Lee Tsao Yuan
Singapore
“My last point and, perhaps, the most important, is that the fundamental tenet of democracy is that it must bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.”
“Clarification, Minister. I think my question was really regarding the last part of your comment which said that you would change the Constitution in order to state whether what part of NII would belong to past reserves and to current reserves. Perhaps I was wrong in this matter.”
“As I see it, Minister, if the change of the Constitution is to define the portion of NII that belongs to past reserves, then would the Minister also consider at the same time including in the Constitution the definition of "reserves" that was stated in the White Paper? Because right now it is not in the Constitution.”
“The Minister stated that he would consider changing the Constitution in order to define NII or the part of NII that goes to current or past reserves. Would the Minister also consider at the same time changing the Constitution in order to incorporate the definition of past reserves in the Constitution?”
“Another clarification, please. As far as I understand from the White Paper, and I could be obtuse, supposing you have a future government that informs the President of the day that it disagrees with the definition of the value of State land, in other words, the value of State land at fair market value at the point of transaction, then tho…”
“The Minister said that the principles in the White Paper are binding and that if a future government so decides to define fair market value as not at the point of transaction but at the time it took over office, then that is clearly in violation of the definition of past reserves.”
The complete record
Every one of 270 lines we hold for Lee Tsao Yuan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“My last point and, perhaps, the most important, is that the fundamental tenet of democracy is that it must bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The PAP Government has, without doubt, progressively raised the standard of living of ordinary people, of the man-in-the-street, and has created opportunities for self-advancement because of education and economic growth. Having observed proceedings in the House at first hand, I can say that I have full trust in the integrity of its proceedings. This is certainly an important legacy to bring to the new Chamber. What I would like to see is that fuller expression be given to people's desire for greater consultation and feedback and the airing of alternative views in the House. My wish is that in the first decade of the new millennium there is an even more significant shift towards more consultative government in Singapore.”
“Questions for Oral Answer serve an important purpose. They enable Members to seek clarification on issues of the day. The one hour is almost invariably not enough to cover all the questions asked. In fact, I think that today is an exception, rather than the rule. Members can file Questions for Written Answer. But, however, this does not allow opportunity for debate, to pursue the issue further by asking supplementary questions, and so on. Another alternative is to file a motion. But, for example, how does one file a motion on the SilkAir crash? Members can also seek clarification during the Committee of Supply debate but that occurs only once a year. I would therefore like to propose that the time allotted for Oral Answer be increased from one hour to one and a half hours in the first instance. While this might still not enable all Questions filed to be answered, that would at least allow, on average, 50% more Questions to be covered. My second proposal is that Parliament allows for speeches to be supplemented by audio-visual aids. This has become the norm in the business world as well as in educational institutions. I am glad that the new Chamber is fitted with electric sockets for computer notebooks to be plugged in as well as screens. And surely, the House would agree with me that a speech accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation is more interesting, easier to absorb and more effective than just the speech alone. My third proposal is that the GPCs play a more active role in the consultation and feedback process. These views can then be aired in the House during the relevant policy debate, as indeed has been done in the case of the Budget.”
“Allow me just to focus on Parliament during this specific occasion. Parliament, comprising the people's elected representatives, is indeed the central forum for open debate and expression of diverse views. As a result of the rich diversity of representation in the House, views expressed by Members represent a microcosm of the broad spectrum of views in Singapore. Does one need to have more Opposition Members for Parliament to better fulfil this role? The answer surely depends on the quality of the Opposition, of existing backbenchers and of the NMPs. The Government backbenchers have, in the past, played the role of the loyal opposition. Indeed, many have asked good questions or offered useful suggestions. As for the Opposition, there is only so much that three Opposition Members can do. And in fact, the number of NMPs is triple that of the Opposition Members. The NMPs, as a group, have also been active. For example, from the beginning of the current NMP term to this sitting, NMPs accounted for a disproportionate 38% of the 712 Questions filed, PAP MPs filed 44% of the Questions and Opposition MPs, 18%. My view is that so long as the Opposition MPs, as a group, do not offer the range and quality of constructive dissent and alternative policy proposals that are desired, NMPs can, and have, served a useful role by filling this void. But there is another aspect: that of the effectiveness of parliamentary proceedings in facilitating such debate. I would like to offer three proposals as to how to improve Parliamentary proceedings so that Parliament can be an even more effective channel for the voicing of alternative views in the future. The first proposal I have is to increase the length of the time allotted for Oral Answers to Questions.”
