Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 54.
“Sir, on a point of clarification. The Minister said that new section 5A(4) should be read together with the other sections. If the aggrieved parties who are affected by the grant of spectrum rights are allowed to appeal, why is there a need for this section to state that no person shall question whether the grant of spectrum right was, or was not, effected with the consent of or in accordance with the terms? What is the difference between these two when they appeal?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I refer to the new section 5(a), subclause 4, in which it says: "No person shall question whether the grant of a spectrum right under subsection (1) was, or was not, effected with the consent of or in accordance with the terms of a general authority given by the Minister, and the validity of a spectrum right granted under that subsection shall not be impugned on the ground that it was granted neither with the consent of nor in accordance with the terms of a general authority given by the Minister." Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify what is the intent of this clause because, as I read it, I wonder why is it necessary to prevent people from questioning the grant of a spectrum right, as what the clause said: "No person shall question...", and whether this clause means that the authority - in this case, I suppose it is the IDA - does not need to account for or to justify the grant of a spectrum right. That means they can do what they want without the need to be accountable, and "no person shall question" them, as this clause says. Can the Minister clarify?”
“Sir, I refer to clause 10(2)(a) of the Bill which reads: "in accordance with the Police Force Act 2004 where the employee is an auxiliary police". I wonder whether the word "officer" should be added after the word "police", and read as: "...where the employee is an auxiliary police officer". Just a clarification, Sir.”
“Thank you, Sir. I wish to clarify that I am fully aware of the pitfalls of a welfare state. Neither am I proposing a welfare state, as what the Prime Minister has said and he presumed it is from cradle to grave, from the moment you were born, you are there. Sir, I am sure that we can learn something from the Finland government, how they look after their own people, especially those who are unemployed. Currently, those who are unemployed are not under any kind of help schemes. They are left high and dry. With the Government resources, I am sure that the Government can provide a better social safety net to help those who are in need of help, thereby the people at least have some sense of security being a citizen of Singapore.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to clarify?”
“If we are not able to change Singaporeans' mental attitude, we would not be able to overcome crises. At the same time, the Government should realise that economic development should not be our sole objective. The Government should alleviate the people's burden in their livelihood so that upon meeting their basic needs, they will still have the ability and energy and the freedom to pursue their interests in keeping with their talents and inclinations. This will help to raise the quality of their life, not just the standard of living. The Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Prof. Amartya Sen, has said: "Economic and political freedom help to reinforce one another, rather then being hostile to one another (as they are sometimes taken to be), €¦ individual opportunities of economic and political participation help to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivation." For the complete absence of political reform in the policy speech prepared by the new generation of leaders, I express my regret and worry.”
“To reduce such risks, we can enhance the people's understanding of democracy through national education so that they learn to respect divergent views and be aware of the rights and privileges the Constitution confers on them and how to exercise such rights and privileges and to give them the confidence in exercising such rights. The policies of a government are usually formulated on its assumptions of the people's needs. But such assumed needs are not necessarily what the people really need. Just look at the present policy speech which does not take cognisance of the people's real needs - their strong desire to lessen their life's burden. If the people can effectively exercise their political rights, they could exert pressures on the Government to respond to their needs. In this respect, things like public discussions, debates, criticisms and the protection of those who hold divergent views have significant roles in our participatory form of government. Therefore, the Government should further expand the space for citizens to take part in the political process, particularly for the intellectuals. Mr Speaker, Sir, the new political and economic situation brought about by globalisation has posed a grave test for Singapore. While we may have more resources than we did when we were newly independent, the strong-arm governance by the PAP Government in the past has tended to make people timid and passive. Together with the weak civil society and a closed political environment, they have become a hindrance to further development. The Government should boldly forsake its past thinking and allow a strong and vibrant civil society to emerge so that together we could face the challenges ahead.”
“But the problem we have now is that there are too many restrictions so much so that the society has lost its verve and vitality. People are too afraid to act. To reverse quickly such a mindset in our people we need to free ourselves from the fear of disorderliness and allow people the avenues to boldly show their views on the Government and its policies such as peaceful demonstrations. The Government should be bold enough to "cross the river by feeling the rocks" and not be hesitant at the riverbank. I believe our society can withstand any shocks that may come about as a result of such opening-up at the initial stage. Viewed from the perspective of long term stability of a nation, I would say that an open and strong civil society will be a positive asset. Social supervision and citizens' active participation would prevent the Government from being corrupt and help to improve the efficacy of Government policies. They may not necessarily lead to the weakening of Government functions. One example is Taiwan. To us, the Taiwanese democracy may look chaotic. But then why has the Taiwanese society not collapsed? Not only does its economy grow, its world ranking in competitiveness is as good as any nation. This is because there is a strong civil society there. It acts as a check and balance on politicians and takes on the key role of supporting the economy in Taiwan. Of course, no one can rule out the possible turbulence that may result from the opening up of a society.”
