Kenneth Chen Koon Lap
Singapore
“All right, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister of State, in view of the fact that the employer has no control over the runaway maid - and when the maid runs away they suffer both inconvenience and financial loss - can the Ministry consider, in genuine cases, whether they can lower the amount of the forfeiture?”
“Recently, there seems to be a let up on the effort made to press home the importance of the save water message to the public. As the demand and supply of water is interlinked, and while we can ensure more water supply in the future, it is equally important to limit the demand as much as we can now.”
“Therefore, I would like the Minister to inform us what new initiatives have been introduced, apart from increasing the stringent checks on the checkpoint at the Causeway, constant patrolling of our shores, and the tough laws against illegal immigrants as well as those who harbour them.”
“I have often come across cases in my meet-the-people sessions where even after the victim has received court judgement, he still requires the services of a lawyer to take follow-up action to ensure that the court order is being enforced when the other party defaults, and the victim is at a loss as to whom to turn to and how to proceed in…”
“Sir, I cannot help feeling that there still exists this perception of a great divide between the private and public sectors. This is not healthy, nor is it desirable. I would like to continue seeing all Singaporeans, be they in the public or private sector, working together for the good of the nation.”
“May I ask the Minister, now that the number of applications for HDB flats has lessened and the waiting time is less, can HDB give a more accurate completion time?”
The complete record
Every one of 330 lines we hold for Kenneth Chen Koon Lap, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Like Singapore, they have become very aggressive in attracting foreign investments, offering very attractive packages. The advantages Singapore gained have slowly been diminishing and as we become more developed, the cost of doing business is also becoming much higher. In all probability, double digit growth may be a thing of the past. The costs of labour, rental and other utilities have shot up tremendously, and our competitors are fully exploiting their competitive edge in terms of abundant labour and natural resources. It is fortunate that we have built up such good economic fundamentals. We must always emphasise the importance of training and quality control by constantly upgrading the skills and productivity of our labour force. These measures have generally been successful. This allows us to retain our competitive edge over the others up to now. In addition to that, it is our sheer will to compete and to succeed. However, the gap of our competitive edge can be expected to be narrowed as time goes on, and we have to find new innovative ways to stay ahead of our competitors, otherwise we will be left behind. Already our star performers in information technology, telecommunications, airport, port and petrochemical have been under great pressure from our competitors, especially from China and Malaysia. The Committee set up to look into business competitiveness is an appropriate measure our Government has undertaken to help the manufacturing and business sectors. I am confident that their findings and recommendations will go a long way to help them to become more competitive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget Statement did not generate too much excitement probably because it did not match last year's very generous delivery. But against the backdrop of an economic downturn, I would certainly view this year's Budget Statement as positively optimistic. The NCMP commented that the Government is handing out crumbs. Either he has not taken time to go through the whole Budget in detail or he is trying to mislead our Singaporeans. Because apart from the income tax and S&C and rental rebates, which have been highlighted by the Minister, the ongoing schemes such as Edusave bursaries and scholarships, IUP and MUP to HDB estates, Medisave top-up scheme and share ownership scheme will cost the Government billions of dollars. And these schemes benefit mostly the majority of our citizens, and not the so-called privileged group. To say that these are crumbs is simply absurd. We must congratulate our Minister for Finance for delivering a very positive tax reform for the financial sector. It is farsighted and, in time, would definitely yield good results. The business community is particularly disappointed because the expected cut in corporate tax did not come about. But the challenges faced by the manufacturers, investors or entrepreneurs are much more daunting and a mere reduction in corporate tax by even one or two per cent cannot be effective in improving our competitiveness. As Singapore is being classified as a developed nation and has performed well in economic growth in the past years, more and more of our neighbouring countries are emulating our success formula. China was first to open her doors for foreign investments. Other countries in South East Asia and in the Indian sub-continent have followed suit.”
“I personally have engaged in interesting and meaningful debates with some NMPs, and I must admit that the experience has been, for want of a better word, refreshing. The NMPs also helped to correct the perception that, because of the overwhelming majority of the Government MPs, the Parliament sessions serve only as a rubber stamp to all the Bills passed. All these positive contributions will no doubt go a long way to compensate the somewhat below par performance of most of the opposition MPs. While I am prepared to accept and support the continuation of having NMPs in Parliament, nevertheless, I hope that they would not be just articulating their views and ask questions without recognising the heavy responsibility to assess the seriousness and consequence of such views expressed in this House. I would also like to suggest that the term of appointment of any NMP should be limited to a maximum of two terms.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to the NCMP's speech, I have this horrible sinking feeling that we might have to listen to the Cheng San episode for the rest of the term of our Parliament. So I say, please, give it a rest; wait until 2002! Sir, initially, I had reservations on the introduction of NMPs into this House. To a certain extent, I agree with Dr Tan on the principle that only elected Members should serve in Parliament, as only they have the credibility and the legitimacy because of the mandate given to them by the voters. But I have kept an open mind, recognising that we are very unique in Singapore, and we never shy away from adopting unconventional solutions when it is found that they are good for the system and the nation. Therefore, observing a few terms of NMPs' performance, I have now come to the conclusion that the positive contributions by the NMPs outweigh the negative. While I am still of the view that not all NMPs have performed up to expectation - in fact, some, in my opinion, did not use the opportunity given to them to the fullest, and some even over played their role as NMPs - nevertheless, I can appreciate the positive contributions made by some of the NMPs. Among them, they had given a wider perspective to the topics debated and contributed to a more lively debate in this House. They had, in some way, offered the Backbenchers as well as the Ministers the opportunity to have the issue at hand debated in greater depth. Most importantly, they, unlike the opposition Members, were not out to score political points and therefore did not confuse the general public when articulating their views.”
