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 6 of 17.
“Sir, would the number of class C beds be more or less than previously?”
“I am surprised at the answer given by the Minister. He surely should know.”
“How many C class beds will be put in SGH? Is the Minister suggesting that people who go to SGH and want to go to C class beds will be sent away to other hospitals?”
“At the present moment, are there C class beds in the Singapore General Hospital?”
“Sir, since the Government has highlighted this new policy of consultative democracy, would the Minister be prepared to really carry out what the Government has already said, namely, to consult the people before they increase the charges?”
“Has any action been taken against drivers who have violated this regulation? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, Members will recall that some time ago last year a similar question was asked by Mr Chin Harn Tong. At that stage, I said that the Traffic Police preferred to have an initial period of education by advising motorists on the dangers of such activity, particularly in respect of road safety. I think enough time has been given to educate and counsel motorists and now the Traffic Police is of the view that action should be taken.”
“Is it because he suspects that he would not get the support of the people if he should hold a referendum on the Elected President issue? The President's Address is strangely silent on the question of a referendum on this important Elected President issue. Neither has the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned any possible referendum on the Elected President proposal in his recent press interview with Taiwan journalists. I therefore propose an amendment to the motion before the House. Sir, I beg to move, "That at the end of the words 'this Parliament', to add: but regret that the programme outlined in the Address has made no provisions for seeking the consent of the electorate by means of a national referendum on the Elected President proposal which would mean such a fundamental change to the way we have governed ourselves."”
“On the Elected President proposal, legislation of which will be tabled in Parliament this year, it must be remembered that although most people would agree in principle that our national resources and the integrity of key appointments should be safeguarded, there is also widespread disagreement over how that should be done. Should these national resources and key appointments be safeguarded by an Elected President? Or be left in the hands of elected representatives of the people? Moreover, many people also disagree on the many details that are listed in the Elected President proposal in the White Paper. How then does Government intend to obtain consensus on the matter? By railroading the Bill through the use of its overwhelming majority in Parliament? Or by a democratic national referendum so that every voter in Singapore will be able to freely express his or her views on the matter? Many people have asked: Will Government truly seek consensus through a democratic national referendum? Holding a national referendum is the only way to allow the Government and the people to move as one, as Mr Ng Pock Too should know. In 1988, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said he would let the issue of the Elected President be decided by a national referendum, but now he pretends to have already obtained a mandate from the people in the 1988 elections, and he sings a different tune. On the referendum issue, he sings a different tune, a la some European leader, who had earlier said he would let his new policy be decided in a referendum and now says he will not. The leader apparently has got cold feet, the "kiasu" syndrome. Is our First Deputy Prime Minister also infected with the same "kiasu" syndrome bug?”
“Even the religious bodies are to be muzzled in some ways. (I do not know how yet). Where is the so-called participating democracy that Government talks so much about? Of course, I can appreciate the difficulties that may be encountered in trying to reach consensus in the Government. Because while the First Deputy Prime Minister speaks of participatory democracy, the Minister for Trade and Industry also talks of something different, that if anyone wishes to take part in the political process, then he must join a political party. Or is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing? Let me now touch on consensus. The New Collins International Dictionary of the English Language defines "Consensus" as "General or widespread agreement". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Consensus" as "The collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". Let us take two important issues that have been singled out by Government to be dealt with during this parliamentary session. On the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, Government has apparently some support. But there is also considerable disagreement from many quarters. Some people believe that the Bill is unnecessary, that the issue has been brought up in a belated attempt to justify the detention of so-called Marxists, that Government fears dissent from a growing number of young Christian converts, who could adversely affect PAP votes in the next elections. But how would Government go about to obtain consensus or widespread agreement on this Bill? We will have to wait and see.”
