Koh Lam Son
Singapore
“(7) To provide more theatrettes or curtains in the classrooms with the increased use of audio-visual equipment such as overhead projectors and slide projectors. These would help prevent unnecessary strain on the eyesight of the students.”
“Sir, this debate can go on, but I would withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $521,224,880 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $466,063,100 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head R -”
“He should not, in my view, be a civil servant or ex-civil servant, but someone who has an understanding of the civil service, in tune with the hopes and expectations of the public and a grasp of the needs of the business community and financial institutions.”
“Sir, I believe that upgrading the facilities should be the first step, and a better way for the stallholders and for the community at large. 12.45 pm I also wish to state that complaints that customers are shortchanged with poor quality food and badly prepared food is a fact, but it is a separate issue.”
“No one else would do it for us. We have to do it all ourselves. So unless litterbugs clean up the act, we must make sure that they do not dirty our environment. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider increasing its own manpower to keep our city clean and green.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not think the Minister has answered the question whether unleaded petrol has any adverse effect on car engines. I believe that if unleaded petrol is of a certain grade - I think they use the term "RON" - if it is below 92, there can be an adverse effect on the valves of the engines.”
The complete record
Every one of 302 lines we hold for Koh Lam Son, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of nominated MPs is perhaps the most important single topic that this House has had to debate. It has seen strong views for and against and I believe many Members have made abundantly clear where they stand and in no uncertain manner. I would therefore like to express my sincere thanks to the First Deputy Prime Minister for allowing the incorporation of the very broad views of MPs. The Select Committee in its recommendations has indeed provided us with a studied document that inevitably provokes further debate and discussion. While I express my general support for NMPs, I have, however, some reservations. Let me begin with the issue that has popularly become known as the "sunset" or "self-destruct" clause. It has been adapted at the suggestion of the First Deputy Prime Minister himself to allow each Parliament the discretion to determine whether it wishes to appoint NMPs. This recommendation I fully support. But because I consider this as an all important issue, I would like to ask if such a motion would require only a simple majority or a two-thirds majority. After all, it is a Constitutional amendment. And also like Dr Arthur Beng, I would like to know whether the Whip could be lifted so that Members can vote in good conscience? I move next to the procedure of selection of NMPs. I grant that it would be cumbersome to have all MPs elect NMPs. I would like to request not for a secret ballot, but that as many MPs be allowed to participate in the consultation process and not limit that to the Members of the Special Select Committee. And I think that the list of possible NMPs should be circulated to all MPs for views and comments if they want to give. For instance, I may feel strongly for or against one nominee.”
“Sir, would the Minister not agree that private vehicles are used on public roads and therefore cigarette smoking by drivers poses a proble, of health hazard, littering and safety to other road users? This is not quite a matter of smoking in private places.”
“For example, he can spread by word of mouth to his congregation to incite emotions against the Government or other religious bodies. In such cases, will the Bill be effective and can it really deter the individual? The proposed Bill states in clause 8(1), among other things, that individuals may be brought to task if they cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. Sir, many religions are founded upon different and, in some cases, conflicting doctrinal basis. So this, as the speaker before me has stated, may become a very subjective issue. Likewise, acts that will cause disaffection against the Government must be clearly defined, if possible. I would like the Minister to clarify on this. Finally, the White Paper has recommended that the Inter-Religious Council assumes a proactive role of promoting religious harmony. To me, such a role has merit because it will prevent unpleasant situations from developing. The role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, as stipulated in the proposed Bill, appears to be passive in that it will only consider matters that are referred to the Council. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the recommendations of the White Paper are not incorporated into this Bill in this instance. Sir, in conclusion, it is clear that today we have social harmony in Singapore. There is no religious or racial discontent. We are progressing well, and can be likened to a symphony orchestra with a brilliant conductor directing an extraordinary musical piece with great harmony from distinct sounds by different players. This Bill will ensure that this remains the case into the future.”
“Of course, we cannot permit this because in the longer term we will end up with a collision between the Government and the religious institutions or between different religious organisations. Sir, a church is a church, a mosque is a mosque, and a temple is a temple. These institutions have a primary function and must not double up as political entities. Sir, the Bill will also help to protect these religious organisations from manipulation by politicians for political ends. Having said this, I think it is important to note that this Bill does not violate the right of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution. The individual has the freedom and right to choose and practise his faith as well as to participate in the political process. But obviously, there is the right time and the right place to do the right thing. In fact, any individual, regardless of his religious belief or affiliation, who has the interest, the energy and inclination to participate in the political process should do so. We will certainly encourage such persons because ultimately their participation and contribution will benefit the country. Sir, the objectives of the Bill are indeed noble. However, it places a very heavy responsibility on the Minister. This is so because the Minister will have to seriously consider all representations from individuals on whom the intention to serve a prohibition order has been made and also the recommendations made by the Presidential Council. Moreover, should the prohibition order become necessary, this may actually aggravate the situation further, especially if the person adopts a martyr's mentality. If that person is committed to carrying out his motive, he can also resort to other acts of mischief which may not be covered by the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony. Religion has been and will always be an important national institution to promote the social, educational and spiritual well-being of Singaporeans. We have seen many contributions from religious institutions, including the building and operation of many aided schools. Religious institutions have also played a key role in tackling social issues like drug abuse, and have helped many former addicts find meaning and purpose in life. However, it must be emphasised that our political stability hinges on the secularity of our State. This is fundamental and crucial to our survival. Our history has examples of bloodshed as a result of racial and religious strife. We cannot permit such a situation to recur. Our pledge clearly says, "regardless of race, language, or religion". Today, we do not have a dominant religion in Singapore. But even if we do, the Government must remain secular. Just as the Chinese, being the dominant race in the country, do not impose itself on the other races, likewise we cannot afford to have a government that favours any particular religion. To do so would be to destroy the delicate structure of our society and all that we have painstakingly built over the years. Singapore is a multi-racial country with people of many different religious faiths. We must exercise tolerance and respect the religious beliefs of our fellow Singaporeans. The Bill is aimed at safeguarding the secularity of the Government as well as the maintenance of religious harmony among religious organisations. Further, by clarifying the roles of the religious institutions, individuals will not be able to carry out subversive activities or to promote a political cause under the cover of such organisations.”
“I believe that the Select Committee is not in favour of this balloting system at least for two reasons. (1) There is a gambling element; and (2) Many non-serious buyers can also ballot and sell the licence for a profit. Sir, although we like to pride ourselves as being absolutely rational in our ventures and actions, in the final analysis the elements of chance still play a part. In fact, it is my belief that life itself is a gamble. Going into politics is a gamble. Choosing your life partner, that too is a gamble. The balloting system has been compared by the Select Committee to the Singapore Big Sweep. But is anybody raising a hue and cry about the Singapore Big Sweep? Sir, I believe the man in the street will be more agreeable to a balloting scheme than an auction scheme. As to non-serious buyers exploiting the system, I am sure we can look into safeguards and disincentives. For example, we can find ways to pre-qualify the ballottee. For example, he or she must own a valid driving licence, shows financial ability, place a heavy deposit, and be disqualified after one successful ballot. Sir, like all measures, no single measure is exempt from possible exploitation. The question is, which is the less exploitable. It is a question of which is the lesser evil. If all things are regarded as necessary evils, we need to decide on which are the lesser evils. Sir, admittedly, in as much as the Committee is faced with time constraint to come out with details of implementation, I am also suffering from the same fate, lack of time. But notwithstanding the time factor I urge this House to consider my proposal sincerely and seriously.”