“Although it has been extended to cover certain aspects for the protection of the aged and children, I feel strongly that the main focus should still be on protection of women and there is no compelling reason at this point of time to widen the scope of the Bill to the protection of men. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“It has nothing to do with gender equality nor subjecting the wife to be subservient to the husband. Marriage is a physical as well as a spiritual union between two persons. It is not a commercial contract and should never be viewed as such. Entrusting the husband the responsibility to look after the family is a social value which we have adopted for our society and I think it is a correct one. The argument that women are now better educated and earning just as much if not more than the husband is only partially true, as the majority of our women are still dependent on the financial and moral support of their husbands. The present provision for the wife to claim maintenance from the husband therefore should still be maintained. And I am sure that the majority of our women will have no problem with this concept. It was argued that there may be cases where the husband may become terminally ill or handicapped and may not be able to be gainfully employed. In cases like that, in our Asian society I doubt very much that many of our women will abandon their husbands just because they contracted terminal illness or have become handicapped. To use financial means to absolve one's marital responsibility is not in our Asian culture nor should it ever be. In an unlikely situation where such cases do happen, I am sure the immediate families will rally around them, failing which the MCD - I am sure the Minister will agree - or other social organisations will provide sufficient schemes to look after these unfortunate cases, if there are any. Finally, perhaps the most important fact for us to consider now is that the Women's Charter is essentially legislated for the protection of women.”
“Sir, since the deposit will be forfeited when the maid absconds, why is it necessary for the employer to keep on paying the levy, even after he has reported to the Ministry? And he is paying the levy for a maid who is not there.”
“SDP's request and Mr Cheo's suggestion that candidates openly declare their income and assets is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for keeping politics clean. (Those who know mathematics know this phrase -- necessary and sufficient conditions). Character and integrity of the candidates are not necessarily in direct or inverse proportion to their incomes and assets. If an outstanding billionaire banker with an impeccable character is to enter politics and to run the country, then it is indeed a blessing to the country! Similarly, a trade union leader who may not be wealthy, but has a noble character, dedication, and the ability to mix well with the people can also join politics and make contribution to his country. On the contrary, if a proletarian candidate whose personal integrity is found wanting, but through his glib tongue, deceit and sophistry ( ) happens to win a seat in Parliament, then it is certainly not a blessing to the country. In other words, income and assets are not the indicators of the quality of a candidate. If the Opposition is really concerned about our nation's interest, the Opposition parties should do two things: First, critically assess the character of the candidates, exercise better quality control, and stipulate a code of conduct for their candidates. Secondly, and more importantly, they should take the long term national interest at heart, bury their differences and biases, and work with Singaporeans to cherish and defend this system of honesty and integrity which has been built up laboriously for more than three decades by the PAP Government. If they can do so, it will be a great blessing for our nation.”
“She wins some, she loses some. Lee Teng Hui has yet to clarify his matter in accordance with judicial procedure. There are various versions to the matter. The official unit in charge has been keeping quiet, out of fear. It is therefore difficult to shut out the mouths of people who oppose him.' This article implies that the Singapore Government is most open and frank in facing the people. Reading between the lines, the article seems more inclined to agree with the Singapore concerned parties' transparent, open and courageous way in facing reality. As such, the main focus of this debate is not on the property transactions of SM and DPM Lee, but on how to re-affirm the system of integrity, honesty, transparency and no privilege, established by the PAP Government. Under such a system, the people have great confidence in the Government. This confidence is an intangible asset of Singapore. It not only propels our economic growth, ensures our political stability, enhances our international competitiveness, but also forms the basis for the continuous increase in our property prices. As such, this political system should be supported and defended by everyone throughout the nation. The change of political leadership has not affected the system. In fact, for more than 30 years, in order to maintain this system, the PAP had not only exercised great care and caution in selecting its candidates, but also required all MPs to declare their personal and family assets to the Prime Minister immediately after each General Election. Now, the Prime Minister is considering requiring all Ministers to clear with him before proceeding with any purchase of property.”
“As such, the positive and significant dimension of this incident is that Singaporeans are taking for granted that everything should be transparent and nobody shall be given any special privilege. This concept is already deep-rooted among the people. The Prime Minister has ordered an investigation into the matter. Even the Senior Minister and DPM Lee are subjected to and not exempted from scrutiny. Furthermore, the Senior Minister and DPM Lee initiated that this matter be debated in Parliament and for Members to raise their queries. Singaporeans should feel proud and honoured in having such political leaders and, more importantly, having such a system of honesty and integrity. Yazhou Zhoukan ( ) in its 19th May issue featured an article entitled: "Housing Affairs to Test the Politicians" ( ) and lumped the property purchases by Senior Minister Lee and DPM Lee of Singapore, Lee Teng Hui of Taiwan and Anson Chan of Hong Kong. One particular paragraph deserves our special attention. I quote: `Different people have different views on the ways the Governments and parties concerned handled the matter. However, the Government and politicians today have to give consideration to the feelings of the people, and know how to make their choices. The Lees, father and son, "mended the fold after losing a sheep" ( ). Their response was prompt, and they have decided to face a parliamentary inquiry on May 21, good enough to eliminate any doubt and suspicion of the people. The Director of the Tax Department in Hong Kong declined to state his stand on Anson Chan's tax evasion matter. The party concerned claimed that what she did was legitimate and reasonable. However, being the Chief Secretary and resorting to dubious shifts, she has attracted much criticism from the public and the media.”
“Singaporeans are increasingly concerned with their personal and family privacy, and they value their privacy. Therefore, requiring all the candidates to declare their incomes and assets may deter some talented people with good character and integrity from entering politics. This will be a great loss to the nation, and it does not benefit the people at all. Furthermore, such an exercise will not guarantee clean and uncorrupt politics. The countries and regions cited in SDP's statement, namely, Korea, Taiwan and Japan, where there are laws which require the candidates to declare their assets and wealth, have seen corruptions and scandals in their political arenas. One former Prime Minister of Japan and two former Presidents of Korea were convicted on charges of corruption and sentenced to imprisonment. In Taiwan, its local magazine, Common Wealth, lamented that "black society and money power" was flowing all over the political arena in Taiwan ( ). On 19th May, the Lianhe Zaobao carried a survey report by Taiwan's China Times which revealed that the people in Taiwan wanted President Lee Teng Hui to treat the elimination of "black society and money politics" as first priority after his inauguration. These examples clearly show that the open declaration of the candidate's wealth will not help in ensuring clean politics, and in maintaining the integrity of the government. For more than 30 years, one of SM's most important contributions to Singapore was the establishment of an honest and upright Government and civil service, and a society where nobody is granted any special privilege.”
