Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 17.
“Of course, the income tax is paid by us. They get the salaries. So how can government expect support from the people in the circumstances? Some people may wonder, and I heard this a little while ago, why people still take part in politics in spite of the ISA and in spite of the danger of being kept behind bars. Well, there are people who have beliefs in certain things. From the beginning, we hold such beliefs. And if we believe in certain things, of course, we see things according to the facts which the First Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, from a slightly different perspective. We do not look at those things in the same way as the Ministers look at them. And we therefore believe that it is more important for people who enter politics to be dedi- cated, really dedicated. Some people say that the word "dedication" does not make sense nowadays. It does. If the Minister is really dedicated, he would not think too much about the salary, so long as he is paid adequately. Yes, I agree that we should increase our salaries in general in many ways to make sure that they are adequate. But it is very difficult to hold the level down as to what is adequate and what is not for many people. And if they think only of salaries, then of course however much you give them will never be enough. Government frequently speaks of a clean, honest government. I have already mentioned the fact that high salaries do not necessarily give you a clean, honest government or honest Ministers. And history has proven that what I have said is true. I do not need to go very far back for names. Just the latest will do, namely, Teh Cheang Wan and Phey Yew Kok. Although they were drawing high salaries, nevertheless, something went wrong.”
“The Prime Minister himself admits to the Taiwan newspaper that if he had a chance, he might change many things. And already other people have changed some of these policies for him. So that is the situation, Sir-the fear. And when it comes to elections, it is always very difficult to get professional people to step foward and stand as oppo- sition candidates. They just dare not. They have seen what happened. The moment they oppose the government, they become Marxists. The moment they oppose the government, they are supposed to be linked to some united front activity or other. All sorts of labels have been indiscriminately used by the Prime Minister in the past and by the new Ministers today. All in order to suppress the opposition and to intimidate - that is the word, "intimidate" - all those who would like to contribute their share towards the running of the country. I would suggest that if the Ministers should care to really implement policies that allow all the people to take part in politics without fear, then I am sure there will be many many more people coming into the political arena and the so-called talent pool will increase immensely. Now, Sir, the Government realizes that it has difficulty in getting public support for the salary increases. Fancy, 70% of our workers receive less than $1,000 a month. Would they be happy seeing our Prime Minister and Ministers getting $30-$40,000 a month? They work all their lives and they would not be able to amass anything near those figures which our Ministers are going to get in one month. All you need to do is to become a Minister in the Government and at most in two years, you become a millionaire. The salaries are all there, in spite of the fact that Ministers have to pay income tax.”
“Among the professionals, there are a number of doctors, and even lawyers too I hear, who are very unhappy with the terms and conditions of service. Of course, they would like bigger salaries. Who doesn't? But then, one very big complaint is that the terms and conditions of service are not good enough. They do not give them freedom of initiative. And in spite of the announced restructuring of the General Hospital, they may still not give doctors such freedom of initiative. So we have to wait and see. Sir, there were also many people who found they had no chance of promotion simply because they could not agree with their superiors. And since all the assessments of officers are done by their superiors, those who found that they could not agree with their superiors would have to opt out-no point of staying on and becoming second-line officers without chance of promotion at all. Then one most important reason why many people have not taken part in politics-the Ministers of course know it- is because of the climate of fear in Singapore. The climate of fear, Sir, has driven many people away from politics. They dare not take part. I myself was afraid! Yes, Sir, I remember in 1958 when the Prime Minister asked me to stand as a candidate for the City Council by-election in Kallang. I told the Prime Minister that I was scared. Scared of what? ISA. The ISA is the trump card of the PAP. That is how the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been able to remain in office all these years. It might have done something good - true. But I would say that if I support many of the government policies today, it is because these policies are the very policies which we fought for in the old days. And I am glad that government has changed them. Govt has realized its mistakes.”
“As the Prime Minister once said (he always believes in things like that, which is wrong), he said that if he and his 300 colleagues should go into a jumbo jet and it crashed, Singapore would perish. Does anybody really believe in that? I do not think the Prime Minister himself believes in that. The other day when I asked questions about why people resign from government service, I already indicated that there are many reasons why people just do not want to take part in politics. Maybe it is because they cannot agree with many of the government policies. They cannot agree with the education policy, for example. The 1DPM speaks of Ministers who were President Scholars and what-nots, doing all their best for the Government. I am sure the Government will that remember not so very long ago Education Ministers had to be changed frequently, and there were about 10 or 11 different Education Ministers all in a span of two or three years. If the policy was correct, then the government would not need to change Ministers. Only recently, Sir, the Ministers also made many blunders, and they had to keep changing policies in order to win back lost votes. Thus we can see that all the talent need not necessarily be with the Ministers. If the government should cast the net wide enough, I am sure it will get many, many more such talents everywhere. And then, of course, there is always a fear of the "big brother". I will touch a little more on that. Many people have disagreed with many things which the Government is doing and they are voting with their feet and emigrated, as one Minister of State has said. Therefore, there are many, many other reasons.”