“Even if the ARF is initially reduced to allow for the introduction of the licence fees, in the long term, due to sheer increase in demand created by restricted supply, the cost of the bidding licence will be artificially pushed up. A car consumer may be held to ransom by unscrupulous car dealers who may well form themselves into a cartel in order to raise the price of cars, both old and new. The quota system using the auction procedure is also inequitable in that it favours the better off who are able to pay more. As the majority of Singaporeans who aspire to own cars are not necessarily the well to do, they may feel disenchanted. In other words, a car which is very often a necessary evil has now become the exclusive domain of the rich. Finally, the quota system in an auction with a price tag may well appear to confirm the impression that the Government is using the mechanism of the quota system to generate revenue. Substance is of course more significant than appearance, but it is also true that the Government must not only do justice but appear to do justice. This is an inescapable fact of life. So with my apprehension explained, I now wish to suggest a modified quota system. I suggest that the Government sets the quota periodically, but implementation in the balloting scheme without a price tag. The purpose of achieving the desired growth rate is unaffected, but without the infamous stink of penalty of a higher price. Consequently, it is more equitable in that every qualified ballottee stands an equal chance before the same opportunity. Whether well-off, not so well-off, you are given an opportunity to fulfil an aspiration to own a car. I am not suggesting that the balloting system is not exploitable or subject to abuse.”
“But today, because of new heights of prosperity, the two schemes are becoming less effective, and it does appear that we have no choice but to come up with another major control measure. In principle, I agree with the use of the quota system. We have practically developed to the full capacity of our road system. Any major expansion is no more possible. This must mean that there is an ultimate number of vehicles that our road system can take without causing massive congestion at any one time and at any one place. I do not know what this number is. Today the experts tell us that a 3% growth rate is acceptable. But when the ultimate number is reached, we will have to settle for zero growth rate. The quota system will bring discipline to our total transportation policy. It pre-determines the limit of growth and gives clear directions and leeway in planning our infrastructure and localise controls to facilitate greater mobility of the people. It is a long-term measure and will have a permanent salutary effect on our traffic flow. Setting a limit to our car growth rate also means, as has been mentioned by the Minister, that the various usage restraint measures can become more effective and hopefully less painful. So I am for it, but only in principle. The mode of implementation suggested by the Select Committee is by way of auction with a price tag. This I have apprehension. And if my instinct is anything to go by, the average car consumer may be worried of adverse consequences. The quota system will inevitably lead to a higher demand for both new and old cars. The sentiment of the market is such that even an announcement of the proposal by the Select Committee, although yet to be accepted by the Government, has already pushed the demand in the sales of cars.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the Report and I appreciate the good work put in by the Chairman, Dr Hong Hai, and his Select Committee Members. But more importantly, I believe the public, like Mr Chiam, appreciate that this is a good exercise of the Government's commitment for dialogue, consensus building and participation in decision-making on major issues that confront the nation. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the Report, and I detect a genuine concern to tackle the problem of excessive car growth in land-scarce Singapore. This concern cannot be but the concern of every serious-minded Singaporean. The problem of traffic congestion could become an insurmountable problem if left unchecked. But solving the problem with hastily proposed measures could generate or create further problems, perhaps more serious ones. On the various social, political and economic implications in the Report before us, I am assured by the Minister for Communications and Information that he will look into these carefully before implementing any of the recommendations put up by the Select Committee. Solving problem, yes, but at what cost, is a question none of us in this House could afford to ignore. Sir, Singaporeans are a pragmatic lot. They will agree and even accept the need for further control measures to free our roads of traffic congestion but not at all costs. They would expect, I think, that any measures to be implemented must not be unnecessarily harsh or inequitable. The Government must be sensitive to the threshold of tolerance which is already very high. The PARF and the Area Licensing Scheme together with the very significant improvements in our road infrastructure have given us respite from traffic congestion in the past years.”
“We are trying to address the issue of how to fulfil the desires of the younger electorate. We need to ask: what is their desire? Is their desire simply to elect a Member of Parliament like Mr Chiam, and another like Dr Lee Siew-Choh, or such? In short, is it their desire that there should be more heated debates in Parliament, to be televised for the public to see? Or is it for the sort of thinking, arguments, that would make the laws we pass and the ideas we put forward in this House more sound, better received and more reflective of the needs of our people? These are fundamental questions which must be answered, and I feel that a second Chamber would be able to answer these questions more effectively. Mr Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Prime Minister said that to create this second Chamber, we might need to make a major amendment, something of a greater scale than what he is moving now. I think if the idea of a second Chamber would be able to solve our problems in the long rum not just from one general election to the next, then there is no reason why this major but important and appropriate change cannot be made. If we are going to do something, we might as well go the whole hog. If we are going to consider an idea that is good, let us be thorough about it. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, as there are similarities in principles between 1DPM's proposal and the setting up of a Second House - that we are modifying one-man-one-vote system and an elected Member of Parliament - in line with this, I support the Bill.”
“And yet, where politics is concerned, I am not sure the direction we are headed now shows we have progressed to an equal degree politically. As example, no disrespect intended to the countries cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister - Bangladesh, Botswana, Dominica, India, Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands - a quick look will tell us that these are developing countries. And due to their being developing countries, they need political stability to a very much larger degree than developed countries. Thus one can justify the special features referred to in their political systems. But we are more developed. If we compared our technological advancements to the western countries and Japan, why do we not have the same perspective in trying to bring innovations into our parliamentary system? Mr Deputy Speaker, if we could introduce this concept of a second Chamber, we would to some extent be able to raise the quality of thinking that goes into our legislative functions to a level that is in line with our achievements in other fields. Japan, as an example, has a Diet of two levels, a House of representatives a House of Councillors (members of both houses are elected). But the point is, even with this innovation that we are bringing into the system, the present Parliament will still be the body that has the final say in the introduction or passing of any law. A second Chamber, whatever it may be called, a Senate an upper House or an Advisory Council, that functions by giving views and opinions on a piece of legislation, would have a role in fulfulling the desires of our people. There is another reason I would like to offer here.”