“But they should take this opportunity to query and cross-examine SM and DPM Lee to see whether there is any impropriety in their purchases and state their stand clearly. Yesterday, Mr Chiam See Tong said that, "As the newspaper editor mentioned, there is no question of illegality, or improper behaviour by the two Ministers." He quoted the statement by a newspaper editor. But he did not state his stand. I would like him to state his own stand clearly whether the Ministers involved in this transaction have done anything wrong or improper. Mr Cheo Chai Chen evaded the issue and said that he had no views on this matter. He would leave it to the people to judge for themselves. Does it mean that he does not have a stand, or no view on this matter? Mr Ling How Doong has not opened his mouth up to this moment. I do not know whether he would speak on this matter. He is the Chairman of the SDP and he is the Leader of the Opposition. Singaporeans will be interested in his views and the SDP's stand on this issue. The SDP had asked that Ministers, PAP MPs, and PAP candidates for the coming General Election be required to publicly declare their incomes and assets. Mr Cheo also suggested yesterday that Ministers must reveal their assets and incomes to Parliament and be gazetted in the Government Gazette annually. The motives and practical effects of SDP's and Mr Cheo's suggestion are doubtful. Singapore is such a small nation. The incomes and properties of Ministers and MPs are no secret. Even taxi drivers know which Ministers stay in which houses. But is it really necessary for them to declare to the whole world, and make them the "talk of the town"? Also, we must weigh the pros and cons of such a suggestion.”
“People with ulterior motive will surely make use of this matter to insinuate and stir up the emotion of the people, thereby creating an impression that members of the Establishment enjoy a lot of benefits because of their positions. This has led some to query the integrity and honesty of the Government. With regard to the "politics of envy", we need not be too concerned over it. Neither can we do anything about it. However, we must look at the people's confidence in the "integrity and honesty" of the Government very seriously. We must not allow our people's confidence in the Government to be shaken, nor can we allow some irresponsible arguments to swerve the focus of our people. On 8th May, the Workers' Party called on the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to look into all sales of property at discounted prices by listed company, Hotel Properties Ltd. I hope Mr Low Thia Khiang will state his and his Party's stand on the property purchases by SM Lee and DPM Lee, and make clear whether he and his Party consider there is any impropriety in the transaction. The next day, on 9th May, the SDP further widened the scope and called upon the Government to set up a public hearing committee to look into investment and spiralling property prices. It also urged the PAP Government to require all its Ministers and MPs to openly declare their incomes, investments and assets. The statement also pointed out that in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, all political candidates were required to openly declare their wealth. Sir, Parliament is the place for discussion of national affairs. Members of Parliament are the elected representatives of the people. The three Opposition SDP Members can move motions in the House on the issues on investments and property prices for separate debates.”
“I personally also feel that Ministers, MPs, judges and civil servants have every right to purchase properties. There is nothing illegal, improper or irrational for them to do so. These are their individual and family choices. However, this very common transaction has attracted the attention of the public not just because it involves SM Lee and DPM Lee. But also there are two other inter-related factors. (1) Singaporeans' interest in owning and buying properties; and (2) influence of the politics of envy. In recent years, investment and speculation in property market have become very popular. Buying and selling properties is often a hot topic among citizens. With economic prosperity, increase in income and higher purchasing power, more and more people, particularly the yuppies, aspire to own private property. As such, these people are unhappy with this incident, not because of the discounts since they know that this is commonly practised by the developers as a strategy to test the market, but mainly because they feel that Ministers, MPs, civil servants, Judges, etc, are enjoying priority over them, thereby reducing and depriving their chances of purchasing certain choice properties. With the spiralling prices of private property, their unhappiness becomes more intense. In addition, some people, intentionally or unintentionally, advocate the politics of envy, resulting in this property transaction issue being more emotionalised and politicised. Not only the yuppies, but even many middle and lower income residents of HDB flats are influenced by this kind of talk. They even link this property transaction with the "pay increases for Ministers and civil servants" and "Members of Parliament going into business".”
“It must be comforting to all Singaporeans to know that the Government of today upholds such high standards of governing and that it lives up to the reputation of being one of the most efficient, stable and clean Government in the world. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this debate on the issue of property purchases by Ministers is to let Senior Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Lee state the circumstances under which they purchased the condominium units concerned, and for the Prime Minister to explain why he was satisfied that there had been no impropriety in the said purchases. Before I make my observations, I would like to show the House an advertisement. I agree with SM. Many developers and car dealers would like to make use of the names of Ministers and MPs to advertise and promote their sales, canvass for business for their own benefit. In Singapore, this is done discreetly. But in other places, this is done openly. This advertisement is one of the examples. This is an advertisement published in a Taiwan magazine Common Wealth ( ). It was about a Tasi Villa. There is one sentence in the advertisement which reads "The Tasi Villa made President Lee's heart went pit-a-pat. Now at the age of 40, you can move in and be a neighbour of President Lee." In other words, you can buy a unit and be a neighbour of the President. Sir, to me, the purchase of properties by SM Lee and DPM Lee is a non-issue. It is also proper for them to get discounts. This is a strategy of developers to sell their units. I feel there is no need for them to donate their discounts. According to my feedback results and the reactions from the grassroots organisations, there is no one who doubts SM Lee's and DPM Lee's honesty and integrity.”