“In addition to this, what other concrete steps should be carried out? I suggest that Government should: (1) abolish the requirements for police permits for the holding of rallies, forums and debates that may be carried out by discussion groups, on any national issue that may be of concern to the people. At the present moment, these police permits are an encumbrance, a hindrance, to anybody wishing to take part in such discussions. (2) remove legal restrictions on professional bodies (like the Law Society, the Singapore Medical Association, and so on) from voicing criticism on any legislation or issue that may be of national interest. (3) amend the law recently passed in Parliament to allow peaceful assemblies and demonstrations against any policy of Government. I emphasise, Sir, "peaceful". We are against any form of violence, especially from certain quarters in any way. (4) abolish the ISA's power of detention without trial. Or, if they do not want to do that straightaway, introduce legislation to ensure that the powers of detention will not be exercised against any person or persons voicing grievances peacefully and legitimately, or mustering support for their views on any important issue. These are some of the basic and elementary steps necessary for the implementation of participatory democracy in Singapore. But what Government has done is the very opposite. For instance, opposition parties are harassed in every way possible. Their activities are hamstrung. The press is all one sided. Even our right of reply is denied us in the Forum page of the Straits Times. Right of reply, which is so much emphasised by the Government and fully supported by the Straits Times, has been denied us. If they want me to quote actual instances, I may. The foreign press is restricted.”
“Thus, the first prerequisite is that our society must be truly free and democratic. We must uphold fundamental human rights, justice and civil liberties. The whole world is marching towards democracy. Singapore should not lag behind. It goes without saying therefore that Government must immediately and unconditionally release all political detainees, especially Chia Thye Poh, who has been detained for 23(r) years, and allow them to take part freely in the political affairs of our country. For instance, no restrictions should have been placed on Teo Soh Lung who has been recently released. As regards the release of detainees, I ask: What has Government to fear? Does the Government fear that the release of detainees will bring about a revolution? But today the people will no longer buy stories of communist or Marxist revolutions. There is therefore no justification for further detention of political detainees. If the Government still does not release unconditionally all political detainees, we can only conclude that all talk of participatory democracy is just so much hot-air propaganda and PAP double-talk. A participatory democracy must also mean that elections which are held every four or five years must be free and fair (those are the important words, Sir, which are now currently in use all round the world), free and fair elections, with no intimidation of political opponents, so that the people will feel free to participate in the political affairs of the country without fear. That is the most important thing. It goes without saying that the press must also be free and impartial, and Opposition parties are given adequate air time on radio and TV to present their views to the electorate, as has already been stressed by Mr Chiam.”
“There were no ministerial walkabouts, no dialogue sessions, no public debates with Government on such a big important issue, an issue which affects the lives of so many people in Singapore before the Government decision was made. Certainly the people did not have any opportunity to choose and decide for themselves since the decision had already been made for them by Government, probably even long before the Parliamentary Select Committee published its report. Moreover, the car quota system benefits only a small section of the people, namely, the well-to-do and the speculators, whereas it "hurts most people, not the fewest". So everything that has been done is just the opposite of what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. I can quite understand why Dr John Chen has put up such a spirited defence of his Party. But most people in Singapore would not be able to agree with what he has said. From the way in which the car quota issue was handled, it can be seen that there has been no true practice of participatory democracy as pronounced by the First Deputy Prime Minister. However, I would like to stress that pari passu with the Government leadership transition and a rapidly changing world, Government should not miss the opportunity to initiate changes similar to those that have taken place and are still taking place in Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world, including South Africa, so that we in Singapore may also develop our society into a truly participatory democracy. What are the steps that are necessary for a participatory democracy in Singapore? A participatory democracy must mean that everyone has an opportunity to freely and without fear express views and take part in the political process of the country.”
“But in praising the new style, I wonder if they also realise that they have, at the same time, perhaps inadvertently, in some ways, shown their disapproval of the old style of government under the present Prime Minister. This must certainly cause our Prime Minister some unhappiness and perhaps even make him regret that he had not practised a more consultative style of government in the past. As for the Workers' Party, I must say that we always fully support all policies and styles of government that are truly democratic, fair and just, old or new style. As regards the new style of Government, my question is: how has Government gone about its participatory democracy and consensus building? The First Deputy Prime Minister cites ministerial walkabouts and whatnots. Enlarging on participatory democracy he also said on 8th May, and I quote: 'On big issues, Government will spell out the problem, detail alternatives, solutions, discuss and choose the one that benefits most people and hurt the fewest'. Very well said, Sir. I give my full support if those words are carried out to the letter. But is all this that genuine? Or is it merely another instance of PAP double-talk? Let us see how such praiseworthy policy pronouncements translate into actual practice. On the car quota issue, for instance. The Parliamentary Select Committee Report was published on 3rd January, 1990. In less than one month Government had announced its decision to implement the quota system on 30th January 1990, and on the following day, an interim registration fee was imposed, in spite of talks by the Minister for Trade and Industry, with clear intention to mislead, that it would take some months to decide, and other Ministers also saying the same thing more or less.”