“Successive PAP Governments have taken great pains to ensure minority racial representation in Parliament by means of the GRC system. Members also come from all walks of life - Chinese-educated, English-educated, rich and poor family backgrounds, professionals, entrepreneurs, corporate executives, academics, young and old - the oldest Member is more than twice the age of the youngest in the House. What is only lacking is greater female representation. However, it is in the performance of the third function of Parliament as a forum for general debate and expression of views, that while there has been significant improvement over these last years, much more can still be done. Increasingly, people in Singapore want a more consultative government. This is a natural consequence of the very economic success that the PAP has helped to achieve a more educated population and globalisation. People today want to see a contestation of ideas, of alternatives, of different views expressed. They are no longer content with top-down decision-making made by a small elite and implemented with the most perfunctory of explanations. If a certain course of policy is decided on, they would want to know why or why not. For example, why the need for the Electronic Road Pricing system? Why not compulsory education for children? Why market the salaries for Ministers and top civil servants? In addition, they would like to be consulted and given inputs before and not after a policy decision. Just as the Government has responded to people's material needs in the past, and has fulfilled them in proactive fashion, I would urge the Government to meet this intangible but, nonetheless, very real political need for greater consultation. There are a number of ways to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since this is my last speech in the House, I would like to begin by thanking the House and the Special Select Committee Members involved in my appointment for these slightly more than four years that I have been here. It has been a privilege to be appointed as a Nominated Member and to be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate on a wide range of issues. It has indeed been a rich and rewarding experience. I would like to congratulate my five colleagues who have been re-appointed as well as the four new appointees and I wish them all the best in the carrying out of their duties. I am also particularly happy that I can participate in this historic move from the old to the new Chamber. In my view, the new Chamber is simply great. It has a dignified elegance that is befitting Parliament. I would also like to congratulate all those, including the Speaker, who had a hand in the development of the building. What I would like to focus on is how the overwhelming majority of the PAP has affected the functioning of Parliament and parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Unlike some in this House, I only have a limited personal experience of the last four years and I would like to speak from this personal experience. The first function of the Legislature is to pass Bills and enact laws. In my view, this has been efficiently performed. Laws and budget are expeditiously passed and the majority that the Government has in the House ensures that it will carry the vote on all Bills and budgets. That is the very nature of parliamentary democracy itself. The second function is to act as an integrated focus for society. Again, I feel that this has also been well performed.”
“Would the Prime Minister consider to err on the generous side because I think former Presidents are under some obligation to maintain the dignity and stature of the office.”
“As I see it, Minister, if the change of the Constitution is to define the portion of NII that belongs to past reserves, then would the Minister also consider at the same time including in the Constitution the definition of "reserves" that was stated in the White Paper? Because right now it is not in the Constitution.”
“Clarification, Minister. I think my question was really regarding the last part of your comment which said that you would change the Constitution in order to state whether what part of NII would belong to past reserves and to current reserves. Perhaps I was wrong in this matter. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: What we meant was we would try and decide what portion of NII should be locked up, however we define it.”
“The Minister stated that he would consider changing the Constitution in order to define NII or the part of NII that goes to current or past reserves. Would the Minister also consider at the same time changing the Constitution in order to incorporate the definition of past reserves in the Constitution?”
“Another clarification, please. As far as I understand from the White Paper, and I could be obtuse, supposing you have a future government that informs the President of the day that it disagrees with the definition of the value of State land, in other words, the value of State land at fair market value at the point of transaction, then those principles no longer apply. So it is not a question of using past reserves. Here, it is a question of the definition of the value of State land, which is very clearly stated in the White Paper. Therefore, unless those principles are indeed made binding, then future governments can have the leeway to say that they do not agree with the valuation of State land at fair market value. This is my understanding of the White Paper. I could be wrong. If I am wrong, please clarify.”
“The Minister said that the principles in the White Paper are binding and that if a future government so decides to define fair market value as not at the point of transaction but at the time it took over office, then that is clearly in violation of the definition of past reserves. But as far as I remember in the White Paper, there is a provision to say that so long as either party does not wish to agree to the principles of the White Paper, they can notify the other party in writing and therefore the principles of the White Paper are not binding on that particular government. Could I please ask for clarification of this point?”
“If this is indeed the case, then I think that it is not necessary to increase the President's staff so long as they can function much like that of the Prime Minister's Office. I therefore hope that future Presidents and their staff will not experience any more unpleasant encounters. In conclusion, I agree that a harmonious working relationship between the President and the Government is in the best interest of the country. It is therefore in support of this objective that the White Paper was published and hence I believe that it is a commendable move. I fully support the motion.”
“In my view, therefore, steps should be taken to prevent the occurrence of such a scenario in future where the government of the day can merely by formally notifying the President not abide by the Principles in the White Paper. This is too easy. It should be made more difficult for either party if they wish to do so. I therefore believe that these Principles should eventually be part of the Constitution sometime in the future. It should not be done so now, because to cast them in stone now would introduce too much rigidity, while an element of flexibility is needed at this early stage of the office of the Elected Presidency. The Principles should first be tested out and refined, and then at some later stage, be incorporated in the Constitution. But I do believe that we should not stop at the Constitutional convention that we have now, but, at some later stage that these Principles should be enshrined in law. The Prime Minister and Dr Richard Hu clarified many of the other queries which I had. Dr Hu has stated that by accounting convention, net investment income is regarded as current reserves and hence it is not described in the White Paper. I was initially going to argue that the President's staff should be increased. But the Prime Minister has clarified yesterday that the President's Office should function much like the Prime Minister's Office, which only has a few staff, and therefore the President and his staff have the right to query public servants in the course of his carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, regardless of whether it is safeguarding reserves, safeguarding key public appointments, in conjunction with Internal Security Act or corruption investigations.”
