Ker Sin Tze
Singapore
“In this connection, I would like to declare my interest that some companies, within the group which I am associated with, are involved in the development of industrial properties. I would still appeal to URA to consider allowing more space within each industrial unit to be used as offices.”
“The traffic volume has increased significantly and congestion is quite bad now. If a new road or road extension can be built, the congestion can be substantially alleviated. I must acknowledge that it is not easy to find suitable space to build road extensions or new roads in mature estates to join with main roads.”
“We must recognize and confirm the contributions by MPs in the past, and we hope that our present and future MPs will emulate the spirit of our predecessors in this House to carry out their duties outstandingly, as representatives of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion. 5.02 pm”
“In 1997, it had increased to 4,888 cases, an increase of 80.5%. This has caused much misery and harm to the parties. On the other hand, there are many young people who have reached a marriageable age but they are unable to find suitable partners, particularly the ladies.”
“Although the residents are aware that SCV is a private company and so the laying of SCV cable is a private project, they take it that it is part of the Government's efforts in achieving the national objective of promoting multi-media communications in future. As such, their request is not totally without justification.”
“I agree with the previous speaker, the Member of Parliament, Dr Ker, that this need not be in terms of dollar aid only but our assistance should be tangible and sufficient.”
The complete record
Every one of 194 lines we hold for Ker Sin Tze, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“As we tool up for the knowledge-based economy (KBE), we should try to make sure that all Singaporeans have a chance and the incentive for self-improvement. Government has generously funded schemes as the main plank, but individuals may also wish to invest in their own self-improvement. And where they choose to do so, Government should support those decisions with the right incentives. In this regard, the Budget proposes an exemption of $2,500, an increase of $500. But perhaps this may be insufficient, and I would urge the Minister to consider a higher tax exemption. In this sense, I am arguing that we need to link the long-term view of investing in education to the short-term realities in these difficult times. Let me turn next to defence expenditure. Like many other speakers, I see the need for good defence force as a factor of stability in these troubled times. Peace and security are the bedrock for our democracy. I would, however, raise two more specific questions. First, I note that it is not only the development expenditure that has increased, but also the operating expenditure, by some $160 million. The difference between development and expenditure is a bit like between investment and consumption. May I ask the Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Defence, to clarify the need for increases in consumption, in this sense, in this time of crisis? More, generally, I would like to ask the Government if there are ways of benchmarking efficiency and sufficiency in the Armed Forces. I ask this particularly in light of the recent second report of the Public Accounts Committee of November 1998 that reports some lapses in MINDEF's accounting practices. Second, on defence.”
“In many developed countries, there is a wish to continue and restore growth through economic globalisation, but also a wish to soften the sometimes harsh consequences of the market on ordinary people. There has been as such, talk of looking for a "Third Way", especially in the UK and USA. Against this background, when we consider this deficit budget and the financial policy of this Government, it is not the size per se of the deficit that should concern us. We should instead consider two basic questions: (1) Are we spending money in the right way? (2) Are our policies in taxation sending the right incentives and signals to our people? Let me turn, first, to the money we are spending. The Government has emphasised the need to continue development expenditure in key areas such as education and defence. I agree that we must think of the long term and use our reserves to develop areas that will advantage us in the future. On education, I welcome the continued expenditure. But in this light, in planning for the future, I would call for Government's assistance in two areas of more immediate concern. The first is of children and education. Schooling is not compulsory by law in Singapore. In good times everyone knows and most can afford to emphasise education for their children, for their future. My concern is that this calculation changes in this time of crisis. I urge the Government to monitor the number of drop-outs where this may result from changed economic circumstances. Sufficient and more generous bursaries may be necessary. These should support not just the direct costs of schooling a child but the opportunity cost of the family as a whole. The second immediate concern regarding education is of self-improvement by our citizens.”
“As a marker of this, some observers have applauded our economy as the "freest economy" in Asia, ahead of Hong Kong. This movement and accolade are largely welcome. But an emphasis on the market is not an absolute blessing. Countries that have moved to the market have lesser ability to participate in their economies and less ability to control their economies. In good times, this may not matter. In bad times, however, there may be fewer tools and policies available for the Government to intervene. If the Government intervenes to bail out bad companies, or to establish welfare services that are beyond the ability of its budget, then the international market will rate their economic potential for the future accordingly and they will go elsewhere. This is, therefore, the first limitation to what our Government can do for our economy and our people. In a world that is moving towards the market, it would prejudice the confidence of the international community if we pull back. Yet, we cannot stand idly by as our economy and our citizens are hit by the crisis. It therefore becomes a question of making the right interventions that are helpful for the present and for the longer term, and which are acceptable to our people and to the international community. It is not a question that Government can do everything or, on the other hand, that we should rely only on the markets. Rather, it becomes a question of governing the market, as the political economist, Robert Wade, suggests. That is to say, we require government action and policy that are in line with market forces, but allied to achieving public and social good. Again, we are not alone in this.”
“Sir, I support the Budget tabled by the Minister for Finance. Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the motion. I would like to raise some comments on Finance policy that I hope the Minister might respond to and clarify. There are some who think that this Budget is a "non-event". To the contrary, I think that there are people who are watching what Singapore does in the face of this crisis. What we do or do not do has significance, not just for individual pockets and corporate coffers in Singapore, but also in the region and the international context. Sir, in the recent past, economists and politicians alike believed, "We are all Keynesians now", as the late US President Richard Nixon said. What this means is that when faced with a financial or economic downturn, the answer lies with a greater government role. Government has to tax and spend, or if they cannot tax, then it should go into deficit and spend. Government spending and Government's role was the central key to continued economic good times. Government, in this view, was not only the regulator but also the active manager and big player in the economy. State-owned enterprises, subsidies and the welfare state were outgrowths of this thinking. This is especially in Europe, but also in many parts of the developing world. Things have changed since then. Internationally, in almost every continent, we have seen a movement away from the Government to the market as an arbiter of the economy. Singapore has not been left out of this movement. Indeed, we have been one of the first countries to move away from socialism towards the world market emphasising investment and international trade.”
“Sound domestic policies remain the key solution in the generation of economic recovery and growth, such as reforms in the financial sectors, the adoption of appropriate fiscal and monetary policies and the nurturing of a solid political foundation and a firm social fabric. Countries suffering from economic difficulties should try to help themselves by restoring social stability which is necessary for growth and development. Once stability is restored, foreign investors, including Singaporeans, will start to trade and invest again. This is the correct way to generate badly needed economic recovery and social stability. This is also a more dignified way for such countries to emerge from the economic chaos, continue growing at their own momentum and realise their inherent potential. Sir, the offering of aid need not be manifested in cash transfers. Singapore has provided assistance in other concrete forms. We have been a strong advocate that ASEAN moves ahead with the ASEAN Free Trade Area initiative. Such policies precipitate positive externalities which benefit all ASEAN members. Singapore has also set aside S$12 million under the Singapore Cooperation Programme to provide about 30 undergraduate scholarships a year for ASEAN students over the next three to four years for study in Singapore. Upon the completion of their studies, these students will return to serve and contribute to their own countries. Sir, Singapore's fortunes and ASEAN's are intertwined. Singapore cannot afford to let other countries falter. I believe that within our means we have done our best to assist, and hope that they do not falter. In this regard, I support the approach taken by the Government in offering assistance packages to countries in the region.”
