commendable. However, when we legislate, we should study the experience of Israel in this regard in order to ensure that only those parents who have shouldered their responsibility of looking after their children would be entitled to such support by their children. In view of the alarming increase in the divorce rate, such an arrangement is necessary. Among the many virtues, the first and foremost is filial piety. Whilst some people feel that filial piety should be inculcated through the process of education and not by legislation, I am of the view that such legislation will not affect the process of education. It will in fact contribute towards the process of education. The laws of the State reflect and embody the values of the people and the Government. Legislation for children to support their aged parents will show that the Government is committed and resolved to look after its aged citizens, and inculcate filial piety among the people. This will over a period of time influence the minds of the people to accept such correct values. Legislation is not incompatible with educational process. On the contrary, it will help the process of education. A shortcoming of the Report is the recommendation on the withdrawal of CPF money.”
“But if we bear in mind the need to stimulate private sector development and to encourage private entrepreneurship, we should realize that the approach that I have just described is depriving the private sector of valuable opportunities to develop or expand a whole host of supportive services. The "fertile water" concept has also prevented private sector companies from taking full advantage of Government's numerous developments to do more business, raise their levels of skills and thereby expanding to a more creditable size, able to venture out beyond the shores of Singapore. As we all know, there is a tendency, whether wittingly or unwittingly, among the Government-owned companies and statutory boards, to scratch one another's back when it comes to doing business. It is fair to say that but for the strenuous efforts put in by the Government agencies, including the Government-owned companies, Singapore would be a lot poorer both in financial terms and in terms of trained human resources in a number of areas of economic activity, What has prompted my concern is the concern expressed by Dr Winsemius, and if we agree with him, we should perhaps begin to see in w.hat way the Government could over a period of time divest itself from some of the businesses presently undertaken by Government-owned companies so that our private sector will have a better chance to expand and to contribute more substantially to our economic growth. 3.53 pm”
“You can almost say, "You name it the Government has it." I know it is not quite as bad as all that, but that is the impression formed in the minds of the public. When the Government first went into business, I believe it was influenced by the fact that there were a number of worthwhile commercial and industrial undertakings that the Government thought Singapore should try to develop. Since the private sector at that point of time lacked either the financial resources or the expertise, the Government had no alternative but to venture into these lines of business. So we went into steel mills, ship-building, ship-repairing and many others. The developmental objective is one that few people will quarrel with and, in all fairness, in practically all cases the companies founded by the Government have done well and have spawned other related developments. All these companies are making good money. There is nothing wrong in making money except that, judging by the behaviour of some of these companies of late, one wonders whether they still have in mind the original objectives of Government in setting up these companies. And have these companies become simply, profit-motivated? Take the case of Keppel Shipyard. It was started to undertake ship-building and ship repairing, but today it is a conglomerate of over 100 companies involved in all sorts of activities, some of which have not even the remotest connections with ship-building and ship-repairing. If our sole objective is to make money, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the approach, which is best described in Chinese as fei shui bu liu, wai ren tian ( ) meaning that fertile water should not be allowed to seep into other's paddy field.”
“At present, for a person who aspires to become an entrepreneur, unless he has substantial private means of his own, it is difficult for him to realize his ambition even though he may have the right qualifications in terms of knowledge, training and skills. There is practically nowhere he can turn to for the necessary venture capital to start off. Consequently, as pointed out by Dr Winsemius, most of these individuals would rather remain as salaried employees. I am not suggesting that EDB should help them by providing the venture capital at this stage (I know the answer will be that it is the taxpayers' money - we have to be careful). As a first step, what I think can be done would be for the EDB to encourage the submission of business plans from private individuals and to carry out independent evaluations of such plans. In the event that a plan is found to be feasible, assistance could be extended by finding suitable partners who have the means. At a later stage, if public response so justifies it, consideration should perhaps be given to the setting up of a venture capital fund. I know it is probably easier said than done but bearing in mind the excellent track record of the EDB, I would like to think that nothing is impossible with the EDB. In this connection, it is relevant to point out that the special tax treatment applicable to venture capital as announced in the Budget Statement will only benefit corporate bodies but not individuals. Sir, another factor that has inhibited the growth in the number of entrepreneurs locally is attributable to the over-powering presence of Government in business. You see it everywhere - it is in banking, insurance, transportation, telecommunications, trading, printing, manufacturing and quarrying.”