“We support privatisation of certain Government companies that are strictly commercial and that can be handled by the private sector. But we cannot support privatisation of Singapore Telecom and the PUB. These are state undertakings operated for the common benefit of all the people in the country, and also the industrial sector. When profits or surpluses are made, they go not to private individuals but to the state. And these state funds may generally be used for the general welfare of the people in various ways. Both Singapore Telecom and PUB are at present very efficiently run. Telecom has been toasted as one of the best and most advanced in the world. Moreover, we are not in need of extra funds, as I have already indicated. We therefore do not need to privatise Singapore Telecom and PUB. Privatisation will only mean selling off of Singapore's assets that have been built up over the years by the people and which belong to all the people, to those private individuals who can afford to buy shares, and to the rich and financial institutions, including foreigners. If privatisation in UK should be any guide, privatisation of Telecom will lead to a fall in efficiency and standards and a rise in costs for consumers, "lifeline service" charges notwithstanding. Much of Singapore's land assets and industries have already fallen into the hands of foreigners. Government should not also sell off our family silver, as the saying goes. Let me now comment briefly on our new consultative style of Government, namely, participatory democracy and consensus building. Many speakers have heaped praise on this new style of Government of the First Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Government has stated in the Addendum of the Ministry of Finance that "Legislation on a broad-based consumption tax will be introduced this year." But since "actual implementation will be deferred for as long as the revenue situation permits," is there any reason why legislation has to be introduced this year? Our revenue position is good. We have just had three good years with huge surpluses and our foreign reserves have reached $40 billion early this year. What need then is there for such broad-based consumption taxes? Further, what is meant by "an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption"? Since the 1980s, the amount of direct taxes on income compared to the indirect taxes on consumption has been progressively reduced. Now it would appear that Government intends to reduce the proportion even further. That would not be an equitable balance between taxes on income and consumption. An equitable balance would be one in which the direct taxes go up and the indirect taxes go down. But if indirect taxes or consumption taxes should instead go up, and direct taxes go down, then that would be an inequitable balance. It would be inequitable because indirect taxes impose heavier burdens on those who can least afford to pay the taxes, and especially the low and middle income groups. The proposed consumption taxes are unfair and regressive. They do not create a better life for Singaporeans and they can only bring them further hardships. Government has already imposed consumption taxes on a wide variety of items. If it should further widen the net, then it only shows that Government is becoming more and more uncaring, and intends to impose heavier and yet heavier burdens on the people. Privatisation - another related issue.”
“But, in actual practice, few Singaporeans will be able to pass the means test, and fewer still are willing to suffer the humiliation of having to subject themselves to all sorts of inquiries into their private lives. It would appear that the PAP has forgotten its duty and responsibility to care for the poor and aged sick and its early Party promise to struggle for a more equal and just society which Mr Lim has just emphasised. Government has introduced MediShield which comes into operation on the 1st of July and which had initially given many people such high hopes when the scheme was first announced. But many people have become very disappointed and disillusioned when all the details of how the scheme actually works are made known. It would appear that with all the "deductibles" incorporated in the scheme, the sick man who is stricken with a catastrophic illness will find that he benefits very little from it. Moreover, coverage ends at age 65, just when the sick most need such coverage. MediShield must therefore be suitably amended to truly help those who are stricken with catastrophic illnesses and are most in need of MediShield help. From all this, it can be seen that far from creating a better life for all the low and middle income workers, (life for them has not been so very good) the Government has caused them more sufferings and hardships instead. Hard experience tells the people that the PAP stands for making people pay and pay. Many now say, "If you are poor, don't get sick." Dr Arthur Beng is right there. Those who have low incomes just cannot afford to get sick. That is the scandalous situation that restructuring of hospitals has brought about. Consumption taxes.”