“Nevertheless, we have consistently tried to assist Indonesia within our limited means since the start of the crisis. Examples include the proposed US$5 billion trade-financing credit facility, and our commitment to extend S$12 million worth of rice and supplies as humanitarian aid to Indonesia. Singapore has, however, come under criticism for stipulating tough conditions for the usage of the trade-financing credit facility. The real problem lies in the divergence of views on how Singapore can or should help countries which are suffering from the current crisis. There is a general belief that the rich should help the poor, that the haves should assist the have-nots. Moreover, the interdependent nature of regional trade and investment has led to assertions that Singapore's prosperity has, to an extent, been achieved using the resources of its regional neighbours. As such, we are now expected to give generously and without conditions. It must be reiterated that the proposed trade financing package serves, essentially, an enabling function: the main impetus is to aid Indonesia along the path to recovery by allowing normal economic functions, like trade, which have been hampered by the crisis, to continue. The folly of advancing financial transfers alone without ensuring its effective usage is well illustrated in academic studies on the efficacy of foreign aid. Let me elaborate. It has been extensively documented that cash transfers alone are unable to foster economic growth and recovery if the money was deployed poorly. In many instances, economic and political difficulties are concoctions of specific and particularistic circumstances prevailing within countries, and few of such problems are amenable to external intervention or assistance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget Statement. Sir, the Finance Minister has attributed to, as one of the main factors contributing to Singapore's economic slowdown, the sharp contraction in regional demand. The economies of Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea and Hong Kong, have all suffered recessions. The financial crisis has brought with it damage to economies, decimation of wealth, job loss and, in certain instances, political fall outs. As a relatively unaffected country amidst the regional turmoil, Singapore has been facing increasing pressure to provide financial assistance as a favour to aid its fellow ASEAN members. One may also argue that such monetary transfers may be the necessary stimulant to revive and reinstate the much needed regional demand so vital to our own economic well-being. The Budget, however, is silent on this. The validity of such claims needs to be assessed using two yardsticks: firstly, does Singapore have the capacity to provide such forms of foreign aid and, secondly, is foreign monetary aid the best solution to the problems that cause chaos in such countries? There is no doubt that the Singapore economy grew very rapidly in the past, but the size of our national income, measured in monetary terms, is much smaller than the potential income of our neighbours. A suitable analogy is that Singapore is akin to a rabbit and our neighbours are the equivalent of elephants. As a small state without natural resources, Singapore bears no illusions about its inherent capabilities, with its GNP at only around 1% that of the United States, a major provider of foreign aid. As such, we are in no position to make available, in unconditional terms, monetary assistance to the magnitude that major developed countries are capable of.”
“That would depend on how our next generation evaluate the value of Chinese. Sir, under the revised policy annonced today, we would enable the students to learn their mother tongue according to their abilities, bearing in mind that at least a basic level must be maintained. This is a sensible and flexible policy, and it is worthy of our support. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy statement by the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“So learning Chinese is of no practical use. That being the case, why should we force all the ethnic Chinese students in Singapore to learn Chinese? If you go to China to do business, you may need to use Chinese. But they are only the minority. Such a reasoning is not entirely groundless. As a matter of fact, in Singapore, using English alone, you can still carry on with your career development. However, the choices before us are: (1) Continue to implement our bilingual policy; or (2) Let it be gradually transformed into a monolingual policy. If we are to develop into a monolingual society where everyone speaks only English, then our whole spiritual outlook and characteristics will be changed. It will be more difficult for us to maintain our cultural traditions and to inculcate traditional values. Our linkage with the ethnic Chinese people all over the world will be weakened. It will be a great loss to our personal development and collectively it will not be good for the long term benefit of Singapore. In the Chinese community there may be some people who are still worried that this policy adjustment may result in a lowering of the standard of the Chinese language. This is surely not the intent and purpose of the new measures. DPM Lee has just announced that the Government will be encouraging more students to take Higher Chinese, and the Chinese Language Elective Programme (LEP) will be introduced at the Nanyang Junior College. These new measures will be conducive to the maintenance of the standard of Chinese, and have a positive impact on the nurturing of a Chinese elite. Therefore, the worry is unnecessary. As for 30 years from now, would the status of the Chinese language remain the same as it is now in Singapore?”
“In order to prevent having the students spending too much time on Chinese at the expense of other subjects, and to avoid the less-than-ideal results in Chinese hampering the academic future of some good students, DPM Lee proposed: (1) Revise the Chinese course curriculum to lighten the burden of learning; and (2) Introduce a new CL `B' paper for those students who could not cope with the learning of the ordinary CL course. These proposals warrant our careful consideration. Many students are having difficulty learning Chinese, and sometimes the parents do complain about it. This is a fact. Therefore, we must prescribe the right medicine for the ailment. Making the appropriate revision and adjustment is a necessity. The question is how to revise the curriculum without lowering the standard of Chinese. Will the introduction of CL `B' make it too convenient for the students to swamp into opting for this easy way out in place of CL? Then, it will actually lower the standard of Chinese! Therefore, I hope that when the Ministry of Education is revising the curriculum they will make Chinese easy to learn, easy to understand, and yet at the same time maintain the present standard. I agree with Dr Ow that the revision must be carried out with caution. The conditions for switching to CL `B' should be restrictive and not too relaxed, so that there will not be too many students attracted to it. If the Ministry of Education can provide more incentives for those who stay on to do CL, then the number of students who want to shirk hard work and take an easy one will naturally be less. As to whether it is necessary to maintain the standard of Chinese, different people may have different views. Some feel that Chinese is not an administrative or business language.”
“Sir, in 1979 the Government officially merged all the schools into one national stream, with mother tongue listed as a compulsory subject in the school's curriculum. The Government also appointed a number of traditional Chinese schools to become Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools to preserve the fine Chinese culture and values. This bilingual policy has been in implementation for 20 years. Today, more people are speaking Mandarin than before. In terms of quantum, the usage of Chinese has indeed increased. However, with the retirement of the older generation of Chinese-speaking intellects who had worked in the cultural and educational fields, there seems to be a situation of the "the new crop is still in the blade while the old one is all consumed". Despite the increase in quantity, the quality standard of Chinese may not be maintained. On the other hand, some students have encountered many difficulties in learning Chinese language, it is therefore necessary to review and adjust Chinese curriculum. In his policy statement today, DPM Lee points out that although some students spend more time learning Chinese than in other subjects, the result is not satisfactory. In fact, some students could not even attain the lowest passing grade, but may be quite good in other subjects such as Mathematics, Science and English. This is an illustration that the ability to learn Chinese does not completely coincide with the ability to learn other subjects.”
