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 7 of 17.
“I have said that the World Health Organisation has called on all the countries to provide such a hospice service. Will the Government allocate some funds for the hospice care service so that it may be expanded?”
“Clarification, Sir. I think the Minister has a wrong conception of the hospice approach for the services of the terminally ill. It is not to turn hospices into something like former Sago Lanes. Hospice care is to ensure that those who are terminally ill may have a higher quality of life before they die, to ensure that they do not have to die fearfully, painfully and the family around them will suffer less misery. The Minister must realise that a cancer patient needs social, moral and spiritual support, and this needs a lot of manpower. He has mentioned about nurses from the Home Nursing Foundation, but there are not enough of them. We need many more. If he talks about the stroke patients, then he must also realise that there are many stroke patients who cannot, for various reasons, go to these health centres for occupational therapy or physiotherapy. They just cannot go. Therefore, they need people to go along to their homes to support them in some way or other. If the Government really intends to give support, it should not merely provide a cubicle to the hospice care association for it to operate as an office. The Government must provide enough financial support for the hospice services to really do more work for the terminally-ill. Government claims to fight for excellence in health services. This is one aspect of health services in which the Government may gain excellence and must pay attention to. It should not merely pay lip service to it in providing a little office space and training.”
“' Sir, I earnestly ask: would Government respond to this WHO call and allocate suitable funds to maintain and expand the hospice care services in Singapore, so that those in need will be able to go on the last stage of their journey on earth peacefully, fearlessly and painlessly? I hope Government will not ignore such a deserving cause out of hand.”
“I suggest that the Minister read the letter if he has not yet done so. Today, the hospice care approach is practised in countries like Britain, the United States, Japan, Australia, India and maybe very soon also in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. It is therefore time that our Government gave good financial support to help expand such much needed services for the aged. I learn that since February 1990, the Community Chest has come forward with some token funds to help the hospice care services. But the funds given are hardly enough to maintain even a few workers. Government should step in to help maintain and expand the hospice care services, as part of a community service for the aged. Funds are urgently needed to employ and train more nurses and social workers. Funds are also urgently needed for emergency cases, those who have persistent vomiting and profuse bleeding and so on for short stays in hospital. If Government is serious about the care for the aged, then it should not hesitate to allocate the necessary funds for the hospice care services. It is a service that deserves strong Government support. Government should not leave such an important part of community health service entirely to volunteers. More and more of the aged and even the young who are unfortunately stricken with cancer and their families will benefit. In December 1986, the World Health Organisation noted that there were 3 1/2 million terminally ill people in the world, and recommended that every government should adopt the hospice approach to help relieve those unfortunate people of their painful deaths. As has been said by some people and I quote: 'We are all on a journey. Hospice cares for us on the last stage of that journey on earth.”
“to be provided as an escape route for the unfortunate people afflicted by irreversible and terminal illnesses.' He refers to the use of euthanasia as a humane course of action. But because of various reasons, many people would not agree to the recourse to euthanasia. Presently, it is not generally acceptable to the public. What then is a better way to look after those who are terminally ill? Presently, such care and services have been left to the families themselves and to volunteer organisations. I refer to the hospice care services. For several years now, a dedicated group of doctors, nurses, paramedical and social workers have selflessly spent much time and energy to help terminally ill cancer patients and their families through the most trying times. The hospice care service workers help to give social, emotional and spiritual support to those who know that their end is near so that they may take courage and accept the end stoically, calmly and fearlessly, ie, to die peacefully and, equally important, Sir, to live painlessly until they die. Hospice care services also give support to the family during the period of bereavement and beyond. Today, hospice care services are given at home to those who wish to die at home where they have lived for many years, close to their families and loved ones, and not in the strange surroundings of a hospital. That is why most terminally ill patients prefer to die at home. Others who have no family ties and have hardly any financial support have hospice care in the St Joseph's Home in Jurong and in the Assisi Home in Mount Alvernia Hospital. Dr Anne Merriman, writing in the Straits Times on 6th March 1990, has clearly and eloquently stated the case for the hospice approach.”
“Sir, I wish to speak on one special aspect of community health service, namely, on care and services for the chronic sick in general, and for the terminally ill in particular. Cancer deaths, I have been told, number nearly 2,500 every year, and if we add also deaths from other causes associated with the aged, then the number comes to much more than 3,000, about one-fifth the number of total deaths from all causes every year. The Minister has also said that the number of elderly will be 300,000 in another 20 years, and we may therefore expect that our aged will increase in number and the need for care for the aged will correspondingly increase. Government has also stated in the Yearbook that it is turning its big guns on the major killers of today, one of which is cancer. And the Minister has already told us that this year, we will be having a cancer education campaign. But, apart from geriatrics and health screening in some Government polyclinics, what provisions have been made for the care and services of the aged for the large numbers who have suffered from strokes or cancer? There is a big shortage of physiotherapists and occupational therapists, as already mentioned by other speakers before me. Many of the elderly do not benefit from these essential services, since they cannot easily go to the health care centres to have such treatment. And worse, Sir, Government has neglected a much needed service to help relieve the pains and sufferings of those who are terminally ill. On 25th March, in the Sunday Times, Mr Tan Harn How, in his column "Mercy killing: drafting better laws is the answer" has helped to focus public attention on mercy killing and suicides, may I quote, '...”
