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 4 of 5.
“Sir, firstly, may I thank Members for giving me very useful inputs and feedback. Mr Peh Chin Hua gave his observations and comments about some documentaries in Chinese and this subject was also taken up by Mr Cheo as well as Mr Choo Wee Khiang. Sir, the observations given on the broad range of TCS Channel 8 programmes are pertinent and probably representative of many viewers' opinions. TCS has, over the last few years, increased its production of local Chinese programmes significantly. As a result, it is inevitable that there will be some hits and misses, some good and some not so palatable programmes, as mentioned by Mr Peh and the other MPs. MITA will definitely convey their observations to TCS. It is worth noting that the Singapore Broadcasting Authority takes a direct interest in ensuring the quality of public funded programmes (PFP), like some of the current affairs and documentary programmes mentioned by Mr Peh. Sir, TCS is aware that some of its prime time variety shows have not been very well received and will be making changes and improvements to them soon. For example, come May this year, the Tuesday variety show will showcase local musical talents. Where and when appropriate, TCS will also supplement local shows with quality acquired programmes. One example is the popular Taiwanese variety show, It Pays To Travel, which I have not seen. But I was told that this programme is now being brought back for telecast every Saturday night at prime time, that is, 8.00 pm. According to TCS, this will be for an intervening period of about two months, from 2nd March until April 1996. The other programme that was mentioned by several MPs is Let's Talk. This is a new talk-show on current affairs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Television Corporation of Singapore's phone-in programmes use an interactive voice response system provided by an audiotext service company. Audiotext services charge beyond the price of a standard phone call because they need to be supported by customised software programmes and computer equipment. TCS's charges for phone-in programmes are comparable to that of other audiotext services available in Singapore.”
“Since its inception, RSI has succeeded in making its presence felt in the target region. We receive comments on the programmes based on letters and feedback and they have so far been quite positive. However, there is no figure to show how many of them are listening actually. But some feedback indicates that people are listening to the service and, I think, over time, we will try to improve further. OLD PRIVATE ESTATES (Subsidised upgrading scheme) 6. Mr Imram bin Mohamed asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider introducing a subsidised upgrading scheme for old private apartments and the run down common facilities of private estates similar to the Housing and Development Board upgrading scheme.”
“Sir, RSI serves mainly the South-east Asian region, and these countries are mainly Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, the southern part of Thailand, Cambodia, and southern Vietnam. It is broadcast for about nine hours a day.”
“Sir, at the moment, all available FM channels have been used up. So we do not have any FM channel. In any case, this service is meant for external audience, not for Singaporeans. However, Singaporeans who have some interest in RSI programmes can follow its news and information features which are available on the RSI Web site on Internet. This is another means for local Singaporeans who are interested in RSI broadcasts to have access to the programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, we have heard in many countries of how the judicial system is undermined by pressure from quarters outside the courts, whether political parties or human rights organisations. In consequence, we find criminals no longer fear the judicial system, because they believe the law can be undermined by pressure groups or human rights groups, etc. The question is, if it were true that there was torture and that Singapore is a police state, that we have been arrogant, iron-fisted and so on, if these were all true, do we believe that all this time the Philippine government or other governments would have allowed their people to come to Singapore and work? If they had no confidence that there is a fair and well-established judicial system in Singapore, would they have allowed their people to work in this country and perhaps be threatened by an unjust system? There lies the difference between truth and falsehood. Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on the points made by the Gancayco Commission. We have heard earlier the unofficial Leader of the Opposition saying that the report was absurd and bizarre and so on. Yesterday, we heard a leader of the Opposition, who today seems to have become the opposition to the Opposition, Mr Chiam See Tong, stating his position that we should not allow the foreign press to use the Opposition as a club to attack the Government. I hope he would consider using this club to hammer on the other Members of the Opposition so that they would come to their senses and realise the difference between fact and fiction. The Gancayco Commission report, I feel, Mr Speaker, contains a lot of fiction, imagination and myths.”