“In 1984, the First Deputy Prime Minister had said that one of the priorities for his new Cabinet was "help for those in the bottom 25% of society, who have missed out on progress and prosperity." Over the last six years, to say nothing of the last 30 years of PAP rule, has the Government done anything to help those in the bottom 25% of society? The answer is: hardly anything. Instead of help, all they get from the PAP are higher and higher taxes, charges and fees imposed on a wide variety of items. Little wonder that, as others have said, the rich-poor gap keeps on widening. Take, for instance, medical charges which have been touched on by quite a few other speakers. As is well known, since 1st April, hospital charges have gone up in restructured hospitals. From 1st August, charges will also go up in all Government hospitals. Government has also promised that there will be yet further increases every year. What is worse, the number of Class C beds in all hospitals has been drastically reduced while the number of Class B2 beds has been correspondingly increased. The NUH and SGH have no Class C beds. Hospitals have been restructured in order to pass the cost of health services on to the sick people themselves. Or to allow greater recovery of cost from consumers, as Dr Wang has put it. For the low and middle income groups who seek hospital treatment, there is no choice but to opt for B2 beds for which they will have to pay much higher charges. Though Government has said that it will reintroduce Class C beds in SGH, that has not come about as yet. This may well take another year or two. Government says it "will always subsidise health services for those in need of treatment who cannot afford to pay for it." How sweet these words sound.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as in January 1989, Government on this occasion has again stated that its programme is to "create a better life for all Singaporeans." As I can recall, the PAP Government has been saying this many times over the last 30 years. And it has never failed to claim to have completed this or that part of its programme. But we may well ask: Has the PAP in fact created a better life for all Singaporeans? All Singaporeans? No, Sir. Some people? Yes. There is no doubt that some people have benefited and they do have a much better life under PAP rule. Top civil servants, for example. Our Ministers, for example, who now draw fat salaries that can be said to be the highest in the world. But what of the vast majority of workers in Singapore? According to the Report on the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1989, more than 65% of our workers, numbering more than 1,260,000 workers, earn less than $1,000 per month, as some other speakers have already touched on. And among them, 20% or 250,000 earn between $600 and $800; 22% or 270,000 earn between $400 and $600; and 12% or 160,000 earn less than $400 per month. Dr Vasoo has updated the last figure to 20%. If we take away the CPF and other contributions, their take-home pay will be much less. With such low incomes, looking after a family of four is no easy matter. These people, as stated by several speakers over the last two days, live from hand to mouth. They certainly do not have a better life under PAP rule. Is it any wonder that many HDB dwellers are in arrears in their payments of lease-loan instalments, rents, PUB and conservancy charges?”
“May I say a few words, Sir. Let me inform the Minister that I have never been more serious in my life. Sir, you know, laughter is infectious, and when they laugh, I cannot help but laugh in return. The Minister just cannot reply to what I have suggested because he dares not reply. The facts are there. It is up to him to show me that I am wrong. And if he does not show me that I am wrong, it means that I am right.”
“Under Article 105(1), the PSC is appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. If the PSC delegates powers to any member of the Commission or to any Board, the PSC is not obliged to consult the Prime Minister in order to do so. I may be wrong, let him correct me. But if there are three separate services Commissions, it will mean that the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, will be able to exercise direct control over all the three services Commissions. He laughs. He knows it. Could that be the correct interpretation of why there is this change and split up of the PSC into three services Commissions? If that interpretation should be correct, then we could say that the whole exercise is intended to give more direct powers to the Prime Minister and also to institutionalise the whole process. It would seem, Sir, that all these amendments to the Constitution are designed to prepare the ground for increased powers of the Elected President. And you know who he is going to be!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, looking through the Bill, I find that it seeks in clause 4 to establish two new services Commissions and, in fact, to split up the present constituted Public Service Commission into three separate services Commissions. The proposed new Education Service Commission may appoint, as has been said, and promote all public officers of the Education Service, except the top post, ie, the Director of Education. But the dismissal and disciplinary control over the public officers in the Education Service continue to be the duty of the PSC as laid down in the Bill. Similarly, the proposed Police and Civil Defence Services Commission will appoint, promote and transfer officers in the Police Service and Civil Defence Service except the top post, ie, the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Civil Defence. But the dismissal and disciplinary control will continue to be the duty of the PSC. In other words, both the new services Commissions are still under the total control of the PSC. Presently, under Article 116(3) of the Constitution, the PSC may delegate functions to any member of the Commission or to any Board, to exercise functions under the direction and control of the Public Service Commission. Why then is it necessary to split up the PSC and form two other services Commissions? The Minister has mentioned something about the work load. For that, it is difficult to understand the need for this change, Sir, as our Ministers may know by now, I have a rather suspicious mind. I have learnt that, Sir, after all these 30 years of suppression by the PAP. Has this Bill anything to do with the powers of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is here, he can answer that.”
“Sir, I think the First Deputy Prime Minister should not intimidate Members of the Opposition. I think I have more political experience than Mr Jeyaretnam. An hon. Member: So that he will be kinder to you!”
“Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister is very farsighted. He looks 20 or 30 years down the road. I wonder if he can see anything down that far! If he really could, Sir, why the hurry to pass the Bill? In 20 or 30 years he may not be here. The other thing, Sir, if I should make any so-called allegations, they are not necessarily wild. I only suspect. If the First Deputy Prime Minister disagrees with that and tells me that it is not so, then prove it. In fact, the wild men were the PAP Ministers. If you remember, for those people who are old enough, the first Straits Times photograph of the wild men of the PAP was splashed on the front page of the newspaper in 1959. And they headlined it "Wild Men of Singapore". In it was the Prime Minister.”
“Whether he contests as an independent or as a member of any political party, he would certainly be seen as one holding strong political views, either similar to the viewpoints of the ruling party or to the viewpoints of an opposition party. He would hardly be seen as a truly independent candidate. If he should lose the by-election and still cling on to the NMP seat, he would be seen as an opportunist, and an NMP with very low credibility. That is not fair to the NMP himself. Therefore, Sir, all in all, I feel that the recommendations of the Select Committee are not appropriate and should not be supported.”
“Now I ask: is that the reason why the amount of the extra financial expenditure involved at present cannot be ascertained? That is what it says, "This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained." Sir, if they are only ordinary NMPs, the amount of allowances for the six of them could be calculated to the exact cent. But the whole trouble is that they may be Ministers or Ministers of State, or other appointments. Therefore, the exact amount cannot be ascertained. And is that why this Bill is being pushed through in such a hurry? Whether NMPs should sever all ties with political parties Paragraph 37 asks whether NMPs should be, and be seen to be, non-partisan with no affiliation to any political party. The First Deputy Prime Minister had said previously that he wanted non-politically affiliated NMPs. Now he has changed his views. And once more I ask: why then a change "to let these matters evolve naturally as constitutional conventions and practice"? As has already been mentioned by Dr Arthur Beng, just as justice must be seen to be done, so must NMPs also be seen to be non-members of any political party, or as people who have no close association or connection with any political party. Any form of association with a political party immediately puts the credibility of the NMP in question. He becomes seen as a member of that Party. Whether an NMP should vacate his seat before contesting a by-election Sir, to be fair to the NMP himself, he should vacate his NMP seat if he should contest any by-election.”
“Or do we need an expert asso- ciated with the environment to be in charge of the Environment Ministry? What the First Deputy Prime Minister suggests is that the Government should staff itself with a full load of technocrats. If that is the case, I suggest that the First Deputy Prime Minister choose his Ministers from the Permanent Secretaries and also from the professors of the university. They have special knowledge, and I am sure the First Deputy Prime Minister will be able to benefit from all their expertise. We must also remember, Sir, that the elections are held to choose political parties, because political parties follow special philosophies, hold special views about things and represent special interests. And from these political parties, Ministers are usually chosen. If we really need technocrats and people with special knowledge, think of the old PAP in 1959. There was hardly a handful, two or three people, who had tertiary education. Yet, we had a number of Ministers, and has Government carried on until the present day, of course, by suppressing us. It is politics that decides how the interests and welfare of the people are to be looked after and represented. It is the politicians who decide on the priorities of how funds are to be allocated, so that the mahority of the people in the country will benefit. Therefore to ask for a person with the technical skill to look after a special portfolio is much against PAP's own political views and philosophy. We must remember that politics is the key issue. But I suspect, Sir, that it is very possible that the Government already has someone outside the House, earmarked as an NMP, and would like to appoint that someone as Minister for a special portfolio. That is the very reason why the whole thing has been changed.”