“The First Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the judges. He said our judges receive very low salaries in comparison with the top 50 or 30 in the private sector. Has he ever compared the salaries of judges in Britain with the earnings of QCs who earn lots of money? Why can't he give us those comparisons as well, so that we can better judge exactly how underpaid our top civil servants and judges are? The Minister also said that if anybody should oppose the salary increases, it is because of hypocrisy. Sir, I have been in politics for quite some time and I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that, whatever name he may label on me, I am not one who is a hypocrite. I have gone into politics because I believe in something. On this occasion, I believe that to increase the big salaries of our Ministers is not correct. How high? How much is enough? There is no proper figure. You just cannot tell. As I have mentioned on other occasions, high salaries do not necessarily give you a clean, honest government. Sometimes you get Ministers who are corrupt and the Government would not know until quite sometime later. In the meanwhile, all the damage has already been done. If you want to talk of high salaries keeping a person honest, then there are lots of people outside who earn very high salaries, and they keep on being corrupt. The more money they have, the more money they want. We have examples of people who are prosecuted in court - tycoons, stockbrokers, lawyers, bankers. You just name them, you get them! On many occasions, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister talked about our small talent pool and that we cannot get the people we want. If you pursue a policy of elitism, of course you are bound to get a small talent pool.”
“The Government has not mentioned that at all. I do not know why the Second Deputy Prime Minister has not mentioned that at all. He is supposed to be looking after the workers. But all I can see is he gets an office which is a sinecure. Of course, Sir, there is also a danger of these general salary increases triggering off a general price increase of all things and of salaries in the private sector. As regards the private sector, Sir, I am sure the Ministers will agree that there are many businesses in the private sector which are not doing well at all. Many of those who are working in business firms do not get a good salary. If you want to compare, compare that as well. Why only compare salaries of those right at the top? Sir, on the Ministers salaries, I also agree with Mr Chiam that there is no basis for comparison whatsoever. It is wrong to compare Ministers' salaries with those in the private sector, as also mentioned by Mr Bernard Chen. The Ministers have prestige, status and power which no amount of money can buy. You just see how the Prime Minister goes about - cars in front, cars behind. How many people are around him? You don't get such kind of attention in the private sector! And as mentioned also by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, if you give make-up pay, the danger is that you might not get the right people in and instead get the wrong people in. And then we are in the soup. If people in the private sector wants to enter politics because of high salaries (as the First Deputy Prime Minister has already said), then they do not deserve to be Ministers anyway. If they really want high salaries, I suggest that they emulate Michael Jackson - Go and be an actor! Get onto the stage. They can earn much more money. Why don't they?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first a few words on the salary increases of the civil servants. In my short speech on the Budget, I said: 'While it may sound fair to revise salaries for those who carry heavy responsibilities in government work, it is not possible to match salaries in the public sector with those in the private sector. And it is wrong to do so.' Sir, we believe that there is a case for salary increases for civil servants on the timescale and also other professional and statutory bodies. And we also believe that there is a very strong case for the salary increases for those in the Civil Service at the bottom. But we find it difficult to accept that the salaries for Permanent Secretaries, which are already high, should be further increased. Still less, Sir, do we see any necessity to have so-called performance bonuses and other extra grades for the civil servants right at the top. We believe, Sir, this is merely an attempt to buy their loyalty and to reward their loyalty to the ruling Party. It is basically wrong. For comparison, Sir, we should think of salaries of Permanent Secretaries in other countries, as mentioned by Mr Chiam, not necessarily of countries around us in South-East Asia but of salaries in other developed countries, like Britain, Australia, New Zealand, elsewhere. And if we want to compare the public sector vis-a-vis the private sector, then we should compare also, very importantly, all the salaries at the bottom. As you all know, 70% of the workers in Singapore earn less than $1,000 a month. They will find it very difficult as time goes by, whereas those at the top will find it only too easy. And if you want to talk of raising salaries of civil servants right at the top, what about having a minimum wage for the workers?”
“I support the recommendation to give vouchers for the poor to pay for flat rentals and utility bills, but I think the PA should be substantially increased to fit in with the circumstances of today. If the Government could give $169 million to top civil servants and Ministers, (and do not forget, Singapore is supposed to be one of the 20 richest countries in the world) I see no reason why we should not be able to really help the poor and the needy. The Government should not pass the buck to other people. The Government should be responsible and its responsibility is not to utter platitudes but to give real concrete help to the people.”
“The Committee on Destitute Families has released a report, and it complains that its Chief Statistician on December 1987 has listed that the current minimum sum that a household of four can live on is $389. The Committee says that the figure should be at least $500. That would be the poverty line for a family of four in Singapore. I am really surprised that this figure should have been given. Because early in 1980 the Singapore Council of Social Services had already carried out a study, and it should at that time, 1980, Sir, the basic monthly household requirements for food, clothing, rent, PUB charges, transport, household upkeep, etc. for a destitute person came to $120, for a widow plus three children $337, for a man plus three children $436. In other words, the poverty line in 1980 was already $436. 10 years have elapsed, inflation has pushed prices of everything up. Hospital charges especially have gone up many, many times. Yet we have PA having been revised only twice, hardly not even twice, only once. By right, if we should go according to the purchasing power of money, then PA for one person should be at least $240, for a widow and three children it should be $674, and for a man and three children it should be $872. That would be the poverty line for Singapore today.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the previous speaker about giving assistance to the poor and the needy. The Government has already said that one of its priorities is to look after the lower income group and the poor. But as far as we know, Sir, so far as public assistance is concerned, Government has done nothing very much. It uses the means test and the means test is most humiliating. Most people would fight shy of it, and with this means test Government has effectively cut off a large number of people who should be on public assistance. The PAP philosophy has always been that if you should give public assistance to the poor and the needy, then it would make them improvident and indolent, and the virtues of enterprise, self-confidence in work ethics, might be eroded. They have given no concrete examples of such allegations, and I do not think the Ministers who have said this really believe in it themselves. Sir, public assistance decreased year by year. In 1966 there were 22,000 recipients and the amount of P.A. was $12.4 million. The latest figures I have got are from 1983 Year Book. 3,200 recipients and the amount of P.A. was $3.2 million. After 1983, all such figures have been covered up. I do not find any of them in the Year Books after that. Maybe in future the Minister will let us know more of such facts. Recently the PA seems to have been increased only during election years. In 1984 PA was increased for one person to $90, for two persons to $140, for three persons to $180 and for four persons to $220. In 1988, last year, because it was election year, PA was again increased for one person to $120, for two persons to $185, for three persons to $240, and for four persons to $295.”
