Ivan Baptist
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what prevented the Ministry of the Environment from hastening the flood alleviation work in Potong Pasir? Owing to the delay, Sir, much hardship has been caused to my constituents, especially in the Jalan Potong Pasir and Meyappa Chettiar Road areas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. What is the Hon. Minister's reaction to a report in the Straits Times on Friday, 9th June, concerning the Singapore Tobacco Company's parent company in Britain, the British American Tobacco, and I quote: "STC's parent company in Britain, the British American Tobacco (BAT), the world's largest tob…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to section 75, by clause 16 (c), still poses problems for consumers, both local and overseas. If a licensee has for sale in addition to duty-free goods those that are duty-paid, consumers could still be hoodwinked.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State realise that at the present moment there are many occupational health and safety hazards at the Nelson Road Mails and Parcels Centre? I had occasion to visit it sometime ago and I have since made recommendations to alleviate these hazards, but nothing seems to have been done.”
“But on this particular measure, I strongly oppose this increase of the fees at the A & E Departments. Nobody would like to be referred to a hospital, and it is not a pleasant place to visit either. The Minister for Health (Dr Toh Chin Chye): I see the Member there so often!”
“Sir, I do agree that a new Postal Complex is being built. But he has said that this new Postal Complex is being built in place of the old one, and at the present moment the old one is posing a lot of hazards. So I want to know what he is doing about the old one.”
The complete record
Every one of 399 lines we hold for Ivan Baptist, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“On a point of clarification, Sir. None of the people resettled from Kolam Ayer were given a chance to go anywhere else but Ang Mo Kio. That is a good 7km away, Sir.”
“And, of course, what led to more rapid cut and thrust, tainted with rowdy-dowdy behaviour, was the absence of a judicious and able Speaker we are so fortunate to have in the House. My main opponent invariably was the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour who, not satisfied with the chastisement he renders me in the House with his lucid tongue, continues in jocular derogation in very unparliamentary lingo in the absence of the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the Members' haven. But little does he realise that Chief Thunder Cloud is always listening. But debates in the House, Sir, cannot but be orderly and disciplined unless we would rather imitate the disorder in the Lok Sabha. Sir, I will also miss the Parliament staff from the Clerk down as they have always been most considerate and helpful. May I also, Sir, take this opportunity to record a vote of thanks to the community leaders of Potong Pasir who gave voluntarily and gratis their time and untiring efforts to assist me in my work for the people of Potong Pasir. And, of course, my gratefulness to my constituents in Potong Pasir who gave me a chance to serve them by voting me in as their PAP Member of Parliament in 1972 and 1976. I feel like a heel having to leave them but the constraints are overwhelming. I hope they try to understand. I am sure the people of Potong Pasir will return in the forthcoming by-election a PAP candidate who is more worthy than I am to serve them. 4.02 p.m.”
“I am also most grateful to my Backbench colleagues for their support and will find it impossible to forget them, especially the Member for Jalan Kayu whose wise guidance was rewarded by my treatise in the House either lulling him to sleep or transporting him into a lecture theatre; the Member for Kim Seng whose heckling never produced the desired results; the Member for Moulmein who rarely thought my debates were worth any salt but stayed in the House to listen to them anyway and read them in the press and in Hansard, and the Member for Kallang, who is also the Senior Minister of State for National Development, who deserted me - he was seated here before, Sir, - for the Government Bench because he believes familiarity breeds contempt, in me or him, I leave that to your better judgment. Your patient and learned guidance, Sir, in my more than six years as a Member and the much that I have gained in the House cannot be forgotten and will most certainly serve me in good stead for a lifetime. I am indeed fortunate to have been given the opportunity by the PAP to serve on the Legislature in Singapore. The accrued benefits cannot be realised. I will remember my parliamentary days with nostalgia and will find great difficulty forgetting the most wonderful times I have had in the House and in the Members' Room where the debate continued with greater verve and frivolity due to the total absence of Standing Orders. The Hon. Prime Minister did intimate that the Standing Orders are archaic and tailored much too much to British taste, so for enthusiastic debate we decided not to bother too much about modifying them to suit the forum in the Members' Room, chaired most of the time by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education.”
“So all this causes much hardship to the poor pensioners. I hope the Minister for Finance will rethink this, although I have heard that the Ministry has already a fixed mind about not increasing the quantum of pensions for the poor old people. It appears to them that they have become useless to our community. At this point of time, Sir, may I crave your indulgence and that of the House, as this is my last discourse in Parliament, to express my gratitude to the tolerance shown by you, Sir, whenever I rose to make what I feel is a necessary and worthwhile contribution. Many do not. I also appreciate very much the forbearance of the Government Benches when I unleashed my criticisms against Government policies and the Ministries under their charge. Some described my debate as verbal diarrhoea. But I chose to reflect my constituents, the workers and the consumers' problems conscientiously and never minded the authoritative censures. I enjoyed thoroughly the joustings with the Hon. Ministers, especially the ones with the Hon. Minister for National Development who, in his generous moments, awarded me bouquets; the Hon. Minister for Health who was always forthcoming with brick-bats and disparaging my understanding of the English language; and the Hon. Minister for Law, the Environment and Science and Technology, and Leader of the House who, by-the-by when I stepped into Parliament a greenhorn, taught me the ropes. I still have not learned them. There are many other Hon. Ministers and if I start mentioning them, Mr Speaker would say that I am contravening Standing Orders for speaking more than an hour.”