“The policy tenet should be people-oriented. Regrettably, we do not find the provision for any such possibility in the policy speech. People should therefore be prepared to keep on working like oxen and horses, and be fagged out to death in serving the Government. Another topic which is not mentioned at all in the policy speech is the issue of political openness. All along in politics, the PAP Government has always maintained that "Liberty and rights impede economic development", thus emphasising the need for discipline and order, and the so-called "Asian values". Under the guile of creating the necessary conditions for economic development they have suppressed the development of a civil society. But now it is obvious that, faced as we are with an ever increasingly fierce economic competition and the urgent need in transforming our economy, the PAP Government has tacitly acknowledged that a vibrant and innovative society is a pre-requisite for our survival and continuous success. For the need of economic development, the PAP Government has no other alternative but to loosen its grip on society. But to maintain its power, the PAP has been hesitant and tentative in its approach. What measures that have been implemented are trivial things like permitting bar-top dancing, bungee jumping, extension of business hours of the night spots, etc. Real hallmarks of a free society, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the media and freedom of political action, are still regarded as out of bounds. This policy speech of the third generation political leaders shows that they are still not able to break out of this narrow sense of party politics. It cannot be denied that unbridled freedom could lead to disastrous consequences.”
“Will a society whose members are constantly worried about where their next meal will come from be conducive to encourage people in pursuing a career of their interest and talent but lack in economic values so that the talent of everyone will be best utilised? Though an extremely liberal social welfare system has its pitfalls, a social welfare policy that centres on the needs of the people is not something that is as fearful as what the Government has all along tried to drum into the people's mind. It may not undermine the people's positive work ethic. For example, Finland in Northern Europe has been basically a social welfare state. Yet in a recent world economic competitiveness survey, it ranks number one. Its Nokia handphones are the world's best. Will this serve as a wake-up call for the Government to break out from its rigid mindset and rethink about the need for safeguarding the welfare of the people? To remake Singapore into a vibrant society filled with opportunities for all, the Government must first of all review our social welfare system and to have in place a social safety net for our people. Instead of giving out paltry sums of money like the New Singapore Shares and the Economic Restructuring Shares, why can the Government not make an all-round effort to reduce the burden of their livelihood and dispel their worries? A policy that allows them to have a respite and to keep their wealth with them instead of the Government will produce the necessary conditions conducive to releasing their vigour and creativity. To build a compassionate society in which people mutually support one another, the Government should set a good example by forsaking the tenet that whatever services provided by the Government must be profit-oriented and based on cost recovery.”
“Having been guiled by the PAP Government's publicity about asset enhancement schemes, many people have today become owners of negative assets. The Government has portrayed a so-called paradise, but there is no indication that the Government has any intention to help lighten the burden of the people's livelihood. And faced with the uncertainties brought about by fierce global competition and more drastic economic fluctuations, many middle-aged and elderly people are worried about their jobs. Apart from the so-called training and retraining schemes, the PAP Government does not show any intention to review the current social safety net to better safeguard the people's livelihood. Instead, we have seen that the labour law has recently been amended. The amendments to the legislation allow employers to ask for an exemption from paying overtime pay to workers. It is obvious that workers' rights have been sacrificed under the pretext of "saving jobs". When such a thing happens people should stay vigilant against all the beautiful slogans which are sham and be prepared to safeguard and fight for our own rights. The Government has turned public services into something driven purely by market forces and demonised social welfare. Such arbitrary actions not only harm the people's livelihood, in the long run they will also hurt our nation-building and social development. As our economy is being restructured, the Government constantly urges our people to be creative and innovative. Let me ask, when the people are struggling hard to make a living and when they are uncertain about their jobs, will they have any spare energy, time, zest and courage to be creative and innovative?”
