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 26 of 54.
“Sir, of the 94 students who were expelled from school in 2002, were they all disciplinary cases and how serious were they? Secondly, how many of these 94 expelled students were readmitted to our school system?”
“There are some who feel that they are suppressed in the practice of their religion. Some feel they are marginalised in our society. Whether these concerns are perceived or real, we believe that this can only be resolved through continuous dialogue within the Muslim community across different ethnic and religious groups and between the community and the Government. The dialogue should reach out to the wider community to be able to forge consensus. The Government has to be open and ensure that it grasps the real feeling of the majority of the Muslim community and reflects its sensitivity in the formulation of its policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore, being an open economy, is facing the challenge of economic restructuring to better cope with different economic landscape, characterised by intense competition and a new economy. Singaporeans, being subject to this fast changing, unpredictable and pressurising environment, are increasingly looking to religion as their anchor. Singapore is a multi-racial society and open global city. The communities here are easily subject to events happening in the region and the world. This will bring strain to our social and religious harmony from time to time. This is the challenge faced by all ethnic and religious groups in Singapore, as we cannot isolate ourselves from the outside world. We have no other alternative but to take these challenges positively, bearing in mind our common destiny as Singaporeans. We should engage in continuous dialogue and deliberation to sort out our differences and reach consensus. We should emerge from such threats and potential conflicts as a stronger nation. And all communities can then enjoy the fruits of our development and social harmony.”
“Although the Government has responded with sensible recommendations in the White Paper, the problem of terrorism disguised in the name of Islam involves deep emotions, which the recommendations may not be able to fully address. The Workers' Party is concerned about the predicament facing some sections of the Muslim community, as a result of the JI arrests and the economic downturn. First of all, we are aware that some Muslims feel that the Muslim community in Singapore is now put in the spotlight and Islam is portrayed in a bad light by the media. It is obvious that terrorism in the name of Islam cannot be seen as Islam itself. If the plan to attack Yishun MRT station was successful, the victims could be Muslims as well. We are sure that the majority of Singaporeans are able to distinguish between terrorism and Islam. However, there are bound to be a small number of people who will over-react and embarrass our fellow Muslims, thereby damaging the trust between the communities. We strongly urge the various ethnic communities, the public, the employers and the media, and even the Government itself, to be sensitive to the feelings of our Muslim community and exercise restraint in putting the community under the spotlight, when there is a need to go public. The White Paper describes the JI as a clandestine organisation in its method of recruitment and which features Islam in a misguided way to achieve the organisation's ulterior motives. However, we also need to examine and identify where there are factors in our political, social and economic setting which could be capitalised on in the recruitment of terrorists in Singapore. For example, we are aware that there are Muslims who feel that they are being discriminated against by employers in the current economic situation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the end of the Cold War and the expansion of global capitalism, the advancement in technology and the emergence of a world-wide free market, the world ushers in the age of globalisation. Singapore, like most of the world, looks forward to a peaceful 21st century with economic prosperity. The Asian financial crisis in 1997 provided the first wake-up call, and its repercussions are still deeply felt. On 11th September 2001, the world witnessed the return of an intractable conflict in the form of terrorism disguised in the name of Islam. Tragic as the New York attacks were, they seemed remote until the arrests of members of Jemaah Islamiyah in December of that year, and in August 2002. We did not realise that we could be the victims of terrorism as well. With evidence disclosed after the arrests and the Bali bombings in October 2002, we have to accept that terrorism is now a real and serious threat to us. The Workers' Party has considered these developments in the context of national and regional security and the well-being of our people. The Party has noted the change in the global political environment and the shift in geo-political landscape. We are of the view that Singapore, being small and situated in a sensitive geographical arena, is vulnerable. Terrorism poses a great challenge to our future. Although the Workers' Party disagrees with the PAP Government in many areas, including the ISA, we feel it is time that the nation should be united to face the challenge of terrorism. The Workers' Party supports the Government's action in the arrest of the JI members and the recommendations put forth in the White Paper.”
“I understand that the explanation for the recent increase in the Supreme Court fees was due to cost increases. Does the Minister of State think that the increases are justified in view of the cost increases? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think this question is tied in with the one that I will answer afterwards - Mdm Halimah's question - in terms of the recent court increases. In fact, my answer will explain it very clearly. It is a very focused approach. It will not affect many Singaporeans, and it has been done, many years after the court's hearing fees had been implemented. So it is not as though that with the increased operating costs of the courts, we have upped these hearing fees to offset the increases per se, because right now, despite these increases, court services are still Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am referring to the Supreme Court. So can the Minister of State tell us, despite these increases, how much is the Government expected to still subsidise the Supreme Court after these hearing fee increases?”