“Would it not be sensible to remove the vehicles involved in the accidents speedily? This would cause lesser problems and alleviate the chaos of a traffic jam which could result in greater suffering. On one occasion, a man died as a result of a heart attack in a bus caught in a traffic jam because it took a very long time for action to be taken to have the accident vehicles removed. Sir, mechanical and electrical faults develop in vehicles as a result of poor maintenance. I believe this sort of problem will keep on increasing unless Government takes action to ensure proper maintenance of vehicles. Rules and regulations could be easily written into the Road Traffic Act and action could be taken against individuals in the form of fines, for the duration of time that their vehicles have caused traffic jams or are parked blocking traffic from moving. (I had hoped that, with a decrease in the number of cars, it would be more pleasant to drive.) Most certainly therefore it would be of advantage to deter people from causing traffic jams due to poor maintenance of their vehicles. I would also like to touch on the subject of pensioners. I did bring it up in the House sometime ago by asking a Question for Oral Answer but the reply was very unsatisfactory. The cost of living keeps increasing. This is an admitted fact and pensioners need to go on living, and hospital bills too build up. They can go to Government hospitals (the Hon. Minister for Health is not here) but sometimes the treatment is of a very low standard. So instead they prefer to go to the private practitioners. Many private practitioners are making a lucrative trade and the reason is that the Ministry of Health cannot catch up with them in providing better services.”
“Does Government not realise that legal costs are escalating and the money spent on engaging a lawyer to make claims for products purchased at prices below $1,500 is far from its worth? The cost deters wronged consumers from taking action against entrepreneurs. This puts the business community in an advantaged position and is almost a licence for malpractices. Sir, safety training and education has to form an integral part of apprenticeship and employment. Most workers in Singapore enter complex and dangerous working environments with little or no training in safe working practices. Safety courses for professional safety officers can quite easily be made available. It is just a matter of instilling in employers the grave necessity for safety training and education and legislating requirements as a last resort if they fail to comply. If workers were trained and educated in safety at work, the accident incidence and severity rates would most certainly reduce. This was clearly illustrated at the recent Spyros disaster inquiry where quite a number of the workers were not aware of safe working practices. Once workers have been trained and educated in safety, refresher courses at regular intervals would ensure the maintenance of safe working practices. Sir, the traffic problem has been somewhat contained with the introduction of the Area Licensing Scheme and other measures that illustrate Singapore will be a country for people and not cars. But traffic jams, when they occur, cause much annoyance and loss of productive time. Many of the reasons for traffic jams are due to accidents and mechanical or electrical faults in vehicles. The blockage by the vehicles is worsened if these vehicles are large and bulky, mainly transport vehicles, buses, trucks and so on.”
“Often-times there is a lack of consideration in carrying out resettlement. Some semblance of concern will go a long way to lessen the trauma. In addition, pains should be taken to avoid transferring those affected to areas great distances away from their places of work and school. It must be remembered that most of those affected are squatters who, in the main, come from the lower income brackets. Additional expenditure in transport to and from work, school, etc, can punch big holes in their pockets. The people in Kolam Ayer, for instance, which is part of Potong Pasir constituency, being resettled are asked to go all the way to Ang Mo Kio when readily available are flats in the Kolam Ayer, Geylang and Kallang Bahru areas and others in the vicinity. Why cause hardship to those who are already finding life quite difficult? More forward planning will most certainly alleviate this problem. Sir, the increase in tourism to an expected two million this year will make it more economically beneficial for the population. To encourage more tourists to visit our island Republic, we must ensure that they are treated fairly by our trading community. Fair trading legislation along the lines of the United Kingdom and Australian Acts, properly modified to suit our context, and a Small Claims Court will give additional boost to the tourist industry. In addition, Singapore consumers will profit from the legislation, the Small Claims Court and an increase in tourist numbers. I had occasion to raise the question of setting up a Small Claims Court in this very House sometime ago. This was turned down by the Attorney-General's Office who claimed that the Magistrate's Courts would suffice.”
