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 3 of 17.
“Not keep quiet, Sir, but say something which is not so different from what the Governments in Indonesia and Kuala Lumpur have been saying. Another point which I want to ask the Minister is about Vietnam. He said that we would allow investments after the situation in Cambodia has been settled. Supposing the situation should take some time, when would investments be allowed?”
“The Minister is supposed to have clarified the situation concerning the figures given by Mr Lim Boon Heng. I feel that I am more confused. And I feel many other people are also confused. So I am wondering whether the Minister would be good enough to give us a total breakdown of the various categories of workers, ie, the number of students, those who are part-timers, those who are aged 45 and above, those who earn less than $400, less than $600, less than $800, for the last two or three years. Then everyone will be very happy.”
“Sir, can I get some clarification from the Minister?”
“I am not satisfied with the answer given, Sir. Therefore, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $47,705,520 for Head X ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head S -”
“Sir, can the Minister inform the House which supermarket sells bread at 72 cents per loaf?”
“Every year, we have billions in surpluses, and I hope the Minister does not believe that the money is better spent on bullets and artillery shells than helping those who are in need. That would be a big disappointment to many thousands of pensioners in Singapore.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head X of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, for the past two years, I have asked the Minister to give more allowances for pensioners who draw less than $800 per month. And for the past two years, the Minister has come up with his stock answers, namely, the Singapore Allowances for pensioners were last revised in 1986 and that there are no new circumstances that make adjustments necessary. I am not certain, Sir, what the hard-hearted Minister's answer will be today. But he has at least admitted that there is inflation and in consequence he must or should agree that the higher cost of living is causing difficulties and hardships to many of the low-income groups. According to the figures released by the Minister in January 1990, many thousands of pensioners received less than $800 per month, about 10,000, and a few thousands of them received less than even $400 a month, round about 6,000 or 7,000 of them. In other countries, Sir, all pensions have been indexed to the cost of living to ensure that the pensioner's purchasing power remains u2naffected by inflation. But not in Singapore. Our PAP Ministers belong to a special breed. Pensioners are all old people, Sir, who are no longer in a position to do any hard work. Helping them with increased allowances does not in any way smack of a welfare state. It is simply a recognition of the yeoman service that pensioners have loyally given to the Government in the past, including the PAP Government, helping the PAP Government to remain in office for the last 30 years. And already public assistance, Sir, has been increased since 1st March of this year. It is time that the pensioners' allowances too are appropriately increased.”
“Sir, may I remind the Minister that when Mr Chia Thye Poh was first detained there was no mention whatsoever about his being a communist. That line about his being a communist was only added round about 1980. He was detained in 1966.”
“We should not rely on the Internal Security Act to suppress political opponents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, about the immigration policy. I did not say that the immigration policy was designed to deliberately prevent any worker from seeking redress. I said the circumstances were such. But the Minister has now said that he could easily come back on a social visit pass. Certainly the Minister would know that people who have come here to work just do not have the money to travel around so easily. If the Government should be able to provide the fare for such people, certainly I will let this person know that he could come back and pursue his court case. Would the Minister be willing to do that? Since the worker cannot afford to travel, all this talk about social visit pass will not help him at all. As regards the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks, I understand how closely intertwined, according to the Minister, our policies are with Malaysia on the matter of security. If they are so closely intertwined, how come our foreign policies, for example, are so far apart on many issues? Recently, for instance, concerning the Gulf War, what happened? What we were saying was entirely different from what the KL government was saying. So there could be differences. Anyway I do not think we should be following what Kuala Lumpur is doing all the time, on security matters. As regards the ISA, he has spoken about the need to detain certain terrorists. But I have also asked for the revocation of the provisions of detention without trial. Would the Minister consider that? As regards Mr Chia Thye Poh, I have repeated the question many times. If the Minister keeps on repeating the same answer, I do not think anybody can do anything about that, but at least I hope there should be a new way of governing in Singapore.”
“If the Government must hold on to the ISA in order to rule, as the Prime Minister has said, then it must spell out clearly the situation in which the provisions of detention without trial may be used, so that all the people will know exactly what they can do and what they cannot do. Using the ISA to detain political opponents indefinitely is one of the cruellest acts of an undemocratic government. Chia Thye Poh, for instance, has been under detention for 24 1/2 years under all sorts of excuses. Is it not time that he be released immediately and unconditionally? South Africa has released all political detainees. Even Albania, the last Communist country in Europe, will release all political detainees. In Singapore, how much longer does the PAP Government want to detain Chia Thye Poh? I had thought that the Goh Chok Tong administration would release Mr Chia Thye Poh before the Chinese New Year as a gesture of goodwill and change. But I have been most disappointed. Perhaps it is still not too late today. I have spoken on this subject quite a few times, but this time I hope to hear a better response from the Minister, and I hope I would not hear the same old gramophone record from the Minister.”
