Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“" I can also tell you that young people are anxious, eager to get ahead, prepared to work for it and are very sensitive to these differences, which are not just differences in rewards but also differences in their sense of having achieved a certain status in society. So that is what we aim for. How does it work out? Look at Annex II (Cols. 1285 - 1286). Somebody who is on the D track, able to be Superscale D eventually, at the age of 30, he has reached the grade of PAS, Upper Timescale. He ranks 190th in his cohort. He may not be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but you tell me there are 190 people, of that age, abler and making a bigger contribution than him in Singapore? I doubt it. At 35, he has reached Grade F, his ranking will be 155. By the time he reaches 40, promoted to the grade of E1, his ranking is 178. In fact, he has lost ground, promoted but the private sector has moved faster. Age 45, he has reached the pinnacle of his career, Grade D. His ranking is 131. Our target was 100. After the revision, it shows that he will be around 90. You look at the right hand column. Annex II - PRE & POST 1994 RANKINGS (Cols. 1285 - 1286) If he is on the C track, he does a little bit better than the D tracker, but still his ranking is beyond 100. And after the revision, he is around 50. I think we have not gone far enough. Going far enough means revision not just to salary but also revision to the progression rate. Because it is not just how much you are paid but also how quick is your movement each year, promoted from grade to grade and higher responsibility which young people are looking for. We have speeded up civil service progression rate but I think we have not speeded them up enough and we should take some more steps to go further.”
“They may not be the single most brilliant persons in that age group, but I think they will be among the top few of that generation. And they will compare themselves, as they go through their career, with how their peers of the same ability are doing in the private sector, not an average person, but somebody who was at school with him whom he knew. I knew him, he was like me in school, what job is he doing now. Therefore, our benchmark aims for the top of each cohort. For those who are likely to go beyond Permanent Secretary, Grade C, our benchmark is that you will be the 10th in your age group. If you are 30 years old, you have not reached the Permanent Secretary's grade yet, but you are on the way, a promising young man in the private sector may be earning more than you, but you should be somewhere around there, no more than 10 people ahead of you. In fact, I believe we should also count lawyers, doctors, engineers and other partners, because that is a viable alternative for these bright and ambitious young people. But as of now, the comparison is with salaried private sector people. If you are expected to rise to Superscale D, which means senior Deputy Secretary, just under Permanent Secretary, already a good officer, then the private sector benchmark is the 100th person. It is not just us making these comparisons. I can tell you that every young officer makes this comparison and he does not need my table to know what his peers are earning. Because they are telling him, "Don't be such a fool, come and join me. Here are the terms.”
“It is how we settle Civil Service salaries, it is how we must settle Permanent Secretaries' salaries and, therefore, also Ministerial and the Prime Minister's salaries as well. The tables which I have given you show you the benchmarks which we use for all the different professions. Annex I (Cols. 1283 - 1284) will show you what it is for all the professions. If you are a professional, for example, an accountant, then we will compare you to somebody in the private sector with professional degrees, an honours degree in general disciplines, because that is what you would have been if you had gone into the private sector. Depending on the quality of your performance, if you are a CEP `D', an officer with D potential, meaning you are likely to be able to reach Superscale D by the time you finish your career, we aim to match you to the 90th percentile of the private sector, that means, better than 90% of your cohort. If you are an Upper Timescale officer, that means, you serve but you are not outstanding, then we aim for your salary progression to be about the 50th percentile of the private sector. Similarly, with Executive Service, teachers, clerks, Technical Service, and so on. Annex I - BENCHMARKS (Cols. 1283 - 1284) The only slight exception is the Administrative Officers because they are at the top of the Scheme. They come from a very broad range of backgrounds, not a particular discipline, and their responsibilities are general ones. Therefore, for the Administrative Officers, our comparison is with the top earners of each age group, year by year, as they go along. We are recruiting into the Administrative Service some of the best young men and women every year. There are 50,000 children coming out from schools a year, and out of these 50,000, we recruit about 12.”
“So if you add all of that together and divide by 12 to make it comparable with the figures which I am going to show you now, this is what you will get. [Copies of Annexes (Cols. 1283 - 1290) distributed to hon. Members.] The figures are as follows. This is all-in after the revision, annual salary divided by 12, because I have given in Annex III the salaries for architects, doctors, bankers, stockbrokers, and so on, and to make it strictly comparable. Grade F, $14,000. Grade E, $15,000. Grade E1, $16,000. Grade D, $20,000. Grade C, $29,000. Ministers, $64,000. Deputy Prime Minister, $84,000. Prime Minister, $96,000. That is the sum total of it. You can compare with Annex III and you will know where they stand, inclusive of bonus, inclusive of everything. Copies of Annexes - BENCHMARKS, PRE & POST 1994 RANKINGS, AVERAGE 1987 & 1991 MONTHLY INCOME OF THE TOP THREE LOCAL EXECUTIVES IN A SELECTION OF COMPANIES AND PROFESSIONAL FIRMS (Cols. 1283 - 1290) Some Members have said that we should not make these comparisons. It is demeaning. Let me ask, in that case, how do we decide? How much is enough? We have to defend them because this is a political issue. And at every General Election, every by-election, this is a subject which Mr Chiam has made many famous speeches. Mr Ling has made some, and so has Mr Low Thia Khiang. Today, they did not object. I do not believe they will forever hold their peace. There must be a basis to decide what the job is worth. And our basis is: What is the job worth? What is the man worth? How much is it in the private sector, that is what you get, with some discount, in the public sector.”
“I am not saying that she does not deserve it. But if you say that the only return you get from being Prime Minister of England is to live in 10, Downing Street, then you have not seen the whole story. And, as Mrs Yu-Foo has pointed out, there are many other perks and perquisites, which are not published and are hidden, when Ministers and Prime Ministers pay themselves piffling and take ceremonial pay cuts to impress the public - houses, cars, and so forth. Do we want to operate like that? We can easily bundle that together and declare nominal incomes, and then we will provide all these on the side. I do not think that would make us better off. I think even the Opposition would agree that it is better to have a transparent system, where you pay for everything, including your COEs, your Area Licence, your car park charge for being a Member of Parliament --- An hon. Member: $20 more this year. BG Lee Hsien Loong: $20 more this year. Then it is for us to give you all these things for free and say, "All right, you are working in public service, noble ideals." There must be noble ideals because otherwise you should not be in this business. But there must also be a fair recognition of what the job is worth and what the person is worth, which I will come back to later. Mr Chandra Das, Mr Walter Woon and several others have asked what the gross amounts will be after the revision because we have given the base pay and there are other components as well which the officers receive. As I mentioned just now, you get a non-pensionable annual allowance (NPAA), you get an annual variable component (AVC), you get the performance bonus (PB), some get car allowances (CA), and we also compute an imputed tax on the car allowance because the car allowance is tax free.”