“Not a word, I have not heard from them. Is this the open society that we are proclaiming ourselves to be? But what I am saying is that this Report does not contain the information and data on which they base their conclusions in making recommendations, particularly on the cost-cutting measures. There is the suggestion that there should be some cut in the utilities rates, electricity and telecommunications. They have not tried to answer the question or have they sought an answer to the question why in spite of fuel prices falling, electricity tariffs have not gone down. At one time, the reason given was that the Singapore dollar was weak and that offset the falling prices. But now, as I understand it, the Singapore dollar has strengthened against the US dollar.”
“The Government not only did not take any attempt to correct anything that was wrong, but it would appear that they were more interested in winning the elections that were going to come on over the next one year or after that. So, we heard a lot about the asset enhancement programme of the Government. That was their bonanza for the voters to vote in the PAP Members into Parliament so that the PAP would continue in power. And along with that, as part of the programme, there was the liberalisation for purchases of properties, particularly, HDB. What was the result of all that? It boosted prices, making land cost becoming more and more difficult for the companies and those who are doing businesses in Singapore. It boosted the rentals. Yet no attempt was made in this Report to point to that and, as I said, is it because we had Ministers sitting on the Committee. But I was glad to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that after the Report was released, the manufacturing sub-committee in a press conference was a little bolder. This sub-committee said that they would like to see the Government contribute more than 30% of the package and they would like to see the Government use up the surpluses from the statutory boards to help overcome the recession. Maybe without the Ministers sitting next to them, they were bold enough to come up with those statements. Finally, another disappointing aspect of the Report is that there is not enough data, not enough information given in this Report on how they have arrived at their conclusions and recommendations. Mr Speaker, Sir, in an attempt to try and understand their recommendations and to make some suggestions here, I wrote to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Manpower to ask for certain information. Did I get it?”
“There was no attempt to examine in this Committee's Report the role of the GLCs and their management. We know that over the last few years, the GLCs have lost a lot of money that belongs to us, the taxpayers. And, yet, there has been no proper examination on accountability. The GLCs have not been made accountable to this House on the decisions that they have taken and why they have lost monies. And we are talking about public monies, not their own monies. So should we not rethink about the role of GLCs? And I have also heard that the GLCs, because of the fact that they are Government-linked, enjoy an unfair advantage. Should we continue with that? Are we providing an even field for the conduct of businesses in Singapore? Or are we giving an unfair advantage to the Government companies? But, more importantly, what is needed in Singapore more than anything else is openness and accountability and we are not getting that from the GLCs. If you go to the Registry of Companies to seek information, you are told, "Well, this is not public. You cannot look at it. If you tell us what good reasons you have we can perhaps consider it." The activities of the GLCs in their various businesses should be made public as much as possible and not kept a secret. Again, there is nothing about the Government policies that might have contributed to the recession. Why is no attempt made to examine whether the Government in its policies may have perhaps contributed to the recession? I mentioned, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this recession was foreseen way back in 1996 by people outside.”
“We have to start, if you really mean to be economically progressive, with our young people who are going to take over and the spirit of enquiry must be started there. Do we have it? The answer is clearly no. The Committee has admitted that it should not be regurgitating what they have just been told. Moving on to the university level, do we encourage and actively urge an inquiring spirit among the university students? Or do we sit on them and confine their learning to just the subjects for which they have come to university to get their degree? So we do not have those fundamentals. There is also the cost of education. I see that in page 91, paragraph 35.b., in commenting on the need for foreign talent, the Committee recommends that the Government reduce the cost of children's education in Singapore by ensuring an adequate supply of land for international schools. Here, of course, they are talking about the children of the foreigners working in Singapore. But what about reducing the costs for our own children, something which we, in the Workers' Party, have been urging? It is a burden for families who are not earning enough to provide proper education. It is a burden for them to provide a proper education that their children need and the schools, which the curriculum and the content are not doing. So would the Government consider this? I will, at the end of my speech, put forward the Workers' Party's proposals and I will have something to say then. Another point of dissatisfaction is that there is really no evaluation of what went wrong in Singapore. We of course know that it was precipitated and perhaps aggravated by the regional crisis. But was there nothing wrong with the way that we were conducting or managing our economy?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if you want Singaporeans to be critical, it must follow quite clearly that you have got to encourage them to ask questions. They should be encouraged to enquire into what is happening in Singapore and get the answers to those questions. That is not happening in Singapore simply because we are not an open society. We take the attitude that the affairs of the country do not concern the people. It is only the concern of the Government and we should just trust them and they would deliver the goods. Some goods they have delivered. So clearly, we do not have an open society. Secondly, they talk about human intellectual capital being the key to competitiveness. It is in page 81 of the Report, paragraph 3.a., Mr Speaker, Sir. They say that human intellectual capital is the key competitive edge and they propose reviewing the education curriculum, examination and the school ranking systems to help foster creative thinking and an entrepreneurial spirit among the young. They continue with this question of the education in Singapore in page 86 of the Report, paragraph 11, where they say "The content of the education curriculum should help to prepare the young for the workplace of the 21st century." We, in the Workers' Party, - and I have to repeat this because I would suggest to the Ministers that they should read the Workers' Party's manifesto - have been urging a complete review of the education system in Singapore today. This was way back in 1988. I am glad to see that the Committee thinks that there should be a review. And further on, they talk about the content being reviewed and not teaching our children to be parrot-like and regurgitate what they have been told.”
“This, again, is one of the facts of life in Singapore, as has been mentioned, that everything in Singapore has to have a political master overseeing whatever is being done, even when it comes to playing football. Is it not time that we trusted the private sector to do its own work without overseeing how they do it and what recommendations they will put up? So that is another point of our dissatisfaction - that it is not bold enough, nothing innovative. There is an assumption that our fundamentals are strong. This, of course, is what the Ministers have been saying - our fundamentals are strong, so there is nothing for us to worry. But are they? Is there any attempt made to question whether we have got the correct fundamentals for our economy? The Report suggests that perhaps we do not have the fundamentals, but they do not go far enough to point out what exactly is strong and what should be done about it. Mr Chiam referred to paragraph 29 of the Report, the Executive Summary, and I do not propose to read it. But the Committee stresses the need for Singapore to be an open cosmopolitan society and for the need for a critical mass of Singaporeans who are risk-taking entrepreneurs. They say about the need for Singapore to be an open cosmopolitan society. This is what we in the Workers' Party have been saying for many years that Singapore needs to be an open society. It is good for business. It is good for the economy of the country and it is good for our people. But are we an open society? The Committee does not appear to answer that question. They should have, and they should have suggested what was wrong with the society at the moment today. Do we have a critical mass of Singaporeans who are risk-taking entrepreneurs?”