“With the base of the pyramid narrowing due to the success of our family planning programmes, additional efforts should be made to recoup the loss in quantity for quality. Adverse effects could arise from the lack of environmental control and inadequate national programmes. Industrial development with industries requiring higher labour skills would, of course, provide a better wage level thereby achieving the desired standard of living and quality of life. But care has to be-taken to ensure no possible resultant dangerous condition from a comparatively small quantum of investment committed. The manufacture of ionization smoke detectors, for instance, does not seem to be favourable when comparing the quantum invested, the skill content and the jobs made available, as against the possible dangers. Ionizing radiation is a potential serious hazard. Control over any source can be maintained but there are possibilities of sources being lost, as was illustrated recently in the National Iron and Steel Mill instance. And in Singapore, a small country with one of the highest population concentrations in the world, any calculated risk in the area of accidental radioactive contamination must be avoided at all costs. It would be of national benefit to have the Radiation Protection Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology playing a significant role in determining for the Economic Development Board any potentially dangerous industry utilising sources by studying the danger against investment factor. Inspections, safety precautions and the like should not be their only role. Sir, resettlement has always been a trauma for the people. They are uprooted from their homes, familiar environment and social ties.”
“The walkabout comprises not only knocking on doors of flats, speaking and shaking hands with constituents, listening to their problems. It also means the tedious task of opening lifts and looking whether there is liquid or foreign matter in them. That is how these problems are brought up in the House and taken up with the Minister for National Development, looking at drains and complaining to the Minister for the Environment; and other heavy tasks indeed. Permit me, Sir, to tell this anecdote which I read sometime ago but cannot remember its many details or where I read it. It was on a survey carried out on MPs' salaries in certain countries in a region. They varied so greatly that the lowest paid could be likened to a putt-putt Honda, because that is all they could afford to buy, and the highest paid, to a stately Rolls Royce. I would not like to embarrass those concerned. So I would not name the countries and the region involved. But the analysis, Sir, is that if you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. We most certainly do not want monkeys in this Parliament, and I can assure you, Sir, I would not vote for one to represent me even if he carried the PAP ticket: and I am a very loyal member of the Party. So I hope, Sir, in the formulation of policies for the coming year, consideration will be given to enhance the allowances of our poor Backbenchers. Sir, in raising the standard of living of our people, it is just as important to consider their quality of life. Intelligence and skills must be enhanced through a system of education that can filter off the least significant attributes of individuals and build on their strong points. In this area the ITB and the AEB have a positive role to play.”
“Without the MP the debate is obliterated, and without the debate the House does not exist. So we MPs, Backbenchers, are very important people indeed. Speak we must, and speak well, reflecting our constituents' views for, are they not the ones who cast their votes to have us represent them in this august Chamber? Whilst on this subject of MPs airing their views, Sir, may I quash talk among some in the population that MPs are told what to say in Parliament. We MPs are not dictated in what we say. For the last 6 years 4 months and 11 days, I said loud and clear what I felt in and out of Parliament, reflecting the problems of my constituents and the workers of Singapore. Another factor which influences MPs to aspire for more is public opinion. I never felt a lesser man or a lesser parliamentarian. Government must realise that the Backbench cannot be depleted of its talents. During my term and a half in Parliament I have seen many a good MP cross the Floor. Unless it is Government's intention to choke debate with its attending consequences, which I explained earlier, rewards in some form must follow to ensure that good MPs are retained on this side of the House. MPs' allowances are paltry compared to the work that they are doing - meet-the-people sessions, once, sometimes twice a week, from 8 to 10 o'clock or even 11 o'clock during crises like resettlement, fire, flood, etc. MPs have to work almost round the clock, meetings of the Citizens' Consultative Committees and their subsidiaries, management committees, residents' committees, associations and all the rest, the walkabout in the constituency. Let me illustrate the walkabout. I know, Sir, you are quite familiar with it and you are getting quite tired listening to all the chores that MPs have to do.”
“The support of national-minded administrators working not only for fair monetary rewards but also for self-satisfaction is a necessary ingredient. It is befuddling that monetary rewards are being considered only for the fortunate few. Are the contributions of the others unworthy? Or is the discrimination purported to cause disconcertment among those left out so that they would, as a result, sit at their desk, buying time, and earning, as the Malays would call it, gaji buta. Fair is fair, Sir, and rewards pegged on whatever criterion must be made available to all and sundry. Sir, the Member of Parliament, the Backbencher, also has to play a major role in carrying through pragmatic and realistic Government policies. Debate in Parliament will have to see sharper rapiers used skilfully on the younger Government Benchers who are being considered for future political leadership. With the fading out of older Members, good Members of Parliament are also needed to fill the gap, with a genuine concern for the people, their constituents and their problems. And problems are taken to Members of Parliament at Meet-the-people sessions. Some of them fail to realise that these people, because they are unable to solve their own problems or seek solutions from any other persons, come to the MPs to unload their problems. Many must realise that these loads must be carried by the MPs on their shoulders and solved to the best if their abilities. All MPs cannot expect to move across the House and allow Government Benches to take complete control. So it is essential that we have good MPs, but they are not readily available. Many men who are willing to come into the political arena set their sights to being more than MPs, which is unfortunate.”