“Last statement, Sir. The answer which the Minister has given concerning free choice and class C beds implies that people opt to go to B2, B1 and A class beds simply because they like to pay more. This argument is based on one of the most upside down and ridiculous logic I have heard for a long, long time. Such an answer is typically representative, I would say, of the PAP non-caring attitude and non-conscience and of a government with no social conscience.”
“And if the Government should pay more attention to this aspect and upgrade and improve the quality of class C beds, then he would see that many, many more people will demand for class C beds. He has also mentioned something about the national health service. I suggested one similar to the national health service in UK. He also mentioned something about the United States. I wonder if he realises that today the health system in the United States has been condemned even by its own doctors. And the general health system in the United States is inferior to the general health system in Britain. In fact, even Mrs Thatcher has not dared to interfere with the national health system in Britain today. We do not ask for free medical treatment. We ask for medical treatment which is really affordable and not at a cost which the Government imposes on the people. He has also said something about being compassionate and of the disparity in the incomes between surgeons and physicians. This disparity is a direct result of the profit system that has been brought about by the restructuring of the hospitals in Singapore today. If there had been no such restructuring, there would be no grievances, no dissatisfaction in the hospitals right now. As it is, some of the senior physicians earn much less than much more junior surgeons. And that of course saps their team spirit and will also ultimately affect the patients in many ways. I am glad he says that he is going to talk about health education later on, and I will speak a little on that when it comes to my amendment. But I wish to inform the Minister that I am quite awake all the time and that if he has not been able to know what is happening in the hospitals, it is he who has been sleeping most of the time.”
“The Minister has spoken quite a lot, going all round the mulberry bush and never short and to the point. Anyway, I just want to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the complaints that have been made that teaching time of students, junior doctors and even nurses has been greatly reduced. He has not given any answer to this question so far. Another point which I want to ask is this: he has mentioned that Alexandra Hospital will not be restructured, and will be left as a comparison and a choice for patients as to whether to go to a unrestructured hospital or a restructured hospital. I ask whether the Minister is aware that many patients would rather go to the Singapore General Hospital today even if they happen to be staying very close to the other hospitals nearby. This is because many people have the misimpression that the Singapore General Hospital is the best equipped hospital and also has the best doctors. Whereas the other hospitals are more or less Cinderellas, which provide poorer sub-standard treatment and are staffed with sub-standard doctors, although we all know for certain that many of the doctors who are in these non-SGH hospitals are some of the very best that we can find in Singapore. I ask the Minister whether he will ensure that adequat facilities will be provided to Alexandra Hospital, which is today one of the most poorly supported hospitals in Singapore. He has also said something about the number of subsidised beds being adequate but that people are nevertheless still opting to go to B2 and even B1 beds. Surely the Minister must realise that if the quality of the C class beds is good, then they would not go and pay more for B2 and B1 or A class beds.”
“May I seek some clarifications from the Minister, Sir?”
“Complaints have been made that teaching time has been cut short for students and junior doctors and staff because of the heavy workload of teachers. And seeing how profit-orientated our present system is may well influence our students to opt for lucrative disciplines after graduation with the result that certain non-lucrative disciplines, like research, general medicine and other medical services, may well become understaffed in future. All this does not augur well for the health services in Singapore. The PAP has been infected with the privatisation bug. It measures excellence on the basis of how much a person earns, not on the quality of the services and the benefits they bring to the people. PAP's quest for excellence in health services means having the most modern high-tech and expensive equipment manned by a group of doctors made available to serve patients from countries around Singapore and some of those in Singapore who can afford to pay the high cost in fees and charges, but not the vast majority of the people in Singapore. Therefore, how do our people really benefit? In view of the grave distortions and baneful results privatisation of hospitals has evidenced so far, I ask the Minister what steps will the Government take to put matters right and bring affordable, efficient health care services to the people of Singapore?”
“But the poor patients who are sick and are forced to seek treatment in hospitals are now made to pay and pay. Restructuring has also introduced a double standard of hospital care - one standard for the rich and one for the poor. The sick are now made to pay extra in many ways - in hospital ward charges, in consultation fees, in investigations fees, in expensive operation fees, and whatnots. But apart from the sick having to pay more for essential medical care, there are also other unsavoury features of the restructuring of hospitals. Since the General Hospital is now wholly profit-orientated, doctors working in the General Hospital, like those in the NUH, must necessarily be affected by the new system in some ways. The Straits Times on 18th January 1990 and 7th March 1990 have highlighted this issue of disparity of incomes between physicians and surgeons. I need not dwell on this. Has restructuring and the new system managed to retain good doctors and staff and prevent them from resigning? The answer is again no. A few specialists have again recently resigned although they could have made much more money if they had stayed inside the hospital, making use of the facilities there and the staff to help them. This only shows that earning higher income is not necessarily the only reason why doctors in hospitals sometimes decide to resign and go into private practice. There are many other equally important considerations, like dedication, care for the sick, research, that motivate doctors in hospital services. The profit-orientated system in restructured hospitals has also adversely affected the teaching of medical students and training of junior doctors and staff.”