“But in the event that one party notifies the other that it does not wish to abide by the Principles, they no longer apply. Allow me to give a concrete example as an illustration. Suppose that in future the government of the day decides to sell a piece of state land. The White Paper states that the value of the state land is its fair market value, in other words, the highest acceptable bid by tender, and that all of this amount is considered to be past reserves. Suppose it is boom time and property prices have doubled. The fair market value at the time of transaction is $20 million but the Government returns only $10 million to past reserves, retaining $10 million as current reserves, giving the reason that the fair market value is not the value at the time of transaction but at the time they assumed office, which was $10 million. And hence only $10 million is considered to be past reserves. In other words, the government of the day decides not to abide by the White Paper and that it then unilaterally informs the President of the day that this is the case and proceeds to return only $10 million and not $20 million to past reserves. What recourse does the President have to prevent the Government from doing so? Since the Principles are only in operation when both sides agree, it would appear that apart from publicising the disagreement and applying public pressure, there is very little else that the President can do. After all, it is not a dispute regarding the use of past reserves. It is a dispute regarding the definition of past reserves. This simple example illustrates the point that the disagreement over what constitutes past reserves can have serious consequences for the size of past reserves, particularly where the treatment of state land is concerned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to preface my speech by stating my view that President Ong is a good President. In spite of his illness which he and his late wife suffered, he discharged his duties well. I would also like to put on record my wholehearted endorsement of Mr S. R. Nathan's candidature for the Elected Presidency. In my capacity as Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, I have come to know and to work closely with Mr Nathan in his capacity as Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. I have the highest regard for his integrity and sound judgement, and have not the slightest doubt that, if necessary, Mr Nathan as President will exercise his custodial powers responsibly and will by no means be a yes-man of the Government. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.35 pm Let me now come to the motion which I fully support. The White Paper carefully lays out for the first time the definition of what constitutes past reserves, how budget surpluses are treated, what should be done in a transition year and the frequency and type of information to be given to the President. It is a meticulously written document. I applaud the effort that went into producing the paper. I also fully endorse the objective of the White Paper which is to enable the President and Government to have a harmonious working relationship. The clarity and transparency achieved by the White Paper go a long way towards removing some ambiguities where reserves are concerned. My only reservation is that the White Paper should have gone further in its clarification. It is a good first step but it is not enough. I am rather puzzled as to why there is such an easy escape clause. So long as the President and the Government agree that the Principles apply, they apply.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify the point whether the Elected President is a check and balance against the Government or not. I fully understand the point that the powers of the President are custodial. But I would like to quote from Hansard of 4th October 1990 from the then First Deputy Prime Minister, now Prime Minister [Hansard Vol. 56, No. 7, col. 461]. I quote: "My Cabinet colleagues and I believe that a good system of government must have checks and balances. There are inadequate checks in our present parliamentary system of government. [This is in argument of the Elected President.] Bear in mind that in introducing this Bill, the present Government is in fact clipping its own wings. Once the Constitutional amendment is effected, this Government will have some of its powers checked. The new Prime Minister will need to seek the concurrence of the President in certain key areas of government. I will be the first Prime Minister to be subject to these new checks and safeguards. It is this same desire of wanting to check the potential abuse of power which prompts us to introduce additional checks on the government in three new areas, not mentioned in the first White Paper [referring to the ISA, proposed Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and CPIB investigations]." So, pardon me if I am obtuse, Senior Minister, but I thought I would like to ask for clarification on this point.”
“I would like to come back to this issue of the unpleasant encounters that the President had. The Prime Minister mentioned that civil servants have a constitutional duty to report to the President in the event of a drawdown of reserves. But has the President the right to query public servants directly regarding the areas of his constitutional duty? Secondly, would the Prime Minister undertake to investigate what were these unpleasant encounters that the President had or, maybe his Principal Private Secretary had, and also to ensure they would not occur again?”
“I would like to thank the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister for their clarifications. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance - unfortunately I do not have the Budget book here to refer to - what is the approximate size of the Net Investment Income and is it found in the Budget book. More importantly, I would like to ask the Prime Minister how come the President, who is supposed to safeguard the reserves, was mistaken regarding the definition of Net Investment Income. And how come he did not realise that there was no need to draw down reserves as a result of the cost-cutting measures because there was actually, as Dr Richard Hu pointed out, a budget surplus? It would seem to me that that kind of information would be readily available to the President whose official and constitutional function is to protect the reserves. I am rather puzzled by this state of affairs and more importantly, the Prime Minister has mentioned that he and the President have been friends and colleagues for a very long time, but it seems to me that there has actually been a breakdown of trust between the Government and the President where this is concerned so that matters of definition, matters of information as it were, do not seem to be readily conveyed across the various offices. Could the Prime Minister please explain? I think it is more than just a question of differences of definition or opinion. I am rather puzzled that there is a very significant difference, not so much of opinion, but of a breakdown of trust.”
