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 2 of 17.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister gave a statement very early in the day concerning the issue. I wonder why the Minister has taken on himself the role of a judge and pronounced that there was no possibility of insider trading.”
“Sir, is the logo not intended to persuade voters to vote for the PAP?”
“Is the Government prepared to make grants also to other political parties which carry on such kind of work?”
“Is it morally right, Sir, for the Government to spend money on a political party?”
“Sir, what I mean is, there are other pavements all over the city. How is that all these sums of money have been spent only on Orchard Road and the Civic District?”
“Has the Minister ever considered placing priority on the spending of funds concerning the pavements and other things?”
“May I ask the Minister, why is it necessary to keep on renewing the pavements and walkways all the time?”
“Financial institutions also have a stake in higher education as a better-educated populace translates into better business for them. Students today may be reluctant to use commercial loans in greater numbers than they are doing currently because the terms are unattractive and onerous. These institutions should be encouraged to take a longer view and offer favourable interest and repayment terms to a group of clients who are characterised by low risk and high future value. As the fee hikes are substantial, greater flexibility of financial arrangements may be considered for the short term. Three suggestions are offered: (1) the CPF loan scheme, which can currently only be drawn from the accounts of students' parents, can be extended to the accounts of the siblings as well; (2) when the students begin to pay their loans after they start working, they may be allowed to use their own CPF contributions to help to do so in order that cash flow problems during their early adult working life are reduced. And this is the period when they have the lowest earning power and the highest requirement for cash for various things, like housing, marriage, and so on; (3) encourage and promote education insurance schemes along the lines of Medisave to prepare for the cost of tertiary education. In this regard, the Edusave Scheme which is primarily aimed at levelling educational opportunities should not be diverted for this purpose. Finally, Sir, education is, of course, known to us as a great social leveller. Access to it must not only be guaranteed but also be seen to be truly open and developed.”
“The solution, Sir, to the problem of increasing costs for higher education is not to increase fees every time, but to allocate more funds for education either from endowment funds or from Government subsidies. Let me conclude by saying that it is all a matter of Government priorities. If Government truly believes that education is of prime importance for our children and leaders of the future, then it should allocate appropriate funds accordingly. Assoc. Prof. Maurice Choo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the education of the individual benefits not just the individual but the state he lives and works in. This fact is even more pertinent to states heavily dependent on human resources. For this reason, we, in Singapore, can always justify educational subsidies. The students in the National University of Singapore have communicated with me and I feel that I can air some of their more useful points. At issue is the level of subsidy. It may be argued, as the Minister has just done, that education which confers higher earning power should be subsidised less. Equally, it may be argued that education which confers higher earning power may benefit the State more in commercial as well as non-commercial terms and, therefore, deserves greater support. For university education, we must have a firm idea of what the desirable level of subsidy should be in the medium term. This can be fine-tuned, of course, to differentiate between different fields of study. But once the projected levels of subsidy are known, the schedule of projected increases, say, over three to eight years, should be made known. This will enable parents and students to plan their finances well ahead of time, thereby increasing the sense of control they have over their choices and future.”
“We may not be able to emulate these countries in toto, Sir, but we should at least be able to provide university education for all who may benefit from it, even without the need for loans and other strings. Anyway, fees should be as low as possible. Government's statements in the press say that American students in certain universities in the US pay higher fees than Singapore students in the NUS and NTI. But Government does not mention the fact that people in America have much higher wages, and that American universities grant scholarships and bursaries quite liberally. Government has tried to soften the blow of tuition fee increases by raising the ceiling of university loans from 50% to 65%. It says that the students may also have loans from the university's own loan funds, and that loans may also be repaid over a longer period, from 15 to 20 years. But all this has not lightened the burden placed on the students. The Prime Minister has said that Edusave will give every student an even start. If students have to repay loans over a number of years, how could those from middle and low-income families have an even start with students from the rich and the well-to-do families? Therefore, university fees, already high enough, should not be further increased. Perhaps parents may be allowed to use their CPF savings to pay for their children's tuition fee increases, as the Minister has said, but even that may not be of great help as most people do not have big CPF savings. And though an increase in the number of scholarships and bursaries might help, only a small number of students ultimately may benefit.”