“I withdraw my amendment now, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $44,408,890 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $698, 271,750 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head J -”
“The old folks, of course, have suffered and whether they be Hokkien or Teochew, or Hainanese, or Hakka, or Cantonese - speaking all of them fully understand and follow the dialogues in Cantonese serials, and therefore they like them very much. But they cannot possibly follow the serials in Mandarin. They are too old to learn anyway. And they have been forced to see these Mandarin serials simply because they have nothing better to do. Sir, as everybody knows, Singapore has an ageing population and their needs are not very many. The Government has already stated that it would like to attend to the needs of the people who are aged, and there is also big talk about a new style of Government. Now then is the opportunity for the Government to do something good for the aged. The occasional video-shows in community centres have not helped very much. If the Government really wants to help entertain the aged, it should telecast the Cantonese serials on SBC once a fortnight, or once a week, if possible. There are three tangible benefits. (1) It will not in any way stop anyone from learning Mandarin. It creates variety and it helps to satisfy the demand of many of the aged to see the Cantonese serials. (2) It will help increase revenue for SBC because many of the TV commercials will flock to such a programme. (3) It will also help to check the undesirable influence of certain TV commercials from RTM2 and TV3. If Government has any doubt on what I have just said, Sir, let it conduct a survey to find out how many people really want these Cantonese serials.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IJ 5200 of the Development Estimates. Sir, since 1980, Cantonese serials have not been telecast over Singapore TV. The Government gave the excuse that it would clash with the Promote Mandarin Campaign. But, as everybody knows, there were widespread protests and the aged suffered in silence. As usual, the Government never bothered about protests from the people and the only thing that it did was to say that in time, the public would come to learn how to accept TV serials dubbed in Mandarin. The people have come to accept, but not like, what has been dubbed in Mandarin. Viewership, of course, fell drastically and the SBC's revenue fell very much at one time as many commercials pulled out. That helped the video-tape and video-cassette recorder business to boom. And, of course, Malaysia TV came onto the scene. Today, we can see that the RTM2 and TV3 telecast Cantonese serials on a regular basis and have naturally captured many of the TV commercials plus the viewership. The Government, Sir, has realised all this loss of revenue and has tried to win back some of the viewership by putting up better TV shows, and putting up even popular Cantonese serials dubbed in Mandarin. But somehow orother, Sir, it has not fully succeeded in winning back all the Singapore viewers who have already been lost to the RTM2 and TV3. People always complain, Sir, that Cantonese serials dubbed in Mandarin are not the genuine goods, and they do not get satisfaction and thrill out of those dubbed in Mandarin serials.”
“I think we should invest more in the tertiary education of our people. After all, the Minister himself has admitted that education is a long-term investment for the nation. Therefore, more funds should be allocated to education instead. There need not be cutting of the allocation for universities in order that more funds can be channelled to the schools. But if more funds are really needed, then they can easily cut from the unnecessary expenditure on heavy armaments. I suggest, Sir, we should not stinge on education at all.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I will also be very brief. The matter of fee increases has already been adequately mentioned by Dr Aline Wong and Dr Tan Cheng Bock. I do not need to emphasize on that any more. But I am going to emphasize on three aspects of it, namely, that the Minister has mentioned about the loans available. He has said that students could repay their loan in four to eight years, anyway up to 15 years. It sounds a simple matter, but he has not mentioned anything about the interest payable. If the interest is pegged to the prime rate, then if the prime rate goes up, of course their burden also will go up, and that will affect the paying capacity of the students. This also could affect the timing of their marriage. Because if they have to look after their debts, then they will not have enough time to think of marriage at the same time. That would also mean a delay of family formation and that would definitely go against the population policy which the Government is trying to pursue today. The second point which I want to mention is about the timing. The Minister has given two reasons for the timing of the announcement of the increase of fees. But I think there is one other reason which he has not mentioned, and that is the real reason, and that is, that the examinations are just about to go on. And, you know, the protest from the students has been very vehement. The way to avoid that is to make sure that they concentrate on their work, otherwise they might go in protests and demonstrations. And that is a good idea, I think, if they intend really to avoid all that. The third point which I want to mention is that the Minister has said that the long-term aim of Government is to cut varsity subsidies further. I suggest that is a very wrong aim.”