“And in order to meet the desire of the younger generation, he stated that compared to the four options available: (1) increasing the number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPS); (2) having proportional representation; (3) holding supplementary elections meant solely for Opposition candidates; and (4) established a second Chamber, he was more inclined towards proposing this amendment, to introduce nominated MPs into Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill only in principle. And it is rather odd that, an office-holder, I am not as vocal as my friend Mr Peh in supporting this Bill. For, I question the objectives behind this amendment and, further, I wonder whether this move would not undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr Deputy Speaker, would we not, in moving this amendment, erode or undermine the supremacy of Parliament in our system of parliamentary democracy? I regard Parliament as an institution that must form the backbone of a parliamentary democracy. By this I mean that any decision made in this House must, in the final analysis, have the support of the people. Having compared the proposals in this Bill to the fourth option cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister, that is, establishing a second Chamber, I would, in principle, support this idea but would add that the proposal should include creation of a bicameral Parliament. There are many reasons why I feel the idea of having a second Chamber should be given prior consideration. I do not wish to repeat the arguments put forth by fellow MPs before me, but, in debating this issue, we should consider the fact that Singapore has struggled extremely hard to build a society that is progressive, prosperous educated, intelligent, sophisticated and cultured.”
“Among this group of community leaders there are a good number of unpublicized able and talented people including many professional people. They are non-partisan and possess of good qualities. They are the most suitable people, far better than any opposition leaders, today, and should be considered for selection as NMPs. I hope that the Special Select Committee will not overlook this group of elite. Sir, this move for NMPs is the Government's response to the state of our political requirements, it will also allow outstanding candidates from all walks of life to be considered as NMPs without having to belong to any political party or to stand for elections. This is a bold move in line with our practice in the last 25 years in culling and selecting capable and suitable candidates to serve our nation. This new political system will meet the requirement of our present political situation and will be for the good of our nation and people in the long term. I am very glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister say that he hoped the Special Select Committee would not give the impression of being partisan in selecting candidates for NMPs. I feel that when selecting suitable candidates they should not give the people the preconception that the NMPs are only "yes-men" of the Government. This is most important. I support this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, in proposing this Bill, the First Deputy Prime Minister has explained the reasons why this amendment is moved. He described the proposed amendment as the best option open to us in our efforts to meet the changing desires and expectations of Singaporeans, especially those of the younger generation.”
“Today, no MPs will deny that the NCMPs have certain role to play in Parliament. I believe NMPs can play a comparable role too. Moreover, there are many talented knowledgeable people who are not willing to be linked up with political parties. Neither do they want to join the party in power or any Opposition party. They are non-partisan. They are not Government agents. These capable people of good intent under certain unique circumstances cannot join political parties or take part in constituency work in the political elective process. Therefore, they are the suitable candidates to be selected as nominated MPs. They can put forward neutral or more independent views. They would not have to consider about party discipline or the pressure from the voters. Therefore, the NMP system is a sensible one and a sound one at the present stage. It is a pity Mr Chiam is not here. He thinks that the introduction of NMPs is indirectly a negation of the quality of PAP MPs. In fact, it shows more of the lacklustre performance of the candidates of Singapore Democratic Party. If Mr Chiam really thinks so he would be under-estimating the political consciousness of the people. Should he desire by such slander to split the PAP, he would be manifesting his political infantility. When talking about the opposition leader, we are reminded of the silent dedication and devotion of the grassroots leaders who have been denigrated by opposition leaders as Government running dogs or stooges. To call them so is an insult to them. Their dedication, capability, and zest and spirit of service to the community, outshine those, if any, of the opposition leaders and have won our people's respect.”
“With the rising of educational level, living standard and political consciousness, what people look forward is a good government, like the PAP Government which is honest, clean and efficient. But they also want to see constructive, and sensible views from opposition in Parliament. However, the opposition parties have let them down. Therefore we have to look for another alternative to satisfy their needs. They do not want to see here the type of confusion and chaos that take place in the Indian political arena. The people supported and wanted to elect the PAP to be the Government and we had been able to win 80 out of 81 seats. However, we should not forget that some of them would also like to hear other voices in Parliament. Some people feel that the Opposition MPs' performance has been far from satisfactory in the House. The opposition MP and NCMP in Parliament also deny these people their desire to hear different and constructive views and suggestions in Parliament. The NMP system will be able to fulfil such desires of these people to hear different and constructive voices in Parliament to make up for the shortcomings from the Opposition. This will also raise the standard and quality of debate in Parliament and help to make Government policies and measures better and their implementation smoother. I believe the NMP system would improve our political system and help to build a clean, honest and efficient Government that will serve the people better. It will play an important part and have a definite role in our political system. We should not denigrate the Nominated MP system for what they may be able to do in Parliament. We should also not take the support for the past 25 years the people have given to the PAP for granted.”
“It is the people who confirm the quality of PAP MPs by voting them in at the general elections which is the best sign of their support. Therefore, only one Opposition Member, Mr Chiam, was elected in the last election and there is nothing much he can do in Parliament. Under these circumstances, we have to make some adjustments to our political system to make up for the dearth of other views from non-PAP MPs in Parliament and therefore the Nominated MP scheme is a timely measure to satisfy the requirements of the present political situation. We should not feel that since we are in Parliament we could not accommodate other non-political partisans from coming into Parliament as nominated MPs. It is not right to begrudge them. We should be broad minded enough to accept them for their contributions. I feel strange that Dr Lee also objected to this measure, forgetting that he himself is a NCMP. He said there is no democracy in Parliament. If there is no democracy in Parliament, he would not have this chance to speak against the policy in the Parliament as a NCMP or does he think that he is being forced to support our stand? In fact, nominated MPs are quite different from popularly elected MPs. As a matter of fact, nominated MPs and elected MPs play different roles. There is no reason for us to feel uncomfortable or to have a feeling of loss of face. Elected MPs feel the jubilation and excitement after they are elected because they have won the mandate of the people. This is the main difference between elected MPs and Nominated MPs. Such jubilation and excitement cannot be experienced by nominated MPs. Therefore, I do not think the NMPs are a superior class of people or more special than the popularly elected MPs.”
“Therefore, it can be said that the nominated MPs scheme is a feasible one and as such, we should not be too dogged or hard and fast about our present political system, or be unduly worried that this new concept would pose a danger to our country. Earlier I sensed a feeling of discomfiture among some MPs. They seem to feel a loss of face because of the introduction of the NMPs. Such reaction is understandable because in Singapore to be elected MPs is not so simple as those in some other countries where they are merely armchair MPs or self-serving under the guise of MP, when they do not do any work actually. The elected PAP MPs, as my colleagues have said, have worked very hard, day and night, they have to meet the people, conduct activities in their constituencies and attend functions of organizations in their constituency, attend meetings of grassroots committee, look after the welfare of the voters and to speak in Parliament expressing political views, and until recently, run the Town Council besides having to do a thousand and one things. These MPs are the public servants of the people. Therefore, their role and image in the eyes of the people are of such prestige that they are out of comparison by the Nominated MPs. The heavy duties and responsibilities of PAP MPs are common household knowledge. Take myself as an example. Since I became an MP for one year, when my friends meet me, they do not ask me, "How is your business?" , but "You have been very busy?" This shows that Singaporeans understand the heavy commitment and spirit of devotion of PAP MPs. This dedication and sense of responsibility have been able to win their support and admiration, which have in turn contributed to the success of PAP at every general election.”