“As such, he said that, apart from the high income groups, the great majority of people are equally poor. Why are we then landed in this so-called bizarre and absurdly poor condition? His conclusion was that in a short span of time, the Government has raised the living standard indices too high. We strive for an advanced standard in everything. Hence, the cost for everything has gone up. Adding up the so-called small adjustment here and there, of course, people find it very stressful to live here. What about social welfare? The writer points out that social welfare is not simply waiting to be fed by the society when you are old. Transport, education, healthcare, communications, social services, culture, etc, - these are all part and parcel of the social welfare which is to be provided by the society. They are also the people's basic rights. Let alone breakeven, even if they are run at a loss such basic social amenities must be provided for adequately. Mr Speaker, Sir, what the writer states in this article is exactly what the Workers' Party refers to - "the phenomenon of the new poor". If the Government does not face up to this problem and choose to talk grandiloquently about a promised land brimming with opportunities instead, what good would it do to the people who are struggling to make a living? The Government has been very meticulous in its calculation. Public services are priced at a level "which the authorities assume that people can afford to pay". Over-emphasising economic efficiency as the ultimate object have driven people to bizarre poverty. It is a fact of life that they have to toil day in and day out just to sustain a bare minimum existence. Once they stop working, they go hungry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in its policy speech delivered in magnificent words on 12th January, the PAP Government portrays a utopian phantasm aiming to confuse the people's attention while remains indifferent to the hardship presently facing them. As the Government was trying to mislead the people into believing an illusive vision, it so happened that the Lianhe Zaobao carried an article on 13th January by Wu Weicai, which promptly pulls them back to reality. Titled "Poor People in a Paradise", this article succinctly reflected an important issue that people are concerned about. The people are concerned about their livelihood problem, and this is exactly what the policy speech has glossed over. Therefore, it is necessary for me to quote a few paragraphs to remind us that to many people, burdened as they are by hardship and lacking in economic freedom, the country which the policy speech tried to paint as a land of immense opportunities is a mere "castle in the air". The writer began by saying that many Singaporeans are asking the same question: "Though I belong to the middle income group, why do I still feel the immense pressure of life? I barely make ends meet. If anything untoward happens, then I would definitely be plunged into dire straits. After getting up in the morning, one finds that it costs money to pay for everything - medicine, education, transport, social amenities, utilities, etc, and the costs for all these are of such a high standard. Though our incomes are not meagre, a great chunk of it goes to pay for all these." According to the author, although we may not have many poor people theoretically, for sure there are many people who have to pay a high price for a basic lifestyle.”
“I think the Minister has not confirmed whether or not the school will decide the time to be allocated for the teaching of languages. Is there any guideline from MOE as to what would be the minimum requirement, in terms of allocating of curriculum time for the languages?”
“Is the Minister saying that, now, the schools will decide how much time they will allocate to the teaching of English and Chinese, which means that, for example, the schools can even decide to allocate 60% of the curriculum time to teach either English or Chinese? The second clarification is that it seems to me that the underlying message in this debate is that the parents will decide. I would like to know how and in what way the parents can decide. Are all the schools offering the same options for parents to decide?”
“May I seek clarification from the Minister? Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.”
“Sir, with the shifting standard which the Prime Minister has said, in response to changing circumstances and the language environment, what would he see the language situation in Singapore, particularly the standard of Chinese Language, and whether we will lose the language two generations down the road?”
“Sir, can I have another clarification with the Prime Minister?”
“Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that, in order for a person to continue to use a language, he has to be comfortable and confident in using the language. And in order to be confident and comfortable, a person will have to attain a certain language proficiency, level and standard. Second clarification. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that if a student, at the end of Primary 6 education, is not able to attain a certain basic proficiency and standard in Chinese Language, he will find it even more onerous in secondary school to study the language and may give up altogether, and will end up losing the Chinese Language altogether?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification? Mr Speaker: Yes, a short one.”
“But the crux of the problem is: what kind of the next generation of Singaporeans do we want? He also mentioned that the Government does not disregard culture because we have this bicultural programme. But let us not forget that this is only for a minority of the students. We should look at the majority of our students. Eventually, what kind of standard of the language would they have? What level of Chinese would they attain and how much about the Chinese culture would they learn?”
“Sir, Mr Seng claimed that what I said in my speech was untrue and that the Government did not discourage him from learning Chinese. Regrettably, Mr Seng either did not catch what I was saying just now or choose not to understand what I said. What I said was that in 1966, Minister Mentor said that just having a few lessons in Chinese in English medium school is not good enough, and that we should have a few subjects such as History and Geography being taught in Chinese. But, today, in our schools, Chinese is taught only as a single subject. Is this not a fact? Now, we are talking about English as a first language, Chinese second. So, the learning of English is more important than the learning of Chinese. Mr Seng talked about Mencius' mother moving her house three times to have a better environment for her son. So, is Mr Seng suggesting that all the Chinese in Singapore should move to China to learn Chinese? Can all our parents send their children to China for immersion courses for a certain period of time? Ideally, this is good, but not realistic. Can the parents all afford to do so? This is just day-dreaming. Mr Seng has also said that some Chinese-educated people are worried about the declining standard of Chinese in Singapore. I think he is right. However, he failed to realise that this is not a matter of emotion, nor an emotional issue. It is a question of what kind of Singaporeans do we want. Do we want our future generation to be like a banana race or do we want people who know their own roots and cultural heritage? This is not just an emotional matter. I am talking about it very rationally, not emotionally. I believe the other races, including the Malays and Indians, have the same problems.”