“I am sure, if not because of the recent buoyancy in the property market, the issue of purchase of private properties by Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister would be a non-issue. I feel saddened having to witness two distinguished leaders, especially the Senior Minister, who has proven beyond any doubt his dedication, integrity and uprightness, having to so painfully explain to this House, involving even the privacy of all their family members, a perfectly normal undertaking because of the rumours and suggestions going around that they may have acted improperly. It is most unfortunate, especially in the context of the role they have played in making Singapore what it is today and that even the most cynic cannot deny that in some way they have benefitted by their immense contributions. In a way, I am glad that this debate has given everyone the opportunity to have an insight into all the details of what has transpired and once and for all leave no doubt in anyone's mind that there is absolutely no impropriety on the part of the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. But, more importantly, one positive outcome of the whole episode demonstrated once again the readiness of our Government to investigate any possible wrongdoing by any person, be they Ministers, elected Members or Government officials, so as to uphold the highest standard of integrity, incorruptibility and transparency. Ministers no less than the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny by the Prime Minister once public disquiet has arisen on this issue.”
“Members must have heard that in the case of Nassim Jade, the cost of the project per square foot was $700. It would be difficult for the architect of the project or anyone connected with the project to pay $1,500 per square foot for the purchase. Therefore, it is not necessarily a privilege offered to this group of people. The developers do it for various reasons: very often, as an incentive to ensure the proper execution of the project and, more importantly, to give the subsequent purchasers a sense of confidence by showing that the project is being supported by all those connected with the development. One other important reason for this practice is for the developer to ensure that during the official launching they can be sure that a certain number of units have already been sold in case they do not receive the desirable response during the launch, otherwise it would greatly hamper the confidence and saleability of the project. One should not assume that purchasing of properties is a sure profitable investment. As we have experienced in the past, there are many cycles of ups and downs in property prices and it can be a high-risk undertaking. I can recall that around 1979 my own practice was involved in a commercial development in Beach Road. When it was first opened for sale the commercial area was sold for $160 per square foot and was subsequently transacted at a high of nearly $1,100 around 1982-83, but dipped down to $280 per square foot in 1986 during the recession. I do not know what is the current market value. But you can appreciate that during these cycles, many have made tremendous gains but many have also borne astronomical losses.”
“The purchase of private properties for investment or otherwise lies with the prerogative of every individual. It is the basic right of all Singaporeans, be they Government leaders or private citizens, as long as they conform to the rules and regulations applicable to everyone, or in the case of elected Members or Government officials, that they do not compromise their position in any way. Therefore, I totally disagree with the hon. Member, Mr Cheo's suggestion yesterday that each Minister be permitted to purchase one property only and likewise his immediate family. Does it mean that a Minister who has no children is entitled to one property and a Minister with four children is entitled to five properties? His sense of logic is most simplistic and naive and if that is the only contribution from the Opposition Member in this debate, I am extremely disappointed. Sir, during my 30 years of practice as an architect, I have been closely associated with the practice of property development and I can categorically state that it is a usual practice for any developer to offer units for sale to those related with the development, ie, the architects, engineers, lawyers and sometimes associates and friends and even contractors before they launch for public sale. Usually, they would enjoy the same discount given to the subsequent buyers but very often they may even get a slightly bigger discount as an incentive to be the first to make the purchase. But more often than not, personally, I have to decline the offers since I am so intimately connected with the project. I would have known the cost and usually find it difficult to accept the prevailing selling price as I would not have the benefit of hindsight.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, the hon. Member, Mr Chiam See Tong, brought up the issue of Ministers' pay again although this has already been debated extensively in this House. Unfortunately, Mr Chiam is not in the Chamber. Once again, he said that because the Ministers earn many more times than the ordinary worker, therefore, they would lose all moral authority to govern. Before he engages in the politics of envy again, I would like to request Mr Chiam to do a simple mental exercise. Compare his income to the income of the despatcher in his office. "Income" means his earnings from his practice, his assets which we understand yesterday that he owns a few, and any other incomes such as his MP's allowance, maybe Town Council's allowance, and find out how many times his income is compared to that of the despatcher. I will help him out in this simple calculation. If his despatcher earns $1,000 a month and if his income is $20,000, he will be earning 20 times more than his despatcher. If it is $30,000, it is 30 times, and so on. Perhaps he should reflect on this and tell the House if he, by his own definition, still has the moral authority to sit in this House as a Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir. Sir, while I appreciate and respect the reason for Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister making their statements in this House to make absolutely clear that there are no improprieties on their part in the purchase of the private properties in Nassim Jade and Scotts 28, I find it difficult to understand the necessity for them to do so, especially after they have volunteered the information through the press statement when the issue of the sales of these two developments by HPL was made public.”
“Sir, I want to clarify that I never suggested incorporating all the other Acts into the Women's Charter and call it a Family Charter. I was just saying that this particular Bill, as it is, should be considered a Family Charter.”
“In other words, does our tertiary education stay relevant to the country's workforce demography? And is there any other option open for those who possess the necessary qualifications and desire to go for higher studies but are unable to get admitted to the university or the polytechnic?”
“Sir, I am speaking on tertiary education. The results in 'A' and 'O' levels improve year after year. So are the grades of our candidates. While this is encouraging and it is a good reflection of our education system, it has created some structural problems in our tertiary education. Because so many students obtain good grades, admission to our two universities becomes more and more difficult. Those who obtain grades which can qualify them to be admitted into the university may not be able to gain admission because of the keen competition. Therefore, a large number of these students who obtained very good grades have sought admission into the polytechnics. In recent years, it is not uncommon for students who obtained very high grades seeking and getting admitted into the polytechnics, although most of them have actually set their sights on obtaining a professional degree. Going to the polytechnics serves only as a bridge to cross and to eventually obtain a university degree, usually in overseas universities. Sir, this leads to two undesired results. Firstly, this means that the objective of the polytechnics to train technically competent graduates to serve the various industries may be hampered. And at the end, the actual number of graduates entering the workforce at this level will be depleted. Secondly, a large number of students who may be qualified and who are genuinely contented to have a technical career will not be able to gain admission into the polytechnic. With their potential not fully exploited, it would be a great loss to the nation. I would like the Minister to enlighten us whether a survey has been done to monitor the graduates of the polytechnics. Are they being deployed to the field that they are being trained for?”
“What I am suggesting is that maybe some kind of concession rates, or rebates, or easy financing scheme could be given for those who wish to purchase the equipment.”