“Therefore, if the immigration regulation does not allow the foreign worker to stay when the work permit is cancelled, is there any way by which the foreign worker may seek redress? I would like the Minister to comment and, if possible, give the House the guiding principle in such a situation. 1.30 pm Let me now touch on the Internal Security Act and political detention. I think everybody will agree, including Members of the House on the Government side, that the most undemocratic law in our statute book is undoubtedly the Internal Security Act (ISA). Recently, when the Deputy Prime Minister was asked s question about Singapore's position on the ISA, he replied that if Malaysia should rescind the ISA, then Singapore would follow suit. To me, this seems to be a very unsatisfactory answer. It creates the impression that our internal political policies are formulated in Kuala Lumpur and that our Government does not have a mind of its own. And why is it necessary to continue with provisions of the ISA on detention without trial? The ISA was originally designed to fight Communist subversion. Now we have no more Communist subversion either in Singapore or Malaysia, not even in Eastern Europe or elsewhere. This law has clearly outlived its usefulness. Why then is it necessary for the ISA to remain in the statute book? It inhibits people from participating in politics. It contributes to our young people seeking emigration and it runs counter to the policy of participatory democracy and the supposed new style of government of the Prime Minister.”
“First, on emigration and immigration. There are many reasons, Sir, why people decide to emigrate and one strong reason is because they are frustrated by the inability to actively participate in the political affairs of the country. But I shall confine myself to one aspect of the immigration policy today. The question I would like to ask is: should our immigration policy be used to prevent foreign workers from prosecuting their rightful claims against employers in Singapore courts? Let me quote a concrete example. I have reliably been told that a construction worker was injured at his place of work. He saw the company doctor but was told to carry on working. The same evening he had pains which soon became unbearable. He was forced to go to see a private doctor. The general practitioner gave him a medical certificate but the company, it seems, was unhappy. It asked the worker why he went to see a private doctor and followed this up with a notice terminating his service. The worker, I have been told, was on contract for a fixed period, possibly six months, one year or three years. So he went to complain to the Labour Office. But nothing much was done for him. Dissatisfied, the worker went to consult a lawyer to take legal action against the employer. But the employer quickly terminated the work permit and packed him off back to his home country, thus denying him an opportunity to seek justice in a court of law in Singapore. Apparently, the Immigration Department knew of the circumstances of the case. On the basis of this concrete incident, I wish to ask: is the Minister aware of this interference in the right of foreign workers by the Immigration Department? I presume that a foreign worker has the right to take an employer to court if there is injustice done to him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments. May I take them both together?”
“But this contradicts with what the Government intends to carry out in the scheme since basically only individuals benefit. If the scheme is intended to benefit the nation, then the funds from the billion dollar investment should instead be spent on upgrading of all schools and improving education in general - more schools, better trained teachers, better teacher-student ratio, better equipment, and so on. That would certainly benefit the nation as a whole and also all individual students at the same time. I believe that there is some confused thinking on the part of the PAP Government on the Edusave scheme. The reason is not far to seek. This is because the PAP has the next election in mind and the scheme is, in fact, a PAP gimmick intended to buy votes. Mr Chiam has already touched on that. (They are trying to infect me with laughter). In an attempt to rationalise the scheme, the PAP has, however, become entangled in a sea of self-contradictions, which it will have great difficulties in explaining away. So I hope the Prime Minister will try and say something in reply.”
“Sir, I have not thought of speaking on this amendment originally, but I see that the Prime Minister is here, and as my few comments deal mainly with what he said not so very long ago, perhaps he may wish to say something in reply to what I have to say now. The Edusave scheme, Sir, could be said to be a gift of the nation to 400,000 students. The total sum for each student could reach a maximum of $5,000 over a period of 10 years. But as many people have already said before me, including Dr Ong and Mr Othman, it is just not fair and right that handicapped students are excluded from the scheme. After all, they are all also students and they deserve all the extra help that can be given to them. Neither is it fair and right to limit this Edusave scheme to only three children in a family, as has already been touched on by Dr John Chen, especially when the Government is presently promoting a population policy of three and more children per family. Government claims that the scheme would help equalise opportunities for every generation. By no mean stretch of the imagination, Sir, could a fair-minded person come to such a conclusion. A maximum of $500 per year per student would not be able to do that. Students who come from poor families are disadvantaged in too many ways, as against students who come from well-to-do families. This can be easily seen from the fact that in comparison with those from well-off families, only a small number of those from poorer families do well academically and in business. But, of course, a gift of a possible maximum of $500 every year is a great help. And the Prime Minister has said that the scheme should also benefit the nation, not just the individual. Very good, Sir.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. Both the Minister of State and the Minister himself have not said anything about the scrapping of the 'N' level examination which I suggested. Would they say a few words on that?”
“Despite such PAP protestations, we are spending far too little on education. We lag far behind Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the US and Hong Kong, in the provision of higher education for our people. Mr Peh Chin Hua has spoken of a night university. But if Singapore is really serious about its Vision 1999 and the Next Lap, then steps must be taken now, to prepare without dalay for a third university in Singapore. We have more than adequate funds for that. So I would like the Minister to inform the House its position on the matter.”
“Sir, during the Budget debate last year, I brought up the question of the need for a third university in Singapore. I pointed out that the Dainton's Report on Education had already indicated a need for that. The simple reason is that with rising expectations of a rising population, more and more of our students are seeking university education every year. The Report disclosed that the number of students leaving Singapore for higher education overseas was already more than 9,000. By now, the number must have further increased. The Minister probably knows the actual number. The number of students admitted to the institutions of higher learning in Singapore has also increased every year. In 1988 it was 47,000. In 1990, it was 50,756, according to the latest Year Book of Statistics. With the implementation of the proposed changes in the education system, more and more students may be expected to qualify for university education, and already Government has announced that more places in the university will be provided for polytechnic students. In the past, the PAP policy was to reduce the number of students seeking university education. Hence, the Goh Keng Swee Education Report with the introduction of streaming, and the scrapping of Nanyang University and its merging with the then University of Singapore to form a single National University of Singapore. Now the Nanyang University is being resuscitated, although in a different form, and a new system of education is to be introduced. It is clear therefore that still more students will seek university education in the coming years. Government has frequently stated that Singapore's only natural resource is its people. The Minister has also said that "Government will continue to invest in our people".”