“There was no problem about Singapore's competitiveness. And yet eight months later, we are told that Singapore is not competitive and we have got to take the measures. So were Ministers really not aware of what was happening in Singapore? Have they lost touch with the conditions prevailing in Singapore? Or were they just beaming with their own over-confidence? We heard the Deputy Prime Minister say in that speech how wonderful the Ministers had managed Singapore's economy and their efforts had been lauded by people outside. So our first point of dissatisfaction is the timing and the delay that has occurred in announcing the measures that would be taken. Secondly, as has been mentioned outside this House, the measures and the Report itself are not bold enough. There is nothing innovative. There is nothing radical about any of the measure. And may I say that it is more or less a repetition of what the Committee in 1985 or 1986 submitted, perhaps dressed up a bit more to meet the present situation. I wonder why that is so. One senses, reading the Report, that there was a concern in the Committee not to tread on government toes and try to be as placatory as possible to the Government in making their recommendations. Is that because we had two Cabinet Ministers sitting on top of the Members of the Committee listening to the deliberations and commenting on anything they had to say? Not only did we have two Cabinet Ministers, we had another Minister. Could the Committee not have been left entirely to the private sector, people who we say are experts in the field, instead of having a political control over it?”
“But clearly that was not the intention. As the Party's Member for Hougang said in his speech yesterday, this recession was foreseen. I was talking to a bank official some days ago and he said that the danger signals were seen as early as 1996. He said it was quite evident to them that Singapore was going into a recession. And yet no measures were taken then to avert the crisis. The Government prides itself - and we have heard this so many times - that it does not wait for any crisis or problem to arise, it nips it in the bud. But, in this particular case, it does not appear to have shown the same enthusiasm as it has - of course, when it comes to political action. This lack of prompt action was mentioned by the Member for Hougang, as I said, yesterday and we heard from a PAP Member - or was it a Nominated Member - who did not seem to answer our point at all. He talked about chickens and the eggs. Again, as the Member for Hougang pointed out, we had conflicting statements from the Ministers about the crisis. I remember, when I was proposing a number of measures, as far back as February or the beginning of this year, the Minister for Finance and the others were saying that Singapore had not been badly affected and we would take the necessary measures when the crisis hit us. That is unlike, as I said, what the Government has done when it came to taking mainly political action. And, again, it was in February of this year on my motion for the Ministers to give up 25% of their salaries to show their identification with the people, when I said there were already indications that pay cuts were taking place. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his reply, which was quoted by the Member for Hougang, said that Singapore was still competitive.”
“If the property owners can have their burden alleviated, they will be in a position to lower their rental, and the tenants will also enjoy the benefit of some cost-cutting. In this way, they will be able to sell their goods or provide their services at cheaper prices, and hence enhance their competitiveness. Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Trade and Industry. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a great many of those who have spoken, particularly coming from the Government ranks, the PAP MPs, have all expressed immediately their support and enthusiasm for the Report of the Committee. The two Opposition Members who spoke yesterday were less enthusiastic. I must say that, speaking for myself and for the Party, we do not share the enthusiasm that has been shown for the Report of the Committee. We find this Report disappointing and discriminatory. Why do we say disappointing? There are several factors which prompt us to say that the Report is totally disappointing. One is the timing of this Report. As the Report mentions, the Prime Minister would appear to have announced his intention to appoint a committee way back in November 1996. Then it took him about six months to convene a Committee on Competitiveness in Singapore. That was in May 1997. And we have a Report from this Committee 17 months later - I understand the Deputy Prime Minister will be announcing the measures the Government will implement - but we have yet to hear what measures the Government will accept and implement. I should have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these measures would have been announced before this debate, so that the Members in this House could then pronounce their views on the measures taken by the Government. That is what I thought was going to happen.”
“Thailand and Malaysia have devalued their currencies by huge margins. So to the tourists, it is better and cheaper to shop there. In comparison, Singapore's retail industry is finding it more and more difficult to attract tourists to come and shop here. This will affect our tourism industry directly. Since tourism is one of the main pillars of the service industry, which is one of the main items of concern in the CSC Report, how to help our retail industry and tourist industry reduce their business cost is therefore another important issue. To many departmental stores and supermarkets which employ large numbers of people, a cut of 15% of CPF and wage costs together will effectively cut down their operational costs. But to the small shopkeepers in the shopping complexes, the effect will not be very significant. Another recommendation of the CSC is that the Government should continue to grant the 55% property tax rebates. With its implementation, only owners of shopping centres and complexes will benefit. Some of them may pass on the savings to their tenants by reducing the rentals. But, the vast majority of property owners do not lower their rentals because they themselves are also facing financial problems. Another way to further help the owners of shopping centres is to adjust downwards the net annual value of the commercial properties. In recent years, because of bad times, the pressure to lower the shop rental is always there. But because the net annual value has not been lowered, they continue to pay very high property tax. So it is very difficult for them to lower their rental. I hope that the authority concerned will review the net annual value of all the commercial and industrial properties soon.”
“Then, when these wage-cut measures are fully implemented, the spending power of the general public will also shrink. This will affect their business even more. On the other hand, they have to pay for their overheads and service their loans. With less income, they will find it difficult even to survive. Not too long ago, a stallholder who could not service his loan was slapped with hefty interests by the finance company, and he was even taken to court. This is a glaring example. Therefore, helping these shop-owners and stall-holders by reviewing their cost to tide over these difficult times at the moment is of utmost importance. These small-time neighbourhood traders are mostly operating in the HDB estates. Many of them were encouraged by the Government's "Shop For Everyone" scheme to purchase their existing shops and stalls. The majority of them took loans from banks or finance companies to finance their purchases of these shops or stalls. Now, because of poor business, they are having problems with their cash-flows. They cannot keep up with the instalment payments or service their loans. As an adviser to the Federation of Merchants' Association, I would appeal to the Government to advise the banks and finance companies to reschedule the instalment plans by extending their repayment periods. This will help to lighten the burden of these people. The Housing and Development Board should also consider lowering the rentals so as to help these people to tide over their difficulties. The second issue is how to restore the competitiveness of our retail industry. The retail industry has been in the doldrums for quite a long time. With further deterioration of the regional economy, the retail industry has a very grim future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness (CSC) was established in May 1997, its original terms of reference was to map out a plan to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore in the face of intensifying competition from the neighbouring countries as well as the developed countries over the next 10 years. However, in July 1997, the regional economy began to deteriorate. Short-term measures to restore our competitiveness became most urgently required. As a result, when the CSC presented its Report, a major portion was devoted to solutions to resolve the imminent economic crisis, such as the reduction of wage cost by 15%, reduction in foreign worker levy, lowering of JTC/HDB rentals, electricity tariffs, telecommunications cost, port charges and vehicle taxes, etc. Property tax rebates and stamp duty exemption are to be continued. All these measures are very timely and worthy of our support. But the Report seems to overlook the two following areas: (1) the predicament of shopowners and stallholders in the HDB estates, and (2) the competitiveness of our retail industry. Let me deal with the first issue. The Report recommends a 15% reduction in the total wage cost. To big companies with many employees, this is an alleviation of their burden that may help to restore their competitiveness. But to the retail shops and small-time stallholders who employ just a very few employees, many of whom are their own family members, these cuts in employers' CPF contribution and bonuses will not significantly reduce their operational cost. Business is bad for these shop-owners and stallholders because of the economic downturn, and they cannot make ends meet.”