“The Minister of State says that the efficiency of the legal process, ie, the implementation of EFS, should be differentiated from the efficiency of the courts. Can he explain what is the difference between them? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: When we talk about efficiency of the courts, Sir, we are looking at it from various angles. EFS is only one component that was introduced in the last 4-5 years. In fact, we have just completed the phasing in of the EFS. When the Chief Justice took over in 1991 and started his reforms, his reforms were more deep-seated, spanning, for example, case management, doing away with archaic civil procedure rules, and introducing a mindset change, where besides oral advocacy, there was more emphasis on written advocacy, in other words, submissions, to ensure that the lawyers do not waste court time unnecessarily. All these measures enhanced the way in which cases are heard through the court system, and that is what is meant by the efficiency of the court system. These are not just based on one system. If Mr Low had been listening to the Chief Justice's Opening of the Legal Year speech every year, he would have seen what we have talked about. When we talk about the efficiency of the court, it really straddles many of these fundamentals and important changes which, like I have said, have helped our courts gain widespread recognition and a good standing, not just in Singapore, but also in the region and world-wide.”
“So when the vast majority of the cases had been cleared, you would see that the number of Judges and Judicial Commissioners peaked at 21 in 1998 and today it is only 13. So, that is the first point. We must not begrudge the courts this expenditure because, as Mr Low must well know, our courts have scored very highly in many international polls and surveys. So the reputation of our courts is a key economic asset. That, I think, is important. Yes, EFS has been introduced. But that really has to do with how documents are filed. In other words, the efficiency is in the legal process. In terms of efficiency of the courts, yes, that has also increased with technology. But, ultimately, whatever technology is introduced, we do need good Judges and Judicial Commissioners. In other words, the manpower cost will still be there. We should not apologise for these salaries which are well spent.”
“Sir, I wonder why there was this cost increase which I understand was the reason for the recent increase in court fees. Sir, I understand that the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000, and also the divorce cases were moved from the Supreme Court to the lower courts. So, I guess the workload for the Supreme Court would be lesser, but why the increase in manpower cost? Secondly, Sir, with the implementation and usage of IT for the Supreme Court, eg, the Electronic Filing System, I thought this system should have increased the efficiency and thereby lower the costs. So why the cost increase in spite of all these improvements? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the manpower expenditure of the Supreme Court has increased over a 10-year period. It is important to see the increases in perspective. When the Chief Justice first became the Chief Justice in 1990, all of us know that he implemented, at the outset, not suddenly, but gradually, a whole array of reforms, which has transformed our courts. In 1990, there were 12 Judges and Judicial Commissioners. There was a big backlog of cases, some going back to 5-10 years. So in order to expedite the hearing of these cases, and to increase the efficiency of the courts, and he has done that over these 10 years, we appointed more Judges. The appointment of the Judges is also considered in the context of the case-load. That is why you will see that the EOM actually fluctuates, going to a high in 1997, and then in fact dipping over the last 2-3 years. That is because the number of Judges and Judicial Commissioners has also fluctuated.”
“Sir, may I clarify because the Minister of State has misunderstood what I said? (In Mandarin): I would like to clarify that I am not looking down at the polytechnic graduates. I actually respect our polytechnic graduates. They may be our enterpreneurs in future. What I am saying is that in the case of Sim Wong Hoo, did Singapore really provide opportunities for development of the polytechnic graduates in the past? Sim Wong Hoo had to go to US because there was hardly any opportunity available to him here. In order to say that if we have more options for development, we must give opportunity to everyone, including non-graduates, to develop and upgrade.”
“I am seeking clarification on what the Minister of State has said. Does he not agree that the opportunity given to Mr Sim for the breakaway success was when he was in the United States and not in Singapore? He also mentioned that with too many options, he was troubled and it became a pressure to him. I think Mr Chan should consider himself lucky that he has the opportunity to be presented with many choices. To me, it is having no option that presents the greatest pressure.”