“But our rapid economic development, as I see it, has reached a stage where we should perhaps look even more closely at things not only in quantitative but also qualitative terms. We should ask ourselves where is the development leading us to ultimately. Would we in time finish up as a nation of employees - employees of government and quasi-government bodies and multinationals and of traders, with no signifi- cant number of our own business leaders of standing in the private sector? Should we not try to create an environment conducive to the nurturing of entrepreneurial skills? We talk of procreation bias. It appears to me, Sir, there is also a pro-creation bias in the birth of entrepreneurs in our midst, in that we see an increasing number of foreign entrepreneurs and public sector entrepreneurs as against local private sector entrepreneurs. If we think that it is important to our economy in the long term for our own home-bred entrepreneurs to continue to emerge in the private sector, then I feel more will have to be done by the Government by way of incentives and organizational support. Sir, hitherto EDB has been very successful in attracting foreign investors to come to Singapore. How EDB has gone about it and what it has achieved are matters of well-documented records that we all know well. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate. What I would like to suggest is that EDB should perhaps now address itself to the question of how it can help our own citizens to come forward and to become entrepreneurs in their own right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget before the House is in every aspect a most satisfactory one. It is difficult for anyone to pick flaws with unless, of course, if you believe in deficit financing and fool that the Government should be even more generous in handing out money to the public. I had not originally wanted to speak on this occasion but when I read of Dr Winsemius' lament that there were not enough entrepreneurs amongst young Singaporeans, it touched a soft chord in my heart and I feel I should say a few words. What I am going to say can be construed as with vested interest on account of the fact that I am in business, but I can assure you that I am speaking not so much as a businessman but rather as a concerned citizen. Sir, looking at the way our economy has progressed since independence, there is no disputing the fact that as a country we have done well. In fact, so well that instead of worrying about unemployment, a problem that affects and afflicts most countries both developed and developing, in recent years we are concerned about labour shortage and the long term impact of continued reliance upon foreign workers. This is an enviable position in the context of the world today. If we are complacent and content to continue to depend on the Government and the multi-nationals to provide the thrusts in our economic development (a feature in our economy that stood out so clearly as one listened to the Honourable Minister and as reflected by the official statistics released together with the Budget), we can very well tell ourselves that we have never had it so good. There is nothing to worry about.”
“Sir, if as a result of this increase and after a further period of 12 months, the surplus continues to accumulate, would the Minister then consider a reduction in licence fee?”
“To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether he will direct the Housing and Development Board to look into the need to construct more public lavatories in that part of Ang Mo Kio New Town which falls within Jalan Kayu Constituency, especially in areas where senior citizens regularly meet: (b) what is the number of complaints of rudeness against HDB staff for each of the years 1979 and 1980 and what system is in force to ensure that all such complaints receive the prompt attention of senior management staff; and (c) whether he will take steps to tidy up the land in Jalan Kayu, originally acquired for pig farming, as the sites, overgrown with vegetation and used for illegal dumping of rubbish, are now posing a health hazard.”
“To ask the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education what is the reason for the spate of resignations from the Monetary Authority of Singapore and whether the mass exodus of senior executives is likely to affect staff morale and work efficiency.”
“Sir, I just like to thank the hon. Member for Boon Teck for enlightening me, but I do not think I am on the same wave length as he is.”
“Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. As a layman, I am finding it increasingly more difficult to follow the changes in our education policy. We talk of communication gap and we talk of narrowing the gap. But each time we listen to discussions on education, we hear of technocratic expressions, such as software, hardware, education engineering, systems engineers and computers. All this is very confusing. I do not know how we are going to narrow the gap between the Ministry officers and the teachers. When we start thinking of the man in the street, it is even more difficult for them to understand all this. What do we mean by software? What is software and what is hardware? What is a computer? Each time something goes wrong, we blame the computer. The poor parent does not know what is going on. I feel very strongly about the effects of a communication gap. It exists not just in the Ministry of Education. If we in this House go on speaking a technocratic language, I think the gap is going to be wider between the political leadership and the people. It is going to be a very serious problem. We must get down to speak a language that the man in the street can understand. Unless we can do that, no policy is going to be understood by the people. To me, this is a very fundamental aspect of parliamentary debate and discussion. We must be able to speak a simple and plain language so that every man can understand and follow. I must say that I get a bit lost by what is going on. I heard for the first time such a term as "education engineering".”
“How is the Minister going to ascertain that the buses would be able to cope till 1990s? Obviously, some study has got to be carried out. An expert has been defined as a person who makes simple things complicated. So as we get more experts the situation becomes more complicated. Personally, I am not quite sure whether we really need an MRT. Given the choice, I would rather say, "Let us not have the MRT." Why turn the whole beautiful city into a huge building site? And after spending all these millions of dollars, what are we going to get? We would not be here to enjoy it. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang)( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to request the Minister to clarify two points. According to the Minister, the main reason for raising the bus fares is the increase in oil prices in the world. In respect of the expenditure of SBS, I would like to know what percentage of it is spent on diesel oil and what is the percentage for other oils? Is the SBS getting any tax-free concession for such oil imports? Otherwise, perhaps the SBS can request the Ministry concerned for tariff-free oils, i.e. exemption from import duties. In last year's annual report of the SBS, it was stated that the SBS was installing a new computer at great cost. I understand that before acquiring this particular computer, SBS was using another computer of a different model. Before SBS made the decision to install the new computer, did it request the systems engineers from the First Deputy Prime Minister's Office to make a study as to whether the SBS needed to acquire it?”
“Sir, permit me to just make a short observation. Listening to hon. Members, it gives me the impression that maybe we should forget the whole MRT study and save all the millions of dollars and instead spend it on carrying out a study on the operational efficiency of SBS, Like the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I thought that the answer given was not very clear. It is still rather equivocal. I think the Minister mentioned that based on transportation grounds alone there is no justification for an MRT. Am I right?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is still too much of a delaying tactic here as far as I can see. Probably next year the same words will be said again. I just like to remind the Hon. Minister for the second time that the police post at Ang Mo Kio is the result of the closure of the police post in Yio Chu Kang in my constituency. And today the crime rate in Yio Chu Kang has gone up. What does that imply? I do not think the Police Force monitors very clearly what is going on on the ground. I think the point made by the hon. Member for Bukit Ho Swee is the right one. The Minister is the expert. I do not see how the officials sitting in the Budget Division know what is going on. I think it is about time the Minister forced a decision. This is not the way we run our Government. For the last so many years, the PAP has been building an image of decisiveness because we do not run away from decisions. For a simple project like a police station to serve a population of almost a quarter million people, we seem to be dragging our feet, not able to make up our minds. I do not understand.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether you call it an impasse or foot-dragging or whatever, we have been hearing the same words for more than a year. Last year, the Minister said exactly the same thing. Last year he said that we gladdened his heart, and again this year he says we gladden his heart and we are on his side. But if this matter drags on for another year, the Minister will be on our side! [Laughter].”
“Sir, a rather more pertinent question to ask is whether the handcuffing procedure should not be looked into or reviewed so as to make sure that it is not applied indiscriminately and causing unnecessary embarrassment. I think this is the point of the Member for Radin Mas. I am inclined to agree with him that we should perhaps look at the procedure to make sure that in cases where the offence is of a relatively minor nature or where the suspect does not seem to be a person who is in a position to resist, i.e. he is not a violent type, perhaps we could dispense with the use of handcuffs.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. I do not think I have asked for a breakdown. All that I said was that to have a situation where 1,984 cases are withdrawn within a course of one year, there must be something basically wrong with the whole approving system. Therefore, it is not a question of reviewing. It is a question of going into the entire system of approving in the first place. In the second place, it looks to me that the Minister has only just made a policy decision. I am not aware of the fact that Members of Parliament are ever informed prior to the withdrawal of public assistance. All that I have requested is that in future prior to the withdrawal of assistance the Member of Parliament concerned is duly informed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions. First of all, to have 1,984 cases withdrawn within a course of one year. Does it not suggest that, in the first instance, there must be something wrong with the approving system? Secondly, would the Minister please ensure that before withdrawing assistance in any particular case, he would keep the relevant Member of Parliament informed?”