“There is a need for added vigilance against communist infiltration and influence. Our defence mechanism will also have to be enhanced. Sir, in the consideration of the next political leadership, utmost caution is favoured. Over the next few years the injection of talent into the political arena could be problematic. Leadership potentials can only be recognised if the more calibred expose themselves through community work. But unless greater rewards are fashioned and linked to performance, ability, loyalty and drive, the calibred would not be easily forthcoming. An acute political sensitivity is critical in the make-up of the next leadership, parallel to grassroots support which must be speedily developed. This cannot simply be done. One cannot with the wave of a magic wand, or any other such magical instruments that have recently been developed in this day and age of electronic surprises, turn a technocrat into a political leader with ready-made grassroots support. The principle of osmosis applies to fluids and never to human beings. So, most certainly proximity and affinity will not give rise to a finished product with the desired quality and reliability. During the interim period, regular boosters have to follow the first inoculation which presumably has been given to each and every potential. These boosters in the form of tried and tested men, acceptable to the present leadership, with all the ingredients of leadership except physical age to sustain them for the next two decades, have an all important role to play within the next few years to develop our present potentials and the ones who come into the political scene in the very near future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my wholehearted support goes to the Motion of Thanks to the President standing in the name of the Member for Serangoon Gardens. I am also assured of the backing of the community leaders of Potong Pasir and its constituents who elected me as their PAP Member of Parliament in 1972 with a majority of 3,808 votes, 64.82% of the votes cast, and again in 1976 with a majority of 6,415 votes, 72.93% of the votes cast. The people of Potong Pasir will most certainly return the PAP candidate contesting in the impending by-election in Potong Pasir with a thumping majority. All this is due to the able leadership provided by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues who have fashioned Singapore into a place that we Singaporeans are proud to live in, comfortable surroundings with the minimum of encumbrances, jobs easily available for those willing to work hard, just and fair policies and a multi-racial society living in peace and harmony. However, much still needs to be done to ensure a better future for the people. The three major factors, mentioned by the President in his Address to the House on the 26th December last year, that will influence events and help shape the deliberations of this session of Parliament must be closely considered. A 6-8% economic growth can be possible if hard work is coupled with an increase in productivity, quality and reliability in Singapore products and services. Realistic wage increases which will not price us out of the international market is essential. Wise consumer spending too will tip the balance in our favour and local products must gain more acceptance among Singapore consumers to achieve favourable trade balances. The conflicts to the North of Peninsular Malaysia must necessarily put us on special guard.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what prevented the Ministry of the Environment from hastening the flood alleviation work in Potong Pasir? Owing to the delay, Sir, much hardship has been caused to my constituents, especially in the Jalan Potong Pasir and Meyappa Chettiar Road areas. Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the contractors committed a breach of his contract. We had to get another contractor to do the job; hence the delay. But I have not got the details here as I did not expect a question from the Member for Potong Pasir about the details.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State not realise that the increase in the ex-gratia allowance that was given in 1974 was just 5%?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State not believe that a rise from 100 to 155.9 in the Consumer Price Index is significant?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Could the period of time be extended from six months to, say, a year, so that more valid time will be allowed for those who have applied for exit permits? If not, why not?”
“In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, we brought this matter up to the attention of the Comptroller a long time ago. It was more than two years ago. I would not call this Bill timely, but anyway something is being done.”
“When will such regulations be introduced, and how will such policing be done? So far, from our experience and from the complaints that have been received, there are quite a number of people, including tourists, who are very unhappy about this situation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to section 75, by clause 16 (c), still poses problems for consumers, both local and overseas. If a licensee has for sale in addition to duty-free goods those that are duty-paid, consumers could still be hoodwinked. Will close policing or regulations be introduced to ensure that such a possibility does not occur?”
“Sir, would the Ministry of Health be doing this?”
“Sir, does the Ministry of Health have facilities to do tests to determine the level of tar content?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. What is the Hon. Minister's reaction to a report in the Straits Times on Friday, 9th June, concerning the Singapore Tobacco Company's parent company in Britain, the British American Tobacco, and I quote: "STC's parent company in Britain, the British American Tobacco (BAT), the world's largest tobacco manufacturer, is producing cigarettes of higher tar content for the developing countries than those under the same brand name sold for domestic consumption." How adversely would this, if true, affect the health of the Singaporean smoker, and what does the Ministry of Health propose to do about it?”
“But on this particular measure, I strongly oppose this increase of the fees at the A & E Departments. Nobody would like to be referred to a hospital, and it is not a pleasant place to visit either. The Minister for Health (Dr Toh Chin Chye): I see the Member there so often!”