“I suggest therefore that, to begin with, the present fees and charges for B2 and C class beds where they exist should be drastically reduced. The number of C class beds should also be imcreased and their quality improved. That is what Government should do immediately. More funds should be allowed for such health care. Presently, Government has plans for Medishield which solves only part of the problem. But if we aspire to excellence in health services, then we need to have a comprehensive National Health Plan, somewhat similar to that in Britain. The quest for excellence should not be confined to being No. 1 in port or telecom services. A more important measure is the general health of the population and how well we look after the sick and the aged. Present allocations for health services are totally inadequate. It represents a mere 1% of GDP in comparison, to 6% for defence and only 4.4% of the total budget expenditure, in comparison to 26.5% for defence. Allocations for health service should in fact be doubled at least. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to what I have just said. Government aims to achieve certain objectives with the restructuring of hospitals. But has restructuring achieved excellence in health services for the people? The answer is a big no. It is true that hospital services by nurses and staff have improved and there is generally a shorter waiting and queuing time for all concerned. Government may well achieve its objective to have effective control over the running cost of the Singapore General Hospital. But for the lower income and the poor, it is a different story. they have not benefitted at all. The introduction of the profits system into hospitals may also benefit some doctors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Government often speaks of subsidies for health services. It must first be made clear that Government has not given subsidies to anyone. Government has no money of its own to subsidise anyone. The so-called subsidies are in fact taxes collected by Government from the people and spent by Government for services which it knows the people require and need. In the case of health services, Government speaks of so-called subsidies for the poor and the sick who need hospital care, especially those in Class B2 and Class C beds which are utilised mainly by the middle and lower income groups. The PAP philosophy of Government is that Government is not responsible for the welfare of the sick. The PAP believes that the sick should be made to pay for his own health when he becomes sick although he might have toiled and laboured all his life for the prosperity of Singapore. In Singapore we have the funds and plenty of it. But the Government prefers to use the funds to build huge complexes and offices for Government departments and, of course, to help the rich. It calls our society affluent and pretends that the poor in our midst does not need much help. Whether or not Government helps the poor is of course all a question of social conscience and a question of political will. If the Government has a social conscience and a political will to help the poor, the funds will be forthcoming. The people have elected the Government to look after their welfare and they have a right to use health care services for the people provided out of Government funds. Government should therefore rethink its priorities. More funds, much, much more, should be spent on so-called subsidies or subventions for health services.”
“Sir, the sum spent on public assistance has been greatly reduced through the years. In 1988, because of the elections, public assistance was increased - for one person, from $90 to $120; two persons, $140 to $185; three persons, $180 to $240; and for four persons, $220 to $295. Only those who qualify under the strict means test criteria, like the aged destitute, disabled, mentally ill, chronic sick, widows and deserted wives with children under 12 years old, according to the Minister, will be able to receive public assistance. Government knows that these small sums of public assistance are not adequate. The Council of Social Services had already reported in 1980, 10 years ago, that the minimum requirements for a family of four would be about $450 a month. Now, allowing for inflation and higher cost of living, the sum should be anything between $600 and $700 at least. Today, Ministers have given themselves big increases in salaries. Do they also think of those who are less fortunate, and especially those who are in need of public assistance? The stringent conditions imposed for granting public assistance should also be relaxed. I think it is time that the public assistance plus the stringent conditions for it be all reviewed. Even if the public assistance should be doubled, the total amount to be spent on such aid is still very small. But that would certainly go a long way to help those unfortunate people. Would the Minister give serious consideration to this matter this time?”
“Yes, Sir, poverty exists, and it is a pity that some of our Ministers may not have gone to visit the small little cubicles in which their constituents live. If the Minister for Finance is here, I would advise him to go along to Smith Street and Trengganu Street and see how these people live in small little cubicles. The fact that many of our Ministers take the opportunity to gain some political propaganda by giving ang pows during festive seasons should also testify to the fact that there is poverty in Singapore. In 1987, 368 people over 60 years old, a quarter of all suicides, took their own lives because they could not afford or had no one to take care of them in their old age or illness. I ask, Sir, what concrete steps has Government taken to help alleviate the hardships of such destitute families? Will the Government consider giving adequate financial aid to those who are in real need, as already disclosed in the Report of the Advisory Council?”