“stood up and addressing himseff to the Clerk of Parliament said: Mr Lopez, I propose, That Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng do take the Chair of this Parliament as Speaker.”
“Dr Lee Chiaw Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider increasing the ceiling height of its new flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister please inform the House how many more lives will have to be lost before he will expedite the installation of traffic lights at major road junctions in Ang Mo Kio, and what has accounted for the apparent delay in the installation of traffic lights? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Jalan Kayu that the installation of traffic lights in Ang Mo Kio has to be expedited. In fact, I have asked the PWD to expedite the installation of these traffic lights. The traffic lights at the junction of Avenue 3 and Avenue 8, Ang Mo Kio New Town, are currently under construction. The tender was awarded on 17th April, 1980, for a period of 2 1/2 months. The work is targeted for completion by 9th July, 1980. But because accidents have occurred quite regularly there, I have asked the PWD to ask the contractor to expedite the work. I have been informed that the traffic lights will be in operation by the end of this month, i.e. in the next few days. Under the same contract, traffic lights will also be installed at the junction of Avenue 3 and Avenue 10. There will be traffic lights at nine major road junctions within Ang Mo Kio New Town. Four traffic lights are already in operation, two are under construction and three more, namely, at the junction of Avenues 5, 4, 6 and 8 will be completed within the next six months. It is rather unfortunate that a traffic accident occurred at the junction of Avenue 3 and Avenue 8 before the completion and operation of the traffic lights. However, traffic lights alone will not prevent accidents. Motorists must also exercise due caution, especially at road junctions, to prevent accidents. NEW HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Ceiling height) 8.”
“We may be Chinese by race but our value judgments, attitudes and our way of life are so vastly different from those of the present generation of Chinese in China. These differences are bound to increase further with time. I visited China with a group lost year. The feeling inside me was not one of excitement felt on "home-coming". It was more a sense of curiosity and a sense of shock - cultural shock. I was shocked by the gray uniformity of the teeming mass of people everywhere, gray in appearances and in thoughts. When we were first surrounded and stared upon by a large crowd in one of the cities visited, attracted no doubt by our outlandish appearance and the strange gibberish among ourselves, for once I know how caged animals in a zoo must feel. The expression on the faces of the onlookers was not one of recognition but emotionless curiosity. You might say that the feeling was mutual on our part but on a totally different mental wave length. I told myself, "i don't think I want to be one of them; I don't think I can, even if I try, to tune my mental wave length to theirs. Give me any time my individuality of mind and behaviour; the free and easy atmosphere, not to mention the good life we enjoy in Singapore." Yes, China is great; it has a long and colourful history. It is a vast country with a vast population. But so is India: so are many other countries. Singapore is small, but as far as I am concerned, it is great because it is our own.”
