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 8 of 8.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I watched the newsreel on television last night and they drew a comparison between a private housing estate doing upgrading and that of HDB. I think it is a very wrong comparison. It has no relevance at all. You must always bear in mind one factor. When a developer buys over old flats, they upgraded them with profit in mind. They are for sale. So they are very different from HDB flats. For all you know, you cannot sell to anybody you want. An hon. Member: Why not?”
“Sir, when we come to the debate on the HDB, he will have a lot of time to explain.”
“" Why can we not use more of this money for the benefit of the people in the field of education? Sir, the next point is the question of HDB upgrading. Sir, the problem with the Frontbench is this: They cannot take criticism from us. When I brought up the matter, I merely explained the plight of a number of people. I mentioned the plight of the retirees and of those in the low income group who have got no money for the upgrading. The reply was, "Well, you are against upgrading". But anyway it is not for my decision, and luckily, the money does not belong to anyone of you here. It is the people's money and if the people want upgrading, you have to give it to them. This is what a democratic society is all about. Sir, my question here is: before you call for a vote in respect of the HDB upgrading, did you tell the people, the residents, how much of the interior of their flat will be improved and what will be the improvement? And would it be spread over a period of time and, in the long run, will there be any increase in the contribution of 10%? It would appear that this is another pilot project. Just like the kindergartens, it is always a pilot project. You use the term "pilot project" so that you can back out anytime you want. It is a wonderful term to use.”
“Every time when there is a clamour for subsidies for an essential investment, we grudge that we are eating into our reserves. Even if it is so, so be it. It must be. When we come to the field of education, more people should be subsidised. Not all Singaporeans who send their children to school are like all of us here, who can afford it. We must not forget, Sir, if I may repeat again here, that we have 750,000 people earning only $800 a month, and 450,000 people earning only $1,000 a month. Do you blame these people for asking more money to subsidise their children in school? It is out of necessity, rather than with the intention to squander away the Government reserves. We must do more for these people. When this class of people clamour for subsidies, they should have our support because it is a genuine case for want of support. It is not a case of squandering away our reserves for consumption purposes, which, of course, I would even object. I am not one for welfarism. But I am one for our people to be subsidised in the fields of education and in the field of housing. I am quite sure the Government has got all the feedback. These are the two areas that the Government ought to look into. The last election was a clear indication. Singaporeans feel that the increasing fees and costs in education and health have burdened them unnecessarily to the extent that they may be financially unable to cope with the situation. I can give an example. It is like a millionaire making a will to the children. In the will, he said that the children can only make use of the money when they reach the age of 21 but, in the meantime, they could hardly subsist. They could not even live now. But the will says, "No, you cannot make use of the money until you reach the age of 21.”
“Every time you clamour for more subsidies, you are being accused of utilising the reserves. But where do we stand? Do we say we keep on accumulating massive reserves and, at the same time, neglecting certain areas where we need to have more subsidies? Examples are education, housing and health. Why is the Government grudging that more subsidies are given in the field of education? For the simple reason that now with more and more schools being converted into independent schools, only 25% of the students will be able to get scholarships. What about the other 75% of the students? Are we assuming that all the students who manage to get into the independent schools are from well-off families? Statistics have already been given that most of them are from HDB estates. That would be a clear indication that they are either from the middle or lower income groups. Also, it is an accepted fact that the only resource we have in Singapore is the human resource. Why is the Government not considering subsidising more for education? We are so bogged down with the fear that the national reserves will be used that we have in fact lost the true meaning of the question of the reserves being utilised and the question of more subsidies in certain fields which are considered as investment. The Government should, when it comes to the question of subsidies or reserves, consider how much we should accumulate as reserves, and not just keep on accumulating massive surpluses. Like the ROV, we have more than $1.7 billion and we have $600 million for HDB. With the increase in the levies on the 300,000 foreign workers and 69,000 maids, the Government is going to collect over a billion dollars every year on levies alone.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to express my appreciation for this opportunity to participate in this debate. Sir, I have noticed of late nearly all the Ministers, if not some Members of Parliament, have been lamenting that there is a trend in Singapore for the people to make use of the reserves. I do not know where they got this feedback, other than the fact that polls have been carried out and they seem to give the impression that some Singaporeans are going for more use of the reserves. I think the question here is: what sort of question or questionnaire was in fact put to the voters or to the residents of Singapore regarding the use of reserves? If the question is a simple one: "Would you want to make use of the reserves to improve your standard of living?", I am afraid the answer would be a yes, simply yes. But it is important to draw a distinction between budgetary surpluses and all the surpluses accumulated by the statutory bodies over the years. And the question should be rightly asked: "Do you think the Government should pool all the surpluses in the reserves?" and not just "Would you want to make use of the reserves to improve your standard of living?" If the question had been put differently, I think you would get a different set of answers. From the polls, it is quite obvious that the majority of Singaporeans believe that Singapore should have more reserves, that Government should put aside money as reserve for a rainy day, I suppose. It is not whether the reserves should be spent. The question here is: what is the limit that the Government should put aside our surpluses as reserves? What is the limit? If the limit is not defined, there will be no end to the whole thing.”