“45 pm Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore has been debated vehemently by the MPs and varied views, pros and cons, have been put forward in this House. Let me first talk about the term nominated MP. The Chinese translation of NMP should more appropriately be "te wei yi yuen" ( ) rather than "Guan wei yi yuen" ( ) because the translation "Guan wei" ( ) as appeared in the Chinese newspapers will give the people the impression that they are agents for the Government, whereas the English term "nominated MP" will not give such impression. Talking about this Amendment Bill, some people may think it would give the elected MPs a feeling of discomfiture or "loss of face". Some may think that the NMPs are Government agents. In fact, as many PAP MPs have said, people elected us into Parliament because they liked the PAP. In other words, they supported PAP. If they had wanted PAP MPs to oppose PAP Government policies, then I believe, they would have elected Opposition MPs rather than PAP MPs into Parliament. I feel rather strange that our elected MPs should be worried about the NMPs. Initially, the Cabinet Ministers should be the ones to be worried because they will have to face the questioning and criticisms of six more MPs. However, from the debate we had just now, it can be seen that many elected MPs are also very worried over this new system. If we study in depth and analyse the present existing political system we will find that the concept of NMP suits our political environment today and it is a manifestation of political flexibility and maturity.”
“For example, will leaders of the opposition be considered for selection? Finally, whose interests do the nominated MPs represent? Other Members have already spoken on it. And I stress again. They cannot possibly represent the interests of the voters as they have not been voted in by the voters. They represent only themselves. There is a lot of talk of representation of voters in Parliament. The system of nominated MPs now denies voters of their basic right to vote for their representatives in Parliament. The Special Select Committee of Parliament in the PAP takes away the basic right of the voters. Lately, PAP MPs have been talking about a so-called "dominant party" system in Singapore. This could mean that the PAP would contrive to hold such one-sided elections that the opposition, not being given a fair chance in the contest, would at best consist of only a small number of elected MPs, including some NCMPs and few nominated MPs. Such a situation would allow the PAP to install itself as the Government in Singapore forever. The Government would be taking us back 50 years to the colonial era, to the late 40's and the 50's. It is a retrograde step, as some speakers have already said. Or is the PAP slowly adopting a system, similar to that of the communist system in which the PAP will play the dominant leading role? Is that the dominant party system which some PAP MPs are openly talking about? And are the NCMP and NMP schemes really intended to pave the way for a PAP dominant-party system like the communist system? That would certainly create a form of political consensus. The nominated MP idea should be dropped. 4.”
“If there is concern that proportional representation might produce an unstable government, because no single party might have a simple majority in Parliament, then we could adopt, as you have mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, a hybrid system, which is a combination of first-past-the-post and proportional representation based on a party slate. Therefore, there is no need to have nominated MPs. The First Deputy Prime Minister in his explanation has also unwittingly revealed what the Government hopes to achieve with an NMP system. He wants, to build consensus in the country. But the only way to achieve such consensus is for the Government to follow policies that truly represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of our people. The people are asking for more opposition MPs because the PAP policies have failed to represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of the people in Singapore. Look at the provisions in the Bill. Who will nominate the 6 NMPs? The general public may submit names, but they will ultimately be considered and appointed by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. And who constitutes the Special Select Committee of Parliament? With 80 PAP MPs out of a total of 81 Members of Parliament, is there any doubt as to who will constitute the Special Select Committee and do the selection? Further, these nominated MPs will be put on probation for two years. If they should please the power-that-be, perhaps they would serve another two-year term. Otherwise they would be kicked out. So all the nominations and selections depend on the whims and fancies of the PAP Government. It is all a PAP show, however disguised. Is it likely that those who disagree strongly with PAP policies will be selected?”
“With the help of the GRCs and the usual PAP scare-tactics regarding town councils and other things, the PAP managed to gain all seats except one in the 1988 elections. But it also lost another 1.1% of the popular votes. What is more important, the PAP had not been able to dampen criticism that it does not tolerate a parliamentary opposition. The people want to have still more opposition MPs and they are dissatisfied with the results of the 1988 elections. Now, to keep up the pretence that it is keen to have more opposition MPs, the PAP has come out with the idea of nominated MPs. It would be a logical continuation of the NCMP idea, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. And both the NCMP and NMP scheme would together serve to pave the way for what some PAP MPs have called the dominant party scheme. But we ask: does the PAP really wish to have more views from the opposition in Parliament? If the answer is yes, why not go the conventional democratic way? First, hold more democratic elections. Give the opposition more time and facilities. Allow the opposition equal access to TV and radio. Let the press give full coverage to opposition parties. Uphold basic human rights. No threats and intimidations, no scare tactics, no arrests. Then Constitution already has provisions for opposition Members, including NCMPs, to be made up to a maximum of 6 in number. Presently, we have one elected MP and one, or if you like, two NCMPs. So we have room for another three or four NCMPs. Therefore it would be logical to have more NCMPs as a first step. Thirdly, if the PAP wishes to ensure that various sectional interests are represented in Parliament, then we should adopt the democratic system of proportional representation. It is no worse than the NMP system.”
“This demand for more opposition MPs became more and more vociferous. As the PAP does not tolerate criticism and opposition, it became more and more difficult for the PAP to pretend that it would like to have a parliamentary opposition when there was none, and when at the same time it unleashed increasingly vehement attacks on the lone opposition MP. Moreover the PAP has always postured as democrats although it also keep on arresting activists and leaders of the opposition. And it knew that it would reflect badly on the PAP if the people continued to complain that the PAP was intolerant of criticism and of parliamentary opposition. Something had to be done as a cover up. The PAP thus came up with the idea of the NCMP. Speaking on why the NCMP scheme was introduced, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for the move. But the most important reason, the real reason, was not mentioned, namely, to use the NCMP scheme as a facade of parliamentary democracy, to create the impression that the PAP tolerates criticism and indeed would like to have an opposition, and has now even gone out of its way to create a parliamentary opposition. When the opposition parties criticised the scheme, PAP leaders came out to say that they hoped the opposition would take up the NCMP seats, and to quote one of them, in order to "Speak up for the people who voted for them." However, after having lost 12.6% of the total votes in the 1984 elections, the PAP became fearful that it would lose more votes and more seats to the opposition in the 1988 elections. It discarded certain unpopular policies, carried out some reorganisation, and came out with the idea of the GRC in order to create additional difficulties for the opposition.”