“The Minister has also said that 20% of the total recurrent expenditure on education is already spent on 5% of students in the universities, and that it is only right for the university students to pay more fees so that more funds may be spent on students in polytechnics, junior colleges, technical institutes and schools. From Government's statements and what the Minister has said, it would appear that Government is very short of money and so must make do with the little that it has. But that is not the true position in Singapore. We have huge surpluses over the last few years and we have more than $42 billion (nearly $50 billion is the latest figure) in reserves. Therefore, we are not short of funds. Why then the increases in the fees? How much does Government really save from these increases? If the costs of education have gone up, all we need do, Sir, is to apportion more funds for education for our children. In the 1991-92 budget, funds for education amounted to only 3.69% of our GDP. This is much less than what other countries allocate. Government has repeatedly stressed the need to invest in our human resources. If that be the policy, then we should spend much more on education at all levels, in order to provide truly a fully-rounded education for all our children, and to develop our people to their fullest potential. Some Western countries, like Germany and Australia, provide free or almost free education right up to tertiary level for all their citizens. How many other countries also do that? The Minister could tell us. And how much do the students in these countries really pay? I understand that the students pay very little.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent announcement of the increase in university tuition fees cannot be said to be totally unexpected. It is the PAP's policy to pass the buck to the people, to make the people pay and pay, whenever and wherever possible. The Senior Minister has said it often enough - there is no free lunch, that is, for the people, not for the Ministers. Hence, Medisave and the so-called restructuring of hospitals and the present increases in hospital charges. Hence, the regular increase in the many fees, charges, taxes and fines. Hence, the proposed consumption tax which the PAP Government is preparing to introduce. In education, there are already independent schools with their high school fees. In the universities, we now have the latest increase in tuition fees, the third since 1987. Government says that it has reduced subsidy for the university from 77% to 74.5% of the university's annual recurrent expenditure by 2 1/2%. But it has also said that it intends to further reduce this subsidy to between 60% and 70%. So we may expect still more frequent and even higher increases in university tuition fees in the near future. University education then becomes, as many people have feared, education for the rich and the well-to-do. The middle and low-income groups may soon find that they cannot afford to send their children to university even if they pool family resources. Why the fee increases? Government has said that the increases in the number of staff and their salaries have increased the universities' costs all round.”
“May I tell the Minister that on past occasions, the Straits Times had not printed some of our answers to queries made in the press. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: In which case, please convey to the Straits Times and make it public. NEW HDB FLATS (Review of maximum amount of housing loan) 11. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will review the maximum amount of housing loan available to buyers of new HDB flats.”
“Does the Government encourage the right of reply, and is he aware that the Straits Times does not publish many letters written in reply to controversial points made by the Minister? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am not sure how the Straits Times decides on letters to be printed, but if the Member has specific queries to make, like maybe letters which he himself has written to the Straits Times, then perhaps he can bring them to the attention of this House. But I am quite sure that all the letters which Dr Lee may care to write to the Straits Times would be printed in the Straits Times.”
“Question No. 9, Sir. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are Commissioners for Oaths at the Ministry of Home Affairs' departments, particularly the National Registration Department, where this will be of assistance to members of the public making various applications, particularly applications for citizenship. We periodically review the requirement for counter services, including the requirement for oaths administrations. As a result of such a review, additional Commissioners for Oaths will also be available at the Immigration Department. Therefore, there will be enough Commissioners for Oaths serving the public in our departments but, if need be, more will be appointed. MEDIA COUNCIL (Setting up) 10. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Acting Minister for Information and the Arts whether he will consider the setting up of a Media Council to which complaints regarding the function of the press, radio and television can be directed. The Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, Press Councils in countries like Britain and the Philippines are typically independent, non-profit, voluntary organisations set up by the media industry to which complaints against a newspaper or a broadcaster can be made. It is not for the Government to set up such a Council. Rather, it is for the media to consider setting up such a Council if they feel that there is such a need. Complaints against inaccuracy can be made directly to the newspaper, TV or radio station involved. Libel action can be taken in court. Or like the NTUC's dispute with the Straits Times, complaints can be made at public forums, or even in this House, as Dr Lee has done from time to time.”
“Sir, in view of the unrealistic and low rentals, has the Minister ever estimated the amount lost in renting out land to the golf clubs in Singapore?”
“Sir, does the department make money out of the whole exercise?”
“Would the Minister agree that despite all the discussions and arguments in the Ministry, the Government could make mistakes and, in view of such possible mistakes and in the hope of lessening such mistakes, would the Government be prepared to hold an inquiry into the matter so that objections could be made and the Government's answers given in public so that we know how the decisions have been made?”