“Mr Speaker, if they do indeed happen, all those suggestions we made - that we do not want to provoke anger, that we do not want to create difficulties for somebody in the run up to an election - and the Government, let us say, takes these into consideration and takes the necessary measures, whether a stay of execution or whatever, for external reasons, I think there will indeed be cause to ask about miscarriage of justice. The question will then be: why the Government should take into account external factors when carrying out a sentence, when it has been decided by the court? Is this justice? I am proud and happy that with the many choices to be made and despite the pressure, the Government has stood firm on its principle of not interfering in the conduct of the judicial system, of not taking into account factors that have no relationship with the judicial system, that are of no interest to the judicial system, so as to change its decision or to give in for reasons other than justice. Mr Speaker, there was also the question of Singapore's international image. This issue and the readiness of the political leadership to be firm when it comes to justice, not just on this but on many previous occasions, were regarded as undermining Singapore's international image. We are accused by the Philippines, for example, of being a police state, possibly a totalitarian state, that does things as it pleases, that tortures prisoners, all kinds of accusations, and all because we have been just and firm in the conduct of our judicial system. Is this an effect we should be afraid of? Should we fear being misunderstood because we are too strict?”
“And in the Flor Contemplacion case, the evidence presented showed clearly that the Singapore political leadership, the President, the Cabinet, is far removed from any possibility of interfering in the judicial system of Singapore. What I feel strange are the arguments of some Members that we should take into account the feelings of the leaders, the opposition and the people of foreign countries when making decisions relating to the judicial system of Singapore. Isn't this in total contradiction with the many points that we have heard before, stressing the importance of the Executive in this country not interfering at all in judicial matters, in matters of justice? But in this case, we seem to be making an exception, that the Government in its handling of the matter should take into account external factors. I find this strange, because isn't this the first time we bring up the importance of external factors and seek to impose them on the judicial system of Singapore? Does this not mean that we are putting pressure on the Government to interfere with the judicial process, not for justice but to take care of the feelings of others, to make sure that certain people win their elections, so that certain societies would not be so angry with Singapore? Are these the factors that we want to put across as a way for us to improve the judicial system of Singapore? Or are we promoting a way to play with the judicial system of Singapore?”
“Isn't that such a long time to enable, and indeed we have conducted, not just one, but more than one trial? And the woman concerned not only confessed to the murder but also described how she did it. And we are wondering about miscarriage of justice? I am surprised that this issue came about, when the facts show that what happened was far from a miscarriage of justice. I am also surprised, Mr Speaker, that there are suggestions that we ought to ask why we did not allow a stay of execution for Flor Contemplacion. We know two persons were murdered, and their families had to wait four years for what we call justice to be done, for the two murder victims and their families. We waited four years for justice for these two victims. And then we ask why no stay of execution. In other words, we prefer delaying the hanging and delaying justice for the victims and their families for various strange reasons. Among those that I have heard are suggestions that we should, in the conduct of our judicial system, take consideration of external factors or political factors in other countries. I note with dismay, Mr Speaker, that there are Members in this House who also said that the Singapore Government, the Cabinet, the President, should take into consideration political developments of other countries, and take account of rising emotions, when making decisions as to whether a stay of execution should be allowed for a woman who has been found guilty of murder. We have heard before strong views expressed partly by the Opposition and also by international magazines, implying that the Singapore Government is one of those that rules with an iron fist, and that it always interferes with the judiciary. We have always denied the accusations and have always proven that they are not true.”