“Sir, upholding the family as the basic block of society is supposed to be one of the PAP's core values. The Government should therefore do its utmost to help destitute families, defined by the Report of the Advisory Council on Family and Community Life as "those families who for various reasons face hardship in meeting the minimum household requirements for daily living". And the Report states that "currently about 22,140 families have an earned income below the minimum household expenditure". Assuming, Sir, that each family consists of four persons, then the number of those in the destitute families would come to 88,560, a very sizeable number and proportion of our population. If the Statistics Department should review the minimum household expenditure in line with the present high cost of living and inflation, the actual number would surely be much, much higher. Those who are destitute, unlike our Ministers who are drawing fat salaries, live miserable lives. Facts show that poverty is a real problem in the midst of plenty in Singapore. It cannot be easily wished away or covered up. PAP grassroots members have spoken of it recently in the PAP Convention and PAP Members have spoken of it in the House right here. Of course, Ministers, because of lack of good arguments to counter what has been pointed out, frequently repeat unflattering, disparaging remarks about Dr Lee, that I think in terms of the 1960s instead of the 1990s, that Dr Lee is a Rip van Winkle and that I must get out of my cocoon. It would appear, Sir, that from the very facts that I have just related -just only a little bit of it - it is the Ministers themselves, not Dr Lee, who should get out of the cocoon and wake up to the reality that is in our midst.”
“The Government has been elected to look after the welfare of the people, not just to govern. But Government is shirking its responsibility. For Government to pass the buck on to the Community Chest and other charities is a hallmark of an irresponsible government. And no wonder so many people have called our Government uncaring and stone-hearted. I ask, Sir, in order to benefit those people who are most in need of assistance and to improve the Government's image, would the Minis- ter be prepared to allocate more funds for the social services?”
“Sir, our Government Ministers have often said that Britain's decline some years ago, and even perhaps today, is due to the pursuit of the welfare state. We are told therefore that we must not follow such a discredited policy. This is the PAP's excuse, of course, for spending less and less on welfare ever since 1959. Economists have, however, explained that the real reason for UK's decline was not because of any excessive social spending but because of its economic structural weaknesses, which in turn led to its inability to promote and maintain a high pressure of demand. Union activities might have contributed to Britain's so-called failure. But whatever the real reason, Sir, such factors do not apply to the situation in Singapore. In Singapore, over the last 30 years of PAP rule, our yearly expenditure on defence has increased from a little more than $10 million in the early '60s to $3.5 billion today, that is 300 times. On the other hand, despite inflation and increase in population, expenditure on social welfare has hardly increased, and in fact has even decreased. The Ministry of Community Development covers a large number of departments, including Residents' Committees, People's Association, and whatnots. Yet expenditures on all the services combined come to only $229 million out of a total yearly expenditure of nearly $14 billion. How could a mere $229 million be adequate for all the host of services listed under Community Development? Every department needs more funds, and Government should spend much more on all these services. Instead, Government tries to pass the buck onto the family and the community at large. All this means one thing, namely, that Government does not have a social conscience.”
“I do not know what the Member means. I do not quite catch what he has said.”
“Just one word, Sir. I just want to remind our Ministers and our MPs that we must not take words simply on face value. When people complain about our being insincere, they may not really mean exactly that. I think our Ministers have studied Chinese. They know there is a phrase called zhi sang ma huai. In other words, although you point your finger at A, you are in fact abusing B. Therefore, although they refer to the "Visit to Malaysia" issue, they may only be using it to let off steam to show their dissatisfaction on many other issues. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, with regard to Dr Lee's remarks, may I also ask him why must we become the subject of a scolding from Malaysia? Why must we become Mr A to be scolded all the time?”
“Although we do not interfere and we do not expect them to interfere, nevertheless, mutual respect means much more than just saying the words "mutual respect". If we expect other people to respect us, then we must first respect other people. From the way our Ministers have been going about, it does not seem that we really respect other people's sensitivities. It is no use trying to defend ourselves in, as I have said, ultra-patriotic, jingoistic ways. It does not help. In between the lines, we can read in the papers that there is something more than just what the Ministers have said. There is something which they are not very happy about. I think it will be good for our Ministers to find out why, so that they can repair all possible damage. That is what I hope. I brought this up in the hope that our Ministers will climb down a bit and, with respect to everybody, improve our relations, especially with Malaysia.”
“Sir, may I say a few words in response to what has been said. First of all, I speak as a patriotic Singaporean. It is because of that that I wish our relations with Malaysia be put on a good and proper footing. I am no friend of any Member of the UMNO Youth. Maybe it will make the Minister happy to know that until today I have been barred from getting across the Causeway. Therefore, I cannot possibly be a member of UMNO Youth. I always believe - contrary to what Mr Peh has said - that we should adopt the attitude of "less said, soonest mended." We should not talk aggressively to worsen relations. A little while ago, a few people have spoken again in defence of the half-tank rule. When the Bill was first introduced in Parliament, our Minister also said, "Oh, we told them." But telling people does not mean to say that they are happy with it, that they agree with it. Therefore, that argument does not mean that we have not offended them. You can tell them anything. Similarly, we have been told of many of the Bills and laws. But that does not mean that we have agreed with all or any of them. Many of the people in Singapore have also been told of the many laws which the PAP has passed, but how many of the people really agree with the laws that have been passed? Therefore, such an argument does not hold water at all. He speaks of investments, gas and water links. These are commercial undertakings. Wherever there is money to be made, our investors will go to make the money. Sir, it makes no difference whether there are very friendly relations or no friendly relations. For instance, Americans and many other people have been investing in Vietnam. As regards mutual respect and non-interference, let us be very clear.”