“The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the importance of the process of education in helping to reduce the social stigma attached to some of the EM3 students. Would the Senior Minister of State then commit to intensifying this process of education in order to further reduce the social stigma attached to some of these students and help them build up their sense of self-confidence?”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. First, would the Senior Minister of State agree that while the objectives of EM3 are laudable, there is unfortunately a social stigma attached to some who attend EM3? And second, if he agrees to that, what can be done in order to reduce this social stigma attached to being an EM3 student?”
“In addition, however, in the interest of providing the public with information and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by the Council, I would like to suggest that the Council goes beyond the publication of an annual report. The Council should, soon after making a major decision such as approving a fare revision, hold a public forum to explain to the public the rationale for its decision. I am sure that there are good reasons for its decision and such a face-to-face dialogue with the public would help clarify doubts and concerns. This forum should also be open to the media so that the subsequent discussions, which would include answers to frequently asked questions that many of the public may have, would be covered and publicised. In conclusion, I support the motion, but I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State regarding a number of points.”
“I also presume that this kind of analysis is not done by the Land Transport Authority as the Council's annual report states that the LTA acts as the agent for the Council in carrying out its operational decisions. I would like to seek clarification with the Minister of State regarding the relationship between the Council on the one hand, and the Ministry on the other. I am sure that close consultation occurs between the Council and the Ministry. After all, I believe that the Minister appoints members to the Council. My question is: can the Council make decisions independently and if necessary, contrary to that of the Ministry's? Is it an independent body from that of the Ministry? I support Mr Chay Wai Chuen's point that he made just now that the need for financial viability should not be the only criterion for assessing fare increases. I think his point about including an efficiency criterion is a very good one because in all that I know of the way the Government handles private companies, financial viability has not been a major criterion for assessing an issue which is of public concern. Third, since public transport has a direct impact on the lives of Singaporeans, there is a keen interest in the decisions of the Council with regard to fare revisions, changes in bus routes and so on. The new section 22 states the Council should submit an annual report to the Minister which should be subsequently presented to Parliament. The annual report provides useful information regarding the work of the Council in the preceding year. I therefore support this new clause.”
“In addition, since the Bill seeks to increase the Council size, can the Council not make it a point to include at least one representative of the handicapped as a member in order to represent them? Second, assessment of applications for fare increase and changes in bus routes requires a thorough understanding of both the demand and supply of public transport, as well as the financial operation of the public transport companies in order to assess the financial implications for the companies concerned. I therefore support the new section 21 which gives the Council powers to ask for supporting documents such as profit and loss accounts to support an application for the change of fare. In addition, I believe that in the event of an application to increase fares, the Council should perform an independent assessment of its implications, both for the public as well as for the operators concerned. It should not merely rely on the analysis provided by the operators themselves. I would therefore like to seek an assurance from the Minister of State that an independent assessment is indeed made by the Public Transport Council before a fare increase is agreed to. I would also like to seek clarification from the Minister of State as to the resources that the Council has to do this detailed and complicated work and whether this is done by the six staff at present comprising the Council secretariat. After all, unlike other regulatory agencies such as the Singapore Broadcasting Authority or the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore, the Public Transport Council is not a statutory board but a part-time council, comprising at present 13 members representing all walks of life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as mentioned by the Minister of State, the Public Transport Council is set up by an Act of Parliament in order to be a watchdog body to look after the public interest where public transport is concerned without detriment to the financial viability of public transport operators. I would like to bring to the attention of the House three features of the Public Transport Council. First, the Council is meant to approve and regulate bus routes and bus, taxi and MRT fares. This is a laudable objective. However, the First Schedule of the Bill provides for representatives of the major public transport companies to sit on the Council as members. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Council finds difficulties in carrying out its responsibility in being a watchdog body in regulating public transport fares and routes when the very operators themselves are members. Is there no conflict of interest? Would it not be more appropriate for the Council to be independent of the public transport operators since it is meant to regulate them? How does it regulate itself because the public transport operators are themselves members? Furthermore, if, in addition, in the event of a fare increase, supposing that the public transport operators would have to provide their financial data and you have other public transport operators also in the Council sitting at the table, how then can proper deliberation be done because these are private financial data belonging to a private operator? So I am a bit puzzled by this particular clause in the First Schedule and I would like to ask for clarification from the Minister of State.”
“I think there is a deeper issue here. The numbers actually are quite small. Categories 5, 6 and 8 together add up to only 282 children. But the issue is: should the child suffer because the parents are irresponsible? And I think many of us feel that children should not be made to suffer simply because their parents do not send them to school. In which case, if it needs legislation to have some sort of compulsion to enable the state or the authority to send those children to school, so be it. But the issue is that the children should not suffer because the parents are irresponsible. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, children always suffer when their parents are irresponsible. I am not sure that compulsory education, while it sounds very nice, is going to solve this particular problem. If you have irresponsible parents who have children and they do not bring them up properly, compulsory education on its own is not going to solve the problem. What we are talking about is removing children from the care of their parents. That is not compulsory education. That is a different subject.”