“They could not accept a higher punishment, but ignored the suffering of the young children, the little girls who were the victims of these culprits. So back to my question, Sir, do they know what they are doing? Or is that really the way the Opposition want to conduct themselves in politics? And this is even more surprising. In one block party that I attended in my constituency in mid-April, some of the residents came with their Filipino maids. In the midst of the chaos in Manila, I asked the Filipino maids, "Are you happy in Singapore? Is everything all right in Singapore?" They said, yes, they were happy and they were carrying on with their jobs and their employers were treating them well. I asked, "Are you following the developments in your country?" They said, yes. So I asked them, "What happened?" The answer from a Filipino maid working in Singapore, speaking in front of many residents of my constituency, at Jalan Tenaga, Mr Speaker, was that the political opposition in the Philippines and the media there have been making up stories, fiction, that cannot be believed. I bring up the example of this Filipino maid, Mr Speaker, simply to show the difference between the sense of judgement and the behaviour of the opposition and the maturity of a Filipino maid. Just look at the difference. Is our Opposition capable of analyzing the situation better than a Filipino maid? I hope so, because what has happened seems to indicate to me that the Filipino maid was perhaps politically more mature. Mr Speaker, one question raised by the Opposition and some other Members concerns the issue of miscarriage of justice. I am really surprised how this question could arise. The murder occurred in 1991. The woman was hanged in 1995.”
“As a result, a number of leaders, the Foreign Secretary included, had to be sacrificed just to satisfy their anger. So the question is: is it really the Singapore judicial system that is on trial? I think it is the Singapore Opposition that is on trial. So easily were they misled, so easily believing what we have been calling bizarre and absurd and so on, but then using these bizarre and absurd materials to apply pressure on Singapore. Why does this happen, Mr Speaker? Are some members of the Singapore Opposition still unsure, even today, what they should do? We note the divergence between what they had said in their statements and what they say is their stand today - far different from their earlier stand. Or is that really the way they conduct themselves in politics, that is, as I was saying, by misrepresenting the facts, by lying, by exploiting the situation regardless of the consequences, as long as they can criticise the Government of Singapore at any time? If that is what they call politics, if that is what Mr Low Thia Khiang called patriotism, I think it is very surprising. Does patriotism and participation in Singapore politics mean that we should be so easily swayed by the opinion of outsiders when we know it is not true? Or should we, in the context of Singapore politics, have our own principles and stand based on the situation, the need and the facts before us? Mr Speaker, in a way, it is no surprise to me because when the Government, specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs, took steps a few months ago to impose heavier punishment in molest cases, for instance, we noted that some sections of the Opposition were not happy with the stiffer measures, which included showing the accused persons on television.”
“This is the suggestion that the Opposition made as we faced this crisis, the SDP opinion, signed by Chee Soon Juan. In other words, he wanted Singapore leaders not to speak candidly, not to speak the truth. Is he teaching the leaders of Singapore to lie? Is that the value he is promoting, Mr Speaker? And if we believed him and took his advice, what kind of image would Singapore leaders have, when they cannot be honest, when they cannot speak frankly about something when their hosts want them to do so? I remember one issue raised by the Senior Minister, that became the subject of SDP's criticism, regarding discipline in the Philippines and the growth of democracy in the country and their social development efforts. If we look at what has happened to the debate on Flor Contemplacion in the Philippines, it is clear that the points made by the Senior Minister, on discipline and democracy, probably made no impression on them. Just look at the issue of discipline in the newspapers. I think many questions have been raised by the way the newspapers handled the matter, with reports filled with lies. We note the discipline shown by the opposition parties. That is very surprising, too. They ignored the facts. They had no respect for another country. We have also seen how they burned the Singapore flag in an atmosphere of indiscipline. In other words, what the Senior Minister said was probably true. And if some quarters had sought a lesson or two from his remarks, it would probably be for the better. The democracy that they were promoting there, too, was exploited by the opposition. We saw how they applied pressure by spreading nonsense, to force the country's leadership to defend itself by taking steps to similarly question Singapore's integrity.”