“We must ensure that all our students attain a reasonable level of proficiency in their own mother tongue. Regrettably, over the years, our political leaders are always linking our important language, cultural and educational policies with economic consideration. No doubt, it is not necessarily utilitarian when we analyse issues from the economic perspective in formulating the framework for our policies. However, if we totally disregard the social cost in doing so, and its possible damage to our humanitarian culture and do not strive a balance between economic development and humanitarian development, then it is short-sighted and dangerous. Mencius said, "To cure a 7-year old illness, you need a 3-year supply of moxa as its cure. If there is no provision and stock for it, this illness will never be cured." The Chinese Language problem in Singapore is like a "7 year-old illness". Now we want to hop on to the bandwagon of China's emerging economy and prescribing a medicine for the next three years. However, if we do not prescribe based on the major cultural premises, do not change the language environment to make it more conducive in using language, do not thoroughly rectify the various mental blocks and bias against the Chinese Language by the Government, society, the parents, and the students, then no matter what prescription we give, including this White Paper, the serious illnesses would never be cured.”
“The report suggested collaboration between MOE and pre-school education operators to start teaching mother tongues to pre-school kids using the suggested new pedagogy, but gave no details. I think this is an area we should explore further. Pre-school children are more flexible by nature, free from any bias and, also, they are free from any examination pressures. They should be exposed more to the mother tongue for consolidating their feelings towards mother tongue and reducing the possibility of disliking the mother tongue at later life. With this emotive foundation laid in pre-schools, they need only to concentrate more on laying a good foundation of the language in primary schools and deepen and strengthen their standard in the secondary schools, and they can then have a solid foundation to enrich their language. Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the difficulty in learning a language and that the process of learning is arduous and full of anxiety. Many, like me, who were Chinese educated, can testify to this. I also agree that we should continue to improve the pedagogy of learning with the help of modern IT technology so that pupils find it easy to learn the language. But to believe that advanced IT technology can work wonders in language learning and spare us the effort and hard work in learning is tantamount to blindly believe in the power of science and technology and neglect the function of humanity and culture. Of course, I would not be so naive as to expect all students to be effectively bilingual. But if we are convinced that bilingualism is the cornerstone of our education system and the root to nation-building and sustained existence of our multi-racial, multi-cultural society, then we must respect our mother tongue language.”
“The conclusion of the MOE's survey reveals that as one gets older, one loses his interest in learning Chinese and that students like Chinese because they find it comfortable to communicate with each other in Chinese, and not because they like to read in Chinese or write in Chinese. I think this is the crux of the problem. As one gets older, one finds less interest in studying Chinese. Is it because there is less and less opportunity to use the language? Or is it because students do not lay a firm ground in Chinese Language in primary school and so they tend to give up when they find the going difficult? They like to speak in Mandarin to each other even though they do not like the language. Is it because the environment is conducive in speaking Mandarin or is it because they have acquired the competence in speaking? Unfortunately, the Committee did not pursue further to find out the real cause of the issue. If the problem faced by our students is due to a bottleneck in catching up caused by a weak foundation and if they are comfortable in conversing in Mandarin because they have mastered the skill in speaking the language, then the way to redress the problem is to strengthen the teaching of Chinese in primary schools so that they will have acquired the ability to listen, speak, read and write the language when they go to secondary schools. For those coming from English-speaking homes, apart from adopting a more suitable teaching method, they should have more time in learning Chinese than English in school. Second, pre-school education is the period when the learning of languages is at its optimum.”