“I would like to ask the Minister three questions. (1) What is the current unemployment rate? (2) What is the net employment creation for the commerce sector? (3) What is the net employment creation for local workers as opposed to foreign workers?”
“Sir, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's motion. First, like the speakers before me, our hearts do go out to President Ong and his family during this time of their bereavement. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I think this motion finds resonance all across Singapore because we can see how many Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, gender, age - how they have actually flocked to attend the wake because they respected and cared for the First Lady.”
“I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what sort of compensation would be given to the foreign workers who have been hurt in the accident because it seems that some of them were very seriously injured and could actually have been impaired for life. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, that is a matter for the Ministry of Manpower to answer. She may want to file a Question for the Minister for Manpower to answer.”
“Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also inform the House whether similar checks are made with all buildings, rather than just schools, that this particular designer has contributed to the design? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, because of time constraint, the BCA enlisted the assistance of the other agencies like HDB and the corporatised PWDC to check in the first instance all Government and Government-aided schools. It will then extend this surveillance to public buildings. As for private buildings, it is actually not the BCA's on-going activities to check for their structural integrity. The Senior Minister of State for Education has already reported that within our system all buildings need to be audited structurally every five or 10 years. Residential buildings are audited every 10 years, and the others every five years. Completed buildings do not just collapse overnight. There will be degradation in structures resulting in cracks, subsidence, leakages and things like that. These will usually be reported by the residents or the Town Councils, the principals or whoever is in charge of the building. It is not necessary to inspect all buildings in Singapore. In any case, there are no resources. We have to depend on the integrity of the professional engineers who design the buildings in the first place and the accedited checkers who check the buildings. Having said that, I am very sure that all the buildings in Singapore are safe.”
“All school buildings, like other public buildings, are required by BCA to undergo 5-yearly checks on structures. This BCA requirement has been duly complied with by MOE. MOE has taken the precaution to ask both PWDC and HDB to check independently for the structural safety of all completed schools that have the involvement of the Professional Engineers and Accredited Checker engaged in the Compassvale project. The schools have been found to be safe. BCA engineers have also checked these schools to ensure that there is no danger from any design fault or physical defect.”
“The handling of these projects comes under one of the following three arrangements: (a) The entire project from design to construction is fully taken charge of by PWDC's in-house professionals; (b) Private sector consultants and contractors are engaged for the project under the Design and Build (D&B) procurement method which requires the private sector consultants to do design development based on PWDC's concept design, and the contractors to execute the works under the supervision of the private consultants; and (c) The Government farms out the entire project from design to construction including construction supervision to private sector consultants. For the projects designed and supervised by PWDC, the PWDC is fully responsible professionally for the proper completion of the projects. Similarly, private sector consultants are responsible professionally for the Design and Build and farmed out projects. They must ensure that the design and the works executed by the contractors are in compliance with all building regulations and standards set by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and other relevant Authorities. Compassvale Primary school is a farmed out project, hence the design of the school and supervision of the construction are under the responsibilities of the private sector consultants. In all cases, PWDC also serves as the project manager. Besides being responsible for the budget and time schedule of the projects and that the user's requirements are met, PWDC must ensure that PWDC's in-house professionals or private sector consultants, as the case may be, obtain clearances from the relevant Authorities before handing over completed school premises to MOE for occupation.”
“Will the Minister please inform the House whether the trend he mentioned for exports is the same for both direct exports and re-exports and whether the figures include trade with Indonesia? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The trends are quite broad-based. They cover both domestic exports and re-exports and for all the ASEAN countries. The numbers I gave did not include Indonesia as it is not our practice to do so, but the general trends for Indonesia are the same. COMPASSVALE PRIMARY SCHOOL ACCIDENT 5. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Education, pending the results of the investigation in relation to the Compassvale Primary School accident, what measures his Ministry has taken to ensure that all other schools with similar structures are being re-evaluated as to their structural integrity and potential danger to lives. The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Aline K. Wong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, hitherto all development of Government schools undertaken by MOE has been implemented through PWD (now known as PWD Consultants (PWDC)) after the PWD was corporatised with effect from 1st April 1999.”
“The fact is that overall, Clob shareholders have increased their total holding of shares. Each time, the stock market fell, they bought into a falling market. Over two years, it shows that overall, they were not dumping Malaysian shares. They were investing in Malaysian shares and they doubled their holdings in two years.”