“Language is therefore not the main and deciding factor in learning technology. Singapore is, of course, a multi-racial, multi-religious nation. We are having English as our common working language. But in order to improve our foundation of the mother tongue, would the Minister review the conclusions of the Report and adopt appropriate changes where necessary?”
“This would result in a bilingualism that is slanted much in favour of English as against the mother tongue. Students would be able to speak the mother tongue, but may have difficulty in reading, and probably greater difficulty in writing, the mother tongue. This, in fact, is what PAP bilingualism hitherto really is. I believe we should avoid falling into the old slanted bilingualism rut. In order to ensure that students be truly proficient in the mother tongue, both in speaking and in writing, clearly more curriculum time should be devoted to learning the mother tongue. Has the Minister plans to do that? Or would the Committee consider using the mother tongue, not merely for learning Asian values and morals, but also other subjects taught in the school as well? This would mean, of course, increasing the curriculum time for the mother tongue from the proposed 27% to, say, 40%. English would still be the dominant language with at least, say, 60% curriculum time (though some educationists, who have been called from overseas to come to Singapore to give lectures, have advocated that in order to have a good foundation in the mother tongue, primary schools should be taught, if not all, then most of the time, in the mother tongue). The Government has often emphasised the need for a strong foundation of English in order to plug into the world of science and technology. But experience has taught us that countries which have only limited curriculum time for learning English, for example, Japan, do not trail behind, and can even do much better in science and technology than, countries that devote all curriculum time to learning the English language as, for example, the United States and the United Kingdom.”
“The second suggestion I want to make concerns bilingualism and the mother tongue, already touched on by Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Peh Chin Hua. Of late, PAP Ministers have frequently emphasized the importance of the mother tongue. However, in spite of that, it would appear that the proposed changes in the education system will still not really give adequate importance to the study of the mother tongue after all. There is, to my thinking, an over-emphasis on the working language (that is, English) in the Report. 33% of curriculum time is to be devoted to the working language (English). English is also used for the teaching of Mathematics (20%), Science and other subjects (20%). English, thus, takes up 73% of the curriculum time as against 27% being devoted to the mother tongue for the inculcation of core values, the same as before the proposed changes. If it is intended that students be truly proficient and have a good foundation in the mother tongue, many people believe, and I agree with them, that this 27% curriculum time devoted to the mother tongue is insufficient. It has to be remembered, Sir, that after 30 years of PAP education, many students speak not the mother tongue at home, but English and dialects, or a mixture of them all, especially to the older folks. If the curriculum time devoted to the mother tongue remains the same at 27%, as in the now-to-be-discarded old-fashioned education policy, then students will still have the same old difficulties of acquiring a good foundation in the mother tongue. Only 10% of students learn both English and the mother tongue at the first language level. 50% will learn English as the first language and the mother tongue as the second language, as in the past.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two suggestions to make. According to the Report, a new Normal (Technical) Course within the 4-5 year secondary Normal Course will be introduced to give the 15% to 20% least academically inclined pupils more educational options. What I say now is slightly different from what Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Peh Chin Hua have said. Those who are able can do an additional year for 'O' level examination. This means that the 15% to 20% students will have to take the 'N' and 'O' level examinations (that is, two examinations), whereas the others will be able to take the 'O' level examination (that is, only one examination) without going through the 'N' level course. This was the practice before the new proposed changes. If this is correct, and basically there is no change, then this seems to be an unnecessary burden on the 15% to 20% of the students and might even prevent them from sitting for their 'O' level examinations later on. I understand, Sir, that 'O' level passes are the basic criteria for many private courses like those of the LCCI (London Chamber of Commerce and Industry). Therefore, in order not to disadvantage any student, all students should be given the opportunity to sit for the 'O' level examination. The 'N' level examination, in other words, Sir, should be scrapped. If 'N' level examination is to allow students who have academic difficulties to have lower-recognised qualifications, then a grading system of 'O' level examination may well serve the same purpose. This would allow all students to take the 'O' level examination together. I hope the Minister will look into this and see if this could be carried out.”