“The statistics show that while there have been incidents where people have caught AIDS from being pricked by needles, or some prevalent form of infection in the hospital which is drug-resistant, in fact, on a statistical basis, health care workers - doctors, nurses, and so on - do not get sick more often than other workers. If you have an obstetrician looking after pregnant women, you are unlikely to get pregnant by contact. So, I think we should take the approach with health care workers as we take with the SAF and the armed services, namely, you are on your own. But if it is a service-related matter, then we will look after you. And it is quite well-defined what a service-related matter is. If you come back five years after retirement and say, "I got AIDS. I think I may have pricked my finger ten years ago." You would have difficulty in convincing a tribunal that that was, indeed, how the matter happened and why, for ten years, you forgot to tell us about it. So, I think that would meet this specific problem. Next, Mr Low Thia Khiang wants us to have an international comparison, how much do other people get paid. Mr Ling How Doong says, "Look at the US. Look at the UK. Do they get paid more or less?" Maybe less, in cash terms. If you are the President of the United States, you have the White House, you have Air Force One, you have Camp David, you have the whole panoply of staff, of perquisites, of the President of the most powerful nation on earth. And when you retire, like Ronald Reagan, you make a promotion visit to Japan, you have a $5 million advance payment for your services. In Britain, cited as an example of charity service, politicians who retire, write books and give lectures. Margaret Thatcher was paid o5 million in advance on her memoirs recently.”
“I would feel some considerable sympathy for officers who would be retiring on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th January, for example, who just miss out. So for all in-service officers, if they prefer status quo, that means, existing pay, existing benefits, instead of the future arrangement, new pay, revised benefits, we would accept that. We cannot accept a rojak where you take the best from each, new pay minus a little bit, existing benefits all kept. This is a package deal. We have reasons for wanting to move. The pay is something which we have decided on unilaterally to make it overall fair to the civil servants. I think we have done it so that we have covered nearly everybody. There will be a few who will feel that they are better off without this, we will allow them to stay. But other combinations, such as Mr Heng Chiang Meng has asked for, no, you cannot mix and match. That is not possible. The increases are for two reasons. One is to adjust to the market which we were not obliged to do. But we have decided to do now because we would like to make the package a fair one to serving civil servants. If people leave the service, we will have to revise the salaries again and we will come here and argue it again. And I am quite confident Mr Heng will support us on that occasion. Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked how much all this will cost. I should have put it in the statement. It will cost $161 million a year in the first instance. Dr Toh Keng Kiat has asked for health care workers to be given "hazard money". I have not heard of health care workers previously having "hazard money" as part of the package.”
“And if the father does not do his duty, he must be compelled to do so. It is not a question of equal pay, but a question of putting the responsibility where it lies. The alternative for us is to say that fathers do not have this responsibility, and we leave it to the family to decide which one wants to carry the can. I think there are very major implications of that which will, when they have worked out, not at all be to the liking of the people who are pushing for this apparent equality in status. I will just leave it there. I know that the Member would not be satisfied, but we will complete the debate another time. Next, medical benefits. Encik Othman Haron has asked for civil servants to be allowed to stay on the existing scheme. Mrs Yu-Foo has asked for people to be given the right to choose either the existing scheme plus existing pay, or new scheme, new pay. And I think Mr Heng Chiang Meng has asked for the same. We are prepared to do this. It must be all or nothing. This is a package which we have worked out which we think is fair to everybody. We have changed your medical benefits which you are entitled to. We have shifted more of the responsibility on to the employee. And to be quite fair, we have made a salary revision, which I think is on the generous side, which more than offsets this additional expense which you can be expected to bear. We have also made special provision for the people who will retire under the new scheme and will be looking forward to the medical benefits, and who will not be able to benefit a great deal from the non-pensionable component of the payment which we are going to give in-service officers henceforth.”
“Mr Chng Hee Kok has also suggested having a commission to fix the pay of politicians regularly. It is an attractive idea. But I do not know if it is a practical one, because whatever the form, we are the ones who have to decide, who have to take the responsibility, and who have to come to this House and justify it, and you have to decide whether this is reasonable, underpaid, or overpaid. We can have data and commissions, but we cannot avoid the responsibility and making the judgment of what is right and what is sustainable. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked for higher pay rise for women. I do not think that if we concede this, we will necessarily make her happy. I think her preoccupation is a different one, and that is, medical benefits for women. I could give a full answer, but it will probably distract from the topic under discussion today. The Ministry's view, which is also the Government's view, has been fully explained in several statements and letters. I know that the Member does not accept these explanations, but I think that it is a legitimate difference in view. We have reasons for what we are doing. It is not what she thinks, that we are either saving money or it is for male chauvinism. There are structures in society which you touch only with great caution. We have a family structure and a law in which it is the husband's responsibility, in fact, it is the father's responsibility, to look after the family and children, and it applies even if the father is unmarried to the mother. So the father must look after illegitimate children. And if he does not, we can take him to court and compel him to do so by a court order. So we will look after the women officers. Their children have to be looked after by their father.”
“There is a formula which is worked out. There is a cap, if I am not mistaken, of about one month's pay (maximum), which can be paid out in terms of allowances to any particular civil servant. It depends what he is doing and how many companies he belongs to, big or small, and so on. It is a token for the effort which they put in. Frankly, I think we are getting cheap labour for the performance of SIA, DBS, or Keppel. We are just getting a civil servant, and saying, "Here, as a hobby, you do this extra duty, and I give you some hongbao, pocket money, at the end." If we wanted similar people from the private sector to take on those responsibilities, I think we would be paying them several times the full wage of the civil servant. Second, upgrading graduates in service who are already in Division II to Division I. We have studied this. There are about seven or eight thousand graduates who are already recruited into Division I. Most of them are teachers. In addition, there are one or two thousand graduates who were originally recruited in Division II, who under the new scheme would be recruited in Division I. These, we will naturally also upgrade and put on Division I. Third, Mr Chng Hee Kok's suggestion to have regular adjustments for Superscale Officers. This is an idea which we will follow up. We have begun to do this in 1993, because in the NWC adjustment we have made two grades - one is for the Timescale Officers who have annual increments, and therefore have a smaller NWC adjustment; another figure is for the Superscale Officers who have no increment, and therefore the NWC adjustment is larger. If we do this systematically, then there will be less need for large and upsetting revisions to Superscale and political salaries every three or four years.”