“Many people would agree that the less of such unnecessary ultra patriotic, almost jingoistic, defence of Singapore the better it will be for our relations with our neighbour. Perhaps the water pact reported in the press today will help to pave the way to a new trend of friendly relations with Malaysia. I ask the Minister what concrete steps does Government intend to take to really improve Singapore's relations with our neighbours and especially Malaysia. I hope Government will enlighten the House on these important matters.”
“Therefore, although our bilateral relations with Malaysia may appear calm and unruffled on the surface, nevertheless there are dangerous currents underneath. Why are our relations with Malaysia in such an unhappy state? Our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Malaysia are said to be on good, friendly terms, and our younger Ministers have had exchange-visits. How come then that our relations have not improved, and instead have gone worse? Blaming everything on the hangover of the separation in 1965 is too simplistic. That does not help us to understand why we have difficult relations with our close neighbour, Malaysia, today. Government must therefore truly go into the matter and find out why. May I suggest some possible reasons, Sir? (1) Could it be that our Ministers brag and boast too much, claiming that we are number one in this and number one in that, and thus indirectly belittling the capability of our neighbour's Ministers? (2) Could it be that in the pursuit of our policies, we do not take into consideration the sensitivities of our neighbours economically, socially and culturally? (3) Could it be that we spend far too much money on defence, much in excess of normal needs of a small island with a small population and thus give our neighbours cause for apprehension? A hint of that appeared in the press yesterday. (4) Perhaps we could give more concrete support to the Malaysian concept of ZOPFAN - Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality - instead of giving it mere lip-service. (5) Could unthinking and provocative statements by PAP supporters like the PAP activist group and ex-Ministers have unwittingly worsened already somewhat strained bilateral relationship?”
“Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to speak after the Minister has taken to the floor. Our foreign relations with neighbours, Sir, and especially with Malaysia, have become a matter of some public concern. Although Singapore is a member of ASEAN, nevertheless we rarely seem to be able to get on very well with other member nations of ASEAN. For example, on the issue of Cambodia, our stand does not seem to be in full accord with the stand that is adopted by Thailand and Indonesia. With Indonesia, Singapore's relations seem to have improved only very recently. With Thailand, our relations have slumped considerably following implementation of the law on caning of illegal immigrants. With Malaysia, despite our long history of close association and special relationship, our relations have never been very cordial. Our relations became more strained with the implementation of the half-tank rule for vehicles going across the Causeway, and after we announced that US forces would be allowed to use facilities in Singapore. But with more and more allegations of espionage by Singapore agents, which led to the subsequent closure of Malaysian air space to our two flying clubs, and with such Government action being later confirmed by Malaysian Ministers and even by the Prime Minister himself, our relations with Malaysia have taken a deep downward turn. The recent visit, Sir, of our First Deputy Prime Minister to Kuala Lumpur has helped to ease relations somewhat. The Malaysian Prime Minister has said that the visit has helped to improve bilateral relations, implying that relations had not been good at all all along. But even after that KL visit, there are still allegations of espionage by Singapore made by responsible officials in Malaysia.”
“Sir, if the Minister were to look back into history, he would realise and find that many unions had been pressured into joining the NTUC. I cannot name the unions offhand now but, as a Minister, if he should refer to the Ministry officials, they should be able to tell him. Everybody benefits? Yes, Sir, to a certain extent.”
“Sir, I think the Employment Act should be read together with the Industrial Relations Act. If the Minister refers to unions, then I am sure he will remember that there were many independent unions that were pressured into joining the NTUC. As regards industrial peace, I think everybody wants industrial peace, but at whose expense? The Government had to institute the National Wages Council in order to protect the employers. After all, we must know that the NTUC was not meant to give extra wages to the workers, but to put a ceiling on the claims of workers.”
“And because of the total PAP control, it makes no difference even if in so doing this violated the code of conduct of Ministers. The Prime Minister could easily put the matter right again by yet another stroke of the pen via a Command Paper in January 1989. Sir, in order to safeguard the workers' vital interests in the new circumstances of today, workers should be allowed to organise their own unions independently of the NTUC and the Government. I ask: would the Minister therefore take steps to review the Employment Act so that it may become truly a law that will really safeguard and protect the vital and fundamental interests of the workers?”
“Sir, the Employment Act, together with the Industrial Relations Act, was first introduced in 1968. As a result of the implementation of the Act, many of the small gains and fringe benefits that had been won after many years of arduous struggle by the workers were taken away from them overnight, as it were. The boss now has full powers of hire and fire, whereas the workers are restrained by all sorts of rules and regulations. Matters of wages, bonuses, medical benefits, retirement leave, hours of work, overtime, etc are all controlled. The Employment Act has enabled the PAP programme of industrialisation to take off and succeed. With industrialisation having more or less succeeded, circumstances are entirely different today from conditions in the past. With industrialisation, unemployment has been drastically reduced and certain industries are even faced with shortage of labour. But the Employment Act still binds our workers' hand and foot. Amendments to the Act since 1968 have not given our workers much real benefit. The NTUC could have come to the rescue of the workers. But, unfortunately, the NTUC represents not the interests of the workers but the interests of the big bosses. And it is apparently satisfied with the present state of affairs with the big bosses sitting pretty at the top. It is clear that the NTUC does not and indeed cannot fight for the vital interests of the workers. It must be remembered, Sir, that the NTUC was formed by the PAP itself, and PAP political control is seen at every turn. This was seen in the manner the Prime Minister fired the former NTUC Secretary-General and replaced him with the Second Deputy Prime Minister simply by a mere stroke of the pen.”