“This NMP system, Sir, will extend not democracy, but its opposite, non-democracy. Other countries having NMPs are listed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. But that argument has been countered by Dr Aline Wong. I do not wish to labour the point. But let us ask, why the proposal for nominated MPs? The First Deputy Prime Minister refers to 1984, 1988, the NCMP and the GRC. He also refers to history. Let me also similarly refer to history, and let us see from a non-PAP angle why the PAP in the first place put up the idea of NCMP and then that GRC. After the PAP's defeat in Anson in 1981 at the hands of the Workers' Party, the PAP launched full-scale attacks against J B Jeyaretnam, the lone representative of the opposition in Parliament. The PAP did everything possible to destabilise the Workers' Party and discredit J B Jeyaretnam. It boasted that it would nominate the same candidate in the next elections and would regain Anson for the PAP. We all know that such boasts came to nought. The Workers' Party had solid support of the people in Anson and in 1984, J B Jeyaretnam was duly re-elected to Parliament. Long used to "Yes-men" in an all-PAP Parliament, the PAP found that Jeyaretnam was becoming a thorn in the eyes of the PAP. It therefore set out to get rid of the lone opposition MP. But in so doing, its non-tolerance to criticism and to political opposition was fully exposed to the public. The people on their part, long tired of PAP shadow boxing in a one-party Parliament, had their appetite whetted for more opposition MPs. They, especially the younger set, were openly demanding to have more and more opposition MPs. This demand did not arise from a vacuum. It arose from the concrete situation at the time.”
“But though our population is small, we nevertheless have enough talents in every sphere of activity in our society. Our difficulty, Sir, is that the PAP Government does not allow local talents to blossom and flourish if such talents are not directed to supporting the PAP politically. Hundreds and hundreds of Singapore's best talents have been arbitrarily arrested and detained for prolonged periods or deported to other countries. Even today, the oppressive political climate has driven many thousands of our best brains to leave our country, just as tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and elsewhere emigrate in order to seek political freedom and democracy. So, let the Government stop its political harassments, intimidations and oppressions of political opponents, and more and more people would readily step forward into the political arena to the benefit of both the Government and opposition parties and all Singapore, with their expertise in the different fields. There is a hint that the system of nominated MPs will extend the scope of parliamentary and political democracy in Singa- pore. But that is a colonialist argument. When the British had nominated MPs in the Singapore Legislative Council, in 1948 and 1951 and again nominated Members in the Labour Front Government under the Rendel Constitution, the PAP Government fought to remove such nominated Members. Yet, now we are going to have nominated MPs again under the PAP Government itself. What an irony of the whole situation. People all over the world are demanding for free elections in order to have their own representatives in Parliament and government. But the PAP Government takes us back to the colonial times. It is bucking against the progressive world trend.”
“He argues that the nominated MP scheme would help to broaden participation in parliamentary debate, enable people of high standing with special interests and expertise in the various fields to actively participate in the country's government, and even to induce people who normally shy away from the hurly-burly of politics to express their views and encourage constructive opposition. And, of course, he also says that it is intended to build consensus. If Government should propose amendments to safeguard the fundamental and basic human rights and democracies of the people, we would all understand the need for such amendments and so give our full-hearted support. But the amendments have nothing to do with such important principles. They are merely to provide for wider participation of more NMPs in parliamentary debate, and to allow Government to benefit from the expertise of such NMPs. But if expertise is what the PAP hopes to get, then Government has already the benefit of views and advice from all its experts in various fields, as listed by Dr Tan. They have their think tanks, resident committees, feedback units, economic advisory committees, Government Parliamentary Committees, a whole lot of other committees, their own youth wings, women's wings, and what nots. So what need is there to amend the Constitution merely to provide for expertise from Nominated MPs? The First Deputy Prime Minster has also given a new angle to the arguments often expressed by the Government. The Government frequently refers to Singapore's special circumstances, its smallness in size, and its shortage of talents. The Government used the same arguments to provide excuses for giving high salaries to Government Ministers and top civil servants.”
“In conclusion, although the Bill holds promise of bringing better representations of people's views into Parliament, the process of selection needs further consideration and many questions still remain unanswered at the grassroots level. It will be prudent to allow more time to debate all concerns in full prior to the implementation of the Bill. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that I share many of the points raised by Dr Tan and Dr Aline Wong, and I applaud the way they have put forward their cases. The Bill proposes a fundamental change to our Constitution, as the last speaker has said. And soon after the 1984 Elections, our Prime Minister had said that no one should tinker with the Constitution. But as usual, the PAP itself did just what it said no one should do. And just after that, it amended the Constitution to provide for the election of NCMPs. Then in the middle of 1988, the PAP again amended the Constitution to provide for the system of Group Representation Constituencies. 4.21 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] Early this year, the Government again amended the Constitution to regularise and legitimise and covered up mistakes made by the Prime Minister since 1972 on the issue of the appointment of the Chief Minister. And now the PAP wants to amend the Constitution once again in order to provide for the appointment of nominated MPs. The First Deputy Prime Minister has given us some reasons for the Bill.”
“First, there appears to be an uneasiness concerning the Bill. This is understandable, as has been pointed out by several speakers before me, because the Bill is a fundamental change to the Constitution. So it is important that the objective of the Bill be put forward to the people clearly and time must be given for a fuller discussion. It would be foolish to rush the Bill through in a hasty manner. And in this regard, I welcome the First Deputy Prime Minister's plan to have a Select Committee hearing on the Bill. Second, there is a feeling that by opening another seemingly convenient avenue into Parliament for the nominated MPs, the efforts of elected MPs and their supporters will be diluted. The nominated MPs do not carry responsibilities of serving the electorate in a direct manner. They do not have any mandate from the people and yet they have extensive powers in terms of voting rights. This does not seem to support the democratic process. Moreover, they are not accountable to the electorate for their performance if they are nominated by a Select Committee. Instead they will be assessed by the Select Committee and cannot be voted out by the people. Third, there is also doubt that the nominated MPs can do more than what the present MPs are already doing. This, of course, will be difficult to gauge at this point in time because it will all depend on the quality of the candidates who are nominated, and certainly the success of the scheme hinges on the quality and effectiveness of the nominated MPs. The big question here is whether those talented, whom we have failed to draw into the political process, will now come forward to serve under this new scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill and to add my views to the discussion. The objective of the Bill is to bring in a group of non-partisan non-PAP MPs into Parliament and it is hoped that they will add to a better representation of the views of the people and thus enhance the democratic process. There are pros and cons in this Bill. But what concerns me most is this question of independence and credibility of the selection system. If the objective is to bring in a new group of independent MPs, then the system must be independent and neutral. This will dispel any criticism that the system is devised by the ruling party to serve its own interest. It will also attract better calibre candidates who might not otherwise take up the call if the system appears prejudiced. Under the present proposal, the Special Select Committee will be made up of mainly Government MPs. There is this danger that this may lead to nominated MPs being treated with suspicion and labelled as pro-government MPs, as alluded by Dr Aline Wong, no matter how well they perform in Parliament as independent MPs. Mr Lim Boon Heng has suggested that the Select Committee look into other ways of selecting nominated MPs, and I would like to support that. If it is possible to form an independent non-partisan Select Committee, that will be a more superior system. Nominated MPs selected in this manner will be seen as independent because the system is independent. They will not be constrained by political affiliation in any manner and will be able to articulate views or arguments which would be clumsy for other MPs to put forward. Having said all this, I must add that my own discussion of the Bill at the grassroots level has raised several issues which I feel are pertinent for the Government to note.”