“No. What I am saying is that you do not draw this comparison, because, then, you are slowly inculcating in the future generation of people to say that, "Ah! We can go into politics because, you know, the remuneration will be as good as in the private sector." You lose a sense of mission, you lose a sense of dedication. That is what I am saying. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, many points have been raised by many MPs. Let me try and group them together and give them a coherent response, both on the details, also on the facts, the rationale, and the justification for what we are doing. First, the details. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked what perks civil servants get, so did Encik Othman Haron, in addition to the basic salary. The answer is there are very few perks. You get your basic salary, you get your NWC allowances, same like every other employee. You get bonuses at the end of the year, like other employees. At the top, we have performance bonuses, which we have described. For Superscale D and above, we have a car allowance, which is two months tax-free. It applies to Ministers, some civil servants. And that is all. There are no houses, there are no cars, there are no maids, there are no paid holidays, there are no secret votes. An hon. Member: No timber concessions. BG Lee Hsien Loong: No timber concessions. Civil servants do get appointed to boards of Government-linked companies as directors. And we operate a scheme under the Directorship and Consultancy Appointments Council (DCAC) to channel a small part of the fees from these companies to these civil servants as allowances for the time and effort which they put in serving on the board and acting as Chairmen of these companies. It is administered by the PSD. Chairman, PSC, sits on the Board; PSD adjudicates.”
“No. They love teaching. Of course, they are getting increments. What I am saying is that people go into teaching because they love teaching. But the point I am making here is: let us not emphasise by comparing with the private sector because the answer is a simple one. If you feel that you are not adequately compensated in the private sector, go into the public sector, or vice-versa. If you think that going into politics is not going to pay well, you are paid less than the people in the private sector, no one is going to stop you. Continue to be bankers, executives, and continue to be CEOs. You do not have to go into politics. It is as simple as that. The logic is there. No one is being forced to go into politics. And you must always remember one thing. The difference between people working in the public sector and the private sector - Ministers and CEOs - is simply this. There is the power, the prestige. There are people who go for power and prestige without the remuneration. There are people who do not want power and prestige, but go for the remuneration. Let us make it clear. It is as simple as that. So let us also not compare with other countries. I have already named a few, like the United States. I have already made it very clear earlier on. Let us not use the reason to say that because CEOs are paid so much, you should pay the Ministers so much. That should not be the case. BG Lee Hsien Loong: How much will you pay?”
“Similarly, in the civil service, there are people who become teachers. Because of what? Because they love teaching. BG Lee Hsien Loong: No need for increment?”
“In the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England. You are not saying that John Major is not a successful politician. Are you saying that? Are you saying that Paul Keating is a lousy Prime Minister? Because in these countries, the Ministers are being paid around S$20,000, and we still find every year, year in and year out, at every election, these dedicated people coming forward, giving up lucrative jobs outside, to stand for election and become Prime Ministers! So, let us not over-emphasise and keep on comparing with CEOs all the time, because, then, you lack a sense of dedication, you lack a sense of mission. Even in Singapore, I have seen some top executives resigning their posts to go into missionary. If we ultimately get a bunch of people who think of nothing but pay which is equivalent to their performance, we are entering a very sorry state of affairs in Singapore. Therefore, as I said earlier, I am not begrudging their increments. But let us not keep on emphasising or comparing with the CEOs, so that we will not lose sight of what politics is all about. And also as a reminder to would-be politicians that when they come in, the question of sacrifice is there, rather than you change your attitude, your philosophy in life to say, "Well, I am coming in because I expect my pay ultimately to be in line with that of the CEO." It takes away the very foundation of going into politics. As I say, look around us. So let us not emphasise this point all the time. Let me emphasise again here. We are not begrudging that the Ministers get this amount of pay. But let us not argue on that reason alone by looking at the CEOs, how much they are getting; we must compare with them, compare with bankers, compare with all these people. No. That should not be done.”
“Sir, while I do not begrudge the salary revision of the civil service, I would really question the emphasis on the increase for Ministers. It would appear that we have now in a way linked the salary increment of the Ministers to that of the CEOs in the private sector. I think it is a very dangerous trend if we harp on this and move along this line, in a sense that we keep on comparing the remuneration of the CEOs with that of the Ministers. As it is now, we have difficulty getting talented men of integrity to become Ministers. What more if you start inducing this sort of idea and philosophy in them? In future, when you get Ministers joining the service, they will be thinking, "Well, I am joining the service because I expect in another four years' time there will be a salary revision, and then it will be brought in line with the private sector." I am not begrudging, and I am not saying that the Ministers should not get the increment. But let us draw a line between the comparison for the private sector and the public sector. One must know for sure that to be in politics, it involves a sense of mission, a sense of sacrifice and a sense of dedication. There are examples around the world that high pay would not necessarily attract talent. BG Lee Hsien Loong: For example?”
“On behalf of NTUC Fairprice, I would like to reaffirm our commitment and endorse the Cost Review Committee's recommendation that we carry out the social role of stabilising prices of essential items, thus helping to curb inflation and profiteering. Moreover, Sir, we would also ensure that essential consumer goods are readily available and be kept at fair prices. Whilst trying our best to maintain fair and low prices, it should not be expected of Fairprice to score the cheapest for all the 10,000 or so items stocked in its stores as compared with a mere thousand-odd sold at other provision shops. Today's customers are looking for "best value for money". This means apart from price, there are other factors such as quality and freshness of products, the general ambience of the shopping environment, the assortment and convenience as well as customer service. Sir, Fairprice will continue to give its customers the "best value for their money". The social role will not be eroded with the passage of time and, if anything, it will only be enhanced. We will also take up the suggestion of Mr Lim Boon Heng to provide more outlets for one and two roomers. We, on our part, will do our best to help the lower income stretch their dollars to get their daily necessities. On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, Mr Chng Hee Kok. 2.16 pm”
“Here I believe consumer convenience is often sacrificed for operational efficiency and profitability. The point is cost increase is not the only cause of unhappiness among commuters. Quality of transport service must improve with higher charges. Sir, on the question of housing, I agree with the Committee that the Government should continue to provide affordable housing for the lower and middle income groups and hence should concentrate on building 3- and 4-room flats and leave the provision of 5-room and executive flats to the private sector. However, if the Government still wants to continue to build 5-room and executive flats, then I would strongly suggest that every Singaporean be given only one bite of the cherry. Let the Government decide on a subsidy level for all first-time home buyers and give it to them by way of a cash grant and leave it to the individual to decide whether he wants to buy a 3-, 4-, 5-room or an executive flat. In this way, every Singaporean in the approved income level for public housing will get one bite of the cherry. It will also give the Government greater flexibility to further help those in the 3-room/4-room category by its own pricing policy. Sir, it is the job of the Government to provide affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans. Having housed more than 80% of Singaporeans, maybe a review of our public housing policy is timely. Next, I would like to comment on one of the items mentioned by the Cost Review Committee. The Cost Review Committee has identified NTUC Fairprice as one of the organisations which will have an interest in keeping consumer prices down. NTUC Fairprice outlets can act as a reference point for consumers to compare prices. Sir, I would like to declare my interest as Chairman of NTUC Fairprice.”