“If it is a general and common situation, it will be detrimental to the teaching of Chinese. We know that since 1987, all the schools have been integrated the teaching of mother tongue has become more important. In respect of teachers of Chinese, if the situation has come to this stage, then it will have a very adverse effect on Chinese mother tongue education. I hope the Ministry of Education will pay attention to this problem and try to correct the situation. The next point I wish to touch on is that when debating on the President's speech, I had spoken on the question of the proper naming of the "mother tongue". Now we used to call our mother tongue Chinese, Malay or Tamil as "Second Language". This will give people the impression that the mother tongue is at a secondary level or of less importance. I think we should change the name. We can directly call it "mother tongue" or the Chinese language subject as "Chinese and the Malay language subject "Malay" and the Tamil subject as "Tamil". English should be called as "English". We should do away with this calling by the "first language" or "second language".”
“But the point is, what happens to the non-independent schools? If everything, all the best, should be given to the independent schools, then it follows naturally that the other non-independent schools will not have the best. If education is the best available in independent schools, it will only be second best in all the other schools. I think Government should not have this kind of discrimination because it leads to more and more inequality and such inequality in schools, ultimately must lead to more inequality in the whole of society. I think Government should spend more time, attention and money on all the schools instead, rather than on a few exclusive schools. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, earlier my colleague, Mr Lau Ping Sum had talked about the low morale of Chinese teachers and the Non-Constituency Member had also touched upon this subject. I would like to add that the former principal of Institute of Education, Dr Lau Wai Har, had also published an article in the Lianhe Zaobao touching on this subject, giving the impression that the low morale of Chinese teachers is both very serious and general. On top of it, there were other letters to the press by Chinese teachers. This gave mainly a general impression that the position of Chinese language is now lower, accordingly the Chinese teachers also have a lesser role to play and are in a lesser position. There is an excess of teachers of Chinese. They have no proper role and position in the schools, so they are just being shuffled about here and there to take charge of subjects beyond their scope of suitability or competency. Sir, if this problem is really so serious, then I believe we should try to correct the situation.”
“Yes. First, on the matter of streaming, it has been going on for the last 8 or 9 years. But in spite of all the assurances given by the Government, there is still very strong opposition from the parents. They feel that their children who have been streamed have been discriminated against. They want their children to be given a chance to take their PSLE and later on, if possible, also the 'O' level examinations, at the same time as other students. In other words, instead of having to take eight years before their children can sit for the PSLE, let them have the same chance as others to sit for the examinations on the sixth year, so that if having been given a chance and they fail, the parents are satisfied that he extra years just could not be helped. One way of helping them is not to allow promotion from Primary 1 to Primary 3 to be automatic. In other words, parents do not mind their children being detained for a short while in Primary 1 and Primary 2. But if you allow children to go straight on from Primary 1 to Primary 3 and then suddenly test them, they may find that they cannot cope at that stage. The main problem about streaming is that there is a stigma attached to it - a stigma attached not only to students, but also to the parents. Because other students will say that such and such a student is from the Extended or Monolingual stream. And, of course, it reflects very badly on the parents as well. Hence, this streaming business should not be continued. Streaming makes people unhappy, and I am sure the Education Ministry would not like to make people unhappy with such an issue. On the matter of independent schools, Sir, that the Government has started, all the best things are given to the independent schools.”
“And the Chinese school teachers also complain that in the mid-year pre-oral examination for students, when officers from the MOE go around to tell them what to do, these officers sometimes know no Chinese and there is always the fear that everything is not properly understood and there is some possible misunderstanding. All in all, they feel very demoralized in many ways. Since the system is going to be changed, with the new policy switch to teaching of moral values in the mother tongue, the point about Chinese teachers being in excess may not be so serious. The problem may soon be solved if the period for Chinese is increased from, say, six to eight hours so that the teachers will again be allowed to teach subjects best suited to them; all for the benefit of the students. All other problems which accompany these issues will also be solved. But what I would like to stress, here, Sir, is that new problems may arise. You know, some of the teachers are already reaching retiring age. And in another five or six years, instead of an excess of Chinese teachers, there is the probability of an insufficiency of Chinese teachers. That is if there is no sudden switch again in education policy. So the only way to meet such a contingency is either to re-employ the Chinese school teachers, ie, those teachers who are willing to work on a temporary basis, or to take immediate steps to train more Chinese teachers now. That is the task which the Ministry has to face. I have spoken on this because some teachers had spoken to me and I wish to stress what I have already said. Sir, a little while ago, you guillotined me and I had no chance to speak on independent schools. May I just rush this quickly and tell you why I want to speak on it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, recently the Chinese press has carried quite numerous articles concerning Chinese school teachers and since Mr Lau has already mentioned some of it, I would not repeat what he has said. But the fact is because of the excess of Chinese school teachers that they were transferred and made to do other subjects which they were not very familiar with and all this simply because of the change of using English as the main stream of education instead of English and Chinese. Sir, many of the teachers' morale has fallen quite a lot. It has already been mentioned, so I would just pick only a few points. Because of the switch from teaching in Chinese schools to teaching English, the problems have arisen because of the non-proficiency of teachers in English and they have difficulty in communicating with their students. As one person has put it in the Chinese press, he was reduced to merely saying "don't do this" and "don't do that". He could not express himself well enough and his discomfiture was made worse when students poked fun of him and because of his poor command of English he felt that he could not even retain the respect of the students as teachers. Another problem lies in the matter of incentive bonuses and promotions. They feel frustrated when because of their poor English they can only gain incentive bonuses for mathematics, and not for other subjects. As regards promotions, they feel inadequate and because of the inadequacy in the English language, therefore their chances of promotions, say, to the post of Senior Assistant or the Vice-Principal are dim.”