“Over the six-year period from 1984 to 1989, the number of these enlistees has doubled from 5.9% to 10.4%. At this rate, 14 out of every 100 enlistees will be obese by 1995. This is a conservative estimate. Because among the 1988 Primary 6 male students, who will form the 1995 NS cohort, nearly 18 out of 100 are obese today. Fortunately, among full-time national servicemen, downgrading due to obesity is minimal. NS men are able to keep fit during their service period. However, for reservists, there is a rising trend of downgrading due to obesity. In order to tackle this problem, SAF has in January 1991 introduced a 5-month basic military training (BMT) course for obese enlistees. Obesity is not a disease, nor is it permanent. In most cases, it can be reversed with some effort and discipline. The 5-month BMT course enables these obese enlistees to shed excessive kilograms. They get a more progressive physical training programme. This will minimise training injuries without compromising combat training standards. A total of 197 recruits are currently undergoing the first 5-month BMT. From initial feedback, the progress of the course is good. I am told that the recruits are quite pleased with their battle of the bulge. In the case of servicemen who fail their IPPT, they must join their units' fitness programme. For reservists who fail their IPPT, they will be recommended to voluntary SAFRA-based fitness programme by their commanding officers. I would like to add here that every male Singaporean of NS age has a duty to maintain his physical fitness. SAF will help by providing facilities and fitness programme for NS men and reservists. Sir, Encik Wan Hussin also asked ---”
“Camps are built to a higher plot ratio; where possible they are co-located and designed to share certain common facilities. Training facilities are more intensively developed. Rifle ranges are now provided with buffers so that the land surrounding the rifle ranges which used to be sterilised can now be released for other military training, or even released to the private sector for alternative uses. Despite all these measures, the SAF is still short of training areas. So training has to go on during the weekend to make better utilisation of available areas and facilities. Sometimes SAF even have to train in areas that are not normally used for such training purposes. In which case, we will try to minimise any inconvenience caused to members of the public. We face the same constraints with our air space. We have very limited air space. So we have to sometimes fly over built-up areas. We may create some noise nuisance to the residents. Let me assure Members of this House that we would try to minimise such a situation. We will try to minimise flying over built-up areas and we will take all safety precautions necessary to ensure the safety of the residents living in these areas. We will also use more computer simulations, computerised war gaming, in order to reduce the need for actual training on the ground. But whatever we do, we will still not be able to meet the total training needs of the SAF. We will still need to have training facilities overseas in friendly countries. Here, I must say we are very fortunate that we still have several friendly countries who allow our troops to be trained on their territory. The Member also asked whether there is an increasing obesity among SAF enlistees. Yes, there is a rising trend among new enlistees coming into the SAF each year.”
“Yes, I will allow. Thank you very much. I have much more to say, but never mind, we will give the Minister a chance. The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, let me first take up the point raised by Encik Wan Hussin about training areas for the Singapore Armed Forces. Sir, in order to achieve the required level of preparedness, the SAF has to maintain a standing army, air force and navy. SAF is a citizens' defence force, and therefore there will always be recruits to be trained. There will always be company, battalion or brigade level exercises for active servicemen. We have to conduct manoeuvring exercises involving troops, artillery and tanks. We also have to prepare our soldiers for battle, in which case they have to be subjected to live firing exercises before which they must train to use their rifles at rifle ranges. For all these exercises and the housing of the standing forces, SAF needs land. Over the last 15 years, SAF has grown from a 35,000 to 250,000 troop strength armed force. But SAF is not the only growth area in Singapore. The economy also grew. Land has to be set aside and developed for industry, port, airport and other economic uses. The population also grew. HDB had built many new towns and housing estates in the last 15 years. More roads have to be built for areas that have been newly developed. The net result is that while the SAF's need for training areas has increased, the land area for SAF training has actually shrunk considerably over the years. 15 years ago SAF had 206 square kilometres of land to train in. Today, it has only 98 square kilometres. The SAF has been able to achieve this apparent miracle of doing more with less land by adopting several measures.”
“Sir, defence expenditure has increased by leaps and bounds over the last 10 to 15 years. I need not give you the figures. But there is a great disproportionate expenditure on defence today as against all the other expenditures. The sum provided for Defence alone covers more than that for Education, Health, Community Development, Information and the Arts all put together. Apart from the expenditure on manpower, quite a big sum is also meant for the purchase of overseas equipment. All such increases will continue year after year if Singapore continues with its overseas purchases. And what do we purchase? Equipment which is largely obsolescent, and which after a few years at most becomes totally obsolete. There is great emphasis on high-tech equipment these days. Speakers have mentioned this before me. But high-tech also becomes comparatively low-tech after some time. And they all get out of date with time. So excessive spending on defence ultimately leads to considerable wastage of funds which could be much better spent on improving the welfare of the people. It is not necessary to arm ourselves to the teeth. In South-east Asia, we are surrounded by friends. We have bilateral exercises with Indonesia and Malaysia. We still have the Five-Power Defence Arrangement. We also have US troops stationed in Singapore. And we carry out bilateral air-defence exercises with them. What need then is there to spend such huge sums on defence? It must not be forgotten that our purchase of high-tech equipment will encourage others to do the same. This leads to an arms race which ultimately benefits no one but the arms merchants themselves.”