“Govindaswamy: Sir, I rise to support the Member for Potong Pasir in his bid to oppose the increase of fees at the Accident and Emergency Departments which was made known by the Health Minister in this Chamber on the 23rd of last month. Sir, Members of this House will recollect that during the debate in the Committee of Supply on the estimates for the Health Ministry on the 14th of last month, I did raise the point on the speculations of an intended increase of fees at the Accident and Emergency Departments. I gave my humble opposing views on the subject and I had wanted the Minister to give me an assurance that the fees would not be increased. However, my question was not answered satisfactorily by the Health Minister during the debate. Instead an official announcement on the increase of fees was made by the Health Minister on the 23rd of last month in this House. The majority of the people were taken by surprise and were dumbfounded by this drastic move. Apparently the lower income-group has been hit below the belt. Since the announcement, public opinion has not been favourable and the majority of the people have been complaining silently among themselves, and some have written to the press. Sir, when the Minister first hinted on the move during the Budget debate to back his argument he gave the flimsy reason that some people had been misusing the Accident and Emergency Departments, resulting in congestion, and that this increase of fees would deter many non-emergency cases from going to this unit. But as laymen, the general public would not know exactly what really constitutes an emergency and what is not. In the past, I had supported various increases of taxes on non-essential items which could be done without.”
“When a free service was provided by the Ministry of Health to pupils, levies would be unfair. But now that the Health Ministry is doing business in schools, should they receive gratis all these facilities? I believe the NTUC and the AUPE will also need to come into the picture now that School Dental Nurses, skilled persons who deal with oral cavities, have been imposed the additional task of administration and accounts. They have to collect monies, issue receipts, bank in monies and so on. The added responsibilities and hazards merit salary, insurance and escort coverage. Is the Hon. Minister considering these? I could, however, offer a much better suggestion - rescind the dental service charges and all will be well. There is also the question of waste of material. Where before a phial of anaesthetic could be used to extract two teeth and a batch of amalgam for filling in two teeth, half of each of these are being wasted as most children, the ones that can afford, want to pay for only one extraction or one filling at a time. The introduction of school dental service charges has, therefore, increased costs for the Ministry in the form of wastage. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much hardship has been caused to many Singaporeans by the Hon. Minister over the last seven days and much greater hardship will be caused if he fails to rescind the charges he has levied for attendance at the A & E Departments and school dental clinics. I hope the Hon. Minister truly realises this. The question, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that the Hon. Minister should now consider rescinding the Ministerial Statement made on that ill-fated day of 23rd March. Mr P.”
“The experience gained by the student dental nurses enhanced their skills for their future stints in school dental clinics. With the lack of pupils to sharpen their skills, the Institute might run foul of their main objective of producing skilled dental nurses. A student dental nurse would require some five patients to work on a day and there are some 40 student dental nurses being trained at present. A pupil visits on average the school dental clinic ten times a year if he needs treatment. This would at the present rates cost between $6 to $10 yearly at the minimum. At this cost, which most certainly would revive the impression in most parents, especially those in the lower income groups, that dental treatment is not essential. There would consequently be a dwindling of numbers visiting the school dental clinics. Has the Hon. Minister mustered enough figures to show that this imposition of his has not caused a reduction in visits to school dental clinics and the Institute of Dental Health? As extractions are cheaper than fillings and as most parents feel that milk teeth would come off after a time anyway, preference would be for extractions and this could be detrimental to the permanent set of teeth. School Dental Nurses now wear badges sporting the cliche "Sedia Berkhidmat", which when translated means "Ready to Serve". When the service was free this could have applied, but now we would need to redo the badges to read "Pay and we will be ready to serve". I believe, Sir, I must inform the Minister for Education that charges should now be levied on the Ministry of Health for the utility services, space and so on that were previously supplied free-of-charge by the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Health.”
“The Public and School Dental Services have been developed over the years and dental care is now afforded to practically every Singaporean, especially primary school children in more than 110 school dental clinics. Campaigns, publicity and the like have achieved much over the years and the difficulties faced by the dental nurses who worked hard to convince parents of the necessity of dental care for their children, and to break down the psychological fears, were bearing much fruit. The turn around is now beginning with the infinite percentage increase in dental services charges for primary school children. Treatment used to be free but now an extraction costs 60 cents. a simple filling, scaling, polishing, repair of denture each costs $1, a single root canal treatment, $3, a partial upper or lower denture, $5, and a space maintainer. $15. For other treatments, various charges have also been revised upwards. Does the Hon. Minister realise that this is a retrogressive step towards enhancing dental care among the young? The role of the dental nurses has been reversed. They were responsible for promoting good dental habits, the brushing of teeth, regular visits to the dental clinics and so on. But now they have to stand with outstretched hands collecting money first and then treating the patients later, I believe, since the imposition of fees for dental services in primary schools, some children have even absented themselves from school on their dental appointment days. This rarely happened before. I also believe that few pupils are responding to the treatment, which used to be free, offered by the Institute of Dental Health. Prior to 1st April, the vans sent by the Institute to schools returned with sufficient numbers for the student dental nurses to treat.”