“Members who have spoken before me have referred to the extremely unpleasant reactions of some of the Indonesian newspapers towards the behaviour of spectators at the recent badminton match held here between Indonesia and China. The incident serves only too well to remind us of the delicate balance existing in international relationship. The vulnerability of the situation is such that it could lend itself so easily to devious exploitations by foreign powers out to undermine ASEAN solidarity and to subvert the security of individual member-countries. Fairly or unfairly, our spectators were thought to have displayed excessive chauvinist partisan sentiment for the Chinese team. I have no intention of defending our spectators nor to speculate on the motives of those who spoke out so vehemently against us. What I see in the incident is an important object lesson to be learned and that is: we should endeavour to get our people to think more in terms of ASEAN solidarity. We may have been remiss in not puffing in more efforts to project the correct Singaporean image among our ASEAN friends. Perhaps the rectification of this serious aberration could be made an additional objective of the Ministry. The breakdown in communication resulting from the lack of social contact is often the cause of misunderstanding and misconception. The Ministry may also consider more frequent reciprocal cultural exchanges aiming at promoting closer people-to-people contact with our ASEAN partners. The fact that some of us Singaporeans are of ethnic Chinese origin does not automatically make us pro-China or "the loyal citizens of the Middle Kingdom", as some outsiders seem to think, I do not think we need to be apologetic or defensive because of our origin.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of the Cultural Programme of the Ministry for 1980 is shown as: "to promote the creation and development of a national cultural identity." The immediate impression conveyed is that a Singaporean cultural identity has not emerged as yet and, therefore, needs to be created and developed. Whatever the correct interpretation, I have no intention of getting involved. I would leave the arguments to the intellectuals. What interests me today is not our national cultural identity but rather our national identity. As far as the Singaporean national identity is concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that we have succeeded since independence in creating a distinct national identity. We are Singaporeans and proud of the fact. Despite the diverse cultural and ethnic origins of our people, we have succeeded in bringing about a cohesive nation. We have instilled in our people a keen sense of nationhood. The important thing now is to ensure the constant reinforcement of this feeling, this sense of belonging. Our cultural development program me can only be meaningful if it contributes towards the continuous strengthening of the Singaporean identity not only in the hearts and minds of our own people but also in the eyes of our ASEAN friends. In an increasingly turbulent and difficult world, we need friends more than ever. ASEAN has shown its effectiveness as a meaningful regional grouping. We have benefited both politically and economically by being a member. If we hope to continue to derive benefits by our participation, then we must make certain that we continue to enjoy the trust and support of other member-countries.”
“Sir, I seek to disagree because, in the first place, the question of whether or not to extend the grant or loan to a statutory body has to come to the House for approval. Until such approval is given. by the House, no Minister should be empowered to give that grant or loan. Technically, I am quite sure this is the position.”
“Sir, if it was in 1978, then I submit that whatever decision made by the Minister was ultra vires because it should have come to this House for approval before the conversion could be agreed upon. Today we are being asked to vote on a decision made in 1978. 5.15 p.m.”
“Sir, I would just like to raise a point of clarification. Would the Hon. Minister please inform the House when was the loan to SDC converted into a rant? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Sir, I believe it was in 1978.”
“Sir, the Hon. Minister in his reply said that he has been doing his best. So he is implying that somebody is not doing his best. Could he please tell us who is not doing his best? I think we should face up to the facts. It is no use going round and round saying, "We have initiated proposals four years back, and we have been talking to the Ministry of Finance." It is four years, not four months. So let us have the facts. Who is holding up the matter? Let us see what can be done. Can we not short-circuit the bureaucratic red-tape, or whatever it is, and come to a positive decision? One way or the other, please.”
“Sir, as my constituency has been referred to, I feel I must stand up to be counted on and to give moral support to the hon. Member for Punggol. The Hon. Minister mentioned that the proposal was submitted to the Ministry of Finance in 1976. This is 1980. I do not know what sort of dialogue is going on between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. It has taken four years and there is still nothing concrete. The hon. Member for Punggol has omitted Ang Mo Kio. Ang Mo Kio New Town also comes under F Division. With so many hundreds of thousands of people moving into Ang Mo Kio, what the Ministry has done is to close down a very small police post at Yio Chu Kang Road and transfer the staff to Ang Mo Kio. And that is the strength and the facilities of the police force looking after Ang Mo Kio. I think it is shameful. Something ought to be done. The security of the people who have settled in the new town is important. I think they want a sense of security. We are not giving them that. I fully share the sentiments of the Member for Punggol. What we want is a positive answer. It is no use beating about the bush by referring to Jurong and so on. We are not interested. All that we are interested is: what are the plans for F Division, and give us a positive answer. Do not pass the buck to the Ministry of Finance, please. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, with fire wastage running at an all-time high figure, I believe, of over $70 million in 1979, the introduction of the Bill before the House is timely. To ensure the continued high standard of our fire service, it is important that we should constantly review and update the organisation and the facilities for fire-fighting. What I find disappointing about the Bill is that whilst part of the announced object of the Bill is to make better provisions under the law for the prevention of fire, there is no specific reference to this important aspect under Part Ill of the Bill, which sets out the duties and powers of the Fire Service. Sir, the Director is well-placed to co-ordinate efforts directed at research into fire prevention in all aspects. He is also in a good position to undertake the responsibility to inform and to educate the public on developments in the techniques of fire prevention. Perhaps the Hon. Acting Minister for Social Affairs would consider a suitable extension of Part Ill of the Bill to spotlight rather more clearly the duties of the Fire Service on fire prevention in the broader sense.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just wondering whether the Hon. Minister has considered the effect of his statement to this House this afternoon, i.e. it is likely to cause a greater number of second-hand cars being imported within a short space of time.”