“Sir, the Minister has only answered part of my question. My main question is whether the Minister can help the disabled to own high-tech equipment like computers. There is no use promoting its use and teaching them to use it when they do not have computers.”
“This can be in the form of direct subsidies, concession price and easy financing terms. Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister why the disabled are not given the chance to travel on public transport at a concession rate, ie, the same as those enjoyed by senior citizens and school children. I am sure they are not less deserving and it would go a long way to help them to be more mobile and therefore more chance to integrate with society.”
“Sir, I am glad that this year, a good portion of the budget allocated to MCD will be channelled to the welfare of the disabled. Although the MCD and the various charitable organisations have done a lot for the disabled, there is always room to do more. Recently, there was a conference on technology for people with disabilities. I have learnt from this conference that modern advancement in technology can enhance the lives of the disabled in many areas. Apart from physical improvement through the use of the state-of-the-art equipment, technology, especially computerisation, can help the disabled to perform a lot of functions which they are unable to do. The disabled can now be fitted with the most technologically advanced artificial limbs, hearing and speaking aids, to help them to regain much of their functions lost through disability. Just now Mr Sinnakaruppan has outlined the immense possibility of IT technology opening up to the disabled, and the computer technology that can bring immense benefit to their lives. But how much of these benefits can actually be brought to them depends on the funding and in what way we can equip them with these wonderful tools. Now that the MCD has resources, I suggest that the Ministry set up a working group consisting of experts from the university and the various technical institutions and, of course, the National Computer Board to work out a comprehensive plan to bring these facilities to the institutions of the disabled. As this is a very specialised field, and with due respect, the administration staff may not be equipped to make this acquisition. And for those who are not residing in these institutions, we should assist them to acquire the equipment, offering financial assistance when required.”
“It is important that we must have capable and dedicated officials to manage the various sports associations, because how they think and act will have profound influence on our young aspiring sportsmen and sportswomen.”
“Sir, I am speaking on sports associations. I am greatly concerned about the recent incident where our national bodybuilder, Jojo Sinclair, was found guilty of drug taking. My main concern is not just on the act committed by the athlete herself, but that such incidents will invariably set back our promotion of sports excellence in Singapore and have a bad influence on our young sportsmen. However, from time to time, there will be athletes who yield to the temptation of taking drugs to enhance their performance. My real concern is: how come the Singapore Bodybuilders' Federation, knowing that its member had been tested drug positive, chose to conceal the fact from the Singapore Sports Council and the public, and went ahead to nominate Jojo Sinclair for the Sportswoman of the Year award? I understand that, to date, no action has been taken to censure them nor have the officials been taken to task, because the President of the Bodybuilders' Federation has refused to accept liability for the whole fiasco. And it seems that there is some confusion as to who has the authority to decide on the outcome of the whole sorry incident. Therefore, I think it is time for the management of all sports associations in Singapore, especially those receiving funding through the Singapore National Olympic Council, to be made more transparent and accountable. I am glad to note that the Singapore Sports Council is proposing to take some control measures over these sports associations. I hope that this control includes a certain degree of vigilance on the activities of the associations and the authority to discipline errant officials, just as any sportsman and sportswoman can be censured if they run foul of the rules and regulations of the respective sports governing bodies.”
“Sir, the Singapore Family Values Committee was set up in 1992 with a $1 million fund to promote these values for a period of five years. It is part of the plan to promote the five shared values which have been identified in the White Paper on Nation Building. During the first year of the setting up of this Committee, various projects have been implemented. However, since then the visibility of the promotion has diminished. During the last five to 10 years, the fabric or structure of an average Singaporean family changes rapidly. This is due to many factors such as rapid urbanisation, more and more females entering the workforce, pressure of career building and an increasingly competitive environment. More working mothers mean that parents will have less time for their children. Young married couples tend to neglect the elders. The number of divorce cases has increased steadily through the years and more and more aged parents are having problems with their children. While we all recognise the importance of upholding our traditional family values, we can see that these values are slowly being eroded. We must find ways and means to halt this trend, as family values are one of the most important pillars of a strong and stable nation. Therefore, it is important to intensify our effort to promote the virtues of family values. In this respect, a sum of $1 million is much too small to sustain a meaningful campaign. Organising one or two projects will most likely exceed the budget of $200,000 per year. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can source a larger funding for his Ministry in order to achieve the objective of the Singapore Family Values Committee.”
“Are there plans to widen its use or are there new methods being contemplated to further curb drug addiction?”
“Sir, because of the very severe penalty we have in Singapore for drug-related crimes, it has served as an effective deterrent for would-be drug offenders. Apparently because of this, these drug offenders are being forced to operate outside of Singapore as there is an increase in the number of Singaporeans being caught trafficking drugs in overseas countries. I understand that a number of these offenders were forced into committing the crime because they have incurred a lot of debts as a result of their gambling habits and consequently they are being recruited by syndicates and forced to take a chance to settle their debts. I wonder how these syndicates can so easily identify this group of people. Can it be through a network of known gambling places or through the loansharks? Can the Ministry enlighten us on the steps taken by the police to monitor this network so that they can effectively prevent those would-be criminals from being tempted to force into committing this offence? Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Malay): Sir, last year, the Minister informed this House that tougher enforcement and rehabilitation measures would be introduced to reduce the drug addict population in Singapore. I believe this has been done, but current statistics show that our efforts in handling hard-core addicts, who are our most problematic drug abusers, have not produced the desired results. According to recent reports, I am made to understand that the Naltrexone programme which was introduced in 1993 is now showing encouraging results. In this connection, I would like to know what is the Ministry's evaluation of the Naltrexone programme after three years experimentation.”
“I am sure there are many such cases because I learnt from the couple that the parents of several other boys arrested that night were equally in the dark of what their children were up to. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Police can deploy a special task force to work with the Ministry of Education or to instruct the NPP to work with the neighbourhood schools to stamp out this very damaging trend and protect our youths from being led astray.”