“The graph which the Deputy Prime Minister has provided shows conclusively that there was no dumping of Malaysian shares on Clob. I presume it is the volume of shares. I have two questions in order to make the picture complete. The first question is the volume of shares that he has provided on this graph. What is the percentage of this volume compared to the volume of those respective shares on the KLSE? Is it a large volume? Or is it a small volume? Can significant movements on the Clob really affect Malaysian stock prices that much? The second question I have is that the graph and the details which have been provided here show, for example, the increase in the volume of Clob shares. What about the statistics on short selling as such? Are there any statistics on the volume and value of short selling? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures on what percentage the Clob shares accounted for the corresponding total number of shares in these companies. I believe it would be small, probably around a quarter. But I am hazarding a guess. Most of the trading with Malaysia and KL and nearly all of the institutional investors, who are the big players, invested in KL rather than in Clob. Clob was providing a facility for Singaporean investors. As for the volume of short selling, as I said in my reply, it was small. We do not have direct numbers for this. What we have are the figures for share buy-ins because when somebody is short and unable to recover his position by the time the delivery is due, then the Exchange will go in and buy-in on his behalf in order to meet his obligations. The volume of buy-ins on Clob has been very low and, therefore, we believe that the volume of shorting has been very low.”
“However, there will still be the need to continue to monitor such issues so as not to allow them to divide us Singaporeans. Even policies that impinge on multi-racialism, including those on racial integration in HDB estates, school enrolment, multi-racial representation in grassroots organisations, need regular revisits either for fine-tuning or revision so as to facilitate better cohesion in our multi-racial society. Finally, Sir, multi-racialism is too important a pillar for us to take for granted. It is critical that we ensure that multi-racialism prevails and be strengthened from time to time. It is an unending process. It is a heartwarming part of the Singapore heartbeat. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today, at the 2000 year old Great Wall of China, is a Millennium Countdown Clock which calls on its people to "seize the moment . build the motherland". I feel the same sentiment about preserving and enhancing our island state Singapore when reading the Singapore 21 book. Although the Singapore 21 Committee chose not to call it a blueprint, the possible `blues' notwithstanding, I agree that the ideas around the five pillars of Singapore 21 will serve as an important compass to navigate our future. The "broad strokes" of "every Singaporean matters, strong families, opportunities for all, the Singaporean heartbeat and active citizens" all add up to the sense of unity in diversity. This also reminds me of the broad strokes of calligraphy given to me by the renowned Pan Shou called: He Xie or Harmony. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is not to say that there are no shades of differences or problems here. For example, the debate over SAP schools, after over 10 years in existence, still lingers. So with the question of Malays in the army. Or, recently, the unhappiness felt particularly by the minorities about racial discrimination in employment. I have no problem with the official clarification given over such issues. I understand the need for SAP schools but feel reassured that more will be done to ensure that the SAP students are not isolated in their understanding and appreciation of the importance of multi-racialism. Similarly with the Malays in the SAF, I welcome the statement made by DPM Dr Tony Tan reassuring us that the SAF will not allow anyone to be discriminated because of race. The NTUC resolution on May Day last week against any form of discrimination in employment is also timely.”
“It was at Victoria Street near where the Lavender MRT station now is that I saw Malays or Malay-looking youths being maimed and perhaps even killed, with bicycle chains, iron rods and acid bulbs. And at the end of that longest journey home for me to Geylang and Joo Chiat, I saw Malays hitting innocent Chinese, particularly a trishaw rider, with blood streaming down his swollen face. From that day onwards, for my sake and that of my children, and generations to come, I swore to do my utmost to make sure racial riots and violence do not return to Singapore. Nation building is never easy, especially for a state whose population is as diverse as that of Singapore. However, I believe that it is those kinds of challenges that will bond us together further, if we are united in our sense of purpose and direction. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the title "Make the Difference" also reminds me of another sense of mission, that of the Malay self-help group, MENDAKI, in fact the Malay community called "Making the Difference" (showed cover of the MENDAKI book). No, the Malays are not making a claim of copyright. Minister Teo Chee Hean should be reassured that they are instead most happy to share that symphony of purpose. For sure, we share a common destiny. After all, the slogan "Making the Difference" also emanates from Prime Minister Goh's National Day Rally speech earlier this decade. Whether the Malay community or Singapore 21, the rallying point is similar. The message is clear: Let us get our act together to make a success of our `Singapore Uno'. Together, as a more cohesive, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious Singapore, we have to tackle the challenges of the next century and the next millennium head on.”
“But before I sound over confident or even rhetorical, allow me to remind ourselves that all is not perfect, as things normally are. There may be many trials, and even tribulations, if we do not know how to manage the challenges that await us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure Members will remember Singapore is not short of vision. Neither were we short of challenges. Remember the Battle for Merger, the fight against communism and communalism? Remember our "Survival" days? Remember The Next Lap and Vision 1999? All in all, we have shown that our vision statements were not mere dreams. We have also one by one overcome those challenges. We have been pragmatists, pragmatic idealists, if you like. But we also realise that the challenge of nation building is more than a marathon. In the words of PM Goh, unending. PM Goh has also sounded a note of caution, a dose of realism, in this debate. I think it is most timely. Do we not see the subtle hint of those possible 'blues' in the cover of the book? After all, as Minister Teo Chee Hean said in his opening remarks yesterday, I quote, "for those who think that conflict is a thing of the past, one need only to think of Kosovo .". And if I may add, the gory picture of an Indonesian Dayak (or was it a Malay?) carrying the dismembered head of a Madurese will remain vivid in our memory to remind us that the ugly head of ethnicity is still lurking around, even in these days of cyber technology and KBE. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I too went through the riots of 1964 coming face to face with bloody racial violence. I was in Secondary 3 then and I will never forget those senseless scenes.”