“I think I will give him the names later on, Sir. I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“With the present brain-drain in Singapore, we need the brain power of those who have been deprived of their citizenship to return to Singapore and to fill the gap, so to speak. What does the Minister say? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I can be very brief. The picture he paints is that we are very, very niggardly in giving citizenship and that citizenship is not given to those who are in Singapore but its newly-arrived immigrants are discriminated. That is not true. And this one sentence tells everything - more than 90% of the applications received at the Registry of Citizenship were approved. So that speaks for itself, and this covers various categories - citizens by minor, citizens for 10 years, wives of citizens. Far from being extremely or overly strict and discriminatory, the Registry of Citizenship has in fact approved as much as 90% of those who applied for citizenship. Second point. People who are deprived of citizenship are deprived only when there are grounds to do so, and these grounds are spelt out in the Constitution. The procedure is spelt out in the Constitution. And if the Member argues that those who have left Singapore had evaded national service, or committed some crimes, or their citizenships have been deprived on any security grounds, ought to come back because of their tremendous brain power, well, let us have the names of these individuals whose cases he advocates and we will have a look at them.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QI 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this issue is linked somewhat to what I have just said on the issue of immigration. There are many who have stayed and worked in Singapore for many years, already touched on to a certain extent, by other speakers, 30 years and more, are married to Singapore citizens and have applied for Singapore citizenship. They have fulfilled all the requirements for registration as citizens. They have resided 10 out of 12 years in Singapore, are of good character and have no criminal records, they intend to stay in Singapore permanently and have an elementary knowledge of the language. Now Hongkongers who have never even set foot in Singapore before are accepted as citizens after only a short stay. Yet those who have stayed and worked here almost all their lives are not granted citizenship. I ask why this patent discrimination? Citizenship rules must be fairly and equally applied to all. If new conditions have arisen for the need to allow Hongkongers to come to Singapore and become citizens, then those local residents who have applied for citizenship for such a long time should not be penalised. The Constitution does not say anything about economic viability as a condition for citizenship. So let the Government be fair and just to those who have stayed for many years and already have families in Singapore. And finally, Sir, let Government not victimise political opponents who have left Singapore either to avoid arbitrary arrest or to avoid national service. They are intellectuals with high economic potentials and can contribute much to the development of Singapore.”
“Then there are those cases who were banished from Singapore in the past because of political reasons. I understand that a good number of such banishees have applied to return to Singapore but have been refused permission to do so. Conditions have changed. The PAP has been in control for the last 30 years. There is no need to fear that such political dissidents would cause any trouble in future. Why not allow them to return to rejoin their families friends and at the same time show that the Government can be a little magnanimous? I hope the Minister will answer the points I have raised and not distort what I have said as has been done on the other occasions.”
“Sir, now that we have made it easy and simple for non-Singaporeans to come and stay in Singapore, Government should also not make it so difficult for our citizens, ex-citizens and ex-permanent residents now in foreign countries to come back to Singapore. Presently, Government's criteria for admission to Singapore are based mostly on wealth and economic skills. Anyone who puts in $1/2 to $1 million into Singapore's coffers will be granted permanent residence. Those who are less well off are rejected. There are wives and children of Singapore citizens presently staying outside Singapore who have applied for permission to join their husbands and parents in Singapore and are not allowed to come in though these Singapore citizens have incomes and funds to ensure that they do not become a burden on the state. Not allowing these wives and children to return to Singapore is not only morally wrong, as has already been stressed by Mr Heng, but also a denial of fundamental right for families to live together. This also exposes the hollowness of PAP's much talked about Asian values. Government ignores such Asian values when it proves convenient to do so and when they do not suit its own scheme of things. Then there are those who have emigrated on their own and would like to return to Singapore today. Mr Peh Chin Hua has said that such emigrants should be allowed to return. I agree. The arguments against their being allowed to return are not convincing. Everyone who is born and has lived in Singapore should have the right of jus soli. If he had renounced his citizenship because of circumstances beyond his control as a condition for emigration, then he should not be too harshly punished if circumstances now allow him to return to Singapore again.”