“I do not think we want to be too commercialised." If that is the case, then the constraints will still be there, if any. Sir, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out to justify the conversion of RTS into a statutory board. Perhaps I should also mention that, in going through the Bill, it seems to me that, in so far as the provisions on accounting and auditing are concerned, the stipulation is not in accordance with the standard clauses recommended by the Auditor-General for statutory boards. I am not sure whether it is an oversight or whether it is an intentional attempt to reduce the degree of its accountability to Parliament through the Auditor-General's Office. 5.14 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the Explanatory Statement on the Bill and I have also listened most carefully to the Hon, Minister. But it is still not clear to me why it is necessary to convert RTS into a statutory board. What are the things that a statutory board can do that the RTS in its present form cannot do? It is generally known that some of our civil servants tend to attribute any departmental ineffectiveness or shortcomings to the fact that, as a Government department, their hands are tied and that there are also financial and administrative constraints. Consequently, there are things which they would have liked to do but they cannot do. The impression conveyed is that a statutory board enjoys considerably more flexibility and freedom of action. Sir, if what is believed by these Government officers, which seems to be shared by the Hon. Minister, is indeed true, then there must be something basically wrong in the way the Government departments are organised. Surely the answer would be either to find out where we have gone wrong or why we have gone wrong and try to put things right, or simply allow all departments to become statutory boards, For once I do not believe there Is anything wrong with the existing system in the RTS. I do not think we should allow any part of Government service to reduce the extent of its accountability to Parliament by becoming a statutory board without good justification. Sir, the Hon. Minister seems to give the impression that by simply converting RTS into SBC we are going to see an overnight improvement in the standard of services. I do not see how this is possible. Where are the present administrative constraints? What are the present financial constraints? He seems to contradict himself when he said, "We still need to control them.”
“Sir, the rationale behind the setting up of the Fund has been fairly well explained. I do not think there is very much that we can quarrel with in the objectives. However, for the Fund to succeed, it is important to ensure that the administration will not be rendered ineffective by too much bureaucratic red tape. The procedures for application should be made simple, and I hope that there will not be complicated forms to be filled. Over the years, the public has come to associate any Government-sponsored financial assistance scheme with elaborate questionnaires and cumbersome procedures to be complied with, which have been apparently designed to discourage rather than encourage applications. Sir, although clause 4 does provide for exemption, there is no indication whatsoever under what circumstances exemptions may be granted. I suspect that this particular clause is intentionally left vague to discourage application for exemption. It is important that, on implementing the Bill, a set of guidelines on exemption is published as soon as possible so that justifiable cases are accorded the attention they deserve. In setting up the Fund, we should take care to ensure that we do not unwittingly kill the initiative of the employers, either individually or collectively, to finance their own training schemes, some of which can be quite costly and may become uneconomic to continue as a result of the additional levy imposed. If this is allowed to happen, the Fund can become a counter-productive exercise and the levy will simply come to pass as just another additional item of tax to be tolerated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. Minister please assure the House that no fruit trees will be planted along pedestrian walks? I do not fancy being hit on the head by fruits!”
“Sir, I would just like to take the opportunity to ask the Hon. Minister whether he will agree to extend the PARF value to stolen cars.”
“Sir, would the Minister please inform the House whether there is any survey carried out as to the number of families likely to be affected by the damming?”