“And when we see these lies and falsehood, Mr Speaker, I personally am not surprised that certain Opposition leaders in Singapore like the SDP Secretary-General, Chee Soon Juan, would join the fray, because he himself had been accused of being a cheat and a liar. He never denied that and has never dared to bring this matter to the court. So when there were cheating and lying in the Philippines on the issue of the hanging of Flor Contemplacion, I remember the English proverb that says "birds of the same feather flock together". So even though there was one here and many more perhaps in the Philippines during the crisis, I am not surprised that some of those in the Opposition here had responded and had sought to participate in lying and in the misrepresentation of facts. Mr Speaker, what has happened is really an exposure of the quality and the attitude of a certain number of the Opposition in Singapore. They were easily misled, but more than that, they had taken advantage of the situation and made it worse. Whereas in the Philippines, the issue was trying to defend something that has been proven in court and questioning the judicial system of Singapore, the Opposition in Singapore issued statements that sought to undermine the institutions of Singapore, raising questions that tended to imply that we have an unjust leadership and a dishonest judicial system. And they also sought to cast a smear on Singapore leaders, both the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister, through the letters that they circulated. Among the suggestions they made was that Singapore leaders should not be honest when expressing their views to the world, to the Philippine leaders, to the Australians, etc.”
“Mr Speaker, to cool things down and reduce tension, I will speak in Bahasa Melayu. (In Malay): Mr Speaker, what we have witnessed is a political game of vacillations and shifting positions played by a number of the Opposition Members. And in my view, this is the very sort of problem that led to the tense relations between Singapore and the Philippines - the presence in the Philippines of opposition parties who exploited the situation to create tension and create all kinds of false stories, all for the sake of freedom of speech. Playing another role was the Philippine media, which took advantage of the confused situation by creating all kinds of absurd stories and fiction about the Singapore judicial system, about the way hearings were conducted, and all in the name of freedom of the press. We find that this has made a very bad impact on the relationship between the two countries. But what is more perplexing to us is how the Opposition in Singapore, who are no citizens of the Philippines and who have no direct concern with the emotional problems of the Philippines, could have succumbed to the confusion created by the opposition and the press in the Philippines. I also say that the Opposition in Singapore have been easily misled and this is clear from the statements that they have issued in the press and the correspondence by both the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Workers' Party. Mr Speaker, one of the reasons why this problem has led to such tension is that some opposition parties in the Philippines had relied on the tactic of spreading malicious stories. They misrepresented the facts, twisted the stories and created all sorts of lies, which we have seen in the reports that reached Singapore, excerpts from the newspaper reports there.”
“Sir, as I have explained, this is a new medium. There is a committee now looking into various aspects of the new medium. We hope to come up with something to ensure that this new playground also ensures safety for those who are around and that they would not get hurt unnecessarily. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Sir, perhaps I can be more specific. Suppose that the Catherine Lim's article, which I believe appeared in the Sunday Times, actually appeared on Internet, would the Government actually reply like it did?”
“Yes, Sir. This fresh point, in fact, was indirectly raised by Mr Low. Now he is saying that it is the responsibility of the PAP Government to help the Opposition Members so that they can win the next election. This was what he said. But that does not come under the MND budget, Sir.”
“Sir, I just want to clarify from the Member. Before we debate further on whether the responsibility of approving funds for improvement works in the Opposition constituencies should fall with MND or MCD, I think we should get back to the basic question. The general care of the constituency must be the responsibility of the MP. I do not think the Member should pass the buck from our shoulders to MND or MCD. Sir, the complaint made by the Opposition Members, Mr Chiam and Mr Low, is basically that the Opposition wards could not get funds from CIPC for improvement works in their constituencies. In other words, because of this situation, the Members now complain that they cannot do anything to improve the surroundings of the housing estates in their wards. I thought that was the question that was raised because of the current position of funding by CIPC. Sir, improvements in many constituencies have been made even before CIPC was formed some years ago, and Members of Parliament in this House, whether PAP or Opposition, have done whatever they could to improve their constituencies. The Members of the Opposition have just said that without the CIPC fund, they are ineffective as MPs. They are now trying to pass the buck to MND and MCD. It is not fair.”