“We are supposed to have computerisation to help ease our traffic flow in the city, yet many must have been irked and annoyed by the traffic chaos in busy traffic junctions where traffic lights have failed or are mis-timed. There is usually a big pile-up of traffic. There is even danger of motor accidents as motorists try to quickly get through. Similarly, many motorists are justifiably annoyed when they start their cars only to be stopped after going 100 metres or so, and again after another 50 metres at another traffic junction and so on. I believe every motorist has now and again found this type of traffic congestion along the stretch of road from Orchard Road/Bras Basah Road junction, right through Bras Basah Road to Raffles Boulevard. It is most annoying and an unnecessary waste of time. What has the Traffic Police done about such traffic congestion? Sometimes when he is most needed, the traffic policeman is just not present. Is there any traffic policeman permanently stationed in certain busy road junctions? If not, why cannot a traffic policeman or two be stationed permanently in certain busy road junctions to ensure smooth, unobstructed traffic flow? The Traffic Police should also correctly use manpower to deal with the more important and urgent problems of traffic control and not to go along to serve traffic summonses to motorists who infringe parking regulations for a few minutes but who do not obstruct traffic flow in any way. Will the Minister please comment on what I have just said?”
“I am perturbed, Sir, by the many reports of police violence against arrested persons and those detained for investigations. Police investigations of such reports of violence leave much to be desired. It is difficult to convince people outside the Police Force that there is no cover-up in such police investigations. Would the Minister consider setting up some form of a watch committee comprising of people outside the Police Force to play a real watchdog role to investigate into the complaints of police violence against those arrested and detained? Another matter that needs the Minister's attention is this. The whole world is relaxed. Is it not also time to relax our internal security activities of the police? Our secret police is in the habit of putting political opponents under surveillance. How many political opponents are currently put under police surveillance? What is the extent of phone-tapping? Is our mail regularly intercepted and detained? What is the total amount spent on internal security? Finally, when other countries have relaxed internal security activities and released political detainees, when is Government going to release our own political detainees in Singapore? Now that Mr Nelson Mandela has been released, when is Chia Thye Poh, who should now gain a prominent place in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest term political detainee in the world, to be released? I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory answer. The next amendment is about traffic congestion. There are many reasons why there is traffic congestion in Singapore. Mr Chin Harn Tong has eloquently touched on one of them. Another reason is the total failure or mis-timing of traffic lights and a non-synchronisation of traffic lights along short stretches of busy roads.”
“Sir, I have two amendments. I will take one after the other.”
“I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $9,589,400 for Head B ordered stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,001,400 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S -”
“But there are many other officers in the Attorney-General's office.”
“In this particular case, the Attorney-General was personally involved and directly involved in this case of the prosecution. Would it not have been better if another officer was to give the advice to the Government?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head B be reduced by $10 in respect of Code BA 1500 of the Main Estimates. I have two points to make here, Sir. Under Article 35(4) of the Constitution, the Attorney-General can hold office until the age of 55. His fixed period of office has been extended twice and his term of office was supposed to have come to an end sometime in January 1989. We have not officially heard of any further extension of his office. What is the present position of the Attorney-General? If there has been another extension, when was it made and for how long? Would the Minister please enlighten the House? Another point that needs clarification from the Minister is this. The Attorney-General has been advising the Government on numerous issues. In the case of the judgment of the Privy Council on J.B. Jeyaretnam's appeal, the Attorney-General has also given advice to the Cabinet on the legal effect of the Privy Council judgment. Many people feel that the AG should not have done that. As AG, he had prosecuted J.B. Jeyaretnam in the now famous case. The Privy Council judg- ment was in fact a judgment on the AG's case. Sir, the complaint is that allowing himself to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the judgment on the case of Jeyaretnam and the conviction that followed is wrong because the AG would then be a judge in his own cause, as the lawyers put it. Would the Minister care to comment on all that?”
“I beg to withdraw, Sir, although I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The criticism, Sir, has come from America and from Britain. I have not queried the uniqueness of the Prime Minister recommending the appointment of Judges. I am asking why the Prime Minister should be given such great powers to appoint Judges especially for fixed terms, when there should be some checks on such powers.”
“Presently, such appointment of High Court Judges by the Prime Minister has come under criticism both at home and abroad, and such criticism has rather unfavourable connotations on our judicial system. We should therefore avoid giving occasions for criticism which would create a bad image for our judicial system and could embarrass our High Court Judges. Sir, I want to ask the Minister: does Government intend to continue the present system of appointment of Judges for fixed terms by the Prime Minister?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head E be reduced by $10 in respect of Code EA 1500 of the Main Estimates. There are two amendments. They are both linked together. I will speak on both of them since they are actually on the same theme. Sir, presently there are 11 Judges and Judicial Commissioners sitting on the High Court Bench. Of these 11, only six hold office under the protection of the Constitution, that is, the tenure of the office of the Judges will continue until they reach the age of 65. Five others, including the Chief Justice, hold office on fixed terms determined by the Prime Minister. Early last year, Government amended the Constitution, and that amendment was backdated to November 1971 in order to allow Government to regularise its mistakes made in earlier years, although the Minister for Home Affairs had vigorously defended the appointment of the Chief Justice made before the amendment. In this appointment, Sir, it is clear that too much power lies in the office of the Prime Minister. I feel that this should be corrected. As is also clearly stated in the Elected President's White Paper (Cmd. 10 of 1988), and I quote: 'The existing Constitution is inadequate. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have untrammelled power. Presently, our Constitution does not contain any checks on the Government.' And of course, Sir, this includes the fact that there are no checks on the powers of the Prime Minister to appoint High Court Judges for fixed terms. There should be checks and balances in this. In the United States, Sir, the President's power to nominate High Court Judges has to be approved by the Senate. Similarly, there should be some checks on the powers of the Prime Minister in this respect.”