“Does he expect patients presenting themselves at the A & E Departments to produce documentary evidence of their destitution? How many patients have obtained this waiver since the implementation of that unfeeling rate? Is the Hon. Minister aware that some of the nurses and staff at the A & E Departments have contributed towards the payment of attendance fees for patients who had just no money to pay for emergency treatment? Is there really a criterion to determine who indiscriminately utilises the A & E Departments? Who can actually determine whether patients turning up are serious or emergency cases? The Hon. Minister did mention that doctors require longer time to examine patients to determine whether a stomachache is due to acute appendicitis. How much time does a layman therefore require to determine whether he should consult a doctor immediately when he suffers from an unbearable stomachache in the middle of the night? Does he wait for it to subside or should he proceed to the A & E Departments? Until the Hon. Minister can come up with a sensible sieving method to prevent the indiscriminate use of the A & E Departments, he should revert to the status quo which prevailed before 1st April. Is it not his objective to stop this indiscriminate use of the A & E Departments? Or is it his objective to prevent those who cannot afford to pay from visiting the A & E Departments? Allow me now, Sir, to turn to the increases in dental service charges. For 21 years the scheme for the fluoridation of the water supply of Singapore has been an excellent preventive measure for the control of dental decay among the Singapore population.”
“No sane person would want to be involved in an accident and it could be caused at any time or place. So treatment, if necessary, is as essential as food or drink. But the prohibitive charges will most certainly force many who need treatment to keep away, much to their immediate and long-term detriment. Those who are poor are so because they earn less. They have lesser skilled jobs due to lesser education and educational achievements. Most of them, therefore, due to lack of knowledge in matters pertaining to health either panic when the ailment is slight or seek no treatment until it is too late. The introduction of this excessive charge at A & E Departments will most certainly result in their taking the latter recourse. And this I am sure is not what the Hon. Minister wants. Or is it? For those who can afford, raising fees would only inhibit them for a short period of time or if they have cash to spare, not at all. Has the Minister any figures to show the success of his sieving method introduced on 1st April to cut down on unnecessary visits to the A & E Departments? Has he also figures to show the income brackets of those who visited the A & E Departments these lest seven days? In his Ministerial Statement on the 23rd March, he mentioned that 61.9% of patients were discharged after treatment, but he did not mention what portion of these deserved treatment as accident and emergency cases. Are we to understand that only those warded are termed by him bona fide accident and emergency cases? He has allowed them to be credited with the $10 deposit which patients have to pay on admission. How does he propose to implement the waiver of charges for destitute patients?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am most grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to raise this matter which is of grave concern and has caused much anxiety to Singaporeans. In this House that ill-fated day, 23rd March last, the Hon. Minister saw fit in his Ministerial Statement to unfairly and to the detriment of Singaporeans revise upwards attendance fees at Accident and Emergency Departments and Outpatient Dispensaries and Dental Service charges. That was an unwarranted revision which has left a most sour taste in everyone's mouth. On the 1st, April fool's day, Singaporeans had to pay more at A & E, OPD and for Dental Services and this, Sir, was no joke. 604,492 employed persons in Singapore earn $399 and under, of the 870,442 employed, according to the Ministry of Labour's "Report on the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1976". So, some 69% of employed persons are now faced with the possibility of scraping the bottom of an already empty pot if they or their families should have the misfortune of being ill or having teeth problems. That April 1st, staff at A & E and OPD, especially the nurses, and dental nurses, not the Hon. Minister, came under severe and heavy fire from patients or their parents for the most inconsiderate hikes in rates. This still carries on. Is the Hon. Minister aware of the buffers that protect him from the public wrath? Let us examine the hike in A & E charges closely. It shot up from $4 to $10, a 150% increase. For whatever reason, a hike of that extent is profiteering. But the Minister will contend that A & E Departments are heavily subsidised. What would the subsidy be and should accidents and emergencies not be subsidised? Accidents are unplanned events leading to injuries or damages.”
“In addition to that, could the Hon. Senior Minister of State give us an assurance that bus fares will remain as they are for at least three years?”
“Sir, could I ask a direct question then? Would trade unions and consumers be represented? That is very important. An hon. Member: You will be represented.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a couple of points on SBS (1978). The first point is that when SBS (1978) is formed there will be no increase in bus fares, I believe there are rumours and, strangely enough, these rumours turn into facts faster than a lot of facts that we Members have been able to get from time to time. I remember the last time when we were talking about rumours on increases in A & E charges during the Budget debate, it was fantastic the way the Hon. Minister turned that rumour into fact. I am just hoping that the present rumour will not turn into fact because at the moment commuters are already paying a high price for bus fares to and from work. Longer distances make it more difficult and more expensive. This is especially true if there has been a movement of population from their former abodes to new Housing Board estates. The Hon. Senior Minister of State for National Development, who is not here at the present moment, may be able to tell us that there are so many vacant flats in Woodlands because very few people want to take them as they are very far away from their place of work. If bus fares go up and they are forced to take flats in Woodlands, it will be a tremendous drain on their pockets. The other point on which I would like to seek clarification is which organisations or individuals will be represented on the board of directors, because we need people who know how commuters feel and organisations which are actually involved in running a commuter service. This would, of course, involve consumers, trade unions and business enterprises that have the acumen and the capacity to run a good SBS (1978).”