“Therefore, there is no balanced radio and TV presentation at all in Singapore. I believe a balanced radio and TV programme should not feature one-sided reporting or political propaganda from only the ruling party. The news presentation should be more objective and impartial. They should emulate what the BBC is doing. I hope, after hearing what the Acting Minister has said this afternoon, he would give a very favourable reply.”
“Sir, I will be very brief. I will touch on something which other Members have not touched on so far, Sir. I refer to "a balanced radio and television service to inform, educate and entertain the public." That is on page 490 of the Budget document. I think many people will say that such things have not been done, and have never been done, for a long, long time. All you have got to do is listen to the news over radio, the news reports and news telecast. Apart from some non-political events and sports, it is all about what this Minister says, what that Minister says, what this or that MP says, all in connection with this function or that function, and even in purely PAP party-functions. Sometimes you may see a PAP MP presenting a cheque or certificate to this organisation or that, or this or that PAP MP flagging off a walkathon or things like that. In other words, it is all PAP propaganda. It is no wonder that many people have dubbed Singapore Radio and TV as PAP Radio and PAP TV. For those who wish to listen to real news, they would rather tune in to BBC. Sir, Opposition parties too have their activities. The SDP has its functions, the Workers' Party has its occasional rallies and its members go along to sell Party organs in the markets and other public places. But the SBC has never given these activities of the Opposition parties any mention whatsoever. Apart from its news presentation, SBC has other current affairs programmes in English, like "Friday Background", "Feedback" "Contact-Y", "Points of Views" and whatnot, and in Mandarin, they have "Forum 30", and of course we have "Today in Parliament" both in English and in Mandarin. But Opposition parties or their representatives rarely feature in these programmes.”
“Sir, in the meanwhile, will the money now seized by the police be given back to the Workers Party?”
“How long does it take to know exactly what is going to happen, Sir?”
“Can the Minister inform the House if there is any indication of a prosecution coming up?”
“A clarification for the Minister, Sir. If a patient were to stay more than 15 days, then the deductible would be covered. But he has also said that the average stay of every patient is four or five days. So how does the deductible come in at all?”
“The Council shall comprise not only officers from the Ministry of Health, but also some people who are knowledgeable in the field of Chinese medicine. The qualifications of the Chinese physicians should be examined and evaluated. Those who are found to have attained a certain degree of proficiency should be accorded professional status, and the medical certificates issued by them should be recognized. Thirdly, I feel that the Ministry of Health should also consider setting up, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, a Department of Chinese Medicine at the NUS and also to invite highly-qualified Chinese physicians from other countries to lecture and to raise the standard of Chinese medicine in Singapore. This will provide a better prospect for the Chinese physicians here. Fourthly, I understand that since three years ago, the Ministry of Health has started registration and control on the import of Western medicine. I feel that traditional Chinese herbs should also be similarly controlled, so that those sub-standard Chinese herbs would not be allowed to be sold in our market to maintain the good quality of Chinese medicine and the health of our people can be safeguarded.”
“But I feel that the Ministry of Health should exercise more control over Chinese physicians and Chinese medicine and I suggest the following ways of doing it: (1) To regulate the practice of Chinese physicians to weed out the unqualified ones; (2) To set up a National Council for Chinese Medicine; (3) To establish a Department of Chinese Medicine at the National University of Singapore; and (4) To enhance the control of traditional Chinese herbs. In January 1989, the Coroner's Court conducted an inquiry into the death of a boy who suffered high fever and consulted a Western doctor and a Chinese physician within three days. Being ignorant, he took an overdose of paracetamol prescribed by both the Western doctor and the Chinese physician, resulting in the damage to his liver and kidney, and eventually he died. The fact is that there are people who have just a few months of informal training in Chinese medicine, beginning to practise as Chinese physicians and prescribing Western medicines at random to their patients resulting in the health and life of the ignorant patients being endangered. Last year, in November, I received a complaint by a resident that a so-called Chinese physician whom he consulted gave him an injection like a Western practitioner. As a result, his illness became worse and he had to go to a government hospital for help. For this reason, I feel that the Ministry of Health should consider regulating the practice of Chinese physicians so that those who are unqualified could be weeded out. Secondly, I feel that we should consider the setting up of a National Council for Chinese Medicine to deal with the registration and control of Chinese physicians and Chinese medicine.”