“But some schools may balk at this for fear that this may affect their school ranking because school principals are given autonomy in deciding which Chinese module should a student be assigned to. We have a media report recently that a student was barred from taking Higher Chinese just because the school "mistakenly" thought that she was not up to the required marks in certain subjects as laid down by the MOE. Had it not been for the news report, this student would have missed the chance to study and excel in Higher Chinese. Will these recommendations remain as recommendations eventually? Does the Government have the sincerity and political will to implement these recommendations? Let us wait and see. As for changing the mindset, the report does not offer any suggestion. The Committee reasons that since pupils find it difficult to learn how to write Chinese, therefore, let us start with word recognition and put off writing till a later stage. But later, should they find Chinese difficult to remember because it is not a phonetic language and each character has very complicated strokes and put off by such difficulty, shall we waive them from reading Chinese character as well? After all we need only the spoken language to communicate. There was an article in Lianhe Zaobao's column that related a person who was unable to tell the difference between a doctorate degree holder and a medical doctor when they saw the words "DR" or "doctor". The writer is saddened that if we keep giving way in lowering the standard of the Chinese language and CL is simplified to such an extent that you can use both "doctorate" and "medical doctor" interchangeably, then there is no point in learning Chinese any more. How do we sort out and solve the present problems?”
“What worries me is that the PSLE pupils, who are good at understanding and speaking, would not be able to tackle the secondary school's Chinese syllabus and hence opt for syllabus 'B', or some kind of foundation Chinese, so much so that Chinese syllabus 'B' will then become the standard bearer of the Chinese language, resulting in a general shift downward of the standard of Chinese language. Is this what the Committee has already foreseen but has not published in the report? If the outcome of the recommendations in the report would result in pupils being able only to converse in Chinese, then I suggest that it is more appropriate to term it "Mandarin" rather than "Chinese" curriculum. Mr Speaker, Sir, the MOE's survey suggests that three factors contribute to the difficulty in the learning of Chinese Language: (1) inadequate exposure; (2) the mindset issue (pupils from English speaking homes do not like Chinese); (3) Chinese characters are difficult to write. To redress the fact that people have inadequate exposure to Chinese, the Committee recommends that more speaking Chinese environment be created in the community and that a Committee be set up with the help of the grassroots organisations, the media and the schools to achieve this. Only in this way can we help to create a big and conducive environment to expand the space for learning Chinese. I support this recommendation. But how do we make sure that we could get the various sectors in our society, who used to be so pragmatic and practical, to cooperate in this effort? For example, students are encouraged to excel in the Chinese language to their highest attainable standard.”
“It is not easy to pick the one you look for from among so many characters with similar sounds. I have reservation on the "recognise first, write later" approach. I beg to differ on the committee's recommendation that PSLE examination places emphasis on oral fluency and reading. The focus of this debate in Parliament should be whether pupils should only acquire oral and reading skills at the end of primary education and not "recognise first, write later" approach which is a pedagogy technique. I hope that the education policy makers would reconsider very carefully before implementing this recommendation in the report. Because eventually the students produced by this bilingual policy of ours will be those who can only speak the language but are, in fact, illiterate in Chinese. If the advance in IT technology obviates the need to learn how to write Chinese characters, why not resort to electronic translating machines to translate English into various languages? So there is no need to study Chinese! To say that we can use the IT products and therefore not necessary to learn how to write the Chinese characters is a shortsighted policy. On the other hand, how does the primary school modular approach link up with the secondary school syllabus? Will there be a problem when students proceed to secondary school where the requirement at "O" level is for students to write an essay of 250 to 300 words in the Chinese syllabus? The report has not given any details.”
“In other words, basically when the students complete their primary school studies, they could only listen and speak Mandarin. Unless the Government can, in the near future, create a Chinese learning environment where students can immerse in the language I can say for sure that the outcome of this Chinese Language teaching system will be that students are unable to recognise the characters, let alone able to read Chinese. Therefore, "recognise first, write later" will produce the phenomenon that you recognise first, and forget later, leading to the predicament of having able to speak Mandarin but unable to read or write in Chinese. Many PAP MPs spoke in Mandarin in the House yesterday about their experience in the learning of Chinese, and claimed that despite having neglected the language for a number of years, they would quickly revive their ability to use the language if there is a conducive environment. Hence, they find that the recommendations in this Report are feasible. However, they have forgotten that their proficiency in the Chinese Language is the product of the old pedagogy where, apart from listening and speaking, equal emphasis was placed on reading and writing, and that they belong to a generation where Chinese 'B' was not yet available. Had they completed their primary school education with only the listening and speaking abilities in the language, I doubt very much they would be able to use Chinese at ease today. The Report thinks that in view of the advance in IT technology, students do not have to learn writing as they can easily input their ideas with the help of computers or electronic dictionaries. But they forget that there are many Chinese words with similar sounds and similar shapes.”