“The essence of the Singapore heartbeat is about caring - that we care for our families, that we care for our community and that we care for our country - this island that we call our home. This caring, which is so much a part of the Singapore heartbeat, is the very essence of the vision that we hope will be realised in 21st century Singapore. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Minister RAdm Teo Chee Hean. Sir, looking at the glossy cover of the book "Singapore 21, Together We Make The Difference", it reminded me of two things. First, the confident and somewhat smiling faces of the kids, our future, looking out of the jigsaw window of a complex and global environment, reminds me of what Senior Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked some time back - whether there will still be Singapore 100 years hence. I also wondered what Senior Minister will have to say about vision Singapore 21. We know that on two occasions when Senior Minister was asked about his experience with multi-racialism and nation building, he choked, almost to tears. SM Lee's experience then must have been very heartwrenching. PM Goh has just shared his piece of mind with us and I totally share those sentiments. To my humble mind, what is embodied in "Singapore 21, Together We Make The Difference" speaks volumes of the same concerns PM Goh and SM Lee have for Singapore's future. Personally, I am confident that we will be able to make the difference, and make a success of what Singapore stands for, not only for those children's generation but that of their children's too, stretching more than 100 years.”
“Likewise, it also saddens me when I come across people in civil society who are cynical about Government initiatives and projects, who are cynical about the S21 report as yet another Government report and that it does not signal any real change. In other words, there still exists a mistrust between the public sector on the one hand and the people sector on the other. This gap needs to be bridged, and we do need a mindset change. The Singapore heartbeat is not about many hearts beating in dissonance, each to its own rhythm. It is not about the public sector doing its own thing; the private sector doing its own thing; the people sector doing its own thing. Rather it is about many hearts beating in resonance with one another. Each sector has its own strengths and its own weaknesses. We need to support one another, build one another up, and not criticise and tear down. Cannot Government replies, regardless of whether they are in the Forum page or otherwise, be polite and civil? Cannot the Government acknowledge good ideas which came from the people sector and not from themselves? And cannot the people sector forget the Catherine Lim affair, treat it as an incident of the past, and let us together begin a new page of partnership? I would urge the public sector as a start to give its response to the recommendations in the S21 report and to make these responses public. In fact, to go one step further, publish responses to the recommendations in the subject committee deliberations, so that all the efforts of the subject committees themselves do not just disappear into a black hole. For the people sector, I would say, be involved, be engaged in at least one activity, people sector activity, regardless of whether it is charity or it is a group such as preserving the environment.”
“The difference is that in our vision, Singaporeans, no matter where they are in the world, should have an emotional rootedness to Singapore, that they consider Singapore as home, and that there is a loyalty and attachment to Singapore that will remain with them no matter how long they have lived or worked abroad, and because of this attachment, that they will want to contribute to Singapore in some tangible way. They could be working for a Singapore company overseas. They could be working for a company that is doing business in Singapore. Or they could simply be helping to promote goodwill for Singapore. Whatever it is, it is this issue of the emotional rootedness to Singapore that we are concerned about and we want to realise in the S21 Vision. How do we nurture the Singapore heartbeat, so that it grows strong and steady? The Singapore 21 report contains a number of recommendations such as consciously preserving landmarks and buildings that serve as emotional anchors. It talks about developing national icons. It talks about fostering a stronger sense of national identity. The PM mentioned the need to continue to build bridges among the races. What I would like to add here is that there is one more bridge that we need to consciously build, and that is the bridge between the public, private and people sectors. The title of the report is "Together, We Make The Difference". S21 is about the "we", it is about community, it is about bonding as a society. But unless we are careful, this one cleavage between the public and the people sectors in particular can hinder the achievement of the S21 Vision. It saddens me when I come across civil servants who consider NGOs and other groups in the people sector as an unruly, disorganised mass.”
“It is because, in Singapore, this is our home, we can contribute in this country in a way which is very difficult to do elsewhere. It is here, I think, as Mr Bernard Chen mentioned, that we have had the opportunity, and for those of us here in this House, to be educated and to do what we have done and to be where we are now. But although we feel this way, we cannot be sure that succeeding generations of Singaporeans will feel exactly the same. There is definitely a generational difference. For those who are highly skilled, highly mobile, the world is their oyster. Why should they return to Singapore? And that is the question that I think many young Singaporeans are asking themselves today, particularly those who have gone abroad to study. Why should they return to Singapore? In the S21 vision, we recognise that there will indeed be many more Singaporeans who will go abroad either to work or to study. And this is not only inevitable, in fact, it is desirable because of the fact that Singapore must internationalise in order to continue to prosper, if Singapore companies must go abroad in order to be able to expand and to compete. Therefore, the Singapore community in future will comprise not just the Singaporeans here but also the Singaporeans who are abroad. And we want the Singaporean community to be inclusive and not exclusive, to recognise that there will be many more Singaporeans who will be living and working abroad. But what is the difference?”