“Notwithstanding the assurances from the Ministry of Education, higher fees in independent schools would certainly deter children from poorer homes to apply for these schools. We must try and keep our independent schools within the reach of all our bright children, and not just to cater for those who can afford it. Sir, on the question of health, everyone in Singapore is concerned about health costs, and the fact that the Committee has recommended that there should be at least one Government hospital does, to some extent, confirm that restructuring of existing hospitals has resulted in increased costs for the average Singaporean. The question to ask is: Is one Government hospital enough or sufficient? Apart from one Government hospital to allow patients a wider choice, I believe it is also important that the Government considers building more community hospitals in catchment areas to complement the one Government hospital recommended by the Cost Review Committee. Sir, I must emphasise that the community hospital should be a no-frills hospital. If a patient goes there for a headache, he should be treated for headache and not rushed immediately for a head scan. Sir, on the question of transport, I agree with the Committee that future bus and MRT increases be in smaller steps of one cent to five cents. This will help the public to adjust gradually to fare increases. But more importantly, apart from fare increases, the Committee did not suggest any improvements on the level of service of public transport. We have an efficient MRT and a very good taxi service. Unfortunately, Sir, the same cannot be said about our bus services. Apart from costs, the public would like to see an improvement in the quality and coverage of the bus service.”
“Sir, the Cost Review Committee has rightly identified four areas of public concern: housing, health, education and transport. In my view, Sir, the Committee has spent too much time trying to justify the cost increases in the past, be it education, housing or health. For example, Sir, in page 2 of the Report on health, it says: "First, costs increased due to higher wage costs, and higher costs of new equipment and treatment methods. However, fees were not increased after 1984 because the government did not want to impose a burden on the public during the recession and the wage-restraint period which followed it. As a result, fee increases in 1989/90 were sharper than if the increases were spread out over a longer period." This is more a justification for cost increases. Cost increases on health services and other services will take place and will continue to take place. What is more important is to contain future runaway increases in prices. In this context, the Cost Review Committee has been bold in its approach to identify and make various recommendations. First, Sir, in education, the Committee recognised the concerns about the affordability of university fees, independent school fees and private tuition. I strongly support the Committee's recommendations that the Government subsidy rate for university fees should not be reduced to the target of 75% of recurrent cost, but capped at the current 79% of recurrent cost. This will ensure that future university fee increases will be kept at moderate level. However, Sir, I would have been happier if the Committee had also suggested some guidelines for capping fees of independent schools.”
“Mr Speaker, when I said that the increase in the cost of living was due to the high expectations, one must bear in mind that there are actually four items here involved: education, health, transport and housing. When I mentioned the fact that the Government says that it is due to high expectation, it does not necessarily mean health care. Here, the Government has already stated that it is due to people wanting to have better upgraded HDB flats, and in respect of hospital treatment, instead of going to third class, they choose to go to first class. Is that not high expectation? Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin): In our conclusion, the Committee mentioned that rising expectation is one of the reasons. There are also other reasons, such as limited resources, reduction in subsidy rate and the simultaneous adjustment of fees by the public service within a short period of time. These reasons are applicable to education, transport, public housing, and not just health care. These are in the Summary of the Report. Since he has not studied the Report carefully, I would like to refer him to page 6 of the Report. Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join other Members in this House to congratulate the Chairman and members of the Cost Review Committee for a well-balanced Report and also for making the various recommendations to the Government. In turn, Sir, I am happy to note that the Government has accepted the Report and that the Prime Minister has instructed the various Ministries to study and implement the recommendations. We will have to wait and see how the major recommendations are implemented by the Ministries concerned. It may be necessary to monitor the implementation very closely, otherwise this Report will just be another report.”
“Just now, when I heard the Member of the SDP, Mr Ling How Doong, the impression I gathered was that he had not looked at the CRC Report carefully, or perhaps he does not quite understand what the Report is all about. Maybe he just wanted to distort the conclusions of the Committee. There were some examples of his distortions. I will focus on one of them to clarify and refute what he has said. He said that the Committee blamed the high expectations of the people for the rising medical cost. If he had read carefully page 46 of the Report, he will note that we have given many reasons for the rising medical cost. For example, we pointed out in the Report that advancement in science and technology has made medical equipment more and more expensive. This is one of the reasons. We also pointed out that the Government's cut in the subsidy rate was another reason. The third reason was that people have failed to exercise prudence when they used their Medisave balance. The fourth reason was that the pattern of diseases has changed. If Mr Ling How Doong had carefully read the CRC Report, he would not have made such ridiculous remarks.”
“Some people even try to intimidate the Government with the ballot paper and emigration. But in one specific area, there are common interests between the people and the State and, that is, education and skills training. To the individuals, the raising of educational and skills levels will enhance their own earning capacities and help their children get out of the poverty trap. To the State, educational and skills levels will increase the economic competitiveness of the country. Therefore, we should give more subsidies on education and skills training. This is an investment in human resources and it is also an investment in the next generation. But in the primary and secondary level, it is not just a question of skills training or teaching them how to make a living and to service the national economy. We must also inculcate in the children the correct values in life. This should be the long term objective of the running of the State. When the CRC was formed, the then Chairman, Mr Lim Boon Heng, invited the then Secretary-General of the SDP, Mr Chiam See Tong, to join the Committee but he refused to do so. His colleagues in the House also refused to join the Committee. I remember that at that time it was reported in the press that the SDP had indicated that they would themselves do a study on the rising cost of living, but till now, they have not come out with any report thereof. Our 16-member committee has presented its Report. Mr Low Thia Khiang has his own minority report. The SDP has been given ample opportunities to present its own report. Mr Ling How Doong confirmed that SDP has no report. It is not too late for SDP to produce a report.”