“While I agree with the Minister that the 4% property tax on owner-occupied properties is low, the 12% property tax for rented properties remains high. I am sure that a lot of middle-class people own a property for themselves but at the same time they own another property which is rented out. And they are now having difficulty in servicing their loan because the rental market is fairly bad. Why does the Minister not look at this matter and give these property owners some property tax reduction, so as to help them tide over the problem?”
“HDB should also consider building one or two new blocks of multi-storey buildings there for those who would like to move into a bigger factory space as soon as possible and develop the rest of the estate in stages. Meanwhile, for those who have to wait a few more years for their new factories, HDB should consider permitting some reasonable extension of space as long as the extension and the resultant structures meet safety requirements. Where possible, road widening should be carried out and more temporary car parks built for heavy vehicles in the estate. In this manner, the inconvenience of an outdated industrial estate can be minimised for the time being while the tenants wait for a totally revamped industrial estate in Defu.”
“Sir, HDB industrial estates were mostly developed in the 70s and 80s to cater for small and medium-sized factories which were then affected by land clearance and resettlement. With continued economic growth over the last two decades, the business volumes of these factories have grown and factory space is now grossly inadequate in supporting this expansion. For example, the roads are very narrow and therefore constantly jammed by heavy vehicles. With the loading and unloading of goods, sometimes occupying one side of the road, bottlenecks have resulted, affecting the flow of traffic. Furthermore, there is an acute shortage of parking space for container trucks. Defu industrial estate which is located in Paya Lebar constituency is a case in point. The Ministry of National Development is aware of the above problems and in February 1997 HDB announced that under the HDB Industrial Redevelopment Programme it will redevelop industrial estates in stages, with the programme ending in the year 2007. For industrial tenants in the Defu industrial estate, they will probably have to wait for another 7 to 10 years before their lease expires and redevelopment can take place. However, during this period, it is difficult for them to continue to expand production under present conditions. Due to space constraint, some tenants have resorted to building mezzanine floors illegally or undertake illegal extensions of existing factory premises. Once discovered by HDB they will be ordered to remove such alterations. In order to solve their problems, I would like to suggest that HDB bring forward the plan to redevelop Defu industrial estate as soon as possible. HDB can compensate the tenants for the unexpired lease period by offering them new factory premises.”
“Sir, the Government does not allow single persons to buy flats directly from HDB. This is very unfair. Although two single citizens above the age of 35 can buy flats directly from the HDB, to have two unrelated persons buying a flat and living together harmoniously is a difficult task to accomplish. Even though they jointly apply for a new flat, they would not be able to get the same kind of subsidy granted by the Government to other citizens. If the argument against allowing a single person to buy a new flat is that it may be wasteful for him to live in a big flat all by himself, perhaps the HDB can restrict single persons to buying only 2-room or smaller flats. I would appeal to the Minister to allow single persons to individually buy a flat directly from HDB, and to give them the same kind of subsidy enjoyed by other citizens.”
“Sir, in Singapore, 90% of our population live in HDB flats. Every eligible family can apply direct for a flat from the HDB twice in their lifetime. In other words, they can get the subsidies twice from the Government. But single persons in Singapore cannot apply directly for flats from the HDB. They have to wait until they are 35 years old before they can buy resale flats from the open market. Otherwise, they will have to team up with a person above 35 years of age to apply for a new HDB flat. We understand that the objective of the policy is to encourage young people to get married, and start their own families. But sometimes, marriage can be a matter of destiny. To a girl, once the tender age is past, it may not be easy for her to find a suitable partner to be married to. It is not a matter of whether you want to get married or not! So if the opportunities are lost, because of incompatibility with the boy-friend or girl-friend, or because of heavy workload, you may just remain a single, not by choice but by chance. This is a matter of great regret. To add insult to injury, this unfortunate single person is not allowed to apply for a HDB flat. He misses the boat of marriage, and now he cannot even buy a flat directly from the HDB. I think it is very unfair.”
“Apart from that, there may be other improvements and upgrading works, such as widening the roads, resurfacing the roads or to convert the overhanging cables into underground cables and to alter the gradients of the drains to prevent water stagnation. All these measures can further improve the living environment of private residential estates. I hope that the Minister for National Development can seriously consider my suggestions. 6.00 pm”
“The Government has been upgrading the older HDB estates under the Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme, costing the public a lot of money. The Government has announced that it will also be doing some upgrading work for private estates. But up to now, no specific measure has been announced. Residents in the private residential estates are anxious to know when the Government will commence the upgrading work for them and what will be the extent of the upgrading. Some private residential estates were built many years ago. The roads are very narrow and parking spaces are very limited. Right now, some families in the private estates, particularly the middle-aged couples, have grown-up children living together with them, and they own more than one car. In most cases, there is only parking space for one car in the compound of the house. The other cars will have to be parked outside, along the roadside. For the rather narrow roads within the residential estate, the roads become even narrower with the cars being parked along the roadside, and it is very difficult for vehicles to move around. The neighbours may complain as they are inconvenienced, not just occasionally but day in and day out. Apart from that, in the private residential estates, there is usually very little open space or public garden for the residents to enjoy themselves during their leisure hours. The Ministry of National Development should consider helping these private residential estates in improving their living environment. For example, the Government can buy over a few adjoining houses in a highly congested estate, demolish them and build a small garden there or a small car park for the convenience of the residents to park their cars and to enjoy their leisure.”
“I would like to call on the Government to work closely with the various trade associations to feel the pulse and the health of the local enterprises and, at this point, I would like to echo Mr Leong's call for the pre-Budget consultations to take place in the next Budget. Sir, may I remind the House that for years the Ministry of Finance in Japan has reacted slowly to their growing economic problems. Now it seems that it has become increasingly difficult for Japan to propel itself to full recovery. I only hope that we would not go the same way. I urge the Minister not to allow the current economic difficulties to deflect our long term infrastructure development plans and, hopefully, it would not affect the construction of our underground road system and the facilities needed to push our vital economic sectors. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 6.30 pm. Debate to be resumed what day, Dr Hu?”