“And during the winter and spring seasons, the first thing I would do when I woke up would be to look out of the window at the ski slopes, check out the weather and if fine, load the skis on my car, take a quick breakfast, and I would be at the ski slopes in 45 minutes. Needless to say, it is not that easy to ski in Singapore! In the summer in Vancouver, I went fishing, I went hiking. The mountains around Vancouver are glorious, and so are the golf courses. My husband and I seriously contemplated staying in Vancouver, and we actually went around looking for property, but eventually we came back. It was not an easy decision to come back, because life was good in Vancouver. There was not the kind of stress that there is in Singapore. So why did we return? Because it was only in Singapore that we felt that we could really contribute to society as equals, and not as second-class citizens. We felt that we were Asians and we wanted to be in Asia where the opportunities are. Similarly, I have relatives in Shanghai, cousins of about my age. And I often wonder whether it is merely an accident of history that I was born in Singapore with the opportunities which I have, which they do not have, for each of my three cousins spent many years in the villages, in the farms, having a very hard life working on the farms. Two of them did not have the privilege of going to the university simply because of the time in which they were born, about the same time as I was born. What is the difference? The difference is that I was born in Singapore, and being in Singapore, I had the opportunity to go to school, to go to the university and hence on, to do what I am doing now. And that is the reason why we came back.”
“And particularly when I lapse into the lah of Singlish in private conversation, my nationality is given away immediately. One can spot a Singaporean a mile off whenever he or she opens his or her mouth, because of our accent. Similarly, I do not speak Mandarin the way the PRC Chinese or the Taiwanese do. I speak Mandarin not very well perhaps, but I do speak some Mandarin in a way in which Singaporeans do, with a very unique Singapore accent. It is not just the accent. It is not just the chicken rice nor the laksa. But the very ideals and ethos of a Singapore that believes in meritocracy, in multi-racialism, in a clean government and efficiency are as much part and parcel of the Singapore identity, and I believe very much part and parcel of what we are, those of us who have grown up in Singapore. All this is part of the Singapore heartbeat. But if all this is already happening, then the question is: why the emphasis on the Singapore heartbeat and the Singapore 21 vision for the 21st century? If it exists already, then why this continued focus? For two reasons: first, we cannot take it for granted that the heartbeat will grow stronger and, in fact, globalisation could cause the heartbeat to grow weaker and not stronger. Second, there needs to be a nurturing of the heartbeat, for it is not as strong and steady now as we would like it to be. Listening to the Prime Minister this afternoon, we realise that there are still cleavages in our society that we need to work at, and that we need to build on, for, as he has said, we may be a country, but we are not yet a nation. In 1989 to 1990, I spent one and a half very happy years in Vancouver. It was there that I learnt how to golf and ski. The ski slopes were just 45 minutes away from my house.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to Mr Bernard Chen's moving speech, I think there can hardly be any doubt that the Singapore heartbeat is one which is tangible and not merely a nice catch phrase nor a platitude. When one attends National Day Parades and we see the tens of thousands of Singaporeans in their jubilant elation and the celebration of our national birthday, the sense of pride in the country and its achievements, when we hear everybody in the stadium reciting the National Pledge and saying "We the Citizens of Singapore", or when we see everyone standing to attention when the National Anthem is played, we all know that something stirs in our emotions, and that sense of emotion and that sense of attachment are not merely a passing phase, an emotion of the time, but that it is something real, something tangible. In other words, the Singapore heartbeat is not, as Mr J B Jeyaretnam said, a platitude, but I believe that it is a real emotion, a patriotism, a loyalty, to this country which we call home. When I am in an airplane flying back to Singapore, especially after a long trip abroad, and when I see the first buildings, when I see the greenery of Singapore, when I see the port, the ships, I cannot help but feel a sense of familiarity, a sense of comfort, a sense that I am coming home. The Singapore heartbeat is all of these emotions, but it is also more. It is based on an understanding that Singaporeans are distinctive as a people, that the Singapore culture is unique, evolving, and that we have a distinctive national identity. I feel this most when I travel abroad, because it is very obvious that I do not speak with an English neither an American accent.”
“May I ask the Minister whether the Government keeps track of the number of students who study in overseas universities, in order to know the total pool of university graduates? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not have complete information of this because Singaporeans going overseas to study are not required to register with us.”
“But I think here the preference could be that they actually want a new flat, but because of the size, they would have to go for a resale flat.”
“But will the Minister not agree that this is precisely the point? In other words, there are some families that are dropping out of the new queue in order to buy resale flats of the same type, for example, 4-room flats, precisely because they are bigger.”
“Since the Minister mentioned that there will be a review of the demerit points system, in the spirit of S21, would the Minister then guarantee that there would be full consultation before he implements such a demerit points system?”
“Sir, when can we expect the full implementation of the speed limiters for heavy vehicles? Also, what sort of heavier penalties could we expect for drivers who violate these laws? For example, would they have more demerit points than before?”