“Clarification from the Minister of State. (In Mandarin): The Minister of State referred to the question of pressure and said that we should look at it rationally and take it easy. I would like to tell him that it is always easier said that done. He said that those who cannot go on the through-train can go overseas for their studies. This is not easy. To go overseas, you need money, lots of money. If you have no money, you cannot even cross a river, how do you go overseas. He also mentioned that Sim Wong Hoo was a polytechnic graduate. But he must not forget that Sim Wong Hoo's success is ---”
“At the same time, it should also review whether there is a need to carry on with the Primary Four streaming. I would also suggest that MOE study into the possibility of having a through-train from primary school to secondary school. Finally, the impact of the recommendations of this report on the general student population is not very great, as students who have missed the through-train can still take the 'O' level, proceed to the junior college or upper secondary, and then take the 'A' level examinations after two or three years. This new curriculum will be implemented only in 2006 to give MOE enough time to make the necessary preparation. What I emphasise is that, in any kind of reform, those students who are unable to quickly adapt to the changes will inevitably be affected. We should be sympathetic towards these students and offer them some buffering avenues, so that they will not be sacrificed in this necessary educational reform or be made guinea pigs under the new system.”
“Otherwise, there is an absolute possibility that the private schools will become a Pandora's box. The other problem likely to arise with the independent schools is that they may develop into aristocratic schools. I feel that if the Government recognises that the purpose of education is to enable the people to have a better understanding of the world they live in, so that they would be able to make wise decisions and live better lives, then it should, first of all, change its attitude of giving high priority to the elite in our education system, and change the objective of using education as a means to train and develop the human resources needed for the new economy. The Government should look at the entire education system from a higher angle, to comprehensively raise the educational quality of our people. The entire education package should be reviewed at a macro level. Although this reform is targeted at the junior college and higher secondary curriculum so that our students will have more broad-based learning to deal with the rapidly changing times, with a recommendation to promote cross-discipline curriculum structure, we should pay even more attention to the fact that providing cross-discipline curriculum alone is not enough to train our students to possess better ability to achieve mastery of the subjects. We need to have also a big environment conducive to this principle of learning, a batch of like-minded educationalists, and a brand-new set of assessment criteria. MOE should proceed to create this kind of environment so that this reform could be implemented effectively. I think MOE should also consider conducting a review on the primary and secondary school curriculum as well, so that there will be continuity in our entire education system.”
“Fourthly, many of the likely through-train schools, such as ACS and Chinese High School are boys' schools. Would this make it more difficult for the girls to get on board the through-train? Fifthly, teaching resources. To attain the objectives of the through-train system, a lot of adjustments have to be made on the teaching methods. Our current lot of teachers were trained in the traditional pedagogy. How is MOE going to resolve this problem of teaching resources? Mr Speaker, Sir, although I agree with the general direction of this motion, and I agree that the through-train system will better develop the potential of the students, I think the problems brought about by the actual implementation of this through-train system will result in more defects than merits. I think MOE should conduct further studies on the solutions so that the implementation of these recommendations would attain the predestined goals. The report has also recommended the establishment of specialised independent schools to cater to students with talents in specific fields, so that they could be trained to fully develop their special abilities. I agree with this recommendation. As for the setting up of private schools, some people feel that, apart from migration, this may be an avenue to get round the problem of the mother tongue requirement. Although I welcome the setting up of private schools to offer the parents more choices and to facilitate the formulation of creative educational concepts, I must urge MOE to compulsorily require all private schools to comply with the Ministry's bilingual policy. Students in the private schools must also attain the minimum standard in their mother tongue language before they can advance further. The Government must adhere to this policy.”
“They are exempted from the "O" level examinations, and have a longer period of time to start early in their preparation for the "A" level examinations. On the other hand, those who did not do well in the PSLE will have just two years to prepare. In theory, this through-train system will broaden the students' scope of learning and will inspire their creativity and cultivate their independent thinking skills. It also enables the colleges to be more flexible in determining the pace of learning and the arrangement of subject combinations. However, under the present circumstances whereby so much importance is attached examination results, what assurance is there that the colleges, the students, and the parents will not demand and make use of this opportunity to advance the preparation of the students for the "A" level examinations, so that they will score even more As? Besides, if we set the examination papers based on the standard of the students in the through-train system and their syllabus, then those who have missed the train will be at a distinct disadvantage. Is it fair to them? After all, what is the purpose of this JC curriculum reform? Is it meant to favour those students who did well in their PLSE so that they stand better chances of getting into the university, and to make it even more difficult for those who did not do well in the PSLE? Thirdly, with the implementation of these recommendations, Singapore will have a new category of integrated high schools. All these integrated schools, which admit only qualified "through-train" students, will become elite schools. Their students will have no opportunity to interact with students in the ordinary schools. This will result in the disintegration of our society.”
“However, I must ask, "To whom is the educational direction proposed by this Junior College/Upper Secondary Education Review Report targeted at? What are the objectives?" As the Minister for Education has mentioned, it is targeted at the students. This report proposes a "through-train" system built on the premise that the top 5% students in the PSLE examinations would have no problem getting through the "A" level examinations. In other words, this through-train system is meant for the elite who have obtained excellent results in the PSLE. We must not neglect the long-term impact brought about by this secondary school through-train system. I am concerned with the following problems. First, by deciding the future of the students merely by their PSLE results will inevitably generate great pressures on the parents, the students and the teachers. Under the present circumstances where so much emphasis is placed on the scores, streaming and ranking, an additional system whereby the PSLE results will decide whether the student would qualify for the best chance to be admitted to the university will certainly intensify the competitive pressure, resulting in a vicious cycle. As parents, if you want your children to board this through-train in order to travel farther ahead, you may have to start educating them even when they are still in their mothers' womb, otherwise they may not make it in time. Secondly, the reformed junior college curriculum would be even more demanding, as students will have to read more subjects. Those who did not do well in the PSLE, and hence missed the through-train, would have only two years in a junior college to prepare for the "A" level examinations. Would they not be handicapped? The through-train system enables the better students to have ample time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to use the following three criteria to evaluate the recommendations of this report. Firstly, are the recommendations of this report in keeping with the direction of the time? Secondly, of different strengths with opportunities to give full play to their potential? Thirdly, does it result in disadvantages for the weaker students? As in this motion before the House, this report proposes a general educational direction to better develop the students' thinking, communication skill, and engage students in greater breadth of learning to create greater diversity and to open new pathways in the JC/Upper Secondary education to cater to the different strengths and interests of students. With the arrival of the era of new knowledge-intensive economy, technology is advancing at a very fast pace, and globalisation has created a lot of challenges for the various economies. Singapore too cannot avoid facing such challenges. As stated in the Workers' Party's 1994 Manifesto, our educational perspective is that if we educate our people so that they have thinking skills and cultivate their accounting and design capabilities, it would be an impetus for our economic growth. We also feel that the education system should allow for more autonomy, more participation by the teachers and the parents, so that there will be a more creative learning environment in our schools, and the educational content could be more diversified. The general educational direction in this report and the motion before this House coincide with the educational perspective in our Workers' Party's Manifesto, and is in keeping with the direction of the time. I would, in principle, support the motion.”
“Clarification, Sir. Does the Minister agree that, in fact, by imposing a different risk between HDB and bank loans at market rates, when going to the bank, the person is likely to lose the whole flat as well, that there is a risk factor? The Government is actually helping Singaporeans to decide that they better not buy a second or a third flat by taking a loan from the bank.”
“Sir, I wish to clarify. I am talking about people who need to downgrade because of financial problems, not talking about people with private properties. The other question is: is the Minister advising Singaporeans that they should not buy more than one flat, because they would have to take a bank loan, they may be in trouble? Is that what he is talking about?”
“Clarification, Sir. I understand one of the reasons why there was not much of default is because there were some Government schemes in place, like deferred loan, etc. Will the Minister expect, in the event of an economic downturn like this, the banks would, like the Government, provide such services to help people who are unable to service their loans to tide over the period? And what would the Government advise the banks?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister? Sir, I understand that, currently, if the lessee of a HDB flat is evicted by HDB due to financial difficulty, that is, unable to pay the loan, normally on compassionate ground, HDB will offer such a lessee a rental flat. I would like to ask the Minister, with the change, when the bank evicts the lessee of a HDB flat, will HDB come in and help? Otherwise, where are they going to live?”
“Instead of the Minister, a "prescribed approving authority" will decide whether HDB land will be sold, exchanged, surrendered or leased. The Explanatory Statement says that the approving authority will be prescribed in the Rules. I wonder who is this powerful authority going to be; will it be more than one authority; and what is the reason for the change.”
“Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment requires HDB flat buyers, who have used up their subsidised loan quota or who are not qualified for subsidies, to take market rate mortgage loan from banks rather than the HDB. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for banks to grant mortgage, and they would be able to take HDB flats from registered lessees and sell them to pay outstanding loans. The implication of this amendment is that HDB flats can now be seized and sold by bank mortgagees for default of mortgage loans. Although the reason for this change, as explained, is that lending money to flat buyers at market rate is not HDB's core business, my question is whether this entire move of making flat owners take loans from the banks is politically motivated. We all know how devastating it can be to evict families from the only roof they have over their heads. HDB, being a statutory board, is identified as a wing of the Government. If it has to evict families who have not kept up with their payments, it will show how uncaring and uncompassionate the Government is. In this current economic climate and uncertainty in the future employment market, we can expect that there will be retrenchments, unemployment and decreased business opportunities. More families will be unable to keep up with their loan payments. By shifting lending from the HDB to the banks, the banks will be the ones doing the eviction. In this way, the Government will not be seen as the bad guy, when, in reality, the Government is distancing itself from Singaporeans who are facing tougher times ahead. This, in Mandarin, is called chea tau sha len. Sir, I also wish to seek clarification on clause 2 of the Bill.”
“The Senior Minister in his answer says that it is too early to assess the impact of the Bali bombing on the economy. I would like to know from him when he thinks he will be able to make a proper assessment.”
“Sir, has the Australian government responded to our concern that we impressed upon them?”
“Sir, what would be the impact on Singapore in terms of perception by the other countries, because we are being listed by Australia as a high-risk country?”
“In view of the twists and turns on the issue of the ongoing negotiations, I would like to ask the Minister what is his assessment on: 1) the overall current relations between Singapore and Malaysia; and, 2) what is the medium-term prospect of Singapore and Malaysia reaching a mutually beneficial agreement?”
“If the Government is to modify those policies that are beneficial to the nation such as the mother tongue policy to suit these quitters in order to retain them, it is going to open the Pandora's box and more quitters will emerge. When our best students, the scholarship holders break their bonds, the PAP Government accused them of being irresponsible. Apart from the penalty, the Government publicised their names to shame them. By the same logic, will the Government also consider publishing the names of the quitters and shame them? I think advise the PAP Government should not to be harsh in reprimanding the people but lenient to itself. When we want to remake Singapore, the Government should also have the courage to admit their mistakes and to give up all this materialistic approach in governing, establish its character, reform the education system, strengthen the humanity education, enhance the people's natural feeling towards their homeland, and share the feeling of the people. No matter how prosperous and wealthy a country is, if the people have no sense of belonging for their country, lack the will and determination to defend their country and lack the spirit the Government fails to foster the national spirit during of nation-building, then this country is fundamentally weak and fragile.”
“Won't the people be alienated by such a "rational" but indeed calculative mentality? Sure, they will. The worst thing is that In in our present situation where there is a one-party rule dominance by the PAP, when the people are having so muchhave bad feelings against the Government, so much so that they transfer this bad feeling to Singapore as a nation. there There were comments that the significantly reduced number of flags displayed by the residents throughout Singapore during the recent National Day month was a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the PAP Government. I think this "quitting" mentality is not something that is generated overnight. It is a result of a accumulation of discontentcontinuous erosion of natural feeling towards others, ignorance of humanity education and alienation caused by various policies over the years. The biggest danger is that Because because of the inconsiderate measures adopted by the Government, many people are "quitters" subconsciously and once the opportunity for emigration emerges, they will pack and go without second thought. leaving because they could not take it any more. Today's motion seeks to urge the Government to review its policy and to enhance the third-generation Singaporeans' sense of belonging for Singapore. But these third-generation Singaporeans are brought upmoulded by under anthe same education system which is led mastered by the PAP Government. Many of them felt that they are global citizens, they do not owe Singapore anything. They have no moral obligation to stay and serve Singapore. So, if the grass is greener in the other courtyard, why should I stay here, and sacrifice my opportunity to enjoy the greener pastures elsewhere. That is why there are more people leaving Singapore.”
“But, the fact is, it is actually ruling Singapore with a great supervisory power over the people. Simultaneously, the self-interest mentality leads to weaker public sphere. And Eventually, the people feel so helpless against such bureaucrats, become alienated, and this has caused run into a vicious cycle, and many are quitting. In a nutshell, the PAP Government has always been considering their own benefits first. The result is that the people will also fend for themselves. They want to look after their own interest. Mencius said, "If the Emperor says what is good for me to retain my power, and the officials say what can I do to benefit my feudal state, and the people say what can I do to benefit myself, then everyone looks after their own interest, they become egoistic. The nation cannot prosperwill be at risk." This is exactly what the PAP is doing! Now, look at how the PAP Government has been treating the people. When the economy is bad and the people are having a hard time making ends meet, the Government says that we must sacrifice, take a CPF cut, suffer a wage freeze, in order that the economy can recover. On the other hand, the Government is not grateful to all these sacrifices made by the people. During these bad times, they increase public transport fares, increase healthcare charges, etc. The Government says, "Well, the increase is only marginal. Everyone can afford it. Do not be emotional about it." By the same logic, if we are being attacked by our enemy, can our NSmen ask the Government to pump in more funds to buy more sophisticated weaponspay them a small sum in return for fighting for the nation, just because the Government can well afford it? Will the Government do it, as this is logically sound based on the above PAP argument?”
“Braddell Heights can suddenly become part of Marine Parade and, overnight, Cheng San Constituency can become a name in history. These illogical things are done just to suit their interest.In this way, how can you expect the people to build the community spirit , which is a necessary intermediate step in extending one's feeling to the nation. What kind of leading by example are we talking about? On another aspect, the PAP Government has been using the fear tactics on the people. At its first anniversary, the Speakers' Corner was so deserted. Are the people so happy with life in Singapore that they have no complaints and have nothing to say? No. They are just afraid that by speaking there, the Government will take action against them later, and they just want to play safe by keeping quiet, and not doing something anything that will jeopardise their stay in Singapore. Even this can be a false perception, the PAP Government is happy to let thing be as it helps to keep their power. But how do we expect our people to fight fearlessly for the country if they are living under such fear and developed into a timid mentality against strong power? SoFurthermore, because of all thisPAP's dominance, no one is willing to come forward to participate in the governing of Singapore. They just want to remain in the comfort zone, stay cosy and be happy in their own private lives as long as the Government continues to provide means for such an end. So, this GovernmentThis has evolved into what we may call a "moderate autocracy", and shed away the past image of a tyranny. The Government now takes a moderate and fatherly approach. It make-believes that it is democratic, and it conducts regular general elections.”
“What is the governing principle for of the PAP Government's ruling, and what have they used as an examplewhat kind of example have they set for the people? Regrettably, the pragmatic line of the The PAP Government which it claims has been saying that it has helped to created create an economic miracle for Singapore and it has run Singapore in a very pragmatic political line. In fact, it is too materialistic and it is interested only in material gains. It has neglected humanities and has tremendous repercussion on the spiritual condition of Singapore. So when PM Goh mentioned the "quitters" mentality, it is exactly a reflection of what went wrong with this materialistic approach by the PAP Government. Should the PAP Government do a self-reflection itself or just accuse the people sternly? First, let us look at the PAP's example of political coercion and material inducement. The PAP Government has been using all sorts of material benefits, such as HDB upgrading programme, distribution of `ang pow', etc, to induce the people to vote for them. The people are being conditioned in such a way that they become very materialistic. They will react only if there are goodies in the bag for them. If there is no benefit attached, they would not even lift a finger. So, why are we blaming them? I think tThe feeling for the nation is evolved and extended from the feeling for others, for the family and for the community, through daily accumulation. is a virtue which can be augmented through education and experience in life. However, for their own benefit, the PAP Government has done a lot of things for their own benefit. Take the has re-delineated ion of the constituency boundaries freely.”
“This is indeed regrettable and shameful. Look at Singapore today. There are some people who are quite willing and happy to discard their own language and culture, and they do not without feeling ashamed at all. Quite a handful of people are migrating simply because their children dislike learning their mother tongue and could not even manage to pass the relevant examinations to qualify for the university. There are also those who openly declared that they will pack and go once the nation faces difficulties. Well, We we can criticise these people, but then we should also think deeper into why these people are behaving the way they dowhere we have gone wrong. Every person has his own individual character. The people have their collective character. The nation has its national character. I think the cultivation of character is important. What is character? Character is fundamental to the people's loyalty, faith, sincerity and righteousness. At times of national disaster, will the people simply quit or stand up for the nation, it all depends on the character. Taking refuge is second nature to the animals, but it is not necessarily human nature. When we have dedication to our nation, to our society and a sense of righteousness, it is something that is inborn in the human heart. Yet, we have to constantly augment it with education. The Government should educate and lead the people, so that they know how to cultivate their own character. For this, the Government itself should possess some kind of character, otherwise it cannot be expected that the people will have its character and the nation the national character. But look at the PAP Government.”
“" Extending from what Mencius has said, I think everyone should have this inner feeling for his ethnic group, his own language, his own culture, his homeland, his country and his fellow citizens, and this is what Mencius has said. It is a All these feelings are very natural feelingand free from materialistic consideration. It is not because of any other benefits involved. Those who are courageous to devote or sacrifice themselves for their country, their belief or their idea are absolutely not driven by materialistic consideration. It is a kind of spiritual conditionSo I think this is something that is in the human nature and we have to enhance such a feeling through education and daily accumulation. Let us look at the late Mr Tan Lark Sye who founded the Nanyang University, the late Professor Pan Shou who helped to set up the Nanyang University and the famous playwright, Mr Kuo Pao Kun, who recently just passed away recently. During their lifetime, they suffered the inhumanity of having their citizenship revoked. Would they not be disappointed with the country? They had the talents, they had the wealth, and they were well qualified to migrate to other countries. Yet, they stayed. Why? I think it is because they have the love for their people around them, for their own language and culture, and for their homeland and nation. And without doubt, All all these forefathers of ours were well educated immersed in the humanities education, through which the spiritual condition was enhanced as what Mencius had pointed out. I think we could educate our people. We should cultivate our people so that they know how to think not only for themselves, but also for others around them. Otherwise, we even have to go to court to compel the children to maintain their parents.”
“Yet, some decades later, PM Goh is pointing out that Singaporeans are using the profits they made from the sale of their HDB flats to buy cheap and big houses in Australia, to prepare for emigration. I think this is indeedWhat a mockery to the PAP Government. Such contrast aptly shows how the people's values have been influenced and changed byAfter being ruled by the PAP Government under materialisticand,so-called "pragmatic" and humanely indifferent approachPAP Government , the people's values are changing within the past four decades of their rule. It is said that as a man sows, so he shall reap. Such changes are not surprising at all. This is indeed karma. Now that the problem is affecting our future development, a worried PM Goh has launched a debate among the people to look into this matter. This is like mending the fold after a sheep is lost, But but then it also gives the people a chance to see the so-called farsighted Government is indeed very shortsighted. Today's motion seeks to ask the Government to review its various policies so that it will as to strengthen the people's sense of belonging. I feel thatTo me, there is something more fundamental than the sense of belonging. Mencius has once said that: "everyone has a heart for others. So, ifIf the Government has a feeling for the people, then its policies should be formulated with the interest of the people at heart. When people see a child falling into a well, the first thing they think of is to feel sorry for the child and his parents. They do so not just to show favour to his parents, or to make a name for themselves. It is just a natural reflection of their inner feelings.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is said that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong will be retiring soon. If PM Goh is really retiring, I think the deepest impression he has left with the people is that he likes to label our people. A few years ago, PM Goh classified Singaporeans as "cosmopolitans" and "heartlanders". Now, again, he is classifying Singaporeans as "quitters" and "stayers". This is quite consistent with the PAP's stereotyped thinking, ie, to label the people right from the beginning and then classify them, thereby causing unnecessary confusion, argument and even splitting of among the people. Who are "quitters" and who are "stayers"? Are those who have quit really "quitters"? As for those who have not quit or are unable to quit, are they really "stayers"? Then, of course, there are also the "psychological" immigrantsNot to forget also those who emigrated "psychologically" . That is another story. Such labelling is a very superficial comparison between the two types of people. If the Government is doubtful about whether people would stay to defend their country when it is facing trouble, then I think the most important thing we should do is that we should to read and interpret the signs behind all these movements of the people and look at the problem squarely. If the Government feels that this is not a problem, then they should not be free to label the people and classify them the people at liberty. I think PM Goh should remember be reminded that saying pa si bo jao in piping times of peace is indeed unrealistic. Senior Minister Lee has said disclosed many years ago that one of the purposes of letting the people own their flats is that one day when we are attacked by others, Singaporeans will feel that they have something here in Singapore to worth defending for.”
“I would like to ask the Minister of State when Singaporeans could expect the next round of regular and small increases in health-care charges.”
“Sir, the Minister of State, in his earlier answer, said that even with the current increases in charges for B2 and C class wards, Singaporeans should have sufficient Medisave to pay for their medical fees. Can he assure this House that Singaporeans who are admitted to B2 and C class wards will not have to fork out cash to pay for their hospital bills, since he said that there is sufficient Medisave to pay for it?”
“Supplementary question, Sir. Is the Minister of State saying that ---”
“Sir, does the Minister of State agree that it is not so much targeting those who need assistance? The fact that the increases are concentrated on B2 and C class wards, you are targeting the lower income who cannot afford. So, you are targeting those people who cannot afford the increases.”
“Sir, while I understand the principle of cost recovery, the cost recovered for the recent round of increase for B2 and C class wards is only $12 million. My question is, given the prevailing economic situation, can the Government not, based on cost recovery, provide additional grants of $12 million to the hospitals? Can the Government not afford that, and thereby will avoid the increases and help Singaporeans to tide over the period?”
“Sir, my question is: will tempered glass shatter? We have an engineer by training here who says that tempered glass should not shatter but the fact is that it has shattered. So will tempered glass shatter? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Tempered glass should not shatter but because of the intrinsic traces of nickel and sulphur, it can shatter in a small number of cases. It does not happen just in HDB flats. It happens in private condominiums. It happens all over the world, in Britain, Australia and America.”
“If this happens again, would it be fair to the Member if the period of 180 days has expired because the Chief Justice is on medical leave? I also understand that the practice in Australia is to wait for the outcome of the appeal, as it would be jumping the gun to make the seat vacant if there is an appeal pending conviction. Furthermore, such an amendment is tantamount to presuming the Member is guilty if the appeal to the Court is being delayed for more than 180 days. Sir, I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary. It can also lead to unjust results, if the delay is due to circumstances beyond the Member's control.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no objection to the amendment relating to the transfer of past reserves between the statutory boards concerned. Concerning the disqualification of Members of Parliament, I believe the immediate suspension of a Member's rights, following the courts disqualifying the Member, is in line with the practice of other countries. I also have no objection to this. But my concern, like Prof. Chin, is about the 180-day cut-off where a Member is appealing against a conviction or his bankruptcy. If 180 days have passed without the appeal being decided, the Member will lose his seat. This will be irreversible even if his appeal is eventually successful and he is acquitted. Such a cut-off point for appeal may be necessary in countries where the court processes take a long time, and there may be a worry that the MP may be out of action for too long. However, do we have the same problem in Singapore? According to the Supreme Court's Annual Report 2001, the average waiting time for appeals against bankruptcy is 1.8 weeks whereas the average waiting time for appeals against a criminal conviction in the Subordinate Courts is about 6.1 weeks. We also know that the courts are nowadays very strict on postponement of cases. As what DPM has mentioned, we are efficient in our court system. So, if any case is postponed for more than 180 days, there must be a very good reason. Sir, currently, in Singapore, it appears that the Chief Justice is the only Judge hearing criminal appeals from the Subordinate Courts. I understand that sometime in 1998, the Chief Justice was on medical leave as he went abroad for treatment. This resulted in Magistrates' appeals not being heard for several weeks.”
“Sir, will the Minister tell us what are the parameters? And in terms of rebate adjustment in the future based on the claim pattern, actual claim data or whatever is in the terms, will he tell us what is the maximum adjustment allowed in terms of increase in premium and how much rebate could be expected?”
“Sir, since the insurance scheme is tendered out to insurance companies which are private companies, how much say has the Government in the modification of the terms and conditions of the insurance scheme?”
“Do the banks underwrite to cover losses of customers if there is a problem with the CTS?”
“I suppose that for any kind of electronic image, it is more or less not as accurate as the original one. Fourthly, who is making the decision whether to clear the cheque, ie, whether the signature matches the specimen that the customer has with the bank? Is it by a human being, like a bank officer, or is it automated? If it is automated, then how stringent are the criteria for matching as opposed to human judgment? If it is more stringent, then it will lead to dishonouring of cheques caused by variation in the customer's signature due to natural process. We all understand that our signature may not always be the same. If it is less stringent, then the system is less safe than the current system. Will the banks be underwriting the customer's losses under CTS? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to know what evaluation system has been conducted to ascertain that it will work. What is the confidence level of the result of this evaluation, because we are changing to quite a drastic system of clearance?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I understand that under the Cheque Truncation System, the physical cheque is deposited with the presenting bank but is no longer transported physically to the paying bank for verification. Instead, the cheque is scanned electronically into the CTS and the image is transmitted to the paying bank for clearance. At the paying bank's end, the signature would be verified based on the electronic image of the scanned cheque and the customer's specimen signature. If the signature tallies, the presenting bank will be notified and funds will be paid to the payee's account. If a cheque is dishonoured, the original cheque need not be returned unless it is requested. Instead, an electronic image of the dishonoured cheque will be given back to the holder. I understand that we are the first in the world to adopt this system. My concerns are: is it secure? Are there adequate safeguards against electronic frauds? Under the current paper-based system, cheque frauds can be committed when someone gets hold of the physical cheque and forges the signature, figures, etc, and the officer at the paying bank did not detect the physical discrepancy. Under the CTS, I would like to know firstly, how foolproof are the safeguards against hacking? Is it possible for outsiders to hack into the system, steal images of signatures and scan them into other documents? Secondly, what systems are in place in the banks to ensure that there is no internal fraud, for instance, to prevent employees, who are authorised to handle archived signatures, from misusing the signatures and misappropriation? Thirdly, will verifying against an electronic image be less accurate than verifying against an original cheque?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I be allowed to seek a clarification? The Minister said that MND is reviewing regulations to relax restrictions on HDB flats purchased with bank loans. Does the review cover also HUDC flats that have not been privatised but they are also purchased with bank loans?”