“This has also been mentioned in an article in the Lianhe Zaobao two days ago. I think the Minister should read that article. It says, Zai xue xiao chuang zao dao de huan jing. Maybe he will learn something from that. And I hope the students will surely learn in the schools. Once the core values are taught in the schools, then the students become immersed into the whole environment and they learn gradually, without knowing it, all the good values that they should value in their later life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on two aspects of the teaching of core values. I hope what Mr Chiam fears most would not materialize. Because as far as my understanding goes, Confucianism teaches many good values. Sir, the point about the teaching of core values is: what core values do we want to teach? The Government has suggested four core values. They are all good core values. But the point is: how do they carry them out? And they have left out the universal declaration of human rights. These are the most important core values accepted by the whole world. Why can we not also accept them? Are we again exclusive in this area? Sir, I asked, how do they teach core values. I think it is important that they teach by precept. When I say that, Sir, it means to say that the teachers who teach them must show and follow those examples which they teach. And what is more important, the political leaders must also live up to what they say. If they say one thing and do another, that is no good. It is going to get everything down and is wrong. The other aspect which I want to stress has already been partly mentioned by Mr Sia, ie, that it is much better that core values be taught in schools. And taught in schools not by merely reading from books on civics but by doing and practice by the principals, by the teachers, by the administrators, by the students themselves. In my old days, we had to do everything in the school. We even had to sweep the drain and loos as well. We were taught good manners. Well, I hope I still have those good manners. In many ways, the manners of students from Chinese schools are, in general, better than the manners of students from English schools. That is because in the old Chinese schools, they used to teach the real good core values.”
“If it did, we would not need to worry about having a second key on our reserves. But this Government has always tried to keep the country straight, and the civil servants who have performed well have made a large contribution. They should not be penalized for keeping economic growth up. Having complained that civil servants receive a fixed amount, Mr Chiam, then complains that there are so many variables in a civil servant's pay. I would have thought if a fixed amount is no good, variables are good. But he prefers neither fixed amount nor variables. So I do not know what he prefers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask two questions? First, how many of those who have resigned have emigrated? Second, amongst those who have remained in Singapore, has the Government made investigations as to why they really left the Government Service? Was it entirely because of the salary? Third, was it because they could not agree with their superior's assessment of their CEP? Was it because they feared favouritism? Was it because they found they had no chance of getting promoted because they did not happen to belong to a certain party? Was it because they also found it difficult to gain chances of study leave for their personal advancement? BG Lee Hsien-Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, both Members have points which are valid. Mr Chiam is right. In the private sector, salaries vary from good years to bad years. I am surprised that he is surprised by these numbers, because he has seen them before in 1985 (earlier numbers for 1983). In fact, the earlier numbers in some cases were higher than these, because some of these earnings had been affected by the recession and had not fully recovered. So the amounts vary from year to year, but the average is very high. And overall, this is not untypical. If there were years when it was zero or even minus, and people have to claim back income tax, well, all right, then maybe, "Nobody might want such a career." But despite the variations, the trend, remains so consistent that people know there is not that much risk going into it. By the way, the data come from Inland Revenue Division. People do not lie about their income tax returns, generally speaking. Some hon. Members: Some do. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Some lawyers do, in which case the lawyer's real earnings should be higher. I do not know whether Government always makes money.”
“Yes, Sir. I suppose I will just say a few words since much of what I wanted to say has already been said. Sir, in the past some form of supposed flood alleviation work had been done but they never seemed to have worked very much. Recently they have a new flood alleviation scheme. Unfortunately this too does not seem to have helped very much. In fact, it appears to make the whole situation worse. There are more floods nowadays than at any time in the past. In the meanwhile, I think the Ministry could do something to help. May I suggest two things: (1) that they raise the level of low-lying areas which are prone to floods; and (2) employ more manpower to ensure that the drains are not blocked and that the drainage is free.”
“Yes, Sir. Whatelse can I do? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $275,858,230 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,133,328,600 for Head T ordered to stand of the Development Estimates.”
“We could anticipate answers like that. So there is no point in pursuing the matter.”
“Is the Government afraid of competition? After all the area is a huge area. There is plenty of room there for everybody.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TJ 5120 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I wish to speak on the void deck office for MPs. The difficulty of the budget is that I just do not know under which Code of Expenditure I should file my amendment. However, soon after the elections, Sir, we wrote to the HDB asking for a void deck office so that we could carry out certain activities in the Eunos area. There were many people in that area who had asked us to do that and we wanted to respond. After sitting for about four months on the letter, the HDB finally replied and said, "No." Then we wrote to them again, and again they replied. The first time they did not give any reason, and the second time they said, "Non-Constituency MPs do not represent any constituency and therefore they are not entitled." The last time I wrote was on the 20th February and I quoted what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister had said in 1984 that: 'Such Non-Constituency Members will have all the rights, privileges, and duties of elected MPs with the exception that they shall not vote in Parliament on any motion relating to a Bill to amend the Constitution, a Supply or Supplementary Supply Bill, a Money Bill, or a vote of no confidence in the Government.' Sir, under the circumstances I thought that, as an MP, I would be entitled to a void deck office just like any other MP. Unless the Minister turns round and tells me that an NCMP is a second class MP. Would he say that?”