“But to separate the recognition and writing the characters into two parts and thus thinking that taking away the writing would help the students to learn CL faster is amounting to running away from reality. It is like cutting your toes to fit the shoes. I agree with the modular approach suggested by the report, but the report is silent on the content and objectives of the various modules. Neither does it say when students should start to learn to write. While acknowledging that learning to write would help students to remember the characters and thus learn new words, the Committee felt that students should not be made to learn by rote the vocabulary items. May I know in what subject the students are not required to have repetitive practice in order to master the subject matter? What is absurd is that the report indicated that the objective of learning to write is merely to appreciate Chinese calligraphy! In the report we find that one of the outcomes of studying Chinese is the ability to write a short composition of 80-100 words with the help of a dictionary at the examination. Furthermore, at the PSLE, pupils will be tested on the knowledge based on the core modules which emphasise listening and reading. This means that, first, it would not be necessary for the students to learn how to write, because at the PSLE, emphasis is on listening and speaking; secondly, electronic dictionary can be used for the essay writing at the examination. It is faster to check the characters on the dictionary. Ability to write the characters is not important; thirdly, if the teacher wants to teach the students to write, the teaching objective is to let the students appreciate the Chinese calligraphy.”
“But a survey attached to the report says that the proportion of students taking tuition in English Language and Mathematics is higher than that for Chinese Language. What does this show? Is Chinese the only subject that is difficult to learn? The survey does not give figures on the passing rates for the three subjects, but I guess the passing rate for Chinese would not be lower than those for other subjects. Moreover, one of the tenets in Chinese culture is the spirit to persevere. While we want to inherit the Chinese culture through CL, you have people complaining that Chinese Language is too difficult to learn. Is this not a big contradiction? What we are facing today, I am afraid, is the question of mindset and not necessarily the question of intellect. With the assumption that Chinese Language is difficult to learn and write, the Committee recommends that in primary schools, students should learn to recognise the characters first before writing them. At the PSLE, the emphasis will be on listening, speaking and reading rather than writing. On this, I have some reservations. Listening, speaking, reading and writing represent the two big components of a language, the spoken language and the script. Listening and speaking form the oral part while reading and writing form the written part of the language. As Chinese is not a phonetic language but an ideogram, reading and writing cannot be separated. The close linkage between character recognition and writing reinforces each other in strengthening the memory of the characters. I understand that in the context of our language environment, learning Chinese is a difficult task and it is not easy to learn the Chinese characters.”
“With this basic tune in policy formulation, I think we have to, with joss sticks in hand both in the morning and at night, pray that the Chinese economy would always be at the zenith and continue to prosper to ensure that our Government would continue to attach importance to CL teaching and our future generations will have opportunity in learning their mother tongue and their own culture. Now, let me touch on the contents of the report. Right from the beginning, the report reaffirmed the Government's bilingual policy, namely, English as the dominant language for survival and MTL as a second language to keep one's root. Is this the Government's policy tenet or constraint self-imposed by the Committee? We have seen the consequences of such a policy. Can we not redress such imbalance in this assumption? Is it true that a student who is weak in English will necessarily be lacking in the ability to learn the mother tongue language? Or is it that if one is weak in English, there is no point for him to master the mother tongue? Given the present linguistic environment, a student whose MTL is better than his English would be quite competent to communicate with other races in English and use the language in his work. The above assumption leads to a restriction that a student must attain a certain standard in English and other subjects before he is allowed to take Higher Chinese. This restriction seems to run counter to the principle in the report that a student should be allowed to study MTL and to excel in it if he has the talent for it. The Review Committee has obviously bought the complaint that CL is difficult to learn and learning it is time-consuming.”