“Sir, several companies have shown interest to operate the channels for cable TV. MEDICAL CHECK-UPS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AT COMMUNITY CENTRES 2. Mr Yeo Toon Chia asked the Minister for Health if his Ministry has plans to work with grassroots leaders to conduct regular bi-yearly medical check-ups for senior citizens above 65 years of age at the community centres for the convenience of the elderly.”
“As I said, library services in Singapore have been highly subsidised. There is no question of Government trying to get back the money or making people pay for the provision of library services. But in our effort to upgrade the services, Sir, certain specialised services which are high cost but catering for a small number of people, we may ask the National Library Board to consider asking these users to pay. For example, some services may be provided specifically for the business community. Having been tailored specially for them, they should consider making a little bit of payment. Or those who require the books and other services to be sent to their door-step should pay. The choice is you go to the library, you get it for free. 1.15 pm”
“Community libraries of the future will blend with the town centres where there is a lot of traffic of the residents there. Most likely, it will not be a stand-alone building, like the ones we have now in branch libraries, so that people can have easy access to the library service in the future.”
“The library is monitoring the service and if there is an increasing demand, the library will look into providing Internet access at all service points in the future. The Member for Hougang asked about library services in Hougang. Sir, it must be noted that the library is indeed a provision of public service provided by the Government and all these years, the library service has been highly subsidised. The National Library does not make money and we have just set up a statutory board to run the library service and to move more aggressively into the future and to provide better services for the community. Sir, there is no lack of commitment on the part of the Government to provide money and to ensure that Singaporeans pick up the reading habit and become an important player to help our nation become an information hub for the region and the world. The long-term target is very important and only if more Singaporeans become avid readers can we really be proud of becoming an information hub. With regard to his question on the provision of a library in Hougang, several community libraries will be built in the next few years. This is, in fact, part of the recommendations proposed by the Library 2000 Report. Aside from the one I mentioned in the Serangoon area, there will be one at Yishun and another one in Cheng San. The community library in Cheng San will service the residents in the north eastern part of Singapore. Sir, this is part of the overall programme as proposed by the Library 2000 Report. It will take time before they can all be built. It will depend on how much money we can get from the Ministry of Finance and it will also blend with the services provided in those areas.”
“Sir, Mr Goh Choon Kang asked about the library in Serangoon. As recommended by the Library 2000 Report, a community library will be built to serve the Serangoon area. However, I cannot say exactly when. The time-frame and location of the community library for the Serangoon New Town have not been decided yet but it is coming. Dr Koh Lip Lin asked about borrowing of books in the library and whether the number has been decreasing. Sir, the National Library loans books and membership has increased over the years. However, loans per member per year have declined in the past few years from 12.59 in 1990 to 10.52 in 1993. In 1991, the main reason was the closure of all our six mobile library service points. In 1992 and 1993, loans per member dropped due to the closure of libraries for renovation and upgrading. Altogether, four branches in 1992 and two branches in 1993 were affected. With the growing affluence of the population, loans of books may decline because of the fact that parents and adult readers are buying more books and periodicals themselves. The declining number does not mean that Singaporeans are reading less books. Meanwhile, the National Library will continue to upgrade its older branches and provide better services for the public. It will also continue to actively work with community organisations and schools to promote the reading habit and the use of the libraries. Sir, with regard to the use of computers to access Internet, at the Tampines Regional Library, library users who have their own personal Internet account can have access to Internet. The reference services division at the National Library also has access to Internet.”
“Just one more point raised by the Member about courtesy on the road. Sir, he could be right that there is some element of kiasuism at work on our roads. On the whole, although there has been improvement, the National Courtesy Council would continue to work closely with the Traffic Police to improve its public education programmes and campaign annually. In addition to the various activities, road courtesy is also being taught as part of the training syllabus at the driving centres and the objective is to inculcate the correct attitudes and habits right at the outset. I understand that the Traffic Police will again organise a courtesy campaign in July this year and the National Courtesy Council will work with them closely to raise the level of courtesy on the roads.