“I would like to speak on the capital grants to HDB. The Budget Analysis and Review in one paragraph (Page 611) mentions two things. One is the allocation of a sum of $823 million in capital subsidies to cover losses incurred in 1988 on sales of flats at subsidized prices, and the other is the mention that there will be the deletion of a total of 1,294 posts. I would like to get some clarification from the Minister as to how many flats have really been sold at a loss, and where these blocks of flats are situated. As regards the posts deleted, will these be people be be retrenched? Or is it a case of their reaching the retirement age? With so many posts lost, what sort of help does the Government give to these people? Are most of these people daily-rated workers or/are they monthly paid? And what future plans does the Government have for them?”
“Yes, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“We hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us.”
“Some years ago, Sir, the public was informed that there would be widening of the road from Outram Road end towards the Kallang Road end with eight or 12 lanes. Many parts of the road have been widened together with the re-building of the bridge connecting New Bridge Road and Hill Street. Many of the houses along the road have been acquired by Government and demolished. Nothing has been done, other than that certain parts have been paved with green. Parts of the New Bridge Road and Hill Street have been widened, but parts have been left in the original state with no widening at all. Some of the houses acquired are still there. And with the recent introduction of conservation, many people are very uncertain what Government's intentions really are. We would like to know, Sir, regarding this stretch of road and the houses, what Government intends to do concerning the earlier proposed widening of the road as well as the still undemolished houses. What plans does the Ministry have regarding those houses? There are many people still having their offices in Hill Street and New Bridge Road. I, myself, happen to have an office over there. All of us would like to know the following. Some are questions I have already asked in the past, but they have never been adequately answered. (1) If the premises have been acquired by the the Government, and sitting tenant is the past owner, will the Government release the premises back to the past owner for renovation? (2) Though the houses are all rent-controlled, will rent be increased after renovation by the Government? (3) If the tenants are forced to vacate the premises by the Government, will they be given really adequate time, not just a few months but at least a year or two, to look for suitable alternative business premises?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TC 9853049 of the Development Estimates. May I be allowed to take the next one together because they are both connected?”
“The Minister has still not answered the question about what was the sum spent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he says it is irrelevant and he had this thorough investigation. How does he compare the investigation against Francis Seow to the investigation against Phey Yew Kok? Prof. Jayakumar: I thought I said in my answer just now, Sir, that in the case of Mr Francis Seow we knew his movements. In the case of Mr Phey Yew Kok we do not know his movements. How do we compare? The facts speak for themselves. When Phey Yew Kok failed to appear in court on 7th January 1980, CPIB took the following actions. First, CPIB officers were sent to look for him at his residence, place of work and places which he used to frequent. A 24-hour observation was kept at his house and office. A warrant was obtained for his arrest. Interpol was alerted to look out for him. An appeal was made in the local press for information of his whereabouts. Immigration and Heads of Missions abroad were also asked to keep a look-out for him. When we thought that he was in Bangkok, CPIB officers went there to get the assistance of the Thai authorities to locate Phey Yew Kok and bring him back. And this action was taken even though there was no extradition treaty with Thailand. The Thai Authorities even raided premises where it was thought that he might have stayed. All that needs to be done was done. Phey Yew Kok's whereabouts now are not known. He is still on the Interpol's list for arrest on sight. There is still a warrant of arrest for him and there is no period of limitation on his offence.”
“Although he said the sum expended on the surveillance on Mr Francis Seow was well within the budget, how much was the sum expended and how does he justify that sum against something which is still unclear?”
“Sir, the Minister's answer has merely confirmed what I have been given to understand, namely, that initially (I said "initially") Mr Francis Seow was put under surveillance because of the tax offences. There was no inkling ---”
“Was there early evidence of far graver offences when they started this surveillance?”
“I want to seek some clarification from the Minister, Sir.”
“And if you are really from a rich family, then you can also afford support arms, mortars, machineguns and the whole lot. It is a matter of priorities, yes. This is the right priority and this Government intends to stick to it, I believe with the support of the population.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for having consented to review the allowances for national servicemen. But I also wish to correct a misconception on his part. He has said that if the Government should accept many of the suggestions I have made, then the surpluses now will turn into deficits. This need not happen, Sir, because it is all a matter of priority. It all depends on how you spend the money. If you spend all the money only on defence, there is nothing left for other items. Stop buying all the unnecessary heavy armaments, armaments which are in fact obsolete the moment we receive them. Because those countries which sell them to us, do not sell us really good new ones. They are old or already becoming outdated. After some time anyway, they will become obsolescent and ultimately obsolete. How many times do we have to keep on buying new equipment? How much money is that going to cost? No, Sir, it is a matter of priorities. We can put more of the money to better use. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's philosophy is that everything is obsolete the moment you buy it. The human body is ageing the moment he is born and dying minute by minute. Is life therefore meaningless? We can spend less. We cannot stop buying useless equipment, because we never started buying useless equipment. But I come back to this simple example: Do you want your son to go into battle with a $2 beret, a $15 steel helmet or a $50 fibreglass helmet? Maybe instead of paying for equipment out of the national defence budget, we should just give every soldier one rifle and tell him, you go. If you want, you can buy uniforms. If you want to feel very stylish, you can buy boots.”