“Do not make an assertion and give no chance to reply.”
“They intrude into the privacy of other people. Aren't they busybodies?”
“I did not say that. Please get your facts right.”
“This treatment of all grades of staff is not just confined to the so-called high-flyers. Besides all these, the Government should also look into other reasons why it is not able to attract and retain staff. Perhaps, it is because this Government does not allow the civil servants sufficient scope for the exercise of initiative, career development and treat them like digits. Lastly, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, mentioned the other day (liangyao ku kou) - good medicine tastes bitter. I am curious to know whether it will be (kujin ganlai).”
“Secondly, they pay their conservancy charges to the Town Council. So the Government contributes through the taxes of the people. The Town Councils contribute through the conservancy charges collected over the years. Thirdly, direct cash from the CPF. It therefore begs the question: what happens if a person has no savings and no CPF? This problem would not have arisen had the Government actually built first quality flats. The fact that the Government is considering water-proofing the bathroom floors is an indication that the flats were constructed without water-proofing in mind. From the experience of my Town Council, we are now faced with the problem of spalling concrete from the roof and we have to carry out all the repairs now. Next door to us is the Princess Elizabeth Estate which was built in 1951 by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT). These flats have got no problem of this nature. Sir, the Government has announced that recruitment, promotion and management of civil service personnel would be delegated to the various ministries and departments. This is because central control means rigidity and an inability to cope with changing labour market conditions. These changes, I must admit, are welcome in principle, but I hope the Government will ensure an adequate review mechanism to ensure that the civil servants are protected from arbitrary personnel management decisions by their departmental superiors. Furthermore, with the wage scale becoming more flexible, there should be some standardisation of other benefits so as not to disadvantage the staff. Also, adequate arrangements should be put in place to ensure that the transfer of staff between ministry and department can easily take place.”
“This safety net has got holes in it. If you want to utilise Medifund, it has to be decided not by doctors but by unqualified community leaders who, in addition to looking at the patient's actual medical condition, will also be looking into the wallet. Getting a grant from Medifund depends on how well the patient has paid his contributions in the past, and not on how sick he is. This is the criterion for the grant of Medifund. One has to consider the factor whether he has paid in the past, and not so much on how seriously ill he is. As regards access to this fund, the assessment should come from qualified people, not by our neighbourhood busybodies, because it will ultimately become an intrusion into the privacy of the patient. Imagine for a moment, a woman who suffers from breast cancer or cancer of the cervix and who needs surgery, or a senior citizen who requires colostomy for treatment of piles, he or she has to apply to the committee of the RC or community centre. Could you imagine for a moment the embarrassment? Because they are not qualified medical people and yet they are given the task to assess the eligibility of applicants to qualify for Medifund. Sir, this factor ought to be considered seriously by the Government. In respect of housing, the upgrading of HDB flats would be a tremendous burden, especially to those retirees, those in the low income group, as they have neither savings nor CPF and they will have no way to contribute towards the upgrading of their respective flats. In a way, the upgrading exercise is a bit of a joke. The Government and the Town Councils will have to contribute to the upgrading. But, in reality, it is the residents who pay all this, simply because, firstly, they are the taxpayers.”
“Sir, not forgetting that these two hospitals are investments by private individuals and companies who have sunk the money into the hospitals, and they are not sure that they will get any return. And yet they could charge $160 or $150 per day. How come the Singapore General Hospital is charging $170? When a private hospital can charge you $160 or $150, I am quite sure they make $70. They make 50% from the ward charges, in other words, leaving the running cost to about $70. Even based on this assumption, the Government should charge $70. But I would go further. The Government would be able to charge less than this, simply because for a Government hospital, the infrastructure, the buildings and all the equipment are purchased from the taxpayers' money. Therefore, the Government should consider this factor. For non-subsidised wards, the Government should charge only the running cost, not the amount which appears to be profitable. The next point, Sir, is that the Government should also ensure that kidney patients in Singapore are looked after. Every year, we have between 200 and 250 patients suffering from kidney ailments and they have got no one to turn to. And if your income is low, that is the end of you. Because dialysis treatment alone, unless you get a place like the National Kidney Foundation or whatever it is, it will be a crippling blow to most breadwinners of the family. So I urge the Government to consider helping these people by subsidising their treatment and supplying cyclosporin at affordable rates, if not free. In respect of Medifund, I am going to say that a certain aspect of the Medifund scheme is a cruel joke. It is a cruel joke. It is supposed to be a safety net, but it is a net which is not big enough and it has holes.”