“In 1974, Mr Lee Kuan Yew also said that even at the cost of a lower standard of the English Language at Primary 6 and Secondary 4 levels, the Chinese Language was still worth learning as the standard of English could be picked up when the students continued to read and write in the language after they left school. And today, after 30 years, our policy has been the reverse. This is what we call "to preach one thing and practise another". You hear the footsteps on the staircase but you do not see a person coming down. For a long time, deviation in the bilingual policy has led to a social mindset that looks down and even being hostile towards the Chinese Language, where the social context for its development is adverse. Today, our economic imperatives have made the use of CL a practical need but the gulf between the two has become almost unbridgeable. To remedy this situation, our so-called far-sighted but indeed short-sighted Government is now trying to fix things up. In order to cover up its short-sightedness, it is trying to put all the blame on the "dull" and "uninteresting" pedagogy used in CL teaching - hence the report on the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review. What motivates the Government is purely economic and not cultural consideration. Hence, if there is still a ray of hope for the CL to develop in this island state, can we not pay a tribute to Mr Deng Xiao Ping? Of course, MM Lee would emphasise that "Singapore would adjust its language teaching policy according to the trend of language development in the world as a whole and this would not be the last adjustment." The trend in world language development, in fact, means the trend in world economic development.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee has, under the framework laid down by the Minister for Education, accomplished its task and made recommendations as to what direction the teaching of CL will take in the future. As a member of the Chinese community I thank all members of the Committee for their hard work. Today, in this august chamber of Parliament, we are lucky to have the opportunity to seriously debate this White Paper. For this, we have to thank another statesman. He is none other than the late Mr Deng Xiao Ping of China. Without Mr Deng, there would not have been China's reform and opening-up. Without China's reform and opening-up, there would not have been China's economic resurgence; and without China's economic resurgence there would not have been a chance for the Chinese Language revival in this almost predominantly English environment in Singapore, where the Chinese Language and Chinese culture are languishing even if they are not on the verge of extinction. Though the Government has on many occasions reiterated that bilingualism is the pillar of our education system, for reasons unknown to us, it has not fully implemented the policy in the true spirit of bilingualism. The balance has all along tilted towards the English Language in the policy and CL has long become a mere embellishment. In 1966, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pointed out that teaching Chinese for two or three periods a week was not enough. One or two other subjects, be it history or geography, could be taught in Chinese. However, after 40 years, the Chinese Language is still taught as a single subject in our school.”
“But with the amendment, I foresee that most of the time it would be the Ministers and the Ministers of State answering, and Backbench Members, especially the Opposition, would be left with very little time in terms of counter queries, clarifications, etc. I think the Government is very obsessed with efficiency and time management. Time and efficiency are important, but I think it is also equally important that Parliament should be allowed to play its role and Members are allowed to have sufficient time to ask questions and have at least a greater chance to say their piece, rather than the Ministers and the Frontbench saying their piece all the time. I urge the Standing Orders Committee Members to look into these concerns and share our feelings. I do not know, maybe just myself and Mr Tan have the same feeling. As for the PAP Backbenchers, is this not a concern to them? Anyway, I have said my piece.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support what the hon. former Speaker, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, has said. If a former Speaker who is also a member of the PAP can feel that this is not a fair or level playing field, how would the Opposition feel? I wonder why the hon. Member, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, was not appointed as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. I looked through the list of members. Besides the Chairman of the Committee, there are five Ministers. So, I suppose the outcome of the report, as what Mr Tan said, is tilted towards or is in favour of the Frontbench, which is not a surprise to me. Although the amendment in respect of the number of questions allowed may not seem too much of an issue to me, I do agree with Mr Tan's comment as to what the justification is and why there is a real need to limit the number of questions for written answer which could be sought for public knowledge and information. I also share the same feelings of Mr Tan that some questions which are legitimate questions, whether written or oral, being asked as supplementary oral questions, were not allowed to proceed by the Speaker. I also wonder why the Ministers and the Ministers of State should be given such leeway in the Committee of Supply. Yes, we want the answer. But, I think, to be fair to Members who wish to raise certain issues, sufficient time must be given. All this while, when Mr Tan Soo Khoon was the Speaker, he had exercised very good time control, in which he allowed some debates in the House which, I think, made the Committee of Supply sittings more interesting.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the Government has not directed the media companies to merge. I would like to know whether the Government has, in any way, influenced the decision of the media companies to merge. Second, the Minister has said that they are private companies and they have to make their own decision. If that is the case, why is there a need for the Minister himself and some other Government leaders to speak openly about the fact that both companies are bleeding and it does not seem to be healthy to bleed in such a way?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State: 1) whether she is sure that $250,000 million would be enough; 2) when the Government would need to come back to the House again to ask for more; and 3) why the Government needs to borrow so much money. I understand the Minister of State has said that some of it is for the CPF Board, etc, but what about the others. I thought the Government has a lot of money. Why does it need to borrow so much money?”