“Then in February, we were updated with the report that the local banks' exposure to the region has increased and that had not affected our banking system much. Yet, in the last few days, barely a month from the second report, Tat Lee Bank announced heavy losses to the point that an unprecedented move by the MAS was needed to allow Tat Lee Bank to re-value its assets in order to shore up its balance sheets. Most of the other big four banks have also reported huge provision for losses. To top that, we have heard financial reports of banks across the causeway sustaining massive losses. All these reports show that local banks with an exposure of more than $20 billion to Malaysian businesses may go on to suffer more and more losses in the coming months. This sums up my concern for the timeliness of information used in these fast changing economic times. It is only with timely and accurate information that we can react fast. Perhaps the public's lack-lustre response to the Budget announcement sends the message that the Government is not reacting fast enough and not providing the leadership that the people are yearning for in this crisis. I think the Government can do more this time by stimulating the economy with a more expansionary Budget. It has been reported by many Members of this House that a survey conducted by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce shows that more than 50% of its members have been affected badly by the crisis. Many complained about credit squeeze and the high cost of running business. Yet other than the LEFS Scheme, no other significant measures have been introduced in this regard.”
“Mr Chuang Shaw Peng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to compliment the Finance Minister on the prudence with which the Budget was assembled. There is merit in conservatism in times of uncertainty and there is merit in ensuring the Budget reflects consistency at the policy level. I fully support the measures introduced to facilitate the development of the financial services sector as well as the range of rebates to help lower income families. However, the market reacted unenthusiastically in the following days after the Budget announcement. The corporate world appears to think that the Budget is insufficient for these trying times. Many individuals are also disappointed in that the current Budget offers only 5% personal income tax rebate across-the-board compared to last year's 10% in the face of the most turbulent years since confrontation. It is interesting to reason out why the public reacted this way. I would think that since the Budget has to be presented in late February, it is understandable that the Finance Ministry would have used information that was good up to the end of December. But if it is so, it happens that the significant economic events that affected our economy took place in January and February this year. So the important question is: is the Budget catering to our current needs? The point that I would like to raise today correlates to the questions I posed in the last two parliamentary sittings on the loan exposures of local institutions to the regional economies. In his reply to my query in January, DPM Lee said that the local banks' exposure to the region was small.”
“This will add to the pool of skilled and professional labour here, a favourable development which will enhance the quality of our workforce and strengthen our economic fundamentals on a permanent basis. However, the successful integration of new immigrants into our society will be a pre-requisite before their inherent potential can be unleashed. Therefore, the Government should tap on the resources of both Governmental institutions and private enterprises to render adequate assistance to immigrants to enable them to adapt better to local working conditions and, more generally, to the Singapore way of life. While we are trying to attract foreign nationals to work in Singapore, we should not lose sight of Singaporeans who are staying overseas. For one reason or another, some Singaporeans may choose to work overseas and they form a part of our useful overseas network. However, some of them may wish to return in the future, and we should attempt to make it easier for them to reintegrate into our community. In this instance, suitable initiatives that can be considered include special assistance to enable them to purchase HDB flats and efforts to ease their children back into the Singapore education system. We are all aware that a high quality workforce is the only tangible resource Singapore possesses. Hence, we have to do manpower planning carefully to satisfy our future needs. I therefore support the Minister's proposal to introduce the double tax deduction scheme in connection with the recruiting of overseas talent and hope that the Government will consider as well the suggestions that have been put forward. On this note, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance.”
“This unit will serve as a nerve centre to coordinate what I believe must be a multi-pronged approach, and which will necessarily involve both Governmental institutions, such as HDB and our schools, and private companies and organisations. The major difficulties faced by foreign nationals working in Singapore are most importantly housing, and thereafter schooling for their children. Housing is expensive here, and rentals high. The Government has already worked out a scheme for JTC to buy and own a stock of HDB flats which are to be let out entirely to foreigners. This will certainly alleviate the housing problem to some extent. With regard to schooling, the problem has not been totally solved. High-ranking expatriate staff have the schooling expenses of their children paid on their behalf by their employers. However, middle management expatriate staff will have to bear such expenses themselves, and many are not able to afford the fees charged by international schools. The Government should, through assistance offered by the Ministry of Education, encourage them to send their children to a local school instead, and special arrangements can then be made for their children to continue learning their own languages, be it German, French or Tamil. Moreover, a small number of foreign children studying in our schools will also promote greater understanding of foreign cultures and facilitate interaction between our students and those from other countries. This will be beneficial in broadening the contacts and outlook of both parties, and in the process enriching the educational experience. The Foreign Talent Unit should also selectively screen and entice qualified expatriates and skilled labour from overseas to become immigrants.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Finance Minister has allowed companies to claim double tax deduction for approved relocation and recruitment expenses incurred in the hiring of talents from abroad so as to help offset the extra costs which these companies will have to incur in employing such talent to supplement our local workforce. Such a policy move is indeed encouraging. As mentioned by the Prime Minister at last year's National Day Rally, human talent, whether in the form of new immigrants or foreign nationals on work-stints of a few years, will be the key factor in ensuring that Singapore stays economically competitive and successful in this information age. While I do believe that the budgetary initiative will undoubtedly strengthen the positive factors in attracting foreign talent, I would like to put forward, for the Minister's consideration, a few additional points. The benefits of the double tax deduction scheme primarily accrue to companies which recruit overseas talents, I would like to suggest that assistance should also be rendered to the talents themselves. As such, I would propose, firstly, that a unit, known as Foreign Talent Unit, be set up in the newly named Ministry of Manpower to centralise, develop, implement and oversee Government policies pertaining to the recruitment of overseas talent. This unit should gather information and feedback from foreign nationals currently working in Singapore so that we can tap upon their experience, and understand from them the particularistic problems that nationals from particular countries face when working and living in Singapore.”
“All of us are hopeful that community mediation will go a long way in making Singapore more cohesive and more harmonious. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.20 pm”
“The convenience is that if a dispute is better settled in the other forum, it can be referred straightaway. So that is a start. Mr Shriniwas Rai is not happy about the delegation of powers by the Director. That is an administrative measure to enable the centre to run efficiently. But let me assure him that, first, we will choose the Director very carefully and secondly, critical functions, for example, deciding whether or not a dispute should be accepted, will not be delegated. He talks about the rules of evidence. I think the point is taken. But we must look at the thrust of the provision, which is really to have a system which is informal, friendly, not bogged down by too many technicalities. But certainly the rules of natural justice must be complied with. In terms of his reference to the other two Acts, the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal Act and the Small Claims Tribunals Act, the broad approach of the CMC will be along the same lines. Mr Jeyaretnam also talks about allowing agents to represent the parties freely. I am sure he can see from the Bill that currently it is up to the Director. If the Director finds it useful and if he feels that it will facilitate mediation, he can actually allow for a third party to also come into the mediation. All of us know that in mediation it is better only for the involved parties to be there. Very often, third parties complicate the matter and make it much more difficult to mediate. Therefore, I think the present position is better. It is not a block-all approach, but let us leave it to the Director to decide, basically, on what grounds - whether or not the presence of a third party will facilitate mediation. Sir, I think I have answered all the points. Once again, I want to thank Members here for speaking.”