“The concept of MediShield is very good. I fully agree with it and already earlier on, I had supported it, until the details came out. Unfortunately, it is being operated too much like a commercial business undertaking, and not as a scheme really intended to help the aged and the low-income groups stricken with chronic illnesses. The PAP Government must get rid of its misconception about the so-called welfare system. Helping the aged and those stricken with catastrophic illnesses is a Government responsibility, and it should be undertaken gladly and honourably by the Government, especially when it also claims to be a caring Government. With hospitals restructured and hospital charges going up all the time, it is only fair that Government should ensure that all the unfortunate sick people who need assistance from Government be given such assistance. After all, according to what the Minister has just revealed, the number of people who seek admission and the number of days that they are in the hospital is very low and very short. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to talk about the problems of Chinese physicians and Chinese medicine. We all know that Chinese medicine has got a history which stretched back to a few thousand years. It is an accumulation of experience in the curing of diseases over the 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation. Before Western medicine was introduced to China, Chinese medicine was already there and it has proved to be effective in the curing of diseases.”
“Sir, many people have been disillusioned with the MediShield Scheme. They all realise that the benefits from the scheme are minimal. And it is no surprise that as many as 200,000 people, most of whom belong to the low-income old age groups, have decided to opt out. If so many people opt out of a scheme, supposedly designed to benefit them, then there must be something very, very wrong with it. Many people would say that the scheme is a dismal failure. The Minister of State for Health has expressed disappointment at the reception given to the scheme by those aged people. But what does she expect? Of course, disappointment. But I believe she should express her disappointment at the Ministry instead for pushing through a MediShield Scheme which imposes so many conditions that effectively negates the whole idea of assistance to those who are afflicted with serious and prolonged illnesses. The main complaints against the MediShield Scheme are in brief: (1) The premiums for those in the low-income groups are not truly low-cost. They should be lowered for the low-income groups. (2) The maximum "claimable amounts" are comparatively low. They amount to a mere fraction of the hospital charges. The maximum claimable amount therefore should be raised. (3) There is a "deductible" amount which the patient has to pay before claims can be made. And that may well mean that the sick cannot make any claims at all. The "deductible" item therefore should be scrapped. (4) The scheme does not cover people beyond age 65, just when they most need such coverage. The cover should be extended to age 70 and even 75. (5) The list of diseases covered by the scheme is too limited. It should be extended to cover even those with pre-exist-ing catastrophic illnesses, maybe at a revised higher premium.”
“If the Minister is here, why should I ask the SMC? 4.00 pm”
“I am not saying, Sir, that it cannot issue a press statement. I merely ask whether this is going to be the precedent for more of such press statements. Or is it going to be once and for all and no more after this? Because, as I have said, it has never been done before.”
“Sir, I have the Singapore Medical Council's Annual Report 1989 in front of me, and I quote you one section. It says here, the last paragraph: 'In addition to the above duties [which our Minister just enumerated], the Medical Council deliberates on any matter or issues that may have bearing or impact on the conduct and practice of medical practitioners in Singapore.' Good. Arising from these deliberations now, this is what I query: 'The Council may recommend to the Minister [it writes to the Minister] for Health various courses of action or advise practitioners on its views on these issues.' How do you advise medical practitioners? By writing a press statement? Or by writing to them in letters under cover, or by writing to the Association itself? Which would be the proper course to take, not to issue a press statement. The Minister also says that it is an independent body. Yes, it is supposed to be an independent body. I say "supposed to be", because there are quite a number of members who are nominated by the Minister. The Minister may tell us how many members are nominated by him.”
“Sir, in my case, we work on an old system. I am not the doctor that controls everything in the dispensary in which I work. We have a pharmacy side by side. So it is difficult for a doctor to make all decisions. Whether or not I take part really is of no consequence. The main thing, Sir, as I have said, is that the scheme is not supportable because it is politically motivated.”
“Sir, what I have said does not touch on the contents of the statement. I query only the procedure. But since I have been asked what my stand is on the position, let me say that I do not disagree with what the Singapore Medical Council has said. But after examining the NTUC scheme, I find that it is not totally intended to help the low income group. The arguments are very simple, Sir. A general practitioner normally charges less than $20 per patient. So a 10% discount would amount to, at the very most, only $2. Although $2 could mean a lot to the poor, the lower income group, nevertheless, it is not a big sum. But if the intention was to help the low income group, I thought a much better course would be to ask for a discount from the specialists who charge much more, or from the hospitals which charge by the hundreds and thousands. That would certainly help. Therefore, I think this is not really intended to help the low income group as such. I suspect the whole scheme has been brought up to attract more membership for the NTUC. It is a political gimmick and, therefore, I think this should not be supported. But, unfortunately, Sir, the Singapore Medical Council's statement separates the specialists from the general practitioners. It is something which I just cannot understand and that is why I asked why they have separated them. That's all. I did not query the position that it is not unethical. I do not believe it is unethical. But I queried the intention, the motivation behind the scheme. And as I have said, Sir, I believe the scheme was mooted in order to attract new membership for NTUC.”