“Members of this House are disputing the finding on the morale of teachers. I wonder also whether or not sufficient representations have been invited from all interested parties such as the principals, teachers and parents who appear always to be the last to be consulted on anything in the past, I raise this doubt because I would like to be absolutely certain that whatever we decide to do from this point onwards, we will be guided by the experience and advice of principals and teachers, in consultation with parents, and any changes or adjustments will be orderly and kept to the minimum. We have a patient people - principals, teachers and parents included and not forgetting the school children. They have put up with too much for too long from the Ministry. Let us not over-tax their patience. Finally, Sir, it is gratifying to note that in introducing the Motion yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister announced that streaming at the primary level would not be compulsory in nature in that the final decision would be left with the parents. He also stated that it would take some years to construct and validate IQ tests. Recognition of the difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the implementation of one of the most controversial aspects of the suggested system should go some way to assure parents of the careful and considerate attitude being adopted by the Government. I can only hope that this same attitude will be followed by those responsible for the actual implementation of Government policy. Sir, subject to the reservations I have expressed, I support the Motion.”
“Most of them appear to exist solely to facilitate buck passing, It is a classic example of Parkinson's law in operation. I pray that this appalling state of affairs is an unique feature only to be found within the Ministry of Education. I see, Sir, hon. Members of this House are being asked to give support to flexibility in implementation. Given the state of affairs at the Ministry, I would have thought that they already have all the flexibility they want. If anything, I feel it is time the Ministry got used to thinking in clear and specific terms and working in accordance with an overall plan with specific objectives, rather than continuing to behave like the will-of-the-wisp responding to the slightest hints from the political leadership without carefully studying the practical implications. However, Sir, I would gladly give my support for flexibility in implementation and even for periodic adjustments and changes on the understanding that support of the House will not be taken as a carte blanche for the continued indulgence in seemingly endless and thoughtless changes and experiments. I would also like to reserve my right to be critical either of the policy or of its implementation as my conscience dictates from time to time in the future. Sir, it is a remarkable feat that the Study Team under the Deputy Prime Minister took less than six months not only to identify the problems but also to come up with recommendations. In his Report, the Deputy Prime Minister has cautioned against doing things in a hurry. Bearing in mind the mammoth task assigned to him, with due respect, Sir, I do wonder whether he and his Team might not have been too hasty in arriving at conclusions in certain areas. Indeed some hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it takes courage to stir the hornet's nest (that is, Kay Siang Hill) and it takes courage to order the findings of the Study Team to be made public and debated upon in this House. Sir, the self-critical and positive approach adopted by our political leadership is, to my mind, highly commendable and deserves the respect of this House. I am no educationist but, like most parents, I can see the benefit of an education system that allows pupils with different abilities to develop at different paces. Under our present system, one perennial complaint of parents is that the workload is too heavy and that the children are being put through punishing pace, and that schooling is no longer a pleasurable experience. With common sense and the benefit of hindsight, I can also see the importance of giving sufficient time to the Ministry of Education to implement the suggested system which, at best, is still in skeletal form. Indeed it would be disastrous if implementation is to be rushed through without adequate preparation. In terms of priority, I feel that before anything else, the organisational effectiveness of the Ministry should be improved upon. There is an old Chinese saying: Gong yu shan qi shi, bi xian li qi qi ( ). To do a job well, it is necessary to sharpen the tools. Strong leadership at the top is obviously vital. Be it at the formulation or implementation stage, there must be a single unified command to avoid confusion. As the saying goes, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." There must be proper communications all round, vertically or horizontally. It is a shocking revelation that there are in existence some 100 committees within the Ministry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the taxpayers expect the Government to do its job. The taxpayers do not expect the buck to be passed back to them by having to make suggestions.”