“My response will be: why exclude other grassroots leaders who are suitably qualified? If there are JPs who are qualified, we will consider them. But there are grassroots leaders who are also well qualified. So we must also consider them. And indeed Dr Ker makes a very valid point, because these are non- political disputes. I do not think we should fear that if grassroots leaders are appointed, they will be pro-Government. I think that is really not the issue in so far as this Bill is concerned. There are a few other points which are made by Members. Mr Chng asked about fees. Here again, because we want to get people to come, we have decided not to impose fees at the outset, but certainly if and when the Mediation Centres take off, we will consider them. He asked: why not do more than mediation? In terms of the Community Mediation Centres, as the name of the centres implies, it will focus on mediation. But under the Bill, the Law Ministry will set up an ADR Committee, for that is the wider picture. Now we are focusing on mediation. But we will not stop there. In terms of a centre or a body looking into how to foster the further growth of ADR processes, including arbitration, for example, in Singapore, there is scope for this. So the Law Ministry's ADR Committee will also look at the other processes, but let us take one step at a time and focus on mediation for the time being. Prof. Chin Tet Yung also talks about co-location. He talks about justice centres overseas which are one-stop centres. This is partly why we have located the Small Claims Tribunal Regional Centre with the Community Mediation Centre because this really involves the people on the ground - your residents who have got either small claims or social disputes wanting settlement.”
“In fact, the Committee that I headed, we thought about this long and hard, whether to make it stricter in enforcement. There again, we took the general approach. Because this is the first time we are doing it, we would like it to succeed. We would like as many parties to come on board as possible. Therefore, we have taken the approach where the parties can come together and air their views. I think airing their views in a constructive mediated manner is already a good step. At the end of the day, their agreement would be put down in writing. That will be the case for all mediations, so that at least the parties will know, after all the discussion, that their compromise position will be set down in writing. And whether or not they want it to be legally bound, it is up to them. If they want to, there will be an express statement. At least they will, in those situations, know that there is a legal hold over what they have agreed to. So let us again take a phased approach. I will take into consideration the points raised by Members and review them subsequently. The third general point made by Members is on the standing of mediators. I think that is critical. In fact, that is very often whether or not a mediation will succeed. And like I have said in my speech, we will be very careful in selecting mediators. Basically, people of good standing, both professionals and community leaders, because the standing of the mediator, in fact, is pivotal to parties first coming for mediation, and being prepared to air their grievances and, secondly, being prepared to accept the advice and keep to what they have agreed to. Justices of Peace will be considered. Mr Jeyaretnam asked why not restrict to only Justices of Peace.”
“The thing to do is to inform these parties and let them know that there are more appropriate fora where they may wish to go to, whether it is the Singapore Mediation Centre or the Small Claims Tribunal, as I have said in my speech. Or indeed in some disputes where other fora have already taken cognizance of the case like family violence and personal protection orders, it would be more appropriate for the parties to be referred to them. So I think we will take this approach and we will see how it works out on the ground and certainly after two or three years, we will review it. That is the first point. The second point is that of voluntariness. I think Dr Vasoo and a few others are more gung-ho in their approach and would like for a start for us to take a more assertive stance. Like I said, because this is the first time we are doing it, we want to be all-encompassing and get as many people to come on board as possible. We know that the essence of successful mediation is that the parties really want their disputes to be settled. But, ideally, if both parties come to the Centre together, that will be very good. In some cases, it may not happen this way. In some cases, one party may come to the Centre and say, "I've got a dispute." Then it is up to the Director to ask the other disputing party to come down. We cannot force them. But we will let them know, "Look, we know of this dispute. Why don't you come and talk and settle it?" Or in situations of referrals, for example, by MPs. Many of us hear of these cases when they come to see us. Or even by NPPs or an instance where even the Magistrate's Court can refer. The approach currently is that there should be an element of voluntariness. And even on how to enforce the settlement.”
“But the fact is that because it is the first time that we are doing it, it is important that everybody lends support to the Bill, which is the case today. I want to make a few general points before dealing specifically with Members' queries. The first point is the type of disputes which the Centre will help settle. The paradigm situation is really that of the neighbours. I think those of us who work the ground and even those who are involved, for example, in town council work, and reading from the media, will know that there are disputes involving neighbours, which with the best of intentions still cannot result in a settlement. In fact, sometimes grassroots leaders are involved but because there is an absence of a structure, there is a lot of wastage of effort and time. So if we can settle the bulk of these disputes for a start, that will be a very good start. Of course, Members have brought up other situations. For example, Prof. Chin has mentioned the case of family disputes involving property, and also Mr Chng Hee Kok has brought up the point about ex-spouses. We have defined the ambit of the Bill in a broad way so that it is inclusive. Because, after all, the parties want a forum which is friendly, which is available, to just talk and air their views. And as has been mentioned, for example, by Mr Shriniwas Rai, it is important to get the parties together to air their views early, so that set positions do not take place. I think we should allow them. But having said this, there are some disputes which lend themselves better to resolution in other fora. I think the point raised by Prof. Chin is about a more complicated family matter involving distribution of property.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to follow up on the NCMP's comment on the Bill. As I recall, he said that grassroots leaders should not be mediators. He said that grassroots leaders are appointed by the People's Association and they would not be impartial in conducting mediation. I do not see the relevance here because a dispute is between two individuals. Let us say in a civil dispute, it is between A and B. The Government does not come into the picture in the settlement of the dispute. He suggested that it would be better to use Justices of Peace. In the same way, the Justice of Peace is also appointed by the Government. So I think his suggestion is inconsistent. I would think that grassroots leaders, like community leaders, can play a part in settling civil disputes for the community. If you look at our history, in the old days, 40-50 years ago, clan associations and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce played a major part in settling communal disputes among the people. And I would suggest to the Minister of State that maybe the established clan associations, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce or any other major social organisation can be used as one of the proposed mediation centres. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first of all, let me thank all the speakers for speaking up in support of the Bill. It is very heartening to note that the speakers are appreciative of the import of the Bill. Many speakers have said this is the first time we are doing it, to bring mediation to the ground, and indeed, as I have said in my speech, we will take a phased step-by-step approach. Members have made good suggestions which will be considered. The process will go on. In drafting the rules, we will take into consideration some of the points raised.”
“Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Education whether he will consider including all these points in the curriculum of the proposed National Education programme. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, the Government has recently promoted National Education. The aim is to make our people understand our history and to inculcate patriotism and national identity, and to teach the people to discharge their responsibility as citizens. Of course, as citizens, we have our obligations in terms of National Service, for example. But more fundamentally, to ensure that every citizen can identify with the country, we should make every citizen feel that he is part and parcel of the country. Under the Constitution, he has the right as a citizen and is protected by the Constitution. He should defend his rights and defend the nation when we face external threats. Although understanding history is important for our citizens, to understand the rights of citizens is equally necessary. Therefore, National Education should enable students to understand what kind of rights every Singapore citizen has. In addition, patriotism and political consciousness are also inter-related. The contents of the lessons should also teach students to understand the importance of elections, ie, to let the students understand the meaning of elections, how the votes are cast and kept secret. It is also important to explain that the people have the right to cast their vote freely and make their choice freely. I feel that if a citizen has got the sense of participation in national affairs, he will have a better sense of national identity.”