“Sir, the Employment Act supposedly exists to protect workers, but the rationale stated by the Government to allow the Commissioner for Labour to exempt employers to pay workers for extra work done is to help employers. The amendment says that the Commissioner for Labour would need to consider the interest of the workers in deciding whether to exempt the employers from paying the employees for extra work. How would the interest of the employees be protected if they are not paid? Sir, since we are dealing with employees earning not more than $1,600 per month, these are the very employees who have weak bargaining positions and need legislation to protect them, especially during this period of unemployment or employment uncertainties. However, this amendment is doing the opposite. The Minister has said that there would be guidelines. But, Sir, guidelines are guidelines. How does the Ministry of Manpower ensure that employers would adhere to the guidelines and the employers would not abuse the so-called flexible work scheme, whereby they do not need to pay workers for their extra work?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the effect of clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 states that, "The Commissioner for Labour can exempt employers from paying employees for extra work done after considering the operational needs of the employer and the interests of the employee." Sir, under the current Employment Act, employees who earn not more than $1,600 per month are entitled to additional remuneration for doing extra work under the Employment Act, in which clause 3 referred to. Currently, if an employee requests to work on a rest day, he is entitled to his usual rate of pay and if he works overtime, he would be paid at least one and a half times for each overtime hour. If an employer requests the employee to work on a rest day, the employer has to pay double his employee's daily wages, plus overtime pay. In addition, if an employee works more than the maximum of 8 hours per day or 44 hours per week, he is entitled to overtime pay. And, if an employee works on a holiday, he is entitled to an extra day's salary in addition to his pay for the day. Sir, under clause 3 of this amendment Bill, it says that the Commissioner for Labour can exempt certain employers and employees from the entitlement to be paid for extra work. The implication of the amendment is very wide, since the section referred to in clause 3 of the Bill sets out both the basic pay and the extra pay for additional work. It would seem to be wide enough to allow the Commissioner to permit employers not to pay at all for extra work done by the employees. Is this the intention of the Bill or that it would help employers with uneven demands, as mentioned by the Minister?”
“Sir, with the current Minimum Sum amount, which is relatively low, for parents who are actually under the current Minimum Sum amount who have exhausted the amount, would the Minister allow their children to top up or perhaps increase the Minimum Sum allowable top-up to the current Minimum Sum amount?”
“Perhaps my question was not clear. What I am saying is that if the parents have exhausted their Minimum Sum, ie, the minimum amount which they already had in their account but exhausted, and the children have sufficient CPF funds in their accounts, would he consider allowing them to continue to top up their parents' Minimum Sum accounts from their own CPF accounts?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider allowing children to top up the CPF accounts of their parents who have exhausted their Minimum Sum.”
“What was the rationale for the age limit of 55?”
“Clarification, Sir. What about parents who have retired before the age of 55 and the children do meet the requirements? Can they top up their parents' accounts?”
“Sir, clarification. The Minister said that the parents must reach the age of 55. How about after 55? Can children be allowed to continue to top up the parents' Medisave accounts?”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Transport in view of the accidents at MRT stations, (a) what measures are being taken by the relevant authorities to ensure safety of commuters; and (b) whether LTA will review the estimated 2-year time period needed to install the closed circuit television system at all MRT stations 4. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Transport what are the reasons for his and SMRT’s unwillingness to install cheaper options such as metal railings, instead of the S$280 million safety-door system, along the yellow lines at the edge of the MRT platform to prevent people from accidentally falling onto the track.”
“Sir, given the complexity of the process and the problem of ASEAN integration, would the Minister tell us how the integration process should be prioritised in terms of an agenda for the integration process so as to progressively work towards the integration? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I would say that the most important part of the ASEAN agenda is economic cooperation and creating a common economic space, so that foreign investors who come into ASEAN see ASEAN as ifit were one country for the purposes of trade, production, allocation of resources. The ASEAN Free Trade Area is intended to achieve that, but it applies only to goods. Tariffs are coming down. However, we have not yet tackled services with resoluteness and there are still many non-tariff barriers. So we have got to overcome all these impediments to free trade and the free flow of investments bit by bit. It is not easy because ASEAN countries are at differing levels of economic development. Singapore is the most ardent advocate because we already have a very free regime here, but we have got to, while servicing our own interests, be realistic and be respectful of our neighbours’ own difficulties. ACCIDENTS AT MRT STATIONS (Implementation of interim safety measures) 2. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent spate of accidents at MRT stations with open platforms (a) whether the operators have implemented any interim safety measures whilst more permanent solutions are being evaluated; (b) if so, what these measures are; and (c) what possible long term measures are being looked into. 3.”
“Sir, first of all, how would Singapore position itself and what is the role that Singapore would play in pushing forward further integration of this concept of ASEAN? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: It is completely in Singapore’s national interest to have an integrated ASEAN, so as to better compete against other regions like China, India, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Singapore has been a very active player in all projects to integrate ASEAN and create a common economic space. Last year, when the leaders met in Bali and issued the Bali Concord envisaging the establishment of an ASEAN economic community, Singapore was a very active player behind this idea.”
“Does the Ministry not have a forecast of the projection of unemployment rate, given the circumstances and projections of economic growth in the next five years?”