“And as I said earlier, the amount that is ultimately for the children of average intelligence would be very much less. It would appear that in Singapore there is no true democracy. All children are not born with equal opportunities. Those considered to be brighter are given more advantages than the average. The Government's elitist policy is to widen the differences already existing at birth. Those not up to the mark are to be denied the chance to fulfil their potential and are destined to a future as lowly paid menials to the elite. In respect of health care, Sir, I think the Government ought to be applauded for its policy to continue subsidising C and B2 class wards. However, I am urging the Government to seriously consider only to charge Singaporeans the running cost of the ward. It would appear to me that, as it stands now, the Government is in fact making money from the citizens of Singapore. To make money from one's own citizens in respect of health care is bad enough, and to make money at the misery of the citizens is worse. I will cite a few examples, Sir. In fact, I have checked with two hospitals in Singapore. For the B1 class, there is no subsidy at all. The B1 class in Singapore is a 4-bedded ward with air-conditioning. The Singapore General Hospital is charging $170 per bed. Whereas in one well-known private hospital, for an air-conditioned 4-bedded ward, it is charging only $150. For another hospital which has only 2- and 3-bedded wards, they are charging only $160 per day. In comparison, the Singapore General Hospital has the highest ward charges compared to these two other hospitals.”
“If it is a recognition of their academic performance, I would suggest that the school give them book prizes. Let us remember that at the last general elections, the People's Action Party promised the voters that every child would benefit from Edusave. Every one would start with $100 a year. The figure would gradually rise to $500 and this of course depends on the investment or the benefit derived from the Endowment Fund. It is also very clear now that with the creation of these two scholarships, this particular fund of $100 a year per child would accordingly be reduced. How much would the child get? Even before the introduction of these scholarships, it is only $100. Now perhaps the child may even get $50 a year. I do not know. It may be much less. I am urging that the Government should seriously consider this factor. One distinction ought to be drawn here. For tertiary education, one can understand that we grant scholarships based strictly on merit, because for tertiary education the scholarship is given to you and you are bonded to the Government. You are to serve the Government in return. Whereas in the independent schools, there is no bonding at all. You are given the scholarship, after which you can decide whether to serve the Government or not. Under the present system, the children of millionaires who are accepted into independent schools will receive scholarship funds from the Government along with children of the less well-off families who are fortunate enough to be in the independent schools. As for the children from the less well-off families, they are not lucky enough to get a scholarship to the Government school and they will find that the Edusave of $100 per year to start with would be drastically reduced.”
“With the introduction of a scheme whereby 25% of the pupils from the independent schools are to be funded, it would appear that elitism has finally permeated the cradle and, to say the least, this is elitism at its worst. With the 25% of the students being funded, what about the 75% of those who are not funded? I am quite sure that quite a high proportion of this number are either from the lower or the middle income group. Imagine for a moment, Sir, a family who has got two children who are both in independent schools, would they afford the fees of $200 per child? Not forgetting, in Singapore, we have between 400,000 and 450,000 workers earning $1,000 a month, and after CPF deductions, the take-home pay is in the region of over $800. Furthermore, one half of the workers among the 750,000, their income is only $800, and the take-home pay after CPF deductions is only $616. What I am asking is: what will the Government do to lighten the financial burden of these people? In fact, I would even suggest that it is near impossible for them to finance the children in the independent schools. Sir, we are not quarrelling, and while we agree that talented and gifted children should be given the opportunity to advance their potential, that should not be done at the expense of the average pupil or his parents whose taxes provide the scholarships given to the more able. All of you will agree with me that families of pupils in independent schools who are already benefitting from better facilities and teachers should be subject to a means test when applying for scholarships. In other words, the granting of scholarships to pupils in independent schools will be subject to a means test. If the parents' ability to pay for the fees is there, they should not be given.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your indulgence, lest it be said that I will be harping on the same topic as my colleagues, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Cheo have touched on earlier. I am speaking on the deprivation of MPs' offices. Sir, at every election, it has been held out by the Government to the public at large that anybody who wants to take part in the election and on the successful contest of the election, he will be provided, inter alia, an MP allowance and also an MP's office. Sir, it is my submission, on this implied offer, that anyone who takes part in an election is deemed to have accepted the offer. It therefore becomes a contract that the MP should be provided with an office. Another point is that, as my friend, Mr Cheo has mentioned yesterday, Opposition MPs have got only the MP's office to operate. We cannot make use of the community centres. Neither can we make use of the Residents' Committees' premises. I need not have to repeat again that we, as elected representatives of the people, are performing the function more than grassroots leaders. I urge that MPs should continue to be provided with premises. Sir, this ruling, in fact, affects the interest of every Member in this House but until now, I have yet to hear one single MP raising this issue. It is most telling, and I think the silence speaks volumes. I now move on to the topic of education. In education, the system leaves much to be desired. The Government's proposal is that only 25% of the independent school pupils will be funded and the average pupils from the non-independent schools will also be given another type of scholarship. However, in respect of the second type of scholarship, the number and the amount have not been spelt out.”