“Sir, how soon will the Government start acquiring these lands? I hope it is not too soon because Cheng Beng rites are on at the present moment.”
“Sir, I do agree that a new Postal Complex is being built. But he has said that this new Postal Complex is being built in place of the old one, and at the present moment the old one is posing a lot of hazards. So I want to know what he is doing about the old one.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State realise that at the present moment there are many occupational health and safety hazards at the Nelson Road Mails and Parcels Centre? I had occasion to visit it sometime ago and I have since made recommendations to alleviate these hazards, but nothing seems to have been done. Could the Senior Minister of State hasten the new Postal Complex project, and in the meantime ensure that the hazards at Nelson Road are alleviated?”
“Sir, I am a little worried. Why do we have so many drafting oversights? Could the Hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell us what went wrong?”
“Sir, could the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary also ensure that he forwards it to the NTUC so that we could look at it and maybe make what little contribution we can.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that I can be satisfied. The way I look at it is that the Bill has got a number of very good points. I do not think we should stop it from going through the Second and Third Readings. But I believe there are certain details that need to be examined, and I am wondering if the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary will assure me and the House that we re-examine the Bill, have a look at all these weak points and develop them further into strong points so that our workers could enjoy a healthy and a safe working environment. If he could give me that assurance, then most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the good points in the Bill, it should be approved.”
“Minister are akin to mine. The safety and health of our workers cannot and will not be sacrificed. With modern technology, more efficient and powerful machines are being built, more lethal substances are also being introduced to hasten processes and fashion aids to better and more comfortable living. But in the wake of it all, the untold human suffering in loss of life and mangled and bloody limbs is a high price to pay. Fortunately all this trauma can be avoided in sound legislation and active enforcement and cooperation by employers and workers alike in ensuring a safe and healthy work environment. After all, is not accident prevention simply the control of men, machines and work methods? The problem arises when the control is inefficient or ineffective. So, as in all matters but especially so in accident prevention, exceptional care must be given to the details especially in the drafting of legislation. Just another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 10, on page 5 of the Bill: 'Section 33 of the principal Act is hereby amended - "(1) All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -".' It is strange that the term "places of work" is being used when in an amendment to section 54 of the principal Act (clause 16), "workroom" and "working room" have been substituted in each case by "workplace". I would therefore recommend to the Minister to substitute "workplaces" for "places of work".”
“Whilst not casting slurs at the Factory Inspectorate, how can we be sure that serious infringements which, when taken to court, could penalise offenders with not only heavy fines but also imprisonment, will not end up being offered a composition of $200 or even less? I feel that this proposed section should not become part of the law. Sir, I spoke at length during the Budget debate on the fundamental rights of workers to know what they are working with and their potential hazards. Sir, I will not repeat myself, but suffice it to say that workers must be provided with information, instruction, training and supervision by their employers to ensure health and safety at work. Sir, I would therefore propose to the Hon. Minister that the following section be included in the principal Act as "General duties of employers to their employees". It should read this way: (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. (2) The matters to which that duty extends shall include in particular the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees. Whilst section 28 of the principal Act provides for training and adequate supervision, it does not sufficiently cover the fundamental rights of workers. In addition, the provision of information is inadequately covered. Part IV, Health (General Provisions), Part VI, Welfare (General Provisions) and Part VII Health, Safety and Welfare (Special Provisions and Regulations) in the principal Act have no provisions whatsoever bearing even a trace of my proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that the objectives of the Hon.”
“The situation would be more complex if the recruitment exercise yielded Malay, Chinese and Indian workers who only could read their respective languages. It takes time for notices to be fashioned and during that time one cannot send 'accidents' on a vacation. Accidents do not happen, they are caused and here the cause could be a notice that was not understood. Is it not a fact that in Singapore there are four official languages and many workers can read at least one of them and some even two? So I fail to follow why a detail such as this was completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill especially when both proposed sections deal with health and safety measures and if ignored, misunderstood or not understood could lead to death, and permanent or temporary disablement. So would it not be prudent for these notices to be in the four official languages of Singapore? Again, Sir, in clause 17, the proposed section 54A (4) states: "Labels easily understood by persons employed in the factory shall be affixed to containers of poisonous substances to warn them of the hazards involved." I will not say more on this, lest I be guilty of repeating myself. Sir, I do not believe it is wise to include clause 29 of the Bill which amends the principal Act by including section 88A which states: "The Chief Inspector may compound any offence under this Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing such offence a sum of money not exceeding two hundred dollars." For the entrepreneur a composition of that quantum would amount to a licence to infringe.”