“This would do away with the unsatisfactory and laughable procedure of allowing the PAP Select Committee to consult PAP members in the selection of NMPs. Whether NMPs should be permitted to hold political office Paragraph 30 of the Report refers to possible appointment of NMPs as Ministers of Government. The First Deputy Prime Minister has now changed his tune. And I would like to ask, Sir, why the sudden change? The Report, and the 1DPM both argue that the UK, France and other countries have appointed Ministers from non-elected members of the legislature. The examples given, however, are countries which have a second Chamber of Parliament. And I understand that this appointment of non-elected members to be Ministers has been severely criticised and regarded as an anachronism. Already there is a strong call for such undemocratic practice to be discarded. We have a unicameral Parliament in Singapore. Our situation is entirely different. Why then do we need to appoint NMPs as Ministers? The First Deputy Prime Minister says it is for the national interests. First, is the PAP suggesting that with 80 out of 81 MPs in the House, there is no Backbencher who is fit and good enough to be a Minister? I cannot believe that, as I can see that a good number of PAP Backbenchers are most capable MPs who could easily serve as very good Ministers in the Government. So there is no need for the change. Next, the First Deputy Prime Minister argues that there may be special knowledge needed for special portfolios. He quotes the example of a Minister for Arts. Sir, if you need an artist to be in charge of the portfolio for Arts, let me ask: what about health? Do we need also a medical officer to be in charge of the Ministry of Health?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me say that the Workers' Party is against the Bill in principle. We disagree that there is any need for NMPs. Presently, the Constitution has provisions for up to six Opposition NCMPs. We have now one elected Opposition MP and one NCMP. If Government feels that there should be more Opposition MPs, all it has got to do is to increase the number of NCMPs, to make up the total number of Opposition MPs to six. I will now deal with the recommendations of the Select Committee. Procedure for Selection of NMPs The Committee recommends that the Special Select Committee, wherever possible, consult MPs individually or in groups. Presently, Sir, the House has 80 PAP MPs out of a total of 81. If the PAP Special Select Committee should consult MPs in this House, it will mean consulting other PAP Members. This is hardly any change from the original provision in the Bill. It is still the PAP consulting the PAP, which is no consultation at all. General Criteria for Selection of NMPs The point is: who decides the criteria? The Report has suggested a list. In fact, the criteria recommended are linked to, and cannot be separated from, the procedure for selection of NMPs. Paragraph 26(i) and (ii) of the Report emphasises, and I quote, "the need for NMPs to reflect as wide a range of independent, non-partisan views as possible". Therefore, is it not logical and appropriate that nominees be suggested by the profes- sional bodies themselves? For example, the Special Select Committee may fix the number of NMPs, and professional bodies like those from lawyers, architects, accountants, doctors, engineers, universities, may then recommend the exact number of nominees to the Special Select Committee.”
“The point is that the Minister is merely trying to rationalise the fare increases. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Yeo Ning Hong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. NOTICE FOR DEBATE ON BILLS”
“Sir, I think we are all living in this real world, and that is why I am expressing this concern about the possibility of fare increases. Now the Minister has inadvertently admitted that they are trying to postpone the fare increases as long as possible. It is only a matter of time that the fare increase will come about.”
“I am glad, Sir, that the Minister has given me some clarification. I am beginning to learn a little here. But will the Minister give the assurance that there will be no fare increases by MRT?”
“Would the Minister consider incorporating such an amendment in the Bill?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that the Bill is to pave the way for MRT fare increases in the near future. How else would the Corporation, and I quote, "ensure as far as possible that, taking one year with another, its revenue is at least sufficient to meet its operating expenses", as stated in clause 2? The trouble with the MRT today is that it has not been able to make money or break even. The 1989 MRTC Annual Report states that there is an operating deficit of $94 million, $40 million more than the operating deficit of 1988. Its operating income, on the other hand, was only $588,000 in 1989, compared to an operating income of $562,000 in 1988. In other words, the MRT has been losing money and more money every year. And the Bill now provides excuses for the MRTC to increase fares at any time the MRTC decides to do so. The Minister for Trade and Industry has said that he cannot guarantee that there will be no fare increases in future. This means that there will be both bus fare and MRT fare increases soon. Raising fares will certainly lead to a chain reaction of price increases all round and in an increase in the cost of living. There is of course great public concern, again concern, Sir, on the matter of possible MRT fare increases. Therefore, there must be some form of restraint on fare increases by the MRTC. Many people feel that if the MRTC wishes to increase fares, it should first submit proposals for such fare increases, either to a special Board or to Parliament. And such proposals for fare increases should not take effect until approval is given either by the Board or by Parliament. If the Minister thinks that the present arrangement is good enough, he could assure the public that there will be no unnecessary and irresponsible fare increases now and again.”
“I am surprised at the attitude taken by the Minister. I have not alleged anything against any individual. So what is he barking about?”
“As I have said, Sir, I have made no specific allegations. But a concern is a concern. Are we not entitled to be concerned? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, we have gone through this many times before. It is the business of Members to raise concerns in this House and to provide facts and evidence to back up these matters raised, failing which expressions must be discounted and in cases where they impugn the integrity and the reputation of individuals, we will have to ask the Members to repeat them outside the House, otherwise it becomes a question of privilege.”