“I am not withdrawing, Sir. I still hope that Government will consider the matter and form a committee to go into this matter more seriously. Call Prof. Tommy Koh to do that. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $19,297,680 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,067,100 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head K -”
“Sir, true, the Prime Minister has said something about the matter some years ago. Well, we are progressing. We are now in 1991, and the PAP now talks about 1999. So, why do we not improve on the past? Certainly this is time for change.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not recognise it as a weak proposal at all. As I have said, I do not intend to argue this case today. If the Government should really be serious about the matter, let it form a committee and let the committee go into the matter and make recommendations accordingly. To answer the point which the Prime Minister has just made, that only one Opposition MP is sufficient to speak for 40% of the voters, may I ask: do we need 80 out of 81 MPs to speak for 61% of the voters? Do we? Surely not. Maybe you need only two PAP MPs. He keeps on talking about parties organised on racial lines. I think we could devise means whereby it would be difficult for those people who want to canvass on racial lines not to be voted into Parliament if we have proportional representation. There are ways and means. Let them look into the matter and investigate. In fact, Japan is doing this very seriously. Let them study what is happening in Japan. They have gone to Japan. I have not, but I have read a little about it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's argument centres around two or three points, but they are all the same old arguments. The same old record is being played again and again. He talks about racial disharmony and a concoction of parties formed along religious lines. So far, this has never happened. The PAP has boasted that it could win in Geylang Serai, a Malay majority constituency. So what is there to worry about? The other worry that the Prime Minister now thinks about is an unstable government. Well, we need not have a total proportional representation all through. We could have it half-half. We could have a first-past-the-post system for half the number of seats and proportional representation for half the number of seats. Then that would allow us to have stable governments at all times. In European countries having PR although some have so-called unstable governments, there is no dissatisfaction about uneven and unequal representation. And that is what we want. We want justice. We want to make sure that everybody's views will be represented in Parliament. At the present moment, as you can see, Sir, there is only one elected Opposition MP for nearly 40% of the opposition votes in the last elections. Surely under no stretch of the imagination would you say that this is fair representation of the votes and the views of the people in Singapore.”
“It is against the very concept of GRC whereby we try to force political parties to adopt a multi-racial approach in gaining voter support. We have, in fact, recognised the phenomenon mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh and, that is, under the first-past-the-post system, the result could be that a party with 60-70% of the votes can win almost all the seats. It is because we recognise this phenomenon that we have introduced our concept of Non-constituency MP. If we have six NCMPs in Parliament, six out of 81 seats in Parliament will give us 7% of the total number of seats in Parliament. That is a fair representation for a party that could gain a seat in Parliament under the first-past-the-post system. No Commonwealth country has introduced the proportional representation system. Yes, some European countries have done so. But look at the result. Look at the result in Italy where they have proportional representation. Italy ends up with a weak government because many small parties can gain seats in Parliament and the result is a coalition of parties forming the government and the government on the whole has proven to be unstable over the years. We see them changing government almost every one year or two years. That is not the kind of system that we want for Singapore. If we end up in such a situation where government changes frequently because government comprises a coalition of parties, I do not think that will benefit Singapore at all. The point made by Dr Lee Siew-Choh has, in fact, been taken into account when we introduced the NCMP concept.”
“I believe that the least that the PAP Government can do is to form a committee to study the matter of electoral reform and make recommendations. Would our Prime Minister be prepared to do that? The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Sir, in 1984, the Workers' Party rejected the proposal when we decided to introduce the NCMP scheme in Parliament. In 1988, the Workers' Party accepted two positions. In 1991, from Dr Lee's inquiry, I take it that he wants the Government to increase the number of NCMPs in Parliament. That is real progress. The Government intends to have more NCMPs after the next elections, at least four, and perhaps six. On his request to have electoral reform so that we can move to some form of proportional representation, I want to say here that I disagree with any suggestion that we should have proportional representation. The reason is this. If we have proportional representation, we are, in fact, concocting a brew that will blow up the multi-racial harmony in Singapore. Very quickly, political parties will be organised along narrow communal lines, even along linguistic lines and perhaps even also along religious lines. We are going to have a Malay-based party going for as high a percentage of the Malay votes as possible; a Chinese-educated party catering mainly to the Chinese-educated in Singapore; perhaps a Buddhist party catering to the Buddhists; a Christian-based party hoping to gain Christian votes; and an Indian party hoping to garner the Indian votes. Under that situation, you can imagine how politics in Singapore will become. Each party will campaign vigorously along linguistic, religious and racial lines and that is the perfect concoction to blow up the harmony which we have in Singapore.”
“Any reasonable system of proportional representation would easily provide a more accurate reflection of the voters' intention in Parliament. In Singapore, the results of the 1988 elections, to quote that most recent example again, produced a most unrepresentative Parliament, ie, our present Parliament with its unjust, unequal and unfair representation. But I can understand why the PAP Government, with its huge majority in Parliament, is most unwilling to institute any change to this present first-past-the-post electoral system. If we should have proportional representation, then the PAP, even if it should continue to form the Government in future, will certainly find that it will no longer have such an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament. But Government has its Vision 1999 and the Next Lap. And the PAP has repeatedly said that it sponsors an open government with participatory democracy in Singapore. That is progress. And this progress should also embrace progress in the promotion of justice and democracy in Singapore. Proportional representation would just fit into the bill. I do not intend to discuss the pros and cons. But it is my hope, and that of wide sections of our people in Singapore, that we have a just and fair representation in Parliament. Maybe the Prime Minister does not fully agree with me today. But I do hope that he will not reject electoral reform out of hand. Today, European countries all practise some form of proportional representation. Japan is seriously considering electoral reform. Prince Charles has also called for electoral reform in Britain. Since the former Prime Minister laughs, it must be a good thing.”