“Scholarships are one area where the SAF can be very competitive with other employers. We will send an officer provided he is fit to go, in terms of both military competence and academic performance, and then comes back to serve in the SAF. Lastly, secondments. The SAF is just one part of the public sector. In principle, we are willing to second SAF officers out to other Government departments and statutory boards, not early in their career, but in their 30s. They can go out for a 2-year tour at a time, try out a non-military environment, develop different management and administrative skills, and then in due course decide whether they wish to stay in the SAF, work in the public service somewhere else, or make a clean break and leave for the private sector altogether. It is better that we allow all these channels, than for us to try to bottle them all up and keep people inside. The strength of the SAF depends as much on this core of talent as on F-16s and missile corvettes. It is absolutely necessary for the SAF to continue to induct four to six SAF scholars a year, and more in good years. At the same time, we will make a larger number of other scholarships and training awards. Of course, the cost to the economy of holding such a large proportion of talent in the SAF is not negligible. But unless we make this sacrifice, all our other achievements will be imperilled.”
“Those with the potential to be generals, will be at least Brigadier-General (BG) by then. At the same time, for the higher ranks, we will create more salary grades within each rank, to give flexibility in rewarding officers. Let me explain this. We have two ways in which to reward officers. Either high pay and low rank, or high rank and low pay. The result is the same. I can promote you and put more brass on your shoulder, or I can just give you the salary and keep the brass lighter. Singapore Army brass is very light. The British army has a star grade officer for every 600 or 700 soldiers. In the SAF, with about 100,000 troops, active and reserve, we should have about 130 generals. They may become cheap. Furthermore, in terms of our defence posture, it is better for us to keep a relatively low profile. Everybody knows that a Colonel in the SAF, that is something special. And if you are BG, something special-plus, I hope. Therefore, we should keep the rank structure more or less as it is, but create more salary grades within each rank. To reward them, we can raise their salaries, but we still call them Colonels or Brigadier Generals. The SAF offers post-graduate courses for officers who want to spend a year or two in mid-career on post-graduate programmes, whether it is a MPA course, MBA course or some other professional course. We have been generous in sending officers on scholarship. We will send more officers, around the eighth year of service, to prepare them for the next phase of their careers. The eighth year of service is about when their first bonds run, out and they are ready to start on a new bond. It is a convenient mid- point, because beyond that they are going into Staff jobs. They can benefit from courses and wider exposure.”
“Mindef also recognizes that challenging as SAF jobs are, many scholars would like to move on to other fields by their mid late 30s, after spending 12-18 years in the SAF. This is consistent, with the idea of the SAF being a young organization, and many people going on beyond that to another career. For officers who want to spend part of their careers outside the SAF, the Government will try to fit them into suitable jobs in the public sector, including the statutory boards. For several years we have had a Dual Career Scheme in which the SAF scholars can be taken into the Administrative Service, and be posted into other Ministries. Quite a number of people have done so. But we will go further to facilitate this shift. However, we do not want everybody to leave. Mindef hopes that some will stay on beyond their mid-30s, and find satisfaction in a lifetime career with the SAF. We will look after them, develop their careers, just in the same way as we will groom any other good officers who stay with us. The SAF is more than big enough to keep them busy. And very likely from among them, we will find suitable people who will man the very highest post in the SAF, namely, the service commanders, the CGS. Using this approach, here is what we will do. When civil service salaries are revised (I will be making the announcement on Friday), the SAF salaries will be revised in step. We will maintain our relative position and stay ahead. Promotions in the SAF depend on what we call the CEP, Currently Estimated Potential. That is the consensus judgment of the organization of how high an officer is likely to rise. While the SAF is more stable now, we do not intend to slow down promotions. In fact, we will promote a person to his CEP rank by the age of 40 or so.”
“You cannot just denude and strip the outfit. But if a student knows that when he takes an SAF scholarship, he does not just go into one pyramid, but that pyramid, the SAF, is only the first stepping stone, and beyond that, the whole public sector is open to him, then, more will come into the SAF on scholarships and at the same we will have a better distribution of talent. That is the national perspective. From Mindef's point of view, SAF officers should be developed to their ultimate potential, unconstrained by the military hierarchy. Our top military job, the Chief of General Staff, is a three-star post, presently in Superscale Grade C1. Many ambitious and able young men may look at that and they say, "It is not high enough for me. I want to go much beyond that." We recognize that. We should not constrain them all to compete for this one job. They should be able to aspire to many jobs in the civil service. We will always treat SAF scholars as one of our most critical defence resources. We will continue to make sure that they are properly managed, groomed, posted, developed, and rewarded. Because of the additional burdens of military service, Mindef will continue to pay a premium to keep good officers in the SAF. The principle of paying the market rate will apply also to the SAF. Uniforms are onerous. The calls of duty are heavier. There is no overtime pay, but a lot of overtime work. We will make it worth people's while to come in and serve. We will ensure that SAF officers as a group are paid more than their contemporaries, both in the civil service and elsewhere. If that is what it takes to keep them because of the additional demands of the job, that is what we will do.”