“(v) In issuing the press statement, has the Singapore Medical Council created a precedent for the Singapore Medical Council to act in a similar fashion concerning disputes in the medical profession in future? Or will this press statement be what may be called a "one-off" incident not to be repeated in future? I trust the Minister will be able to clear the air.”
“On this occasion, Sir, as the dispute, which had attracted editorials and commentaries in the press, was still in progress, it would appear that in issuing the statement to the press the Singapore Medical Council had acted all on its own and, if I may say so, Sir, somewhat officiously on the matter. As the matter is still controversial among many medical practitioners, I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the situation so that any suspicion that the Singapore Medical Council may have acted under pressure from any quarter may be dispelled. I would ask the Minister briefly: (i) Was any written complaint (I say "written complaint") about the dispute made to the Singapore Medical Council before it deliberated on the matter and issued the press statement? If not, why did it issue the press statement? (ii) Before it issued the statement to the press, did the Singapore Medical Council first write to the Singapore Medical Association, Singapore College of General Practitioners or Association of Medical Practitioners, Singapore, to inform them of its views on the matter? And if not, why not? And if the Council did write, did the Association know of the matter before the press statement was issued? (iii) Before issuing the press statement, or even afterwards, has the Singapore Medical Council communicated its views by letters personally to all the medical practitioners in Singapore? If not, why not? (iv) Does the Council consider general practitioners and medical specialists as members of the same profession? If so, why did the Council separate the specialists from the general practitioners in its statement?”
“In fact, I am speaking as a member of the public, as a concerned member of the public, and as an MP.”
“Well, I am only a GP. But I have nothing to do with the Medical Council.”
“Sir, this amendment is not intended to question the Singapore Medical Council on its stand on the dispute between the NTUC and the Singapore Medical Association on the much publicised NTUC Discount Scheme. As the Minister may have known, Sir, the Singapore Medical Council's statement on the dispute has surprised a good number of medical practitioners as well as members of the general public, and has raised, of course, not a few eye-brows. This is because hitherto the Singapore Medical Council, being a disciplinary body, receives complaints in writing accompanied by affidavits before it decides to act, and has never, I believe, issued any press statement and acted in this particular manner. On this occasion --- 3.45 pm”
“Sir, much of what I had intended to say has already been ably said by Dr Hong Hai. I fully agree with what he has said. So I reserve some time for my next amendment.”
“I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“That is the point, Sir. What I want is that these proceedings should be publicised and be avilable to everybody, whoever wants it.”
“Sir, on a couple of occasions, I did ask Mr Chandra Das whether we could get the summarised proceedings of such feedback forums, but I was told I would not be able to get them.”
“May I suggest that: (1) Participants need not be those who are specially invited to attend; (2) Views given by those who attend the forums should, without exception, be available to all people who are interested and would like to read them; (3) Government's response to the views gathered in the forums should also be published; (4) Since the Government now sponsors open participatory democracy, uncensored summarised proceedings, especially of views expressed by participants, should also be publicised over TV. Would the Minister consider these suggestions, Sir?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JE 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this is on the subject of Feedback Services. The Feedback Unit has been in operation for quite some time. It holds regular feedback forums with invited representatives from professional bodies and associations as well as PAP grassroots organisations. Perhaps some people may have asked on their own to attend such forums to air their views. But, in general, such feedback forums are formal affairs and the man-in-the-street is not represented. He may not even know that such a unit exists. From time to time, the MP in charge of feedback services may, as part of his speech, give the House a short summary on some of the views he has gathered. But, ultimately, what has resulted from the feedback? That is what I like to know. According to Mr Chandra Das, the Head of the Unit, feedback is not simply a one-way feedback from the people to the Government, but a two-way process. The unit also explains and helps to clarify Government policies to those attending the forums. It is therefore more a Government PR exercise than a gathering of feedback on people's reactions to Government. It is all cosmetic. The basic principle and premise behind any major Government proposal remains unchanged whatever the feedback. In order that feedback forums be more representative of people's views, I suggest that the feedback forums be open to wider sections of the people. They should not be closed door or semi-closed door affairs.”