“This issue is always present and remains the same from the primitive society to the developed modern society. Rising expectation is a motivation. It encourages people to work harder, to work better, to raise their educational and skills level. It is a good and positive force. However, if expectation rises beyond the capacity of the person and, coupled with the demonstration effect - the comparison with colleagues, neighbours, "when people have, I must also have" - then there will come a time when the expected standard of living cannot be met. This will lead to disappointment and discontent, and some even blame Government policies for denying the fulfilment of their expectations! Moreover, many people are only concerned with their individual demand but ignore the externality created by their demand. For example, people who want to buy cars only know that cars are private goods, but they ignore the fact that the use of cars has imposed a demand on limited public resources, in this case, land. Also, when many people wish to buy cars at the same time, the demand on land, the limited resource, will be substantially increased. From this angle, we may look at the COE as a measure that the Government uses to restrict the use of limited resources, and that COE price reflects the cost of externality of demand for cars. If more land is used on construction of roads, there will be less land for factories, offices, housing and defence. I raise two crucial issues, ie, subsidy and expectations. They are issues that do not have optimal solutions because they involve basic conflicts of interest between the State and the people. When values tend towards individualism and materialism, the perception gap between the people and the Government will also be widened.”
“For example, in 1987-1992, the Ministry of Health reduced the subsidy rate from 55% to 44% of the recurrent costs, but the actual amount of subsidy increased from $165 million to $271 million. The increase in the amount of subsidy means the increase of the taxpayers' burden. We have to ask ourselves: is it equitable for 3-room and 4-room flat dwellers to pay tax to subsidise the better-off who are hospitalised in B1 and A class wards? Similarly, is it fair to use 90% of the recurrent expenditure on education subsidising undergraduates who constitute only 5.2% of the total student population? Furthermore, subsidies will distort resource allocation. The higher the subsidy, the lower will be the fees and this will create extra demand to arise which, in turn, lead to further subsidies, and result in what we call "the vicious cycle of subsidy". The Government's stand on subsidy is therefore very firm and consistent. Hence, although the Government is subsidising education, health care and public housing heavily, it is also stressing all the time that we should learn from developed countries to avoid state welfarism and the adverse consequences of such policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, how to use the subsidy is a question of efficiency. It is more objective and it can be calculated on the basis of the rate of social returns. But who should get the subsidy and how much should the subsidy be for everybody is a question that relates to equity in wealth distribution, and it involves subjective judgement. The next crucial question is rising expectations. Demands are getting more and more diverse and the demand for quality is also increasing. This is a conflict between unsatiable wants and limited resources.”
“On the other hand, from a different angle, there is still a perception gap between the Government and the people on the cost of living. The reasons are very simple. The Government looks at the issues from the macro point of view whereas the people look at them from the micro point of view. The Government uses statistics and policies to analyze the problems of the rising cost of living but the people complain about the rising cost of living based on their actual experience and feelings. As an illustration, housewives look at the situation through their food basket and workers look at it through the prices they pay for the meals they eat outside. Similarly, those who want to buy cars, flats or send their children to university or send their relatives to the hospital, their concern is whether they can afford the prices or fees needed. The increase in CPI by 2.4% per annum in 1980-92, and the annual average increase of household income by 7.2% per year in 1980-1990, etc, have no relevance or meaning to these people. Behind the discussion on the cost of living, there are two hidden crucial questions. The first is, in the face of rising wages and costs, can the Government subsidy rate in public housing, education and health care remain unchanged? Or should it be adjusted downward? For example, if the unit cost is increased from $100 to $150 and the subsidy rate is maintained at 80%, then the amount of subsidy of the Government will increase from $80 to $120, but the users will complain that they have to pay an increase of $10, from $20 to $30. If the Government does not allow the subsidy rate to increase and instead lower it, then the users will have to pay more correspondingly.”
“No. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the year, the Cost Review Committee (CRC) spent a lot of time conducting research and holding discussions and debates and, finally, completing the Report. The Committee members came from different backgrounds. They reached consensus on certain issues. One example is that the real income of our people has increased over the last 12 years. Majority of the Committee members also supported other issues, eg, the basis of CPI calculation is correct. Even in Mr Low Thia Khiang's personal report there are more common grounds than differences in substance with the CRC Report. This, I think, is an achievement. I hope that Singaporeans are able to see this point and look at the conclusions and recommendations of the CRC from a very objective and rational point of view. I ask myself two questions: Does the Report reflect the opinion of the people? Are the conclusions able to dispel the doubts of the people about cost of living? To some extent, the answers are in the affirmative. The CRC has dealt, in depth, with many issues concerning the people, such as health care, education, transport, housing and GST. Moreover, the Committee's recommendations such as the retention of at least one Government hospital, the building of more 3-room and 4-room budget flats, the increases in the fare of MRT and buses should be on the basis of five cents or below, and the freezing of the university education subsidy at present level, if implemented, they will benefit people in the lower and middle income groups. It will also convince the people the determination of the Government to arrest the rise in the cost of living. I hope the Government will accept these recommendations and implement them early.”
“To answer that, I think the Minister needs to explain the word "affordability". Can he afford it? The Government has promised the people that it will give them medicare if they can afford it. If they cannot afford it, the Government will look after them. It is unfortunate that these people cannot look after themselves.”
“I think that question has got to be answered by the Minister because the Minister has stated repeatedly that the poor and the needy do not have to worry about medical care. In other words, if an individual who has got insufficient money to go to the hospital for treatment, the Government will subsidise him. It is as simple as that. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, may I be permitted to ask Mr Ling a question? Is he proposing that since many of the older people, even those who are working today, in their 50s but self-employed, do not have Medisave and because they do not have Medisave, they should automatically be given free treatment?”
“No, Sir. My point is about the criterion for affordability. In other words, if you cannot afford it, you will get the subsidy from the Government. For example, last year the Government actually spent slightly over $1 million subsidising people who could not afford to pay. So my suggestion is that the criterion should be based on the disposable CPF account of the individual. If he cannot pay, he cannot bring in his siblings or the family and say that he has become affordable and give him the assistance in that way. I am not against the idea that the CPF of family members should not be utilised for the patient.”