“What he said has given the people the impression that he is the Rip Van Winkle living in the world of more than 30 years ago. The fact is Singapore is now in a better condition to survive more than 30 years ago. Now, we have a better economic foundation. We have more national reserves. We have a good political system and we also have a strong modernised defence capability. And more importantly, the quality of our people, our educational level and our skill level are much better than those of 30 years ago. In other words, our competitiveness is much better now than before. In the whole region, we can see from the situation prevailing now that it augurs well and we should be optimistic. But it does not mean that there are no potential dangers. Whatever it is, we are much better off now than 30 years ago. We should work hard and progress, scale new heights. 5.15 pm Although the talk of Mr Fang Chuang Pi, the "Plen", has not stirred any reaction here, I am personally reminded of the importance of our National Education, for two reasons. Firstly, the situation is good. Our conditions of living are better. But are our Singaporeans losing our vigilance in this environment of affluence and good life? I think it is important that we should strengthen the national consciousness of our people, so that they will not be misled by this kind of startling remarks. Secondly, we must also take preventive measures to ensure that people living a good life will not become soft, and forget the past deeds of our pioneering forefathers. So it is necessary to educate our young people to understand and know the way to nation building and to understand how we have survived.”
“This shows that a lack of natural endowment can be overcome by our own effort. Countries in the world have already become a global village and we are all interdependent. Countries in the world have also recognised that we are inter-dependent in this world. So from this angle, what we can say is that the terms and conditions of our survival are much better than those prevailing 30 years ago. What matters most is whether our young people have the same will to survive and whether they have the same spirit to build on what our pioneers have already built and they will not be shakened and wavered because of certain wild talks. I have noted what the "Plen" - Fang Chuang Pi of the MCP said about Singapore recently. Whatever his motive to be interviewed by a Malaysian newspaper, his comments on Singapore, in my view, have an ulterior motive. Sir, according to the newspaper report, Mr Fang, in talking about the future of Singapore, commented that Singapore was a freak and that a freak was normally talented but short-lived. We all know that Singapore is lacking in natural resources. Some 30 years ago, we had already heard people saying that. When we were talking about merger between Singapore and Malaysia, this issue was already debated and discussed very widely. Now the "Plen" is saying that the activity space for Singapore is very narrow and Singapore will face problems in the future. What does he mean by all this? Over the past 30 years, the "Plen" has never taken part in the nation building of Singapore, neither has he been to Singapore at all. But he chose to speak in this manner to a Malaysian newspaper at this time. Is he not trying to shake our confidence, and to dampen the morale of Singaporeans? I would like to ask him this question.”
“Firstly, on the teaching of the National Anthem and, secondly, on the survival for a small country like Singapore. On the teaching of National Anthem, I think my colleague, Mr Chew Heng Ching, has spoken eloquently on this. My personal experience is that there are a lot of Singaporeans who can sing the National Anthem but do not know what they are singing. In other words, they do not understand the meaning of the lyrics. A lot of students can sing the National Anthem. But according to my Malay tutor, many of our students also do not know what they are singing about. After many corrections, they still get confused between bersatu and berseru. They cannot distinguish the meaning of these two words. Recently, there have been some suggestions that perhaps we can translate the National Anthem into four official languages and use the different official languages to sing our National Anthem. I personally think this is not proper because what we want is to have a united people. So we should all sing the same National Anthem. But perhaps we can translate the lyrics of the National Anthem into the other official languages like Chinese, Tamil and English to enable the non-Malay Singaporeans to better understand the meaning of the National Anthem. I think in terms of teaching, this can be very helpful. The second point I wish to discuss is the way of survival for a small country. Sir, in 1965, when we became independent, many people took a very pessimistic view of Singapore's future. But with our will and determination to survive under the guidance and leadership of a good PAP Government, coupled with the hard work of our people, we eventually overcame the difficulties. We have not only survived but also enjoyed progress and prosperity.”
“Secondly, we are aware that the historical awareness of a person is derived from various sources, the important ones being our relationships and interactions with our parents, our teachers, our peers and the mass media. Consequently, there is a possibility that the National Education lessons taught in schools will not be reinforced in the home or in the community. And as such, we need to explore how the various social units and organisations can be drawn into a concerted effort to support the National Education programme. For a start, we need to establish some common ground amidst all the different interpretations that exist on controversial and sensitive issues in our society. Such consensus can only arise following extensive debate and discussion. Therefore, I urge the Government to seek the views of the various social groups on important historical events. With greater public participation, we are assured that any consensus reached will be that agreed upon by a majority of our people. This can then form the content of the programmes taught in schools. Furthermore, such discussions in themselves serve as a means by which the public is exposed and therefore, to a much greater extent, acquainted with our past. They can then more effectively reinforce the lessons taught to our students in schools. I therefore urge the Government to look into ways by which we can increase public participation and discussion, such as organising discussion forums on the more crucial developments in our past. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade)( In Mandarin): Sir, National Education is a big issue and we debated this when we were discussing the Presidential Address recently. I have here two points to supplement.”
“Sir, the objective of the proposed National Education programme, as I understand it, is to make students understand the historical development of Singapore through the process of equipping them with the necessary background and understanding to allow for the evolution of a shared identity plus the ability to appreciate the vulnerabilities that Singapore faces and the constraints that we will experience in our future development and progress. Public reactions to this initiative have raised many issues, the more important ones being, for example, the need to acknowledge that the historical events allow for a wide range of interpretations and opinions. As such, I am sure it is common consensus that how a particular historical episode is to be approached, analysed and finally disseminated to our students needs to be carefully deliberated with the various interpretations and their validity assessed so that its multi-faceted nature and the many lessons it harbours are not myopically trivialised. What I wish to focus on today, Sir, is to consider how the National Education programme can be extended to involve the Singaporean society at large. Two issues are involved here. Firstly, the majority of our population has not been appropriately schooled in the nation's history and, as such, harbour different perceptions and viewpoints affected by their personal circumstances, position in the society and political inclinations. These, undoubtedly, constitute one of the ways by which controversy is generated on events in our history. Alternatively, they may be unaware of many issues or even cynically view the whole initiative as some form of political propaganda.”
“It is true that the Member for Hougang mentioned it to me. But I found out from the Hougang CCC that they had the project in mind quite some time ago and they submitted it for approval. This project is also meant to serve the people there. I do not see why the Member for Hougang insisted that it should be his project. He can save his money by withdrawing his submission. They will go ahead and install the lights and it will be beneficial to all the residents there. And it solves the problem.”