“But there are certain policies which you cannot possibly support, and I have openly said so.”
“He refers to the US situation where beggars are going about on the streets. And yet Mr Lee Kuan Yew leads us to follow whatever the Americans are trying to do. Is that what he wants? There are no beggars in Singapore? There are no beggars, because they have been taken away to the Woodlands Home. He has got a lot of men carting them away. The moment one appears, he is taken away. That is all. Not that we do not have them. And even in spite of that, now and again, we still see some of them. It is a pity that he goes about in huge cars followed by so many bodyguards. Otherwise he might meet some of them. And he has to explain why, after all 30 years of PAP rule, all these people are still going about begging. How come? Surely there must be some way in which they can earn a living. But not in the PAP system. We have our own MPs here telling us of the gulf between those people earning high salaries at the top and those earning less than $400 at the lower levels. And this is the very thing which we try to avoid. We want to have a more equal and just society - the very slogan of the first Yang Di-Pertuan Negara's Address, sponsored by the PAP Government, and I always remember that because I believe in it. That is why I disagreed with Mr Lee Kuan Yew subsequently. I think he knows it. Not because we follow the communist system or any other system. What we want is fairness, democracy, justice for all. Nothing more, nothing less. And if we have that from the PAP, I give it all the support. I have told our Ministers whenever I see that they are putting up policies which are more decent and which could be supported by the people, I give them my support. And many can see that I have done so all this time. I have not backed out. No. I support.”
“Well, he has referred to Soviet Russia. Look at what is happening in East Germany today? You listen to BBC. Many people are complaining in the new unified Germany - jobless, privations. Now they are all regretting that they have trusted Chancellor Kohl. If Mr Lee Kuan Yew was there, I do not know what might have happened to him.”
“Sir, I am so glad that, after so many occasions I have enticed him to speak, he has at last spoken. The gulf between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and myself is not that we do not agree on many things. We both believe in ideals. True. But what I disagree with is the way he has gone about doing things. I do not disagree that everybody must have some differences in some way or other. But I disagree with the way the cake which we have made is being distributed. Only a small handful will be able to get all the best, but a large majority will be given only the crumbs. Is that what we want in our society? Do we really want that? I do not think Mr Lee Kuan Yew wants that. But he has done it. That is the whole trouble. And that is why we have been opposing him all this while, not because we are favouring communism or whatever it may be.”
“In answer to Mr Tarmugi and Dr Vasoo, the Minister has already said that a good number of the various Advisory Councils' recommendations will be implemented. The Charity Fund may be ample for the time being, but allocating such miserly sums for social welfare will never be able to help those people, especially the aged, to a better quality of life when these funds become depleted. If the PAP is serious about its Vision 1999, then the allocation of social welfare must be considerably increased year after year many times. I wish to stress that looking after the unfortunate in our society is a Government responsibility, and the PAP should not shirk its responsibilities by passing the buck on to charitable organisations and the many hands of voluntary organisations. Shared values must mean more than reliance on the altruism of some good souls to help Government. Government must first shoulder its bounden duty and responsibility to help before you can talk of altruism.”
“Sir, this year's expenditure on MCD shows hardly any increase over that of last year. The total of $204 million works out to be only 1.4% of the total budget. Take away the amount allocated to the People's Association programme, sports programme, public relations programme, development budget, whatnots, what is left is only $31 million. Peanuts, compared to the total budget expenditure of $15.81 billion. Using the excuse that it is against a welfare state, the PAP has neglected its Government responsibility to look after the unfortunate in society, and pass the buck on to the family and the public. That may partly explain why the PAP pushes its policy of respect for the aged, three-tier family and so on. The former Prime Minister laughs. He knows exactly. The Government has now found a new slogan. [Laughter]. Many helping hands to relieve the needs of the people for the PAP Government. This is, in essence, the PAP's philosophy on social welfare, passing the buck on to the many helping hands of other people. We have destitute families, and we have heard how many people earn such low salaries every month, we have pensioners who receive less than $400 a month, we have people who are on public assistance, the handicapped and so on. Therefore, much needs to be done. Recently, the Government has increased the Public Assistance rates. But the amount is far from adequate. For example, the public assistance for one person is now increased to $140 per month. But three adults get only $270, less than the amount for two separate persons. I do not know how the Government works it out. Do three people really need less than two people to survive? Is there some form of economies of scale or something?”