“Yes, Sir. (In Mandarin) It was the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan who asked the SDP to build its own flats. We had already made some counter-proposals. But these counter-proposals were not accepted. How could we proceed? If our counter-proposals had been accepted and we failed to carry them out, then you can ask me the question. Since our counter-proposals have not been accepted, how do you expect us to proceed with them? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Your counter-proposals must be reasonable. For example, in mainland China, you must pay for land use although you do not own the land.”
“No. Free provision for car park lot. Because if you buy a condominium, you are given a car park lot free of charge. It is like a package deal. It is included in the package. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask two questions in Mandarin. Mr Ling, I think, has given the wrong impression of the situation that in the subsidy for housing, the Government has not been giving subsidy because the land cost should not be included. What I would like to know is that, some years ago, the HDB asked the SDP to build its own flats. Why is it that the SDP has not been able to do so all these years? The second question is this. The SDP leader said just now that he disagrees with the finding of the CRC on the question of rising cost of living. Since the Report cannot convince him, can he present a report which can convince us?”
“No. As I said earlier, it was mentioned in 1984 that car park fees would go up to $150 and when you calculate it on that basis, it comes to $100,000. One has got to make provision for contingency, etc. We do not know. I calculate on that basis. But I cannot give you an exact figure. This is how I arrived at $100,000 in 99 years. It is a rough estimate.”
“In fact, when I mentioned $50, I was talking of the open car park. I was not talking of the multi-storey car park which is $75. You may remember that the former Prime Minister mentioned in 1984 that, ultimately, car park fees would go up to $150, and car park fee is not static. So if you work on that basis, would it not come to $100,000 for a 99-year period? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: At the present value of $75, it comes to less than $100,000.”
“Quite obviously, with cost going up and if it spreads round, ultimately, the consumers will have to bear the burden of this increase. Therefore, in respect of education, I agree with the Cost Review Committee that for tertiary education, the subsidy should not go down below 79%. The subsidy should be maintained at 79%, rather than at 75%. Perhaps, the Government should consider more grants for those in the secondary schools bearing in mind that most of the independent schools have increased their school fees from $75 to $100, $150 and $175. This was reported in the newspapers recently. This would definitely increase the burden of the lower-income group. We should also consider the fact that the survey found out that tuition fee came to about $170. So if the independent schools charge a fee of $200 plus the tuition fee of $170, the total comes to $370. Here, we are not talking about the majority of Singaporeans earning $3,000 or $4,000. We are talking about Singaporeans earning between $1,500 and $1,700. Would they be able to pay for their children's education in the independent school where the school fee and the tuition fee alone would come to about $370, not forgetting transport cost and pocket money? In the light of this, I am suggesting that there should be more grants and subsidies for these well-deserving school children. I would like to repeat this again. Education is an investment which will reap a tremendous return for Singapore. If all Singaporeans are well educated, it is going to be a good return for Singapore.”
“Profit wise, it can be circumvented simply by re-routing, and it has been done of late. Instead of travelling directly from A to B by taking one bus, because of re-routing by SBS, you have to take two buses, resulting in you having to pay double for the fare. So the question here is: should a monopoly be allowed to re-route and, perhaps, make more profits from the new routes? I am suggesting that being a monopoly, it has the duty to serve the people. They must not be allowed to choose the more profitable routes, or run more regular buses along the popular routes and leave out those less profitable routes. Otherwise, in the transport scene, it should be open to all the other bus companies to compete in this way. The introduction of airconditioned bus services is, in fact, a false expectation for the people. You would say, "You can always travel in a non-airconditioned bus. Why do you choose to travel in an airconditioned bus?" But the problem is this. Sometimes, certain bus routes are confined only to airconditioned bus services. Of course, there are routes where you have both airconditioned and non-airconditioned buses. But the problem is that the regularity of the bus service will be reduced. So you may be forced to take the airconditioned bus because if you miss one non-airconditioned bus, you may have to wait for another 15-20 minutes for the next non-airconditioned bus to come along. Therefore, in this way, the burden of the people in the lower-income group would be enhanced, forcing them to pay more for their transportation. Another way of reducing cost would be for the Government to introduce less profit-orientated policies. A lot of the rise in the cost of living are a spinoff from Government policies, like COE and the levy on foreign workers.”
“But if you look at the years 1988 to 1991, a 4-Room Model A flat cost $65,000, $71,000, $76,000 and $88,000 respectively. Now it is $103,000. It appears that it is almost a 40% increase, instead of 12.3%. In fact, the price of the latest 4-room flat is already $154,000. That would in fact be much more than this. I think the question here is: how many workers have actually had their wages increased up to 40% or more? So I would disagree with the Report of CRC that there is not much increase between wage increase and the increase in the cost of living. Coming back to health care in Singapore, all the time the question here is that they all use the term "affordability" - whether the patient can afford the hospital charges and fees. Affordability could even mean making profit on affordability. Look at it this way. If you can afford it, you have money, you pay more. That could even be profit-generating from this sort of principle governing this. With the widening of the use of CPF money where the siblings, the parents and relatives' CPF could be utilised for their medical care, I suppose a very small percentage of the people will not be able to afford medical care, unless you are a single person. Other than that, if a patient cannot afford it, what about his mother, father, brother or sister? Everyone will be able to afford it. I am suggesting that the criterion for affordability should be confined to the disposable CPF account of the patient and it should not cover the parents and the siblings. I will now touch on transport. As Dr Arthur Beng has mentioned earlier, we have dual monopoly of two transport companies in Singapore. The question here is not whether the increase should be one cent or ten cents. Because even if there is no increase, this can be circumvented.”