“Yes. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. There are two amendments and I shall deal with them one after the other. As regards the Non-Constituency and Nominated Members of Parliament, I have said that this is not meant to be controversial at all. This amendment is intended not to argue the pros and cons of the issue but to inquire into what Government's intentions are on the matter. In fact, I have already told the Prime Minister that. The Constitution presently provides for a number of NCMPs and NMPs. Presently, we have one NCMP and two NMPs. One NCMP has been disqualified by Parliament under controversial circumstances. We would like to know what the policy of the Government is on these NCMPs and NMPs. As regards proportional representation, this amendment is also not intended that we should have proportional representation straightaway. As I have said during the debate on the President's Address, there is a need for electoral reform in Singapore. It must come some time or other. It might as well come sooner. If only 61% of votes allows the PAP to gain 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament, and 39% of votes allows the Opposition to win only one seat, then there is certainly something very, very wrong with our electoral system. As we know, the first-past-the-post system is no model of democratic procedure. It may even be said that it is one of the most unrepresentative electoral systems hitherto devised by our old colonial masters. A general election under this system could well produce a result which is the exact opposite of the intentions of the majority of the electorate. This has happened in Britain quite a few times.”
“Sir, this is not intended to be a controversial issue. This amendment is intended not to argue -”
“The Minister has not said anything about the water conservation tax. I asked if it has been introduced to meet a demand by the World Bank.”
“May I seek a clarification from the Minister, Sir.”
“I would also like to suggest that companies organise inhouse skills training programmes, providing training of specific relevance to their own workers. With the end of the Gulf war, there are signs that our economy will continue to grow again. More stress should be laid and incentives provided to build and maintain a productive and highly skilled labour force. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on the Consumer Price Index and on the cost of living. I read with interest the introduction of the water conservation tax. From 1st April, a rate of 5% will be imposed on domestic water usage exceeding 20 cubic metres a month. Although I fully support the Government's move to penalise those who waste water and other utilities, I hope the Government would also conduct programmes to educate the people on the need to conserve and be cautious in our spending. Of greater concern to me is the rising cost of living that is affecting the people of Singapore, especially the lower income group. Currently, the Consumer Price Index is at about 4%. Any real wage increase must exceed the rate of inflation, which is the concern of all, workers and employers alike. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.”
“For example, Dr Arthur Beng said that rentals have risen by 200-300%. I have not heard any company giving its workers that much a raise. The question workers ask is, with all these costs rising, why not their wages too? They know how well their companies are doing. This, they feel, is unfair. Workers have been expecting the restoration of employers' contribution to CPF during the good years before the recession. So far, we have restored 6.5 of the 15 percentage point cut. If employers and their spokesmen continue to begrudge the 1 percentage point, they are going to be viewed with low regard by their workers. Workers would press their leaders not to trust the employers and to take a militant approach. Is this what our employers and their spokesmen want? Fortunately, Mr Speaker, we can be proud that we have as leaders of our unions responsible men who have the national interests at heart. Mr Speaker, secondly, I would like to touch on training facilities provided for our workers. I support the Government policy of providing funds for upgrading the skills, knowledge and competitiveness of our workers. If the Edusave scheme is meant specifically for our children who are still in school, equal attention should be given to efforts to retrain workers who do not possess high qualifications and who are 35 years and above. Although Government bodies like the NPB, VITB and the unions do conduct classes for workers, more meaningful efforts can be made to encourage workers to attend these courses. And I would like to urge all employers to invest in such training programmes. In this regard, the Skills Development Fund (SDF) should be fully taken advantage of to further this noble aim.”
“" To coordinate our response to the whole problem, the Ministry must reach out to affect not just Government and restructured medical services, but also academic and private medical centres. For this, it must commit not just funds but constant attention. Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Hon. Minister for Finance. We must be grateful that, for the past several years, we have always enjoyed budget surpluses. It is no easy task to plan and implement the national budget in such a way that an economy vulnerable to shifts in the world situation can keep thriving. The budget this year has been a cautious one, and this is explained by the uncertainties in the international business scene. Thus, a number of tax incentives have been given to businessmen. Still we find various parties who are unhappy with these facilities. Mr Speaker, the Government policy of making sure that every citizen enjoys the fruits of prosperity is evident in a number of incentives that have been provided, such as relief for the handicapped spouse and for contributions to Edusave. The 5% tax rebate would certainly ease the burden of the people. I would like to comment on a number of points raised in the debate yesterday and today. Firstly, on the restoration of 1% of employers' contribution to CPF. I am disappointed to hear a number of hon. Members complaining about the rising wage cost. Business costs should be viewed in a wider perspective. Wage cost is only a part of its totality. Rentals and utilities, telecommunication and transportation costs as well as statutory fees are also part of the cost of doing business. All these have gone up.”
“Firstly, an inherent problem is that while each year brings a plethora of new innovative technology, each technology may take several years to assess. Secondly, physicians practising in an entrepreneurial environment, in which the application of new, even untested, technology widens the scope for reaping financial rewards, cannot be relied upon to protect the interests of their patients. In fact, many would suggest that in such circumstances the patient has to be protected from the physician. In this complex situation involving the patient, the doctor, the purveyors of technology, third party payers such as employers and insurance companies, and the government, who is to decide? The patient cannot, the doctor may not, and the purveyors must not. Quite interestingly, Lee Iacocca, who could turn debt-ridden Chrysler Corporation round, confessed: "Business has lost the war on hospital costs." He suggested turning the job over to government. If our Government is to take the lead in technology assessment, it will, just as in outcomes management, need to allocate substantial resources for research. Excessive application of medical technology is not new. Alexander the Great, who came to an early end, said: "I am dying from the treatment of too many physicians." Today, we still need to avoid over-investigation, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment. To do this well, it is now conceded that the effort can only be orchestrated from the centre. Left on their own, all the concerned parties will merely "nibble around the edges" of the problem, doing what former US Secretary of Labour, John Dunlop, called "disjointed incrementalism.”