“Sir, I have not alleged anything against anyone. I merely said that there is public concern and I think it is only fair that such concern should be openly stated in Parliament. Let the Minister assure us that there need be no fear of any misuse of information and that all the information collected will be respected in full confidence. I expect, with the assurance from the Minister, that there need not be too much worry on this matter now. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, what the Member said was quite clear. It was recorded and the tape can be played back. He should not resile from words he has uttered barely minutes ago. It was the habit of his Secretary-General to make vague allegations and to ask the Government to reassure him that all was well and there was nothing to be worried about. If he has any allegations, let him state them, and let us investigate them.”
“Sir, I support and I agree on the need for a census to be held and I also agree that we need to keep all information obtained confidential. But what I wish to say may be more or less the same as my comments on the previous Bill because the two Bills are in fact inter-linked. I am concerned that the Bill allows the Superintendent of Census to gain access to the information obtained by a competent authority, which information is then relayed to certain public authorities. This phrase "certain public authorities" can have a very wide meaning. My concern is that such information could be misused for improper motives. May I say once more that I believe that Parliament should have some control over the nature and type of information an individual is required to furnish. There should be strict care that there is no real invasion into the privacy of the individual.”
“What response does he want? Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CENSUS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think one would not be able to get easy evidence of many of these kinds of things. Because they are all controlled in certain quarters and, of course, if information that is required is not being provided to us, we are at a loss to produce any evidence. I can assure you, Sir, that in the past, Government had not only been phone tapping but had also put bugs in people's houses. [Laughter]. Yes, they laugh, Sir. I can assure you I had four bugs removed from my house. And I can assure you, if the Minister would like me to produce the evidence, I will produce the bugs to show him, because I have got the evidence. Therefore, to say that there is no phone tapping at the present moment is not correct. Of course, as I said, it is not easy to get such evidence. But just because we cannot get the evidence, the Minister cannot say that there is no such phone tapping at all. Also, Sir, he says it is a very straightforward Bill, I agree it is a straightforward Bill. But many straightforward Bills have been rendered crooked by the Government. Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I repeat what I said earlier. I would like the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament to substantiate what he has said and to give us facts. I will undertake to pass them on to the relevant Minister to investigate.”
“Is the Minister suggesting that no phone is being tapped in Singapore?”
“And I hope the Minister will consider what I have said, and perhaps make certain amendments to give the House the assurance that we need.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, keeping good, accurate and up-to-date statistics is essential for the development of the economy in a country. And statistics provide a wealth of information necessary for realistic planning and research, and for the Government to introduce appropriate policies and measures in keeping with the times. However, despite the assurance given to the House by the Minister of State, there is also widespread concern that some information acquired by the statisticians and provided to certain authorities could be misused and abused for improper political motives. For example, the competent authorities listed in the Third Schedule, namely, the Superintendent of Census, the Central Provident Fund Board, the Trade Development Board, all obtain a great deal of information which would be considered private and personal by many people. They consider it an invasion into the privacy of the individual and should not be tolerated in any democratic country. Today, with the help of a central computer, Government is already amassing a wealth of information, a dossier in fact, of the activities, relations and political activities of the people, especially of political opponents and critics of Government. This is one way of putting the people under surveillance. There is already widespread illegal phone tapping. With all the information provided by the statisticians, Government would then be able to exercise an all comprehensive, almost spiderweb control over the activities of the people. I believe that there should be some form of control over what information a person is obliged to furnish to the competent authorities, and in turn to the Chief Statistician. Parliament should have some control of the nature of information.”
“I support those views. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TEMASEK POLYTECHNIC BILL Order for Second Reading read 1.57 pm.”
“May I seek some clarifications, Sir. The Minister has said it is absurd for me to complain. Sir, I think Opposition Members should be informed early as to when the Bills would be debated. Normally, it should take a little while. You could very well have the First Reading at any time, but at least the Opposition must be informed early of the date the Bills would be debated. To expect us to be prepared all the time for debate is absurd. May I also reply to the Minister of State who has asked me to make some suggestions. I have some suggestions so he could take them down straightaway. I refer to the suggestions made by Dr Phang Sock Yong of the NUS who has suggested that the existing car owners should not be made to suffer a loss when they scrap their cars. She suggested two options and I quote: 'Either they be given full rebate based on the original tax rate when the car is scrapped, or be given a PARF rebate when the car reaches the 10-year limit and be allowed to choose to pay the prevailing quota system based on the minimum successful tender price of the previous four quarters in exchange for an entitlement to use the car for another 10 years.' So perhaps before implementation of the quota system on the 1st May, the Minister might want to make sure that existing car owners will not be penalised in any way.”