“In fact, yesterday, the hon. Member for Tampines GRC, Mr Chng Hee Kok, mentioned the fact that bigger HDB flats should be phased out. I would assume from that statement that Government has been subsidising the bigger HDB flats. I would like to be convinced of this. I suppose the bigger HDB flats would include executive flats in Pasir Ris which are costing around $230,000 to $240,000 each. If we look at the price of $230,000 for these executive flats and compare it with a condominium, say, of $650,000, one would say, between $230,000 and $650,000, the difference is over $400,000. Surely between $300,000 and $400,000, there must be a subsidy. But then one must be reminded that for an HDB flat, you are not given a car park lot. For a condominium, you are given a car park lot. For an HDB flat, you are not given one. In other words, living there for 99 years, you have to pay a parking lot fee of $50 a lot per month, and it is increasing. So if you pay for 99 years, it comes to about $100,000. You add that to the $230,000, it comes to $330,000, and not forgetting the introduction of the foreign workers levy, the original cost of the flat could be only $200,000. The $30,000 is actually levy already collected by the HDB. Similarly, the private condominium is sold at $650,000. It could be that the $50,000 is also due to the charge or levy of the land, and the price has gone up. Then there is the question of renovation for HDB flats. There are many factors. I am saying this: convince us that there is a subsidy for those bigger HDB flats. Looking at the Report of the Cost Review Committee, Table 6.1, it was mentioned here that for a 4-room flat, the average annual percentage increase was only 12.3% between 1988 and 1992.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in November last year, SDP held a forum and it was pointed out at the forum that medical, housing, education and transport costs had increased disproportionately to the increase in wages. This has in fact been confirmed by the Cost Review Committee. However, the Cost Review Committee has insisted that the increase is in fact due to the high expectations of the people. SDP did not participate in the deliberation of this Committee - I must mention the fact here - because before the Committee had a chance to meet and deliberate, Ministers had already made statements to the effect that the rise in the cost of living was in fact due to the high expectations of the people. They have in fact prejudged the whole thing. And that is one of the reasons why we did not want to participate in the deliberation of the Committee. During the forum we also suggested a separate category of cost increase assessments for various income groups, and this has in fact been in the recommendation. I will come to housing. The question of public housing is not so much on affordability but rather on subsidy. I think the question here is whether it is justified for HDB to charge the amount it is presently charging for HDB flats. In considering this question, HDB should give a detailed breakdown of its land cost as well as its construction cost. When I say "land cost", I mean the amount paid for the acquisition of the land and not the notional price paid for the land. I understand the practice now is for the Government to acquire the land and later on sell it to HDB as a sort of paper transaction. The Government sells it to HDB at the market value. The flats are constructed and the sale is based on the market value, but not on the actual cost of acquisition of the land.”
“In Singapore, whether you are from any religious or ethnic group, you can feel his presence. He not only attends high level meetings but also goes with his wife to visit the poor and the less privileged people, to give them encouragement and warmth. He not only handles affairs of the state, but also gives comfort to even the ordinary people of Singapore by showing his concern and care for them. In every corner of Singapore we can hear people praising President Wee. He is indeed very, very respectable and popular and he deserved to be known as the "People's President". In the last few years, although he had not been in the best of health, he continued to work very actively in promoting religious and racial harmony for the stability and prosperity of Singapore. This is the strong foundation that he has laid. Tomorrow, President Wee will retire in great honour. For what he has done during his term of office, the House is giving him the tribute which he truly deserves. I would like to wish President Wee and his wife happiness in retirement. I wish them all the best of health and long life.”
“Another memorable quality of the President is his concern for the under-privileged and disadvantaged of the society. He has urged us all to take up the cause of the less fortunate and uplift them so that the nation can advance together. Yet another commendable quality of the President is his concern for the status of women in Singapore. He has encouraged women to attain their rightful place side by side with men so that men, women and society will be the richer for it. There are not many living heroes in Singapore but President Wee is certainly one. The public outpouring of our affections for him and the First Lady attests to their immense popularity. Together with the other Members of this House, I wish him and the First Lady the best of health and all the happiness they deserve. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Ho Kah Leong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, Ministers and other Members have spoken to pay tribute to the retiring President Wee for the contributions he has made during his term of office in in the last eight years. I share their sentiments. Here I would like to add some of my observations. Mr Speaker, Sir, President Wee is a very popular and respected President of Singapore. He and his wife are very kind and very accommodating. They have left behind many fond memories which the people of Singapore will never forget. Mr Speaker, Sir, President Wee is very urbane and knowledgeable. His words and deeds have enhanced the image of Singapore in the international arena, and have also reinforced our relation with our neighbours. When we travel overseas we can hear favourable comments of Singapore and many people envy Singapore for having such a kind and approachable President.”
“But he gives me the impression that he is a very approachable, sincere and kind President. From reports in the newspapers, I can see that he is a very humble and happy man. Prime Minister Goh mentioned just now that he had invited Mr Wee to take part in the Presidential election but Mr Wee declined because he had already served as a President for eight years and did not wish to contest the election to be a President. He has decided to retire and to resume the life of an ordinary citizen. So we can see that President Wee is a man who knows how to live and he is also a man of principle. It is said that, "It is difficult for one to descend from a high office to an ordinary life." But President Wee is able to handle this descent in a very, very graceful manner. I respect him and I wish him and his wife a happy retirement. Dr Kanwaljit Soin: I rise to pay tribute to our President Wee Kim Wee and the First Lady. Together, the two of them are a model of effortless dignity. Their graciousness, charm and humility have captured the hearts and minds of 2.7 million Singaporeans. They are talked of and spoken of with pride and fondness. Singaporeans could not have been blessed with anybody more suited to their posts even if they had been made to order. President Wee epitomises the Singapore Singaporean, the elusive entity which some of us deny the existence of. We are Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans and others. But how many of us acknowledge ourselves as Singapore Singaporeans? President Wee is a living example of a Singapore Singaporean and we could use him as a national role model. He seems to have distilled the best of our Singaporean identity and ethos and truly represents the nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition joins the Government in paying tribute to President Wee Kim Wee. It is almost a cliche now to say he is a "People's President". He rose from fairly humble origin to the highest office in the land and he has served our nation well. He accepted the heavy responsibility of the Presidency in 1985 after an unfortunate episode. At the time when the nation needed someone to restore the dignity of the institution of the Presidency, he did not fail us. By his humility and his approachable manner, he returns the Presidency to the people. He opened the Istana and made the place for ordinary Singaporeans, a place for family and for children, not just a lofty institution and a distant symbol. By being a resident in those open days, he made us feel as guests and not as intrusive sightseers. He was a friend and host to many Singaporeans and he gave many young Singaporeans memories that they will cherish in years to come. Always dignified, his personality nevertheless rose above his high office and he will always be remembered as the man and not just the office. Though he was the last titular President, President Wee is also the first to have the powers of the Elected President, and I dare say that had he run for the Elected Presidency, he would have received an overwhelming mandate from the people. With the Elected President soon in place, Singapore enters uncharted political and constitutional waters. However, with President Wee's example as the guiding light, the way ahead may be a bit clearer for his successor. We in our position wish the President and the First Lady health and happiness. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the last symbolic President, Mr Wee Kim Wee, will retire tomorrow. Personally, I do not know him very much.”