“Sir, since 1980, our Police Force has successfully broken the backbone of secret society gangs. And thanks to their vigilance and hard work, we have more or less got rid of this social menace. However, it is worrisome to know that in recent years, there is an insurgence of teenage gangs all over Singapore. These teenage gangs may not engage themselves in very serious crimes which the secret societies of yesterday used to do. But, nevertheless, they can cause tremendous damage to our society. They have also led numerous youths astray. It is not uncommon to hear, from time to time, about gang fights involving opposition gangs. These gangs are not confined to boys. More and more, we hear about groups of young girls forming gangs too. I understand that very often these gangs have infiltrated into schools and started harassing innocent school children by intimidation or extortion. As more and more parents are both working, the situation may get worse. I personally know a couple who was taken totally by surprise when informed by the CID that their teenage son had been charged with rioting and was being detained at the police station. This couple comes from a well-to-do family and both husband and wife hold responsible jobs. They could not believe that their teenage son can be involved in such activities. What happened was that their son, while roller skating in one of the shopping malls, was approached by a group of teenagers who threatened him to join their gang. Otherwise he would be beaten up. Being a timid person, he agreed to join the gang and one week later, he was asked to board a bus to a funeral wake where a fight broke up. This boy obviously is not a gangster but an innocent victim.”
“How can I agree to anything which I have not heard?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I did not read anything about the Senior Minister's speech. So I cannot verify whether the Senior Minister did say that or not. But anyone with common sense cannot be very sure that a war can only last seven days. I am not a military expert. But from history, any war is very unpredictable and it is ridiculous to say that all wars would end in seven days.”
“If the Finance Minister can find a way to accede to my request and every time we have something to share, we do not forget these less fortunate fellow citizens, I am sure he will light up their lives and earn their eternal gratitude.”
“Rather, we should adhere to proven fundamentals. These include all Singaporeans stay united, be competitive, do not lose sight of our traditional values and, most important of all, to ensure that we have a good and honest Government. Sir, I just have one request for the Finance Minister. It seems that everyone has benefitted from the generous budget. Well, nearly everyone. There are two groups of Singaporeans whom I feel deserve the most assistance but have not been given much of anything. They are the destitutes under welfare assistance and those who are mentally or physically disabled. They are least likely to benefit directly from the budget surplus because they may not stay in HDB flats nor do they have any CPF accounts available to receive the rebates in utility bills, S&C charges and rent, or the top-ups in Medisave or CPF accounts. Naturally, the income tax changes are also meaningless because these people, through no fault of their own, cannot be gainfully employed. I feel strongly that as we grow to be more prosperous and gracious, we must also be compassionate. While we should be careful not to slide into a welfare system which gives handouts indiscriminately to able-bodied persons, we should be compassionate and sympathetic to those who cannot help themselves. Although this group constitutes a small fraction of our society, they are the ones who are most in need of our assistance and if there is any sharing which we are doing now, they should not be left out by default. Therefore, I would like to suggest that a cash grant be made to this group of unfortunate citizens. They can be administered through the MCD and the CCC in the same way the Bursary Merit Awards are being handed out.”
“Therefore, it is more constructive and realistic for the Government to look into alternatives to car ownership and to concentrate on providing good and affordable housing to all Singaporeans. As for transportation, the recent White Paper on achieving a world class transportation system is assuring. The Government has made transportation policy a top priority. The decision to implement the North-East line is just a confirmation of such a commitment. However, I wish to suggest that in implementing future transportation infrastructure, such as roads, MRT lines, or underground road system, the Government should take into consideration the time taken for such schemes to be implemented. The North-East line is a good example. After knowing that the line has been given the go-ahead, the residents there have to wait six to seven years for its completion. Therefore, any other lines under consideration in the future can take up to 10 years to be completed. Ten years is a very long time, especially in a rapidly changing urban situation. I therefore urge the Government to speed up the decision on future transport infrastructure, taking into consideration the time lag for such a programme to be materialised. As for housing, it is well acknowledged that our public housing is one of the best in the world and, in my professional capacity, I can say without reservation that the planning and design of our private housing are second to none. Perhaps, the most telling statistic is that over 95% of our population own their own homes. It is a record which few in the world can match. Therefore, we would do well in reminding ourselves that in our quest to ensure continuous prosperity and stability, we should not be side-tracked by these distractions.”
“Can I finish first? Do not forget that we are totally without resources and we cannot dig into our ground to replenish our depleted surplus. Therefore, we will be shortsighted if we do not save for the rainy days and continue to accumulate surpluses in the "fat" years to make up for the bad times or the "lean" years. Despite all the facts and figures that Singaporeans are enjoying a better standard of living, and that the gap between the rich and the poor has also become closer, the cynic and of course the Opposition Members are still trying very hard to mislead Singaporeans that they are worse off. The two pet subjects which they constantly exploit are the ownership of cars and landed properties. They constantly repeat that most of the Singaporeans will not be able to afford these two commodities because they are being priced out of their reach as a result of Government's policy. The fact is that in the context of Singapore, ownership of these two commodities is not dependent on pricing. Number is the key word. If tomorrow, the Government caps the car price at $20,000 per car, the number of car ownership will still remain unchanged unless we accept an increase in the number of supply of cars on the road, in which case we have to accept that our traffic condition will deteriorate probably to that being experienced in Bangkok. Similarly, for landed properties, it is the limitation of land that puts a constraint on the availability of the number of landed properties. A good example is Tokyo and Hong Kong. Very few can buy landed property because landed property is a rarity. Even the very rich would not be able to own a house.”
“Although China and Taiwan are not our immediate neighbours, a war in this region will have serious repercussions. The impact on the regional economies will be tremendous. Apart from trade uncertainties, huge amounts of investments that Singaporeans have in these two countries will be affected. In such an event, we will be hard-pressed even to turn in a positive growth rate. Supposing if China puts up a blockade to cut off any food supplies or commerce in Taiwan, I wonder how much reserves they must have in order to tide them over the crisis. Similarly, will we have enough reserves to see us through should this scenario happen to us one day? Here, I think Mr Chiam, the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, is totally off the mark when he said that "any war will end in seven days".”