“First of all, he has said something about PARF not being abolished. All I understand is that a rebate will take the place of the PARF and the rebate will diminish according to the increasing age of the car. Is that correct? No. Okay, let him explain again then. If the issue has been debated for 1 1/2 years, I would like to know when it was first mooted, and when were the people told that the quota system would be implemented.”
“This is what the younger generation of PAP leaders call "consensus following consultation". But there is no genuine consultation and, of course, no consensus. Today almost everyone has some complaint or other against the quota proposal, but that is not going to affect the Government's decision on the matter. A decision has already been made, and the present Bill merely puts that decision into legal effect, as I have said. The PAP's main argument for the proposal is that it must be fair to everyone, but what is actually being proposed is fair only to a very small section of the people, namely, the rich and the well-to-do. It is most unfair to almost everyone else. I merely want to stress again briefly part of the unfairness the quota system has caused. For example: (i) The PARF is to be abolished and the present existing owner loses all its investment value; (ii) The existing car owner, if he decides to use the car after 10 years, will have to pay a surcharge; (iii) He has to pay a premium again, the quota premium, if he wants to buy a new car. So in every way, the existing car owner loses. Of course, if Government really intended it to be fair, then the whole system would have been different. And all this tells us only one thing - that the whole idea behind the quota system is to see how much revenue the Government will be able to collect. Because the whole quota system is unfair to so many people, I say, Sir, we cannot fully support such a Bill. I have had no time to read through the Bill and therefore I cannot make any comment on the other part about the driving licences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must first lodge a protest against the apparently unnecessary haste in which Government now pushes through the Bills to be debated. We have had more than two weeks of gruelling debate on the Budget, and we in the Opposition do not have civil servants and other advisory committees to help us prepare our speeches. We have to prepare everything on our own. Now, we are suddenly asked to debate on Bills which we have hardly any time to read or study. I was informed of today's debate only the day before yesterday. And I think, Sir, this is most unfair to the Opposition MPs as well as to the general public who would like to know what our views are on the Bills to be debated. I hope Government will not repeat such high pressure debates and force us to come not fully prepared. Sir, the Minister of State for Communications tries to create the impression that the issue of the quota system has been thoroughly debated and that Government has decided on the issue only after that thorough discussion. But it is obvious to many that Government had long ago decided on the car quota system and that the present Bill is merely to put that decision into legal effect. Government went through the fuss of a Select Committee discussion and report and the so-called approval in-principle by Government at a later stage. This was of course a big public relations exercise to create the impression that all this idea of a quota system had not originally come from the Government itself but from other people instead. We all know how the PAP Government works. Decisions are made at the top. After a decision has been made, then so-called consultation takes place as to how best to implement that decision. And that is exactly what has happened in this present instance.”
“With a hard hearted of the Government, I see no point in dwelling on the matter either. I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $54,260,190 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads C, D, F, G, H and Y. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc. Question, "That the sum stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 47 of Paper Cmd. 6 of 1990 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to.”
“Sir, from his list of items used by some of the people, one would have thought that pensioners have to live on rice and cooking oil alone. Probably the Minister has not really gone to the market to buy things. He takes out a $10 or $50 note, and it disappears in no time. So if that is not a high cost of living, what is? If a rise in allowance is not justified for the lowly paid pensioners, then how does he justify the high increases for the salaries for Ministers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I will be very brief. Pensioners receiving less than $800 a month are finding it more and more difficult to keep body and soul together. The allowance they get is very small. As the Minister well knows, cost of living is daily rising. PAP MPs and Ministers themselves have spoken about inflation in Singapore. Compared to 1988, he has said me that the CPI has gone up by 3.6% or thereabouts. But we all know, Sir, that that is an under-statement. You know what our Statistics Department is. They are always slow. And considering the fact that salaries and wages have been raised all round, and that the Ministers have given themselves again such huge salaries, would the Minister consider this time increasing the allowance of the pensioners, especially those drawing less than $800 a month?”