“I can give the example of one programme broadcast in September or October, which carried a report on the national anti-drug campaign (NADAC) in September or October 1989, which was repeat-broadcast in 1990 when the national anti-drug campaign has long passed. It might have been by mistake, but there is a possibility that it is due to a lack of funds, lack of manpower, lack of proper planning that these shortcomings come about. The problem of funds, the problem of time slot and the problem of manpower are major problems. But these are problems that cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, I would like to strongly urge, if SBC wants to be more effective in attracting the Malay and Tamil audiences in Singapore, it must do more than what it is doing now. It must allocate the expertise, and if such expertise is not available in Singapore, it must be brought in from outside. If we can bring in specialists from Hong Kong and Taiwan and elsewhere, why can't similar expertise, which would strengthen our abilities, be brought in for the Malay section? I would also like to propose, that a committee be set up to re-evaluate all productions of SBC Malay section, ie, its News, programmes and current affairs productions, with a view to enhancing their standards and thereby maintaining the Malay audience in Singapore.”
“(4) If SBC is to be privatised, will Government stop interfering with the running of the corporation and allow it to operate on lines similar to those of the BBC in Britain? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, we know that the functions of the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation are to inform, to entertain, to educate and to be a national medium of public education. Thus, while it needs to concern itself with business and economic considerations, SBC cannot avoid, I stress, cannot avoid shouldering its socio-political responsibilities. Sir, as far as the Malay section is concerned, the role of SBC is even more crucial because competition from RTM, TV3, 101.6 and even, to some extent, TVRI is so keen, so stiff. And if we do not seek to maintain the audience among the Malays in Singapore by upgrading the standard of presentation, there is a big possibility that the Malay audience in Singapore will switch to other channels. The signs in this direction have already appeared. I fully agree with Mr Choo that beside commercial considerations, SBC's function as a national TV medium must be brought back onto the right track. And in this respect, we can see in the Malay section of SBC, which comprises three units, News, Programming and Current Affairs, that there has been some achievement in the News section. We see the use of graphics, maps, more effective presentation. But in the other two aspects, ie, programming and Current Affairs, the shortcomings are very obvious.”
“For example, PAP conventions, CCC, RC activities. Even the Second Deputy Prime Minister frying rice was given all the news coverage on TV. But the whole trouble, Sir, is that he was frying what the Chinese call "cold rice", chao leng fan. Sir, on the question of Today in Parliament, contrary to what Mr Choo Wee Khiang has said, it is a PAP show by PAP Ministers and MPs, of PAP Ministers and MPs. Opposition MPs feature mostly in commentaries, if at all. Important Opposition arguments relevant to issues under debate are left out. Inconsequential lines spoken by Opposition MPs are broadcast instead. The whole focus is on PAP MPs. Another example, Diary of a Nation gives a very one-sided presentation of events of the past. It is lopsided history written with a big bias. It is meant to glorify the PAP and denigrate the Opposition, especially the then Barisan Sosialis. Another example, Contact-Y creates the impression that questions and answers are all spontaneous. But on discussion of current issues, much of what is said by critics of Government has been edited and, of course, "edited" means censored. It is a bogus form of consultation since decisions have already been made by Government. I ask the Minister: (1) What guidelines does Government give to SBC as regards news and political reports? (2) Will Government stop treating SBC as a monopoly and direct it to give fair, objective, reports including views of Opposition political parties? (3) Will SBC consider broadcasts of forums with Opposition parties on important political issues of daily life with no editing whatsoever? This would certainly be of great interest to the people of Singapore.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, first let me say that I fully endorse what Mr Lau Ping Sum so eloquently said yesterday on the subject of Malaysia's TV3 and Cantonese serials. I have no wish to repeat much of what he has said. I therefore quickly come to the subject of radio and TV reporting proper. Sir, at one time before 1980, Radio-TV Singapore was under the direct control of a Government Minister. Civil servants were put in charge and Radio-TV Singapore used to churn out PAP propaganda day in and day out. Radio-TV Singapore was widely known as Radio-TV PAP. This naturally gave the Radio-TV a very bad image. In 1980, SBC was formed with a well-respected non-civil servant as Chairman to run our Radio-TV as a body supposedly independent of the Government. This is intended to create a new image of our Radio Singapore. Since then, Sir, SBC has improved radio and TV services tremendously in many respects, especially in the presentation of drama. But what of the presentation of news and current affairs? Many people find that in the matter of presentation of news and current affairs, changing the name "Radio-TV Singapore" to SBC has not changed anything at all. SBC has continued to churn out PAP propaganda day in and day out. In fact, SBC is a misnomer. It should be called PAP Broadcasting Corporation (PAPBC), not SBC. For example, news presentation, insignificant events and activities of PAP branches are given considerable prime air time in the news presentation.”