“To make matters worse, some big companies and manufacturers have also moved their operations to newly liberalised East European countries, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia where cheap labour is abundant. If a developed country like Austria can suddenly find themselves in this position, then it is not inconceivable that our stability and prosperity can one day take a certain dip if we shift from our fundamentals and not remain competitive. Therefore, the lesson to be learnt here is not to take everything, especially prosperity, for granted. The budget surplus is the fruit of the people's labour and as a result of this Government's prudence and competence. It is understandable that those who oppose the Government will constantly sow seeds of dissent and discontentment by exploiting the issue of our reserves and surplus. The favourite chorus of this choir has always been that "the Government is rich, but the people are poor". They ignore the fact that the accumulated sums in the reserves really belong to the people. The system has its checks and balances to guard against any abuse and ensure that the resources are appropriately used in difficult times. In fact, the current reserves which we have accumulated can only last Singapore for maybe eight or nine months in a crisis. If Singaporeans think that a crisis is improbable, forget about what is happening in Bosnia or Chechnya because they may be too far from us to have any direct impact. Just note the strained relationship between China and Taiwan. It fully illustrates how fragile regional peace can be. One can sense from the recent Senior Minister's speech his deep concern over the tension between these two countries which can possibly escalate into an armed conflict.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Finance Minister's Budget statement. I am glad that this year's Budget has attracted quite a fair bit of compliment from all people, perhaps with the exception of the Opposition Members in this House. On the whole, the reaction from all sectors, be it the businessmen or the men-in-the-street, has been reasonably positive. They more or less agree that this is the best Budget of all. In fact, for lack of issues to pick on, the Opposition has coined it an election budget in its bid to politicise it. But if I were to rate the overall public response to the $2,450 million in tax changes, rebates and asset enhancement schemes, I find the response less than enthusiastic. People are not talking excitedly about what they are getting, be it in the coffeeshops or in the offices. I find it not surprising, but nevertheless discomforting. Singaporeans have more or less taken for granted our continuous prosperity. Therefore, I would like to share with them, and especially with the Opposition Members of this House, a report I have heard over the BBC which highlighted the economic woe in Austria. For those who know Austria, it is a very developed and sophisticated country with thousands of years of history. Her people are highly skilled and highly educated. Her two main social pillars, namely, the mandatory retirement and a generous welfare system, have caused a structural problem in the economy. Because of the fast ageing population, there were too few working adults to support too many retirees and non-working persons. In addition, the young people are also discouraged because most of them will face unemployment when they graduate.”
“However, after going through in detail clause 10 which stated that caning may only be imposed by the judge if the offender had, on two previous occasions, been convicted for causing serious or fatal injury to any person through reckless or drink driving, I am convinced that this amendment is not excessive as anyone who has been convicted twice for such serious offences and went on to commit a similar offence under the same circumstances a third time should have no excuse whatsoever and should be dealt with severely. This applies especially to those who have committed offences under drink driving. Accidents, as a result of drink driving, can and should be avoided at all costs. Those who drink should never be allowed to drive as any intoxicated person behind the wheel is a potential killer. I am glad that there are constant reminders from the Traffic Police reminding us not to drink and drive. But despite that, accidents caused by drink driving increased from 76 cases in 1994 to 92 cases last year. This has to be checked. Finally, I suggest that perhaps it is timely for the authority to make it compulsory when granting a liquor licence to any premises that they should provide some kind of breath evidential analyser so that the patron can make sure that their alcoholic level is acceptable before they drive off. Otherwise, they should find other means of transportation. This would help those who may not be aware that they have consumed alcohol that exceeded the acceptable level and also eliminate any excuses by anyone claiming that they have committed the offence without knowing that their drinking has exceeded the permissible limit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. It gives me little comfort in reading the figures released by the Traffic Police Commissioner. The traffic accident rate dropped from 7,000 in 1994 to 6,900 last year and there were fewer fatal accidents, ie, 214 as compared to 243 in 1994. I consider there is no such thing as a low enough statistic for traffic accidents. As the Minister has just mentioned, one fatal accident is one too many. Most traffic accidents are avoidable. It happens mainly as a result of careless, inconsiderate, or, worse, reckless driving. For those of us who drive every day, we have the tendency of being complacent and never really feel that we could be involved in any accident. It is borne out by the fact that, after every serious accident, invariably the driver is usually in shock and total disbelief. It is to the Traffic Police great credit in constantly policing our roads so as to ensure that motorists drive in a careful and orderly manner and that traffic laws and regulations are also being constantly updated to keep up with the increase in motorcar users on the road. However, we do need constant reminders that everyone behind the wheel is a potential candidate for road accidents and the enhanced punishment in the proposed Bill is but another such effective reminder of the serious consequence that can result from our driving behaviour. I think most of us should have no qualms about the enhanced punishment proposed in the Bill. But some feel strongly that it may not be appropriate to introduce caning as punishment for traffic offences. It should be administered only in more serious criminal offences. My own knee-jerk reaction tends to agree with that view.”