“In their occasional paper published this year entitled "Health Care Economics, Policies and Issues in Singapore," Dr Toh Mun Heng and Dr Linda Low, two economists from the NUS, wrote that the "social security system in Singapore, based on the CPF scheme, has carefully considered the problems of the aged both in magnitude and composition." This statement was based on the 1984 Ministry of Health's Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged. Given the exponential increases in health costs to come, and knowledge of patterns of Medisave usage so far, I would suggest that the Ministry carefully reconsider the problem. Looking ahead, it has been suggested that many health economies will be most devastated by two explosions - the explosion in the ageing population, and the explosion in medical technology. What is more, technology may increase longevity, and longevity will increase the use of technology. Technology out of control in medical care is no longer hyperbole; it is real and it is frightening. Technology is multiplying and growing so fast that it may be impossible to know for certain what is useful, what is superfluous, what is redundant, what is extravagant, and, worse, what is harmful. Growth in technology appears to be limitless. Many papers on the "New Technology Assessment" have appeared in recent literature. Dr Victor Fuchs and Dr Alan Garber from Stanford University assert that in "an era when government insurance companies, and employers insist on cost containment, the new technology assessment can be the most powerful tool physicians have to protect the interest of their patients." This assertion has two weaknesses.”
“Commenting on a 10-year plan laid out in the document "Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives" published last year by the US Department of Healthy and Human Services, Dr Louis Sullivan, a staff member, claimed that "better control of fewer than 10 risk factors - such as poor diet, lack of prenatal care, infrequent exercise, the use of tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse, and simple failure to use seat belts - could prevent between 40% and 70% of all premature deaths, a third of all cases of acute disability, and two thirds of all cases of chronic disability." I was, therefore, amazed to see that our Training and Health Education Unit spent an estimated sum of only $2.60 per capita in financial year 1990, projected to increase to $2.73 per capita in financial year 1991. Yet, it has been noticeably more effective and dynamic in recent years. It may be deduced that the Unit is highly productive, or has alternate sources of funds. Of course the limited number of risk factors, legislation on seat belt usage, and increases in tobacco tax make its task easier, but I wonder if the Unit's impact would be greater if it had more than $2.73 per capita. In the same table, one notices under the item "Health Services for the Elderly" that the number of home visits for the elderly has fallen from 39,155 in 1986 to 28,466 in 1990. I am perplexed that our ageing population with more elderly sick appears to require less home visitation services. Could it be that our family units are really getting stronger? Or could it be that the cost per visit has increased from $16.10 in 1986 to $25.30 in 1990? Mr Speaker, in my last address to this House, I spoke on the urgent need to grapple with the challenge of an ageing population.”
“" Outcomes management will not solve all, nor even most, of the problems that plague health care today, but it is an important measure. In Singapore, we have hardly begun to study widely and systematically our own medical processes and outcomes. Looking at the health budget, I could not detect any specific allocation of resources for this activity. To be sure, outcomes management may be done here and there on an ad hoc basis, but it requires a clear commitment of resources if it is to yield benefits. I would therefore urge the Minister to consider such allocations. It is now recognized that large computerized medical databases offer investigators of outcomes a rich source of information to dig into. Although such retrospective analysis is non-randomized for study purposes, it offers a valuable insight into actual medical practices and results. Unfortunately, most medical databases focus on financial and administrative transactions. The clinical and scientific content is often paltry, and reveals little about the actual process of delivering health care. Although electronic medical databases are at a developmental stage, I would suggest that hospital databases incorporate some useful clinical parameters for future outcomes analysis, and the Ministry's full implementation of Medinet should attempt to accommodate this. Unlike cures for diseases which are more easily seen and measured, outcomes of primary prevention programmes are less obvious. For this reason, doctors and lay persons alike have not placed much emphasis on preventive measures. Yet personal responsibility for health maintenance is increasingly recognized as an important strategy to reduce health care expenditure.”
“" This was the opening salvo in a report of a joint conference between the Royal College of Physicians of London and the American College of Physicians held in January last year. Americans spend US$600 billion or 12% of their GNP on health care. Despite this, the American health care industry is tottering under a host of problems identified by Don Berwick from Harvard as "technology out of control, rising costs, variations in care, rising malpractice suits, angry payers, hospitals going broke and patients afraid." This is not the scenario in Singapore today, but may well be. The US problems may become our problems, and their solutions today may offer means for our escape tomorrow. For this reason, we should examine them closely, so that we can choose the right programmes and maximise our health dollars. One of the solutions offered at the conference was "outcomes management" a term proposed by Dr Paul Elwood of Interstudy and Quality Quest, USA, a pioneer of health maintenance organizations. Outcomes management measures the effectiveness of medical practice through assessment of patient outcomes. Put simply, it seeks to find out, in medical care, what works, why it works, and how it works. This movement is gathering so much momentum that the editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Arnold Relman, called it a revolution. In 1988, research into outcomes manage-ment in the USA was limited to US$1.9 million. Just two years later, in 1990, the US National Center for Health Services Research allotted more than US$30 million for such research. It is hoped that this research will obtain "better information for doctors and patients, improved guidelines for medical practice, and wiser decisions by purchasers of health care.”