“Sir, I am not saying that the ROV is not sympathetic. They are, but their sympathy is constrained by a very harsh framework. What I am saying is that the system is still harsh. It is still too stringent. The system itself is not sympathetic. On another aspect I must admit to some degree of confusion. The Minister has said that if a motorist commits four minor offences of three demerit points each, then he will just get a warning letter. But in the next breath he says that there are only about 5% who get such warning letters. Where do we stand? If a motorist commits four minor offences, does he just get a warning letter, or will he be suspended? The other point is that when people are suspended from driving, it is not because they have not been careful. There is such a thing as contributory negligence. Collisions often occur at road junctions. It is very difficult to say who is to blame. In a headlong collision at a road junction, there is such a thing as contributory negligence under the common law. It could be 50 - 50 or 30 - 70. But as far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, if there is a collision, the Traffic Police will just say, "Sorry, six points" and that is that. It is very easy to pick up 12 points. A motorist needs just two collisions at a road junction to pick 12 points. And it may not be due to his fault. But as far as the Enforcement Unit is concerned, they are not going to bother too much about contributory negligence, whether it is 70 - 30 or 60 - 40. All that they are interested in is to say that both are to be blamed and so both will get the demerit points, and it needs only two collisions to pick up 12 points and be suspended for 2 1/2 months.”
“On the contrary, I think we ought to take it very seriously. We are talking about 200 families who are put in a traumatic situation every month. The Minister mentioned that if an offender should accumulate 12 points for four minor offences, then he would just get a letter of warning. I am not sure whether this is the case. I am just wondering whether there is a breakdown in communication where the message has not gone down the line because I do have a couple of cases where I wrote in and said, "These are four minor offences and why have you not considered the case more sympathetically?" I think given the state of our roads in Singapore which are always congested and by no means a simple traffic system, it is very easy to accumulate 12 demerit points over any one period of 12 months. Therefore, I think the present system is really very, very harsh, especially for those who depend on driving as a living. I would like to appeal to the Minister once again. If members of his family fail to appeal to him, probably they have got much better transport arrangement, and maybe he will be more sympathetic towards people who do not have such good alternative transport arrangement.”
“Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the points demerit system. Like the Member for Toa Payoh, I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Hon. Minister. He has said that since the introduction of the points demerit system there were 3,000 cases of suspension. This works out to an average of 200 cases per month. If we look at the statistics purely in terms of statistics alone, then, of course, it seems nothing very serious. But if we look at the figures closely and think in terms of the number of families that are going to be affected, then it is a rather serious situation. I submit that every month 200 families are going through traumatic experiences. Sir, to many people, suspension of a driving licence often means not just a temporary loss of income but, more seriously, a permanent loss of a steady job, and this results in serious financial hardship stretching beyond the period of suspension. Suspension affects, in fact, not just the driver and members of his family but, in many cases, many other people. For instance, we take the case of a school bus driver. If he is suspended from driving, then all of a sudden the parents of those school children who make use of his service would be hard-put to make alternative arrangement. Sir, last night during my meet-the-people session, I was saddened by a tearful couple who came to see me with a baby in arms. Notwithstanding the fact that I managed to get their suspension reduced to 1 1/2 months, they told me that 1 1/2 months to me might be short but, to them, how are they going to live? Sir, this is not just one of those so-called sob stories. I hope the Minister will be more sympathetic rather than shove it aside and say that this is one of those sob stories and should not be taken too seriously.”
“Sir, I am very pleased to have the assurance of the Minister but somehow I feel a bit cheated because for the first time I have come to know that in another constituency people are allowed to get married after the cut-off date. It is not just a peculiar problem applicable to that particular estate. I have many cases of people who, after registration, got married, i.e. after the cut-off date they got married. When it comes to registration, they wanted to have their own flat. For obvious reasons a lot of people want to have their own little family. HDB says, "No, because at the time of the cut-off date you were not married." So it is not just peculiar to Paya Lebar. Although, on the one hand, I am pleased that the rules are going to be revised and, to use the Minister's own expression, "quite flexible", (I hope he will be very flexible and not just "quite flexible") but on the other hand, I feel quite cheated. I think a double standard has been applied here.”
“Sir, I am quite sure Members are curious to know what the Minister meant by "applying pressure". I would just like to know whether it involves strong arm tactics?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister inform the House as to whether there is a limitation on the margin of profit that the Sugar Industry of Singapore is allowed to make, in view of the fact that the sugar industry is a protected industry?”