“While it is well and good to create a more efficient transportation network consisting of cars, MRT, buses, LRT and taxis, etc, that can save travelling time, the result will be negated if one has to walk an unacceptably long distance to arrive at these transportation facilities. I therefore propose that the Ministry of Communications and possibly the Ministry of National Development look into the planning needs of the pedestrians, set comfortable target of the maximum distance for anyone to walk from his or her dwelling to the nearest transportation node available. This can be done, firstly, through the careful planning of a comprehensive network which locates all major and secondary transportation nodes at strategic locations within walking distance for all. Secondly, the provision of a well-planned pedestrian route that is conducive for walking. This can be in the form of a network of green spine that is under cover or shaded by trees integrated with the landscaped area. Thirdly, the pedestrian routes should be safe from vehicular traffic, so that even children and senior citizens can make use of them freely. I would therefore request that the above be considered and incorporated into the proposed White Paper. Sir, no effort should be spared in making our land transport system work efficiently, because the flow of traffic in a city is not unlike the arteries in our body. If they choke, we expire. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the Debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“The proposal of decentralising commercial and other economic activities to the development of regional and sub-regional fringe centres at MRT stations and by reducing the need for people to travel by locating employment centres like industrial estates, business parks and commercial centres near residential areas is sound and logical. Even integrating residential and commercial development with MRT stations to a great extent would help to minimise the necessity for commuters to travel. However, the scope has its limitations because there is an optimum number of MRT stations that can be built. Major bus exchanges or main arterial roads that buses can travel on have their own limitations also. Besides, residing on top or near MRT stations or near one's workplace, although it can be convenient, can also be monotonous. Because it means that you have to work and rest in the same environment. This may not be that desirable. The fact is that the majority of our people will still have to reside in areas peripheral to the major transportation nodes. This may not be a total negative option, because most of us do not mind trading a bit of inconvenience for a lifestyle that gives us the opportunity to work in a busy and bustling urban environment in the day time and returning to the more tranquil and homely surrounding in the evening. This environmental change will provide us with a better physical and psychological balance. However, much would have to be done to cater for the mobility of this large pool of commuters, making it more convenient for them to travel from their home to the nearest transportation node.”
“We have often quoted examples of travel woes of other places, like Bangkok, Taipei or, even closer home, Malaysia, but always harbour with complacency the thought that it would never happen to Singapore. But the fact remains that given all the constraints, we are more vulnerable and likely to be put in a situation such as those experienced in these countries because of our size and a lack of hinterland. There will always be pressure groups or people like the Opposition, for their own self-interest, to exploit the transport issue by distorting the reality that we face. It is well and good to say that we should have a perfect land transport system where mobility is of an optimum level, that we should not wait a minute too long for our buses or taxi, that everyone should be able to own a car, that MRT should be run throughout the island, and areas that cannot be covered by MRT should have a comprehensive and elaborate LRT system. These thoughts are very seductive and appealing, but the reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect land transport system. Mobility is relative. It takes time to travel from one destination to another. It is the amount of time taken to accomplish that which determines how acceptable a country's land transport system is being managed. Of course, comparison helps, but it has to be an apple-with-an-apple type of comparison. One cannot expect traffic flow in the city to be compared with the traffic flow in the countryside. Coming back to the aspect that I wanted to comment earlier, although I consider the White Paper wide-ranging and comprehensive, one aspect which I feel merits serious consideration, in order to fill up the missing link to the whole scheme of things, is the planning and provision for the pedestrians.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System is farsighted and has a wide-ranging coverage that touches on almost every aspect of our land transport system, from integrating land use and town planning to all modes of transportation system, such as MRT, motorcars, buses, taxis, etc, to transport management and financing. I said almost because I would like to touch on one important aspect that has not been highlighted later on. The White Paper presents a broad vision and a macro concept on how we can achieve the objective of a world class land transportation system. It reflects the importance the Government places in ensuring that our transport system will remain effective, efficient and workable in the next two or three decades. However, the success of such a vision would depend very much on the detailed implementation, setting a realistic target of expectation and the cooperation of all those involved in the system. It is important to realise that even if we have succeeded in implementing the plan as set out in this White Paper, we should not expect a total transformation of our land transport system and that our mobility will improve by quantum leaps. It is because very often, we forget our tremendous land and resource constraint and that Singapore is undergoing constant transformation, population increases, expansion of the city and, even going by a conservative growth rate, tremendous pressure will be exerted on our transportation needs in the future. Therefore, we should view the White Paper from a realistic perspective that if we do not constantly anticipate and find solutions to our transportation requirements in a decade or two, we will suffer the same fate as some other countries are experiencing.”
“I am sure that the proposed amendment to the Women's Charter would provide a more positive step towards addressing the problem. And in actual family violence cases, I think our Penal Code has adequately provided protection for those victims. We can always propose further amendments to the Women's Charter and to our Penal Code when the need arises in the future. In the meantime, I think the positive thing to do is to promote awareness of the problem of family violence and educate the likely victim to take a more positive stand and seek counselling and protection before the situation deteriorates. Perhaps one of the most serious dilemmas faced by victims of family violence is that they have to weigh the consequence of reporting the aggressor and having the prospect of being left all alone to fend for themselves should the aggressor be convicted and jailed, or to leave things as they are. This sense of fear of uncertainty often tilts the balance of the decision on whether to go to the authority or not. Therefore, it is important for us to provide them with the assurance that should they be unfortunate enough to fall victim to family violence, all support will be available to them, be it financial or emotional, by the Government as well as the society so that they will have the confidence and courage to come forward to bring the aggressor to justice. This, I feel, is a more positive step towards addressing the problem instead of introducing more litigation as proposed in the Bill. I, therefore, consider the proposed Family Violence Bill redundant and, if passed, would serve no additional purpose but may even have a negative effect on creating more broken families and bring more pain and suffering to the family members.”
“Calling in the Police should always be a last resort, besides it is unrealistic and impractical to expect the Police to be equipped with the skills and techniques to settle family disputes. One cannot imagine a young policeman confronting two very angry persons will know what to do to calm the disputing party down. Thirdly, the provision of the Bill to allow a third person to report acts of family violence and institute investigation is equally disturbing. This effectively takes control out of the family. The rights of the family or the individual to self-determination must then be compromised. This will also open up to abuse as the third party can always take advantage of the opportunity to report on any family conflict occurring between friends and neighbours and report them to the Police and therefore create a chain of problems out of malice or spite. Even those who have the best of intention can inadvertently mess things up by doing what they think is a good deed. While we must ensure that our old folks, children and spouses are adequately protected, we must also recognise that when people live together in a family unit, there must be the occasional quarrels and fights. The principle has always been to exercise restraint. There is a Chinese saying that best illustrates this precept, that is, " " (Da shi hua xiao, xiao shi hua wu), literally translated, it means to have a big problem turned into a small problem, and a small problem turned into no problem. This should be the best principle to resolve family conflicts. The approach should always be reconciliatory, not confrontational and definitely not militant. To sum up, we must distinguish between the two. Family conflict may not necessarily lead to family violence and should be resolved as such.”