“But the scope of responsibility, from manpower, to diplomacy, to intelligence, to operations, to overseeing the Armed Forces, to managing the technical arms is such that I do not think at any one time the Civil Service will ever have more than perhaps two (or three, if you are very lucky) potential permanent secretaries of defence of doing the whole job. Therefore, top civil servants have to be of equal calibre, if not more capable, than top bankers, lawyers, and industrialists, and must be properly paid. I say this as a starting point. Some people have asked me why we have so much talent in the public sector, and whether it is not better to have fewer, because we are hoarding the talent that the private sector does not have. My answer to them is always: do you prefer the Permanent Secretary to be more intelligent than the businessman, or the businessman to be running circles around the Permanent Secretary? I have no doubt which I prefer. The most able must be in the centre, holding the reins, and enabling the rest to do their own responsibilities, and to prosper. Mindef, and especially the SAF, has a disproportionate share of our national talent. We have gathered this share together, deliberately, because of our heavy emphasis on national defence. 131 scholars in the SAF,almost all of whom are still there, is probably as many as have gone into the Admin Service over the same period. The SAF offers highly attractive scholarships and training awards, and we have promoted and rewarded our officers well. We will continue to give the SAF a high national priority. But at the same time, we would also like to make use of some of this SAF talent elsewhere in the Civil Service. We will have to find ways to do this compatible with SAF needs.”
“Lieutenant-Colonels before the age of 30, Chiefs-of-Staff in their early 30s. We want to be young, but we were pushing the limits. Scholars moved into demanding jobs, much faster than in most other more mature organizations. For many, these jobs have been as heavy as they have been able to bear. For a few, heavier than they were able to take. So we have had to move them. But, overall, the organization has benefitted, and the officers have received an unparalleled exposure and challenge. It is now 18 since the first scholarship. Those students who will be awarded SAF scholarships this year might not have been born in 1971 when I and the first batch SAF Scholars went in. As the Members have pointed out, scholars have reached their mid-30s. This is a major transition point in their careers. We should take stock of what has happened and what we need to do. Let me put this, first, from the Government's perspective, then from the Mindef's perspective and then tell you specifically some of the things we intend to do. From the Government's perspective, top talent is a national resource, which must be properly managed. Dr Hu said this two weeks ago in his Budget speech. We must be able to deploy them anywhere we need them in the public sector, or even in the private sector, and not just within the narrow confines of the service which they belong to. The public sector contains jobs which are as challenging and as important as any you will find in the private sector. Top civil servants carry heavier responsiblities than any private sector executives. The Permanent Secretary of Mindef has a heavier load than any CEO of any private company. Mindef's turnover may only be $2 billion a year. There could be banks and other firms with bigger turnover.”
“This is one of the major strengths of the SAF. Although we have no martial tradition, and built up from scratch, we have infused into the organization talent, ability, dedication, built the team, as Dr Ong said just now, and generated a force which is formidable and commands respect. It did not start off like this. It started off with an SAF which was expanding rapidly from two battalions to three divisions, and Air Force, and a Navy. Resources were being poured in, and it was bursting at its seams and, quite frankly, having great difficulty managing, directing and marshalling all the new and unfamiliar activities. It is not just money, it is brain brain power. We knew this. Or rather Dr Goh Keng Swee, then the Defence Minister, knew this. We needed to harness the same vitality which SIA, EDB, and the economy benefited from, for the purposes of the SAF. Therefore, in 1971, we introduced the SAF Scholarship Scheme to plan, direct, and lead the growth of a key national institution. The Scheme has been a success, beyond all expectations. We have had 131 SAF scholars over the years. I have not calculated the cost but it is negligible. After the SAF Scholarship Scheme was introduced, we brought in other training awards to attract a wider group of good officers into the SAF. The contributions of these officers have transformed the SAF beyond recognition. If we had not done it, we would not have this SAF today, and we would not have the peace and tranquillity today, and we would not have some MPs say the SAF is too strong, let's have a smaller one. At the same time, from the individual's point of view, the SAF scholars have been given very heavy responsibilities at a very young age. We worry for them, and for the organization.”
“Some can, because after they have finished being a commando trooper, they can be a section leader or platoon leader, and later on they can become a trainer or a parachutes jump instructor. I know some are aged well into their 40s, who can outrun many 18 year old national servicemen. But not all are like that. What do we do with those who are not? The answer is: when we bring people in, we bring them in on a contract: six years. You are young, the SAF is new to you, let's try each other out. After six years, we assess you. If we decided that you have the potential and you can fit into the SAF for the next 20 years of your life, for the rest of your career, then we offer you pensionable service. If not, we can offer you another six-year term. If when we offer you pensionable service, you cannot fit in for the rest of your career, and we may be doing you a disservice. You may be happy now. Later you will still be happy, but the SAF will no longer be happy and will stop promoting you. Later still, you will become unhappy because you are no longer getting promoted. And then we will part as enemies when we should have parted us friends. So when we offer pensionable service, we must be quite sure that the person has a place in the SAF for a long period of time. Therefore, we are stringent. One term, six years; two terms, another six years; if need be, another three-year term, if I remember my facts correctly. And any time during those three years, if you find another job, we will let you go. So that gives you some buffer period in which to make the transition to a fresh career. That is our philosophy. It is a hard one, but I think it is a better philosophy for keeping the organization young and trim, and combat-fit. Now, SAF scholars.”