“Can I ask the Minister how this proposal will affect the privatization plan which was announced earlier by the Minister for the Environment?”
“There are 1,441 lots for motorcycles, of which 302 are being utilized, leaving 1,139 empty lots. (3) Provision for half-hourly parking to enable better utilization of existing lots. (4) Scrap PARF provision. I agree with what the Minister for Trade and Industry mentioned during his US trip. This will enable motor cars to be re-classified as consumer products and not as an investments. (5) Prevent banks and finance companies from providing vehicle loans. (6) Restrict car ownersship. Following the economic recovery, the urge to own cars will be on the increase. As such, car ownership could be based on monthly income, in the same way as the application for a credit card. This will prevent those who evade taxes and so-called low income group from owning motor cars. At the same time, owners or two or more cars could be levied a higher road tax, import duty and parking fees. This would deter them from purchasing cars for their children who have yet to be economically useful. According to a survey by the newspapers, a 1300 cc medium-sized cars would require $484.80 as monthly maintenance, which is even more costly than maintaining a child. So, as such, it will definitely help to curb the increasing number of cars if we could enable car owners to understand that it is not an investment but a burden to own cars. Sir, I therefore support Encik Abdullah's amendment.”
“For those who live in the 1 or 2-room flats in Geylang West:- there are only 37 vehicles and 21 motorcycles among them, which accounts for 0.6% and 0.0036% respectively. These proves that people who can least afford do not dare to won cars and, these increases, therefore least affect them. So, to the lower income group, what they need most is a better public transport service. I do not know what the Member for Fengshan and Non-Constituency Member meant yesterday when they talked about the worst affected being those who can least afford land the lower and middle income group of people owning the most vehicles and motor cycles respectively. I just cannot understand. Owing to the above reasons, I do not agree with the amendment brought up by Dr Arthure Beng. However, I support the original motion brought forward by Dr Hong Hai which was amended by Encik Abdullah. The great increase in the parking fees for uncovered lots in the HDB estates, the payment of fees for all vehicles entering CBD and the implementation of evening ALS have really caused many to be confused over the rationale for these peoposals. I hope the MCI could consider the following six recommendations: (1) Widen our existing traffic network such as the MRT lines and increase the services of public buses to cater for the lower and middle income group. (2) Stop building car park lots and also decrease the allocation of parking lots within the CBD area. Provision should be made to convert extra parking lots in housing estates for other users. This would lessen the maintenance expenses incurred by the HDB. For example, there are presently 2,190 parking lots for cars in Geylang West, of which 1,604 lots are actually being utilized, leaving 586 empty lots.”
“I refuse to accept his saying that the measures were too hastily introduced. I know that the Government has already given the people psychological preparation long ago and so when these measures were brought up hey should not feel that these were too sudden. The editorials of Lianhe Zao Bao and Shin Min Jit Bao on 17 May 1989, mentioned that most of the people felt that the announcement of these measures was expected. These two editproa;s, therefore, have proved that what Dr Arthur Beng felt of the introduction of these measures being too hasty was not true. As for Dr Arthur Beng's opinion that these measures are too harsh, it depends on one's opinion. For those who do not own cars and those who are concerned about Singapore becoming a second London, felt that these measures were good measures. However, for those who own cars, they have felt a stab in their hearts. Of course, we would be able to understand their feelings. Thse car owners are also dissapointed because not only are they unable to increase the value of their cars, their expenses increase too. Dr Arthur Beng also mentioned that those worst affected were those who can least afford. I disagree with him on this and will use Geylang West, my constituency, as an example. In my constituency, we have about 5,794 families of which 3,556 families are living in 3 or less flats, which accounts for 61.4%. However, among these 5,794 families, 1,604 families or 27.6% own vehicles and 302 families or 5.21% own motor cycles. That is to say, in Geylang West, 72.32% do not own vehicles. If we were to minus 400 vehicles belonging to companies, then the number of families will be 79% for non-car owners and 95% for non-motorcycle owners.”
“Those whod depend on vehicles for their livelihood would then have no attraction but to be like "bulls and cows" themselves pulling the carts until one day they cannot do it anymore. Sir, I request the Ministry concerned, when formulating any measure to control road usage and implement new communication system, to be more sensitive towards the feelings and opinions of the people and not just increase any fees at will. This abberated image must be corrected. Undeniably, the Government in managing the affairs of a country must ensure that the country will continue to progress, to be prosperous and successful. We should encourage the people to cooperate with the Government when solving any problem. We should not let the jpeople feel worried about what nw levies there will be ahead of them, nor should we adopt an attitude of indifference. This will not be good for our futuer. Therefore, I hope the various fee adjustments will be implemented in reasonable stages in principle. Thank you. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 3.35 pm Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. MEASURES TO CURB ROAD USAGE Debate Resumed. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Encik Abdullah's amendment I feel disappointed with Dr Arthur Beng's objection to Encik Abdullah's amendment. Yesterday when Dr Arthur Beng brought up this amendment motion I felt that he was both unforgettable and incompresible because his motion for amendment somehow gives us a feeling that he was putting the cart before the horse. So I feld disappointed just now when Dr Beng objected to Encik Abdullah's amendment.”
“When these people ride or drive out of the city area to work, they are already helping to reduce the congestion in the city. I feel that they should be given the consideration for exemption from payingthe ALS fees. I hope the Ministry can give consideration to this. The second point is about the parking fees in HDB car parks increasing from $25 to $50 per month, ie a 100% large scale increase. It is too exorbitant for the residents to bear and the increase has cause more recentment among them. I hope the Ministry concerned could put itself in the right perspective to consider the additional economic burden on these people. On the one hand, the Government is curbing cars from entering the CBD and on the other hand, it is increasing parking fees in HDB estates. The people hope that the Government would not resord to a high-handed mehtod so as to force them to give up possession of cars. Many middle and lower income people own cars not for the joy of owning them but because of the need of their small businesses and for their work. This provides a convenient means of communication which helps to save their time spent on taking or waiting for the public transport. This will in turn help to increase their working efficiency and productivity. Many peple in the sales line or in field work need to have a motorcycle or motorcar to move around in order to carry out their workd efficiently. I hope that the Ministry concerned when in implementing new measures would be more sympathetic to these people. The increase of 100% of parking fees is extremely unreasonable. Sir, this largescale increase of fees would result in people of the middle and lower income group being unable to won a car but could only sigh and yearn for one.”