“If only a portion of these funds spent on defence should be channelled to improving education, health-care and welfare of the people, all Singapore would benefit. But almost all fiscal measures, year after year, have been designed not to promote welfare and ease the burdens of the people, but to promote growth and increase the profits for big business. Meanwhile, many continue to suffer hardships. Already there are promises of increases in PUB rates and other fees and charges. Even burial fees have gone up. And consumption taxes may soon be imposed. The people may also expect the imposition of more and more inter-budgetary taxes without any debate at all on the matter. If Government is serious about improving the lot of our people, all this must change. And the sooner the better. Assoc. Prof. Maurice Choo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I asked my 10-year old last night what he would like most if he were sick, he said: "I want to get better so that I can study and play." It struck me that all the key elements of good medical care were encapsulated in that wish. These have been expressed by more sophisticated minds as access, affordability and quality. Some weeks ago, I was speaking with a group of journalists, some of whom are in the Gallery here, about the critical issues confronting Singaporeans today. There was unanimity that the rising cost of medical care is one. Today, I should like to keep one eye on this year's health budget but, more important, the other eye at the longer term prospects for containing health costs, yet ensuring access to quality care. "Health care systems of all types are in crisis.”
“When it should tax those best able to pay, it would rather tax those who have low incomes, and who live from hand-to-mouth. If the PAP aimed to be a caring society, as it has said on many occasions, then the first step should be to lighten the burdens of the lower income group in Singapore. In this connection, I would also like to call the attention of the Minister to the hardships caused by the imposition of heavy levies on foreign maids. Tax rebates are presently given to working married women. There are, however, also non-married women who need the services of foreign maids to look after aged parents and younger children. Although tax reliefs are given for normal children and aged parents and handicapped children, the Minister should know that these tax reliefs are totally inadequate. No one wishes to incur extra household expenditure to engage a foreign maid unless absolutely necessary. Tax rebates should therefore be seriously considered also for households which need the services of domestic help for whatever reasons. The Government should not try to put a tax on everything. Let me conclude, Sir. The Government has spoken much of its Vision 1999 and now of the Next Lap. But all this will remain an empty dream if we do not keep our priorities right. In the past, the PAP used to say that we had to enlarge the cake before we could share it. Over the years, we have enlarged the cake many times. But the cake is still being hogged by the PAP, and it is not being shared more evenly. A few at the top are enjoying all the best on the table. The vast majority receive only crumbs and left-overs. Presently, a large part of our budget is spent on defence, 27.9%. Only 4.5% is spent on health, and a meagre 1.4% on community development. A world of difference.”
“With an ever increasing cost of living, $3,000 in take-home pay after CPF contributions will not go very far. As very tersely and forcefully pointed out in the Straits Times editorial of 1st March 1991, and I quote: "That might have bought a lot in 1961. But not today." If the Straits Times (often called a PAP newspaper) could argue the case so strongly for personal allowances, what excuse has Government not to increase them? As I had pointed out in last year's Budget debate, for many years Malaysia's personal allowance for a married couple has been $7,000 a year. Yet with a higher cost of living in Singapore, our Government's miserly personal allowance for a married couple has only recently been increased to $3,500. We have billions and billions in reserves, and we have billions in surpluses year after year since 1986. Corporate taxes have been reduced again and again, from 45% not so very long ago to the present 31%. And the Minister has told us that a 1% reduction in corporate tax works out to $70 million. Just calculate the billions and billions that have been given to big business in tax concessions all these years, not to mention the billions that have been given to big business during the 1985-1986 recession in Singapore. The rich and high income earners too have had their personal tax rates reduced from 40% to the present 33%. Yet the PAP would rather help big business to make more and more profits, and the rich to become richer, than give some measure of necessary relief to our low income workers. Clearly the PAP has all its priorities upside down. When it should be helping the low income people, it would rather help big business and the rich instead.”
“Now there is this new conservation tax in addition to the existing 5% tax on PUB bills. What other taxes will the PAP think of next? Will the Minister inform this House - I hope to hear the answer - whether this new tax is a new condition imposed by the World Bank or whether it is another gem from a PAP brain-wave? The PAP Government has often stated that in the coming years it intends to help those who have remained poor although they have worked and saved for many years. But now the PAP wants to impose more taxes on them, on their use of water which is a necessity of life. This is a typical example of the PAP saying one thing and doing another thing; in fact, the direct opposite in many cases. At the same time, instead of giving people more tax allowances and reliefs, the PAP Government continues to cast its tax net as widely as possible. It is true, Sir, that the low and middle income groups do not pay very high taxes. But it has to be remembered that, for them, a large part of their income goes to pay for the necessities of life, like food, health care, transport, housing, clothing, education for the children, and so on. They have very little left over for other things. Yet Government does not lift a finger to extend a helping hand to them by way of personal allowances and reliefs. How then can the PAP claim to help the poor? From 1961 to 1990, 30 years, the personal allowance for a married couple has remained the same at $3,000. Only in 1990, was it increased to $3,500. Today the people are paying more and more taxes almost on everything in the form of fees, charges, licences, permits, levies, duties, rates, fines, what-have-you, just name them, and the PAP will impose a tax on them.”