“" But the proposed section 22(2) says that: "Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the dangerous part of any machinery is made safe for persons employed or working on the premises by other equally effective means." Why is the Hon. Minister giving such leeway to occupiers of factories? Lives and limbs of workers are involved and such leeway could be disastrous. This consistency is maintained with the inclusion, in clause 16 of the Bill of the proposed section 54(5), and I quote: "The requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to comply with such requirements and where breathing apparatus is used by a person working thereat." The positive nature of section 54(1) and (3) of the principal Act can be well imagined, Sir, and I will not go into the details by quoting them. I fail to understand why the Hon. Minister, on the one hand, in wanting a tighter law is, on the other hand, encouraging laxity. Let me now turn my attention to clauses 8 and 17 of the Bill on the proposed sections 28 (2) and 54A (2). These deal with notices which have to be "in languages understood by the persons employed". To illustrate my point while dealing with these clauses, Sir, let me give a hypothetical case of a factory employing at one point of time all workers who understand English. As such, the notices required by law would be in English. If the situation should change, as change it would in Singapore, with the labour turnover problems we are experiencing, and some workers who understand Malay are recruited, an additional notice would have to be put up in Malay. The same would happen if a worker understood only Chinese or Tamil.”
“Whilst the proposed section 14(1) states: "Effective and suitable provision shall be made for securing and maintaining by the circulation of fresh air in each workplace, adequate ventilation of the workplace and for rendering harmless, so far as practicable, all such fumes, dust and other impurities generated in the course of any process or work carried out in the factory as may be injurious to health". The proposed section 14(2) nullifies it by saying: "The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to make provision for adequate ventilation and where breathing apparatus is used by persons working in the workplace". Sir, "so far as practicable" in the proposed section 14(1) surely covers quite clearly the intention of the Bill and any disputes arising out of the practicability of implementing the legislative requirements of section 14(1) can be determined by the competent authority or, if necessary, an arbiter. But proposing section 14(2), which I quoted a moment ago, is not only redundant and negative but also gives occupiers of factories leeway in a most serious matter which could result in accidents, sickness or death of workers. In keeping with the redundancy and negation of the proposed section 14(2) and its mollification of occupiers of factories, clause 5(a), the proposed section 22(2), takes the similar stand of the proposed section 14(2) I mentioned. Note, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed section 22(1) safeguards the workers in: "Every dangerous pan of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is opportune to read for a Second time the Factories (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend the Factories Act, 1973 (No. 6 of 1973), so soon after the debate on the Budget in Committee of Supply on the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, on Head M, Ministry of Labour, which took place in this House on Tuesday, 15th March, 1978. It was then, Sir, that a total estimated expenditure of $10,337,650 was voted. With the estimated sum of $1,811,460 for FY 78, industrial safety and health is to be improved and the hope is that accident frequency and severity rates will be reduced appreciably during the course of FY 78. A promise to that effect was made in Parliament during the Budget debate. So it is expected that the safety and health of workers at workplaces would be adequately safeguarded. The Hon. Minister, however, believes that this cannot be achieved satisfactorily without more stringent legislation and greater enforcement powers. So, the Factories (Amendment) Bill is being read in the House for the Second time. I would like, Sir, with your kind indulgence to make a number of pertinent comments on the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill attempts to ensure a more healthy and comfortable work environment. However, the fundamental principle of positive approach in health and safety legislation is strangely ignored by the proposed section 14(2).”
“That, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is in line with my thinking. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Just two questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. As the Minister mentioned just now, the Bureau cannot compete with the press. Therefore, I am questioning the existence of the Bureau. I am also wondering whether or not some of the complaints end up in the waste paper basket or are they sent to the press.”
“With the rapid dwindling of complaints since 1962 to the Central Complaints Services and a marked increase of complaints to the press, is the Minister not seriously considering closing down the Central Complaints Services as it is no more cost-effective?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code WB-05 of the Main Estimates, Sir, the Central Complaints Bureau, now the Central Complaints Services, set up in July 1962 with the purpose of eradicating discourtesy, misconduct, petty bureaucracy or tardiness and discrimination in Government departments and statutory bodies, has received more than 10,000 complaints since its inception. When the Services were started, many complaints flowed in. Gradually the number fell. Was this due to the efficiency of the Services or its lack of efficiency in contributing towards the maintenance of a prompt and efficient Civil Service? Or is this an indication of the lack of confidence in the Services? Sir, the number of complaints to the press against Government departments and statutory bodies has risen tremendously. In fact, most newspapers have been so overloaded with letters of complaint that new columns had to be introduced to cater to them and the replies. For instance, besides their almost daily replies to readers' columns and so on, the Straits Times has introduced a half page on Thursdays called "Forum". The other newspapers have had to do likewise. It is maintained in many quarters that complaints to the press receive quicker and more effective replies and solutions to problems. Could it be that significant complaints to the Services have ended up in the waste paper basket, or that petty ones are dealt with in the press to heighten the success statistics of the Services? In 1975, 34 complaints of discourtesy and unhelpfulness against civil servants were received by the Central Complaints Services. In 1976, there were 19 and in 1977 there were 42 complaints.”