“I believe that the reduction of ALS fee from $5 to $3 will allow more middle and upper income people to drive their cars into the CBD to work; but this additional expense will cause more hardship to these people who own cars and to those who have to depend on cars for their livelihood. Sir, motorcycles have all along been the means of communication for people of the lower income group who could not afford to own cars. These people use motocycles mainly to save transportation expenses for the convenience of getting to and from their work-place or of carrying some goods in the course of their business. Henceforth, they will have to pay $1 more every day. Although the $1 entry fee is a small amount, but in a month, it will become a bigger amount of $20 which, to the low income people, could very well be spent on their daily beverage or on some other essential things. Therefore, this additional expense of $20 a month would increase their burden which could rightly be spent on their household expenses or as pocket money or education expenses for their schooling childrer. This measure has a great effect on people of the lower income group. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to relax this measure for this group of people by exempting these motorcyclists from the payment of the ALS fee. Although the aim of the evening ALS is to curb cars entering the CBD and to prevent traffic congestion during this after-office peak period, it also restricts and inconveniences the time of returning home of those who are staying in the CBD. Those motorists or cyslists who are living within the CBD and work outside the CBD have to pay $3 ir $1, or they must stay out until 7.00 pm before returning home in the CBD. For them to pay the ALS fee is rather unreasonable.”
“They have taken the people by surprise and are difficult to be accepted by them. This has caused controversial gossips among people in the street. They were disappointed with their elected government. Undeniably, they feel the shock like suddenly falling off their chairs because of the scope of increase of fees and the sudden measures taken. Let me just enumerate two of the points to illustrate their feelings of dissatisfaction. The first point is about the ALS fee for entering CBD. At the moment, when there are four persons in a car pool entering the CBD, the driver would be exempted from the payment of $5; but now it has been changed to $3 for entering the CBD irrespestive of whether a car carries four persons or not. This has caused unhappiness to people in the middle and lower income groups. In view of the abolition of the old practice, the new measure will cause them to spend $3 more everyday. Those who work in the CBD and use to travel there by car pool will also be affected. The increased scope of levies will rope in a variety of vehicles including lorries, private buses, goods vans and so on which will have to pay ALS fee to enter the CBD. Even a motorcyclist will have to pay $1. This has made more people very dissatisfied. Sir, the Ministry concerned has vigourously explained that these measures are to curb large number of cars from entering t he CBD during peak hours, but the abolition of car pool exemption and the enlargement of the scope of variety of vehicles requring to pay ALS fee can only arouse more unhappiness and dissatisfaction among the people. However, it is not the best method to prevent more cars from entering the CBD.”
“I would like to seek two points of clarification from the Hon. Minister. What is the rationale for lowering the ALS fee from the present $5 to $3? Will it be effective in reducing the number of vehicles entering the CBD? If the basis is not sound, will it not be painful for the Ministry to find out shortly that it has to readjust the fee upwards? My second point of clarification concerns our car pooling system. I fear that by requiring all car owners to pay a fee for entering the CBD will lead to a situation where the majority of cars in the CBD will carry only one person, which will be the reverse of the present situation. This will cause our roads to be even more congested because the cars are under-utilized. I would like to suggest to the Ministry to continue to apply the present $5 fee to cars entering the CBD with less than four persons and to have a lower fee, say, $3 for those entering with at least four persons in a car. This way, we can ensure that the motorists will make an effort to car pool if they really want to drive into the CBD. 3.24 pm Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment made by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. In implementing the new measures, I hope the Ministry concerned should have deeper study and regard for the feelings of the people. The Government has introduced a series of measures to curb the usage of public roads by cars and, to improve the road transportation system. All these new measures introduced have taken the car owners by surprise. All along, our people have agreed that the Government must take effective measures to curb the increase of cars and hope that more suitable methods will be used to solve this problem. But this time, the measures taken are rather sudden and harsh.”
“Perhaps if the same package of measures were to be introduced a year from now when the traffic situation has worsened off a bit more as it must, it may well be that the measures will be better accepted. The Ministry can ill afford to ignore public reaction. It could have, and I think should have, tested out their proposals for public reaction. I think it is not in keeping with present times and in dealing with an affluent populace to adopt the custodial attitude of doing what has to be done in the nation's interest regardless of public reaction. Many hon. Members in this House and myself have spoken of the need of public discussion and feedback before new policies are implemented. We have passed the message but the Ministry has yet to act on it. The Ministry has at least three months to prepare the public on the new measures, but it has not taken any step to do so. It could have, for example, presented to the public all the options that were being considered without hinting which ones they favoured. Through the discussions, the public will have the opportunity to understand the rationale of the options and will perceive the problem in a better light. The Ministry will have the opportunity to test public reaction and to make necessary modifications to their proposals. And the avenues for this discussion could be the press, eg, the forum page of the Straits Times, public forums organized by the Feedback Unit, or on TV programmes such as Feedback, Friday Background or Contact-Y. I am therefore not surprised that the announcement of the new measures came as a blow to the people. They were, in fact, totally unprepared. When will the Government finally recognize the need for public discussion on new proposals before they are finalized?”
“No, it has not confused me. The last amendment by the Member for Siglap urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as the effects are uncertain. In fact, I think it is the practice of the Ministry to review their measures regularly. In fact, the Ministry has already stated, if I am not mistaken, in the announcement that it would review these measures because these are interim measures. So my own views reflect more the views of Dr Arthur Beng, ie, the message here is that these proposals have been too hastily implemented. Sir, there is no easy solution to the problem of traffic congestion. I think we all know that. We have been able to avoid traffic congestion all these years because we have adopted very strict fiscal control on vehicle ownership and usage. Our motorists have and continue to pay a heavy price for the ownership and usage of vehicles. Why is the public making so much noise on the latest round of fiscal measures? Were they not prepared for it? Or are there simply too many bad news in one package? The public had expected an increase in the ARF in March this year when Parliament debated on the annual budget. I wonder if there would be the same uproar if this was done. And would not an increase in the ARF alone to reduce the present excessive car growth has the same effects on traffic congestion as the present package of measures? Sir, the harshness of the measures must match the severity of the problem. If the public does not perceive the problem to be as serious, it would be less ready to accept harsh measures. Timing is also very important.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really not used to all these amendments. In the past when an amendment is made, it is usually from the Opposition Member and it is usually politically motivated and we say no. But today we have amendments made by PAP MPs and I studied them with great interest. An hon. Member: You are confused!”
“More importantly, the lifestyles and habits of our young determine the productivity and capabilities of our adults in the future.”
“The Straits Times report on March 27 found that soft drinks contain a high proportion of sugar are easily available in schools. School children also have a preference for soft drinks compared to plain water or milk. This is unhealthy and should not be left unchecked. The poor habits of the young are easily carried into adulthood where it becomes a lot more difficult to correct. I would like to encourage the Ministry of Health to look into the possible measures to control or limit the consumption of soft drinks, sweets and food with low nutritional value in schools and other outlets frequented by school children. One way will be to require schools to employ dieticians or to operate their own food services. Parents should also be educated on the value of proper diet so that they can better guide their children in good eating habits. Manufacturers must be encouraged to reduce the proportion of sugar in soft drinks and to provide more healthy alternatives. I think it is also important for the Ministry of Health to work with the Ministry of Education to develop a more vigorous programme to emphasize physical education in schools. School children must be encouraged to take part in more robust sports and games and not to shy away from activities involving physical exertion. Campaigns and educational programmes on physical education should be developed to publicize the importance of regular physical exercise. One good way is to have compulsory work out following the daily assembly session in the morning or evening. In summary, I think it is important to take active steps to arrest this problem of obesity in school children now. The physical well-being of our school children affects their performance in other areas, such as in their studies.”