“The next shot must be aimed to kill, because they no longer have anything to lose. I believe that the amendment proposed to section 4 is more than sufficient. Once you have a presumption and the defendant has to rebut that presumption, in 99 cases out of 100, he will not be able to rebut the presumption and you will have your death penalty. But in that 1% of cases, a small percentage, where it can be shown that no intention to cause death or injury was present, should there be a mandatory death penalty? This, I think, is where the Minister and I diverge. Is it the shooting per se or the intention that we are concerned with? If you say it is the discharge per see that deserves death, then, fine, the amendment should go through. If you think the discharge per se is not sufficient to warrant death but sufficient to warrant a serious punishment by life imprisonment, then I do not think the amendment as proposed by the Minister should go through.”
“Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 26, to leave out "death" and insert "life imprisonment". At the risk of repeating myself, I am afraid that Mr Choo has completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not on the side of the bad guys. In fact, the people I am concerned with are specifically victims of kidnaps and police officers when they have got resisting arrest cases. I agree entirely with what the Hon. Minister says that most of these offences are committed on the spur of the moment and with the intent to hurt people, because otherwise you do not carry a gun. But there are certain situations, I think, where the discharge is not meant to injure anyone. If you have a situation like that, and it is a kidnapping situation, remember you have condemned the victim of the kidnapping to death because the kidnappers no longer have anything to lose. This is the problem. If the kidnappers have a change of heart and they say, let us surrender and let the victim go, the court has no discretion any more. It is mandatory death sentence once the gun has gone off, even if it has gone off accidentally. If they shot to kill, shot to injure, then that is not a problem. But in those situations where they did not mean to injure or to kill, you basically finish the victim off. Ditto with the resisting arrest cases. The gun goes off accidentally while they are resisting arrest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised this point simply because the Minister has said that it is to prevent an accomplice going out with somebody armed. But, then, why is it in this particular amendment it mentions the fact that "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the use of such arm"? I can understand if the provision states an accomplice will suffer the same consequence. But when you have this section incorporated, it means clearly you can go out with somebody who is armed but you must prevent him from firing. That is why I do not understand this section which says that "unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the use of such arm". The Minister had earlier mentioned the fact that this is to prevent an accomplice or someone going out with somebody who is armed. Then why incorporate this section? It gives you the impression that going out with someone armed is all right. But if he wants to fire, you must prevent him from firing. That is the point I do not understand. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure whether he wants those provisions to be deleted. But, obviously, there must be a safeguard for the accomplice provision. It is reasonable to impose this penalty on an accomplice if he had knowledge that the offender was carrying the arm or had in his possession or under his control such arm. Next, should he suffer the death penalty? This is not a new section. It is an existing provision. So I have not changed that at all. This is what the legislature had enacted many years ago, and, I think, very wisely. He shall suffer the death penalty unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the use of such arm. I think that is a reasonable position unless Mr Ling wants to remove that safeguard.”
“Because if you look at the common intention provision, you would notice that one could be some distance away from the scene but, nonetheless, could be brought in under the provision on common intention, ie, section 34 of the Penal Code. Then he would be punished accordingly, the same force as the actual perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, I would urge this House to seriously consider that in the case of an accomplice, life imprisonment would be sufficient, rather than death penalty, in the circumstances.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my concern regarding the punishment for the accomplice. This is simply because, if you look at the proposed section here, any person who carries a gun, and if he is present at the scene of the offence, it would be mandatory death sentence for him if convicted. One would have noticed that in past cases, "present at the scene" could even cover cases of robbery at a hotel where the robber entered the room and his accomplice stayed outside at the corridor. In the past it had been decided by the Court of law that he was present and he was then convicted accordingly. Imagine for a moment, two or three persons decided to rob a goldsmith shop. One of them acted as the driver. So he sat in the car outside the goldsmith shop. The other two who were carrying arms would enter the goldsmith shop. In the course of robbery, one of them opened fire. If we look at the definition of this section here, the one who sat in the car, ready to run with these people, would also be convicted and sentenced to death. I feel that it is too harsh. Where firearm is concerned, I really do not know how one can prevent the other from firing. Imagine for a moment, three robbers agreed to rob a goldsmith shop. They agreed that no one should fire. Actually they know the law. They said that no one should fire the gun. But one is at one end of the shop and the other is at the other end. How on earth can he prevent him from firing? It is clearly stated in the Bill that "he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the use of such arm". How do you prevent the use of such arm? I would urge this House to consider that in the case of a person who is not the actual perpetrator of the offence, life penalty should be sufficient.”
“I am objecting to his insinuation that I bring in my cheer leaders here.”
“It is a proper thing for him to do rather than to bark at everybody wrongly. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me clarify this point. This is Parliament. This is not a mass rally. Mr Ling How Doong has even brought his cheer leaders here to applaud him. I am very disappointed.”
“Thank you for your indulgence, Sir. Mr Peh spoke after Mr Chiam has given his views. He should direct his answers or his speech to what has been raised in this House. He has been raising something extraneous from what he has read from the newspaper. Is it right for him to do this? And he has unnecessarily dragged me into the whole thing when I have not even spoken at all. It looks to me that he is going to secure cheap publicity here. The point raised by him is not in dispute, as we have never, at any time, said that because the amount is small, the University should overlook it. We have never said this. Our thrust is this. There is no dishonesty. It is immaterial whether it is $200 or $2 million. So what is the point of him saying that "Well, because it is a small amount, we should condone it, bigger amount then, perhaps, action should be taken." The point here is that the University is not taking action against Dr Chee for dishonesty. They have shifted ground. The first letter of termination stated it was dishonesty by not revealing the fund and how it was being used. We have already made our point here. It is immaterial how the fund was being used. The point here is whether the fund used was relevant to his research. There are no proper guidelines as to how research funds are to be used and, in this particular case, Dr Chee had used it in his own judgement which was not only relevant but also backed up by one professor who said it was very relevant. So therefore the question of misuse of the fund is no more there. I really do not understand why the Member could dig up something and point an accusing finger that we are backing somebody or we have been misled by somebody. He should reply to what has been raised in this House.”