Mohamad Maidin B P M
Singapore
“Sir, actually, the context and, in this case, I think Mr Chiam is well aware, the timing must apply. If the artiste merely performs his regular hits and routine at the constituency function which happens to fall outside an election period, I think there is nothing wrong in that.”
“Sir, the question concerns a constituency function, not about participating in politics. Foreigners are not allowed to participate in local political activities. Under the law, foreigners, especially during elections, are strictly prohibited from taking part in any election political activities.”
“Yes, no foreigners are to participate in our local politics during an election. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Yes? Is it only during an election period? Does that mean that during a non-election period, they can actually talk about Singapore politics? Is that what he means?”
“Mr Chiam has said that the casino is the first step for us to go down the slippery road. He has also mentioned that in the last 40 years, we have a clean and moral living environment. At the same time, he has asked the Government to be truthful in this matter. Can I ask him to be truthful in this matter?”
“And, in addition to our idyllic parks, jogging tracks, fishing grounds, public golf courses, and even driving ranges, PUB has also been working closely with the National Parks Board - because some of the parks are under NParks rather than PUB - to introduce boardwalks as well as forest trails at MacRitchie and Lower Pierce Reservoir catch…”
“Sir, currently, we can say that the use of handphone is one of the situations where a driver may take one of his hands off the wheels. But there are other scenarios, like the Member has mentioned, but at the moment they are not legislated as a specific offence like in the case of handphone.”
The complete record
Every one of 207 lines we hold for Mohamad Maidin B P M, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“We have read of threats after threats still being made until now. And up to yesterday, I have been informed that more than 140 reports which hit out at Singapore, especially from political leaders and journalists, have been reproduced by the Straits Times. I feel that the actual number of such reports in the Malaysian media is greater. But the greatest effect on Singaporeans until today is the repeated threats to cut off our water supply and harsh words, such as, I quote, "bastard" and "swine" hurled at Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Deputy Speaker, in this matter, I think that many Singaporeans feel very hurt, if not, angry because such harsh terms have been used at our national leader. Last Saturday, I was given the opinion of a Malay mother which I think reflects the opinion of some Singaporeans on this matter. This woman said, and I quote, "As a Malay and a Muslim, I am ashamed of the extremist attitude displayed by some of the people across the Causeway, their antics and words do not in the least reflect Malay and Islamic traits and conduct." She said that she understood why Malaysia was angry in this issue. But their anger should be in moderation, she said. I think this woman's opinion reflects the opinion of others in Singapore. Many of us are aware that to the political leaders in Malaysia, it is important that Singapore be sensitive to their feelings as a neighbour. Singapore and its leaders have been accused, have been vilified and threatened with words and matters which do not at all show their own sensitiveness towards their neighbour. Despite this, I think that we should try to understand what is happening. Perhaps they feel deeply hurt which has caused some of them to react excessively. The question here is: where are we going to bring this issue?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be speaking in Malay, but allow me to just speak to Mr Chiam directly in the language he can follow and understand his ideas and points. May I suggest to him to pursue the idea? Maybe he can come back to this House to make the proposals. Or if there are too many PAP MPs here who may not agree with him, he can probably find a way to put it together as a platform for the next general election. For all you know, his idea could very well get support from Singapore citizens. (In Malay): Mr Speaker, as a small nation with a network of ties throughout the world, Singapore is always practising foreign policies aimed at fostering cordial ties with all nations. As far as I can remember, the Government is always giving priority to ASEAN interests in managing our foreign policies. But sometimes, there are obstacles and challenges. An example is, for almost three months now, Singapore-Malaysia ties have not been as good as before. In fact, it could be said that they are in a mess. I do not see anybody benefiting from this situation except perhaps two persons, one a lawyer and the other a politician, one called Tang Liang Hong and another Abdul Razak Ahmad, who could perhaps be proud because the actions have affected ties between the two countries. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.35 pm The Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, has apologised twice over this incident. Although he is a statesman of wide experience and internationally recognized and respected, Mr Lee did not hesitate to apologise. In fact, he was also present in court to delete the remark in question from his affidavit. I feel that this is an indication that he holds Malaysia-Singapore ties in high regard. But it is clear that his efforts have not satisfied some quarters across the Causeway.”
“No less than a strong and clear rejection is necessary to ensure that such a destructive political approach will be completely demolished and never ever emulated by aspiring politicians and political parties in our country. If we do not send him and his gang a clear signal, not only will he "struggle on", as he said, but if he is successful, it will start a cancerous growth in our political development. By the time we realise it, it may be too late to do anything, let alone cure. In any case, prevention is better than cure. And I think the way to prevent this cancer is to reject Chee. Sir, despite my reservation on the amount of fines proposed, which I think is a bit low, I support the motion as I feel that Chee and his team deserve to be fined.”
“Instead, he countered by saying that the fines "will not deter our will and resolve ..." and that they will "struggle on". In other words, Chee and his gang will continue to cheat, lie, prevaricate and falsify data. This, Sir, clearly indicates that the proposed fines are not really hurting them, despite what they said. In the same statement issued by the SDP on that day, he said, and I quote: "With the support of Singaporeans, we will continue to play our role as the opposition loyal to our nation." Sir, this part of his statement claimed that Singaporeans are supporting them in all their wrong-doings and with Singaporeans' support, they will continue to do so. I do not think anyone will buy his claim that SDP is playing a role as "the opposition loyal to our nation", not after Flor Contemplacion, Williams College and lately as the mouthpiece of Australia's Special Broadcasting Station accusing Singapore of colluding with Myanmar's drug lords. They are bold enough to get some free publicity but not bold enough to ask for a Commission of Inquiry. But Chee made clear that he and the SDP will not change. They will not change for the better as long as Singaporeans support them, and this is in their statement. This is the issue before us now. Very soon, elections will be held. Singaporeans must decide if they support Chee and his politics or show him clearly that we are all against it. For the sake of our future and that of our children, Sir, I think Singaporeans must strongly reject Chee and even the SDP since the SDP has completely adopted Chee's brand of politics.”
“Sir, he has committed perjury - wilfully uttering false statements while on oath. What do you make of a man who lied while on oath? Imagine what he is capable of doing and saying while not on oath. As for his team mates who aided him, abetted him, defended him, and lied to cover his lies and pretended to be foolish when cornered, among them, including one lawyer, they deserve half the amount of $50,000, ie, $25,000, because they have all successfully given clear impressions that they are too clever by half. Sir, the only reason I am not moving to amend the proposed motion regarding the fines is the clear position taken by Mr Low Thia Khiang who is a Member of the Committee of Privileges. He has not argued against the findings of the Committee, although he has tried to ask for a lesser fine. I think this is an important position he has taken. In other words, Mr Low has no doubt about their guilt. But, I think as an Opposition MP, he tried to be kinder to them. I hope the House will have the opportunity to hear from the Workers' Party MP himself as to why he found it a sensible and responsible decision to fine the SDP's "Gang of Four" and in doing so distanced himself from the kind of politics propagated by Chee and his team. Sir, the Report of the Committee of Privileges was published in the front pages of the local newspapers on Saturday, 23rd November 1996. And on the same day, in the same front page, The Straits Times carried a response from Chee entitled "Decision a heavy financial blow: SDP". Yet this supposedly serious financial blow to the party, according to Chee himself, "will not deter our will and resolve...". In fact, he added, I quote: "We will stomach this blow and struggle on." Sir, the question is: has he repented? No indication at all.”
“The SDP research team even abetted him, in their submissions to the Cost Review Committee and the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy. Have they all fallen for his tricks? I suggest they take another look at him and do something before it is too late. Mr Chiam used to trust him so much. By the time he realised it, it was too late. Now the PKMS has aligned itself to the SDP and therefore become a tool for Chee to propagate his beliefs. Some people argue that the PKMS is only being used by Dr Chee to get a place for his regular meetings and to get free drinks and meals. But I say this to PKMS: if you are not careful, Chee may throw you out of your own building in a similar manner he handled Mr Chiam. And we all know, he is extremely good at it. Sir, there are many more examples to describe this "good brain" that offered himself to become the leader of our people. But what alternative is he offering us? This is an important question, Sir. To cheat, lie, prevaricate and falsify his way through? This is what he is offering to replace a system of clean, honest and transparent government that the PAP and the people of Singapore have carefully built up over more than three decades. If Chee is allowed to get away with it this time, he may take some stopping. He will believe that his brand of politics is beginning to take root. Which is why, Sir, I must say that I am a little disappointed that the Committee of Privileges has decided to be very kind and gentle to him by proposing only a $25,000 fine and an even lesser amount for his team mates. Since Chee has done his "job" so well and his feat in cheating, lying, prevaricating and falsifying of data is unlikely to be equalled, I think the full amount of $50,000 fine would be more appropriate.”
“Distract the panel and the public from the core issues. Most important of all, in doing all these, always project yourself as if you are an innocent and honest guy. Some people are bound to fall for it. If Dr Vasoo and Mr Chiam fell for it, the public would be chicken feed." "Also, use as many figures and charts as you can. They make you look well-prepared. Use some actual figures to make it believable. Ensure the charts follow suit. Where it matters most to the public, just change the figures so that the Government will look bad." "If you are exposed, just blame some articles or speeches. If they find out that these were also not true, pause for a while and think. Do not rush into it. Pretend that you are thinking carefully. Show the public that you are a serious person. If you can no longer hide, there is always the typo or human error to blame." "Finally, do not do it alone. Get some professionals to go along. They can make the team look respectable. Make sure they are hungry for some cheap publicity first. That will make it easy for you to fool them into believing your basic points. Do not let them know you also falsify here and there." "They will defend you, regardless how hollow the defence is. They would even lie for you. After all, they have their reputation to protect too. In protecting and defending themselves, they will help to protect and defend you at the same time." This is "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic." He has been doing it over and over again. This is an example of the political culture and values that Dr Chee is promoting in words and deeds. I fail to understand why the SDP MPs and members continue to keep him in the party and, worse still, support him as their Secretary-General.”
“Anyone who does not believe him is either stupid or doing so purely to score political points. Sir, he could give a hand signal about a stack of files, indicating it was there, but later say that what he really meant was that they were at home, by showing a different hand signal. Two completely different hand signals, one to the front and one to the back, were supposedly to mean exactly the same. I tried to understand the logic why this and this mean exactly the same. I cannot. Because it makes no sense to any sensible person. But Chee believes strongly that he can never be wrong in this case and in many others. Maybe this can be called "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic". Sir, I am not attempting to coin a new term, but if asked to define, I will say that "Dr Chee's neuropsycho-logic" can only mean this, and I quote what I have here in my note. "I lie. That is the first statement. But when others find out, I cover it up with another lie and if necessary even more lies. In doing so in front of the camera, whether it is Cost Review Committee or the Select Committee, I should put up a face that looks a little sad and confused so as to gain public sympathy. Make it look as if I am being bullied or grilled unfairly. I am sure, at the very least, the public will give me the benefit of the doubt." "I will even pretend that I cannot remember the many things I have said, done and researched, although I could remember them clearly not that long ago, even minutes earlier. And no matter what, do not admit to anything. Why should I admit that I lied? If I do so, nobody will trust me again and the people will not vote me into Parliament." "Always find a way to make the lies sound reasonable, better still acceptable. One way to achieve this is to prevaricate.”
“Mr Long, who has 28 years of experience in clinical psychology, pointed out that it was, and I quote, "preposterous for anyone who had little or no clinical working experience in multi-racial, multi-cultural Singapore to pontificate on how clinical psychology should be practised." Yet we hear that Chee Soon Juan now claims that he had seen patients as a neuro-psychologist. Following that, in 1992, Chee was introduced supposedly as a political star with a "good brain". I suppose much was expected of him. However, he has not lived up to expectations. The brand of politics he is trying to introduce in Singapore is not only disappointing but dangerous. I refer specifically to the cheating, lying, prevaricating and falsification of data. His words and actions have enabled us to understand what he really means by Dare To Change. All this is being done cleverly in the name of democracy and freedom of speech, although I suspect what he really meant was freedom to cheat and lie. He should realise that Singaporeans are not stupid. They could see him through and were fearful about the politics of cheating and lying that he is introducing here. More people these days refer to him as "Dr Cheat". I think there must be a reason for that. Some people, be they in the PAP or responsible members of the public, have tried to discourage or stop him from promoting his brand of politics. But the PAP was branded a bully and the public naive. I would not be surprised that he would refer to the outcome of this motion as another attempt to bully him. There are many examples to show that Chee has been shabbily trying to perfect his art of lying. He could say "Yes" and later "No" to exactly the same question and then explained why both his answers were right.”
“Sir, who would have thought then that within six months the courageous protege would turn on his mentor? In Malay, we call this lawan towkay. Sir, the SDP, however, is not the only organisation which Chee Soon Juan has caused problems to when he joined it. What is perhaps not so widely known is that Chee had also sown discord within the Singapore Psychological Society when he was editor of the Society's newsletter in 1991/92. Chee had joined the Society soon after returning to Singapore with his doctoral degree. In addition to being the editor of the Society's newsletter, he was also the Treasurer. However, shortly after being in these influential positions, he began attacking the past leadership of the Society. In his January 1982 editorial he lambasted the previous councils for lacking in commitment, vision, initiative and leadership. He alleged that the Society had failed and failed utterly in contributing its services to the nation. He also accused the past councils for failing to build up and promote the profession. Chee criticized the clinical psychological practice in Singapore alleging, among other things, that there was a lack of trained clinical psychologists and testing apparatus. These allegations were rebutted by Mr Long Foo Yee, who was then head of the Department of Psychology, Woodbridge Hospital, Ministry of Health, and Dr John Elliot of the NUS Department of Social Work and Psychology in their replies which were published in the Singapore Psychological Society Newsletter in March 1992.”
“Sir, as I left the office today to come here, the sky opened up and it began to drizzle. As I drove, the rain got heavier and heavier, and it became a downpour. I do not know what it really means, but in a way it helped me to realise that today marks another sad day in the history of our Parliament. Not just because we have to discuss Chee Soon Juan yet again, but more because it is becoming abundantly clear that the Secretary-General of SDP is out to demean the meaning of politics in Singapore. And in order to understand him and to talk in this House today, I have gone back to newspaper cuttings of the last five years and even tried to find out about him even before that. I could not help but notice, along the way, some articles by local journalists who sounded somewhat jubilant that there was this new brave man who came forward to join the politics in Singapore. I believe today, many of them, if my feedback is right, do not have the same opinion of this man. Anyway, Sir, the things I found, among others, showed that Chee Soon Juan invariably disrupts and destabilises the organisations which have welcomed him into their ranks. And we see this most clearly in the fracturing of the SDP's leadership after June 1993. Mr Chiam had led the SDP for about 13 years, since 1980, with no serious leadership crisis. But then maybe number 13, ie, 13 years, proves unlucky to Mr Chiam. For a long period, Chee Soon Juan, at that time, a political unknown, who joined the SDP team in the 1992 Marine Parade by-election, was praised by Mr Chiam at that time "as the most courageous person in Singapore today and that Singapore would be amazed at the quality of the slate", and this was published in the newspapers.”
“I say yes, Sir. LAND ACQUISITION BY GOVERNMENT 2. Mr John De Payva asked the Minister for Law whether the Government acquires land for as little as $1.”
“Sir, I can say yes, it is not our intention at all to curtail political discussions on the Internet. Maybe I will draw the Member's attention to some parts of the Sedition Act which allow exceptions to be made, ie, discussions which affect the Government but they were intended for good reasons. In other words, they found something which they thought it necessary to be discussed, reviewed and debated because certain activities in the state may not be good for Singaporeans. If the intention is good, I think the Government will not stop such discussions. In fact, the reason why we have provided certain laws is to ensure more transparency. People who use the Net would want to be sure that there is a level playing field with certain regulations to protect the innocent. There have been some developments but they are still relatively new. MITA will continue to monitor the situation and try to improve on our regulations either by tightening or loosening them up. These methods will be monitored continuously as the Internet continues to grow in our country. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Parliamentary Secretary then confirm that Singaporeans are entitled to disagree with the Government and to say so freely?”
“Sir, a website that is political in nature is not disallowed. In fact, we have regulations which require political websites to at least register their editors or owners, and they are allowed to operate. The reason why we register them is to ensure some accountability and responsibility as we promote political discussion on the Net. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, will the Parliamentary Secretary then confirm that it is not the Government's intention to curtail discussion and free expression on the Internet?”
“Sir, in the end, it is the Minister who has the power to decide. But before that, we also have the National Internet Advisory Committee which comprises people from the industry and community leaders from various groups who will look into all problems connected with Internet usage in Singapore. It will look into whether serious offences had taken place and recommend whether action should be taken by the Ministry. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Will there be any appeal procedure if, for example, it is determined that a particular website is political and therefore should not be allowed? Will there be an appeal procedure or will the decision be final?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Chairman of the SDP why we should participate in a single-seat constituency and come in as an NCMP. It seems that this effort to ensure minority representation has already been built in his mind. Does he have in his mind that the minority candidates will lose the election? Why can we not compete and win? Why must we come in as NCMPs? You already have preconceived ideas.”
“Sir, he has learnt to put words into my mouth. It is something that I completely did not say. I only stand here to defend the GRC scheme. I regret that the SDP MP, Mr Cheo, has said that he regretted the GRC scheme although this is one way to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Can I ask whether he wants to withdraw his statement?”
“Sir, is the Member saying that we can be assured that this will be so for the next 10, 20, 30 years? I do not know. Nobody knows, Sir. The PAP also put up minority candidates in single member constituencies before 1988.”
“I did not make that statement. I asked Mr Cheo because he regretted the idea of the GRC scheme. I have nothing to clarify. I am seeking clarification from the Member, Sir.”
“Yes, I am asking him about single member constituencies because he said that it is better to contest in single member constituencies. There is no assurance that a minority candidate can win. The entire system of GRC is designed to assure - it does not guarantee - as the Prime Minister has explained, that there is a minimum number. There is no assurance that there will be a maximum number. Sir, I do not think the Member has been able to put up a good case to stand by his statement that it is regrettable to have a GRC scheme in this country. I think it is wrong and I hope he will withdraw that statement. I think it is most uncalled for, Sir.”
“Sir, I remember that in the last election, there were some GRC constituencies contested by the SDP and even the Workers' Party.”
“Sir, can I come back to the main issue which I raised for clarification by the Member? It is in regard to his statement that he regrets that this Parliament created the GRC scheme in Singapore to ensure minority representation. Although the Member says that he is not completely against the GRC scheme, I wonder how appointing minority MPs in this House is a better system. I would like to ask the Member whether he can recall in the last election or in previous elections, did the SDP put up minority candidates to stand in single member constituencies. Because he said that it is better to continue to compete in single member constituencies. Mr Cheo is from the SDP. Can I ask him whether his party has done so and what was the experience? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to tell this House that in 1988, the SDP fielded minority candidates to contest the election. For instance in 1988, we fielded an Indian candidate, Rasheed, in Punggol Constituency.”
“Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, Mr Cheo said that by expanding the size of the GRC to six, the representation of minorities in Parliament is reduced. Does he not know that at the time of a 3-member GRC, the number of GRCs was very small? Secondly, from the experience of past general elections, if we have only single member constituencies, the result will be that there will be few minority representatives coming into this House. Does he want to have a fewer number of minority MPs in this House? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, I do not wish to see fewer representation of minority groups in this House. Singapore is a multi-racial society and we must have minority representation in the House. As I said, there are many ways of ensuring this. I am not entirely against the GRC concept. I am not saying that it is not a good way. What I am saying is that if you want to use the mechanism of GRC to ensure minority representation in Parliament, then we should not keep on changing the rules by increasing it from three to four, and four to six, time and again. Because this is totally unnecessary. Why does the Government want to increase the number of GRCs? I have already said that this is to ensure that they can get good political advantage. I think that is the crux of the matter.”
“I think the amendment is brought about to make it difficult for the small and weak opposition parties with limited human resources to field six candidates in a GRC, so they can only contest the limited number of single member constituencies, thereby giving greater advantage to the ruling party. As a matter of fact, Singapore has always been emphasising on meritocracy and free competition. I think single seat constituencies are the best. Minority candidates should fight the single seat constituencies to protect the interests of the minority groups, otherwise it will create a dependency syndrome among the minority groups. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Cheo Chai Chen mentioned that apart from single member constituencies, it is not the best way to get the minorities to be represented in the GRCs. They can have Nominated MPs to represent the minorities. I would like to remind him that the NMPs have no right to vote on Constitutional amendments. Does it mean that the minorities should be represented only by second class MPs and not first class MPs? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Peh may be right in this sense. But, if that is the case, then why should you increase from three to four, and now to six MPs. Three is enough. The minorities will be well represented. They have a say. When the number is changed to six, then it is one out of six. If you have two three-member GRCs, then we have two representatives from the minority groups. Even then, the minority representatives are only one out of three. They are elected on the strength of the group of three. In a single member constituency, we can say that they are truly represented.”
“Sir, I have not got a good answer yet, but never mind. If the Member thinks that there is no other party in Singapore at the moment which has done its best to provide leadership for Singapore, then I suppose he should not try to stop the PAP from trying to consolidate, grow stronger and continue to provide leadership to the people of Singapore. My second question, Sir, is this. Mr Cheo also mentioned that he regretted the existence of the GRC scheme in Singapore. This is a statement which I regret, because the GRC was designed specifically, aside from the provision of town councils, to ensure that there would always be adequate, or at least a minimal, representation of minority communities in Singapore - Indians, Malays and Eurasians. Can I ask him to clarify whether he is against ensuring that there will always be minority Members of Parliament in this House? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, to ensure minority representation, there are many ways to do so. The GRC system is only one of them. We can appoint minority Nominated MPs in Parliament to enable them to represent their minority groups, to speak for them and to protect their interests. Under the GRC system, I think the main aim is to ensure that minority groups are included in Parliament and to give them the opportunity to run the town councils. If this is the real objective, then it is not too bad. But why must the Government increase from three to four, and now from four to six? It is not necessary, because at the moment town councils can merge on their own free will. They can on their own form larger councils. The town councils of various constituencies are free to form larger town councils for better utilisation of manpower. So I feel that this amendment is superfluous and unnecessary.”
“Sir, can the Member name any other party which he thinks should rule Singapore? I do not mind if it is only an opinion from him. Because he regrets we are doing this for something that is not sincere. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, at this moment, there may not be any party which is in a position to replace the PAP. But it does not mean that this will remain so in the future.”
“Sir, I asked him whether he has any other party in mind which he thinks should rule Singapore. He has not answered that. Is he going to answer or not? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, as to which party can replace the ruling party, I think it is for the people to decide. If the majority of the people support a certain party, then that party will rule.”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member for Nee Soon Central? At one point, he said that the amendment to the GRC scheme was designed to consolidate and prolong the PAP's rule in Singapore. Having ruled Singapore for so long, should the PAP not try to consolidate, grow and provide good government for Singapore? If not, which party does he think should now consolidate and rule Singapore? That is my first question, Sir. I will ask my second question later. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, I said just now that the ruling party, ie, the PAP, is moving this constitutional amendment to give themselves an undue political advantage. That is because it enables the ruling party to have all the advantages it wants for every general election. Our Constitution is based on the British Constitution and it is a sound system. There is no need to amend it so frequently. If it is not the intention of the PAP Government to do this, then there is no other explanation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, radio and television reception in Singapore is generally good. SBA ensures that there is good reception nationwide, by setting suitable technical standards. However, there are some pockets of poor reception in Singapore. Poor reception arises because of terrain, high buildings or electromagnetic interferences which block, reflect or weaken radio signals. There are various technical solutions to the problem of poor reception. One solution is to tap-off signals from a nearby tall building. Another solution is receiving the signal through cable. SCV is currently cabling the island and this is expected to be completed in 3-4 years' time. Meanwhile, anyone who experiences poor reception problems can contact SBA or the broadcasters for assistance. CALLER ID FACILITY 8. Mr John De Payva asked the Minister for Communications why certain telephone numbers cannot have Caller-ID facility.”
“Sir, as I have explained, you go to a clinic, pay $16 bill, you agak-agak $8 profit. You are misleading the public, Mr Ling. And you are doing it today.”
“Sir, raising an issue is not the same as when Mr Ling is asking a question. Raising an issue is not the same as changing facts and figures in official Government documents and statistics, in order to mislead the public to show that health care cost is hardly subsidised. He has done that.”
“Sir, I remember I had engaged Mr Ling before in a debate when he made some accusations about health care in Singapore. Maybe we should refer to Hansard and check. By the way, Sir, I would like to clarify. When he spoke about subsidy in 1992, did he have the same meaning then and now? Or was it different then and now? Did he have a different definition or the same? Because he never said, before the end of the Select Committee hearing, that he had a completely different meaning for "subsidy".”
“They were not even lawyers. Even the bomohs understand the word "subsidy". Sir, in the past, the Member for Bukit Gombak had used the word "subsidy" many times without any special meaning, without any new interpretation to the word. And finally when it came to this, he changed and tried to side-step the main issue. Sir, I suspect that the whole idea of accusing the Government, of trying to undermine the system and the civil service over this issue was the fact that there was rumour sometime earlier this year about a possible general election in 1996. So based on what had happened, I suspect that Mr Ling and his party have tried to mislead not only Parliament, but the people of Singapore, by way of discrediting the Government and trying to make capital gains through this exercise. Sir, I think Mr Ling and his party suspected that Singaporeans could easily be misled, because of the way they change facts and figures. Now these proceedings of the Select Committee help me to understand why more than two years ago, the Secretary-General of the SDP published a book Dare to Change, because they dare to change many official figures, whether it is the health care report or any other thing, in order to mislead the public. This came out during the proceedings of the Select Committee. Sir, at the end of the day, I hope Singaporeans will realise that some people are willing to do many unbelievable things in order not just to mislead the public but also to make capital gains. But I hope, and I believe, their effort would backfire at the coming general election. Sir, I support the motion. Mr Ling How Doong: Clarification, Sir.”
“Sir, I think the Select Committee had been very kind in saying that had we found out earlier or had Mr Ling earlier clarified that he had a different definition of the word "subsidy", we need not go through all this. I do not believe Mr Ling does not understand the word "subsidy". I think he had done so purposely to throw new light, to twist along the way, and trying to outdo the debate. Because throughout the Select Committee proceedings, it was clear that there was indisputable evidence about such subsidy. Up to now, in fact, everywhere in the world, when we visit many parts of Malaysia, in the kampungs, ulu places, kampung folks know the word "subsidy", and many of them do not go to school. An hon. Member: Bomohs.”
“Sir, it all started exactly seven months ago when a very serious allegation was made by Mr Ling and his Party. Because it was a very serious allegation, we went through all this process of forming a Select Committee and adopting the Report, and all the way through there was clear and indisputable evidence that there was Government subsidy and up to 80% for C class wards and many others. But the sad thing is today we hear that because of this baseless allegation, and because Mr Ling does not understand the meaning of "subsidy", the Government and Parliament had to spend up to half a million dollars just to clarify and make sure that the public is aware that the allegation is not only wrong, but based on very funny and unbelievable reasoning. We went through the entire process, many hours of work, planning, thinking, preparing from up to eight meetings from 17th May to 24th September, and another session today. Altogether 10 Members of Parliament were involved, which include the Speaker, two Ministers and one Senior Minister of State. On top of that, officials from the Ministry of Health, Auditor-General's Office, Singapore Medical Association and many others, even members of the public, were involved. We sought their views because this issue is of great public interest. There were nine submissions and finally this 620-page Report of the Select Committee. Sir, it started as an allegation, a serious one, made in this House that health care cost in Singapore was hardly subsidised. In the end, we found out Mr Ling did not understand the word "subsidy" and had his own way of interpreting and defining the word "subsidy".”
“Sir, I cannot clarify, verify or ask the doctor or during the Select Committee meeting. Anyway, Sir, may I be allowed to speak in Malay so that I do not have to engage in a direct debate with Mr Ling? Mr Speaker: Mr Maidin, please continue. You have started in English.”
“From what I know, normally the Department of Statistics, after they have done a sample survey to date, would compare with the previous survey. They do not agak agak that they have made $8 profit. How can you use that as a basis to come to the conclusion, as the Chairman of SDP, that health care cost was hardly susbsidised? That is what you told us earlier. I wonder whether the Member would like to clarify how he arrived at $8. It took more than agak agak. I do not know. Would he like to reply?”
“I said the same thing. You visited three doctors.”
“So you made accusation not based on facts. It is not facts, right?”
“The point is that this matter was discussed at the Select Committee. Why was it not clarified and made clear that you did not try to mislead the public and Parliament?”
“I am not sure whether this is appropriate, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, are we debating on the motion or are we going through something which I thought should have been dealt with by the Select Committee? Dr Aline Wong: It has already been dealt with.”
“There are several grey areas which tell very vividly that there is no single rule that can be used as a guide in the relationship of husband and wife. I am glad to note that during our deliberations we have made some changes which are enough to cover over the next few years the need for families to try and maintain a harmonious relationship. I have no doubt that many years ahead we may need to further amend some aspects of this Bill or the Act itself. But I am glad to note that we have not drawn too many lines and decided that certain aspects of family life should be guided by law. I think that is the right approach for I do not believe two problems involving the family can be solved by the same set of guidelines. It is not easy, Sir. Therefore, I believe the recommendation made by the Select Committee to allow the courts to make a decision, based on all aspects and matters pertaining to the disputes, is right. And I believe that this new Bill will serve Singapore well.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to the points raised by my colleagues, I think I am left with very little to say. I just like to recall an incident about a month or so ago. One of my constituents came to my Meet-the-People session. He came in full army uniform. He is currently serving national service. He came together with his fiancee and asked how come his marriage application was rejected. He said, "I serve in the Army and that means I am a man. But when I applied to register my marriage, my application was rejected (because he was born a female)". So he felt very awkward to be accepted as a man, and at the same time to be treated as a woman when it comes to marriage. Sir, because I serve as one of the Members in the Select Committee, that evening I was able to explain to him that an amendment is currently being considered for the Women's Charter and after we have passed this Bill, I am sure he would be happy that his application for marriage would be accepted. Sir, I mentioned this story because I remember the glow in his face after I explained that we are doing something about it. His fiancee was also happy that they were given a chance, despite the odd situation he was in, that he can now form a family and try his best to live happily ever after. Sir, I think many aspects of the Amendment Bill provide for more people to be happier, more smiles on the faces of husbands and wives, even though they may be in dispute. I took special interest in the fact that during our deliberations, the Committee, under the able leadership of our Speaker, had been rather cautious and careful in handling all the issues, including the question of whether husbands should be given the right to claim maintenance from their wives.”
“I am not sure if it is cheaper, but it is definitely popular. Shaw Brothers have the rights to control these Malay films and we have to pay for them. We will certainly ask TV12 to improve further on Malay programmes. At the same time, it is worth noting that the Singapore Broadcasting Authority has been trying very hard to help TV12, especially in terms of funding. It is not really having financial difficulty in that sense. For the last financial year, FY95/96, funding for Malay TV programmes, which include news as well as current affairs programmes, amounted to $19.96 million. This represents 25.6% of the total funding of about $78 million given by SBA to our broadcasters. Funding for other programmes, if I may mention, is 14.4% or $11 million for Indian programmes, 29.9% or $23 million for Chinese programmes and 30% or $23 million for English programmes. These figures show that SBA has been giving quite a sizable sum to help TV12 get good Malay programmes on the air. Finally, Mr Peh is concerned about veteran artistes. I must say that veteran artistes like Xiao Fang Fang whom he mentioned were not developed overnight. It takes years to develop and enhance their skills and to deepen their experience and broaden their exposure. TCS too has a deliberate and definite process to train and groom its artistes. Young artistes are given constant training and exposure to mould their skills and enhance their talents in acting, while experienced artistes continue to be given important roles and be recognised for their excellent acting skills. Since 1988, young artistes with potential are discovered through Star Search, and these young artistes are deliberately --- 2.15 pm”
“This facility is available and provided by Telecom. Sir, Mr Choo also mentioned his concern about TCS' viability to go on the air 24 hours a day. TCS is now a private broadcaster. It has to operate under the discipline of the market place and to ensure that it is efficient in delivering better programmes to hold their audiences and, at the same time, watch their bottom line. TCS will also go into 24-hour broadcasting only if it finds that it makes economic sense. This is something which TCS itself would have to decide. Mr Cheo Chai Chen raised his concern about documentaries on Chinese TV programmes which I have dealt with earlier. He touched briefly on dialect programmes and my Minister has dealt with it yesterday. I will try to discuss his point about Malay programmes on TV which I must say, thus far, although some of the programmes are old, they are popular. As I said, like P. Ramlee shows and some of the local productions that were made in the 60s and 70s, these have, in fact, been partly brought back because of their popularity. The Malay community still find P. Ramlee very entertaining. An hon. Member: Cheaper also!”
“I think it is an oddity to the ears of many Muslims to hear advertisements while they are doing something religious. I appreciate his point and I will ask the Singapore Broadcasting Authority to look into this matter. Hopefully, they will take it up with RCS and Warna, so that advertisements could be broadcast at the appropriate time of the day. It should not be seen that the radio station is insensitive to some of the religious activities involved at a particular point of time. I hope this matter can be dealt with by the next Ramadan. At the same time, Sir, it is worth noting that RCS, especially Warna in this case, has also been trying very hard to increase the number of advertisements so that they can earn a little bit more and the money could then be used to further improve the services that Warna provides for Malay listeners in Singapore. Sir, Mr Choo Wee Khiang raised a few points, one of which concerns advertising on TV. The Singapore Broadcasting Authority works with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, which is the local advertising industry watchdog, to set guidelines concerning the advertisements for broadcasters. Complaints about products on TV can be addressed to SBA who will take it up with the broadcaster. SBA will consider the complaints and, if necessary, to amend the existing advertising code which all broadcasters have to comply with. Mr Choo also raised the point about 1900 charge calls. This service is relatively new and it involves interaction by users. Parental control is so far seen as the most effective check on possible misuse by children. SBA will definitely highlight the importance of parental supervision and encourage the use of parental control mechanisms such as the locking device.”
“For this year, TV12 has commissioned four new programmes to local as well as foreign production houses. The programmes are: Kalau Dapur Tidak Berasap, which is a cooking programme; Usahawan Kita; there is also Bual Bintang, which profiles Malay artistes; and the new programme which is coming, Suria Duabelas. There is also an effort to revitalise the format and the local production of Hiburan Minggu Ini, Sandiwara, Aksi Mat Yoyo and other programmes to attract a larger audience. I think so far, it can be concluded that these efforts have shown improvements for TV12 Malay programmes. Dr Ahmad Mattar also mentioned about Brunei TV programmes. We share his concern about long speeches. Sir, Singapore and Brunei have signed a memorandum of understanding, whereby in some areas, we cooperate to have local programmes aired on Brunei TV and Brunei programmes aired on Singapore TV. This memorandum of understanding is designed to help each other to understand our way of life, our culture and the happenings in each other's country. So Singapore company, TV12 or TCS, will provide the programmes to be uplinked in Brunei. And it is the Bruneian side who gave us what they thought should be on the air under this exchange programme. It is hoped that, from time to time, we will be able to carry better programmes. At the moment, I think the comments made by Dr Ahmad Mattar certainly deserve some attention by the relevant broadcasters, and I am sure they will take into account his views on this matter. On Warna, Sir, Dr Mattar mentioned about Qasidah, the Mufti and somehow it got mixed up with noodles and other advertisements. I appreciate his point that during the breaking of fast, the type of music that is heard on the air has become part of breaking of fast itself.”
“It is not possible to have completely local Malay programmes during prime time, because there is a very limited number of locally produced movies to fill up the space. So these additional hours have in fact made it necessary, for the time being at least, for TV12 to import Indonesian and Malaysian movies. But at the same time, they have been trying to make sure that these are popular movies. Recently, among the titles that have been shown are popular ones like Sembilu and Perempuan. These are very popular shows. I was told that they captured quite a number of viewers during the festive season. TV12 has also been providing many more programmes every day of the week and they have made sure that there is at least one local programme on TV on a daily basis. This is part of the effort to improve programmes for the Malay audience. There is an effort now to provide Malay programmes on Sunday mornings, because there has been some feedback about having something close to AM Singapore in Malay. At least two new local programmes are being introduced. One is a six-part documentary series in Malay on Malay entrepreneurs called Usahawan Kita which made its debut on 3rd March. Another is a breakfast programme which will be launched on 7th April this year. It is called Suria Duabelas. This one will be on the air from 10 am to about 12.30 pm on Sunday mornings. Sir, TV12 has also been commissioning more independent production houses to produce Malay programmes. These will allow them to have more variety and more sources of films and documentaries to be shown on TV. Of course, it is hoped that with more competition in production, there will be a greater variety in the programming as well as induction of more local talent into TV programmes.”
“It was introduced this year to encourage public discussion on current affairs which are relevant to Singaporeans. The discussions have included topics like a gracious society, policy on keeping Singapore clean, teenage crime, and other topics. Somehow, there is something lacking in the formula and the format of the show. And so far it has been less successful than anticipated. I was informed that TCS will wrap up the show by the end of this month and will replace the Wednesday's prime-time slot with a more popular programme, that is, Focus, and this was also mentioned specifically by Mr Peh Chin Hua. Focus will be extended from 30 minutes to one hour. Sir, Dr Ahmad Mattar raised various points concerning TV12 and Warna 94.2. I thank him for his criticisms as well as his comments that Warna 94.2 has done a good job as a radio station. For TV12, allow me to explain some of the many improvements that have taken place over Prime 12, since it was launched on 1st September 1995. This is about six months ago. Malay programmes on TV12 have been increased from 17 to 20(r) hours, therefore giving a lot more space for Malay programmes, not just on TV but also during prime time. These programmes have definitely created a new challenge to the management and the executives of TV12. However, they have tried their best to improve Malay programming and I think there have been quite a few new items and improvements made. I will list some of them. 2.00 pm Firstly, TV12 has provided prime time Malay movies on Thursdays and Sundays at 8.30 pm. They will continue to televise popular and award winning Malay and Indonesian movies and some old favourite movies.”