“Sir, by assessing the workload of GPs with a view to relieving GPs of some of the tasks handled by them, the Ministry will also be able to achieve its larger objective of helping our GP to stay up to date on medical advances. With more discretionary time, GPs will be motivated to upgrade themselves and to participate in preventive medical care such as giving health talks in schools. Sir, at the moment health education in school is delegated to lay teachers. I do not know if they are doing a satisfactory job. Natural reticence in talking about subjects like VD, teenage pregnancy, and social hygiene is understandable. This is an area where the GPs with their experience in handling and relating to people can help. Subject topics such as the basic anatomy and physiology of the human body, puberty and adolescence, sex education, teenage pregnancy, VD, smoking, drugs, diet and exercise and acoustic trauma in modern living, etc. would be appropriate to form a fairly large platform for discussion with today's precocious school children. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would, in consultation with the Ministry of Education and the Singapore Medical Association, consider a scheme to enable the GPs to fulfil this social role in the health education of our young. Sir, I would like to next talk about the obesity of our school children. I read with great concern a report in the Straits Times of February 22 that more than 12% of our school children are facing problems with obesity. Although it is heartening to note that with great affluence problems such as poor dental health and malnutrition no longer exist, I am concerned that these are replaced by other equally serious problems such as obesity. Obesity stems largely from improper diet and lack of exercise.”
“Instead of shoving impersonal pamphlets and books at them, I would like to see doctors taking time to allay their anxieties and fears of the unknown, and to teach them positive health styles in order to provide the optimum conditions for the unborn child. In this respect I would like to ask the Minister how the optimum doctor/patient ratio is determined. Should not the consultation time per patient be used as the guideline? Sir, the appropriate doctor/patient ratio would enable the Ministry to assess the workloads of the GPs and to determine how it can facilitate and regulate the workload for the benefits of both the GPs and their patients. In the future, with an ageing population and an increasing number of elderly people with chronic illnesses, the long term management of chronic ailments may be frustrating and taxing on the GPs. Sir, in other countries, trained nurses are employed by doctors to make routine home visits and to act as the vital link between the doctor, patient and other professional groups involved in patient care. Her role involves routine biodata collection, supervision of treatment prescribed, provide simple physiotherapy and occupational therapy and training the relatives in patient care. In most instances, the nurse is well accepted, enjoys good relations with all parties involved and is invaluable in ensuring the continuity of care. In Singapore can the Ministry evolve such a system and get the public to accept the role of the nurses? This will be a big step forward in providing preventive care for our elderly, in improving the professional image of our nursing and in solving the nagging house-call problem.”
“Sir, the bulk of the Ministry's expenditure, about 80%, is allocated for hospital services. In contrast, the primary health services cost only a small fraction, about 15%. Moreover, in the long term primary health care, including preventive health care, will achieve a healthier population and free up the demand on hospital services. It therefore makes good sense to pay more attention to our primary health services. Sir, the majority of the doctors in the primary health services are general practitioners in the private sector. GPs operate as individual practices and there is little coordination between the GPs and the Ministry of Health. The Ministry is not involved in the planning or the directing of our GPs in the service to the population. Neither is the role of the GPs spelt out in the National Health Plan. Sir, I do believe that the time has come for the Ministry to have a comprehensive review of the role of our GP in the context of our overall national health plan. As single-hand practices, the GPs are faced with many constraints. They work long hours and often over the weekends. Because of their heavy workloads they have little time to spend with their patients, let alone find time to attend medical talks and seminars. Yet, Sir, it is so important for GPs to spend time with their patients, particularly when they have to educate their patients on preventive medicine. As an example, young couples who come in for their first ante-natal consultation are usually filled with anxiety, questions, and expectancy and are most eager and motivated to learn.”
“Sir, I have two cuts under this amendment. May I take them together?”
“Mr Speaker, I am happy to hear there is some improvement in the situation. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is this attributed to, and what further measures will be implemented to further improve the situation?”
“The last point brought up in one of the core values is being proud of our cultural heritage and history. It is important that we promote core value education through history and cultural heritage. But as we talk about these abstract concepts, such as how to place the nation before self, such abstract concepts sometimes are difficult for children and ordinary people to understand. Therefore, I think the best way is to use history, especially biographies of heroes who died for their countries and together with their spirit of sacrifice to teach them. So, under a situation where parents are very busy earning a living the most effective broadcast media is the TV and I hope the Ministry of Community Development can negotiate with the Ministry of Communications and Information to use TV to inject into our young these values and to teach our people through such history and biographies.”
“They also encourage their children to get involved with religious activities only. The impact of this on our society can be both significant and long lasting. If such trend indeed exists, does the Ministry of Community Development have any measures to correct the situation and encourage these people to get more involved in community adtivities? Another point is that what does the Ministry propose to do to promote core values over racial and religious differences? Next is the creating of a caring and loving society and families. To me, this is very important. Outside the schools, the family unit and the society are important organisations through which traditional values and superior moral values are transmitted. In the past, our Government and people in the promotion of economic prosperity and in the pursuit of better materialism have already achieved considerable success. But I hope we do not overlook building a loving and caring society. According to a report we submitted recently, we now have about 23,000 families which are living on the poverty line. These families need our help and encouragement to lead a more independent life. Under such circumstances I would also like to ask the Minister on the suggestions made by the Committee on the Poor and Destitute, whether the Government has accepted the recommendations made by the committee. Another point I would like to talk about is voluntary welfare workers. At the moment there are 75,000 volunteers working in Singapore and this represents 4% of our adult population. This compares to US and UK which is 15%. So it appears our percentage of volunteers is somewhat low. I want to know if the Ministry has come out with any strategies to encourage more people to get involved with voluntary social services.”
“I am happy to note that in the past year the Ministry of Community Development and grassroots organizations have organized altogether about 15,000 activities and these efforts are indeed worth commending. But on these efforts, I also want to raise a few questions for the Minister. First, in the promotion of these six core values under Civil Defence, what has been the progress so far? And also, has the Authority concerned provided training for these grassroots leaders so that they will be able to play more important role? In the promotion of these values through the six core values, these are very profound issues. Are the offices of the Residents' Committee and CCCs, equiped with sufficient manpower to carry out such mission and satisfy developments and needs in these areas? Another point is how the Ministry of Community Development, intends to attract people from the various ethnic, social levels and religious groups to get involved in community activities? I would also like to ask the Minister at the moment, whether we are faced with the problem of discrepancy in the religious and racial backgrounds. Also, how we can bring the concept of core values above that of religion and race differences. In a recent report by the three NUS lecturers, we can see that there has emerged a situation of religious imbalance in Singapore. It warned that competition among the various religions would lead to social class struggle. In the past few days, we have focused on religions instructions in schools. Today I wish to focus on the training at the grassroots level. I am just wondering whether the authority has noticed that some people are over involved with religious activities so much so that they do not have the time or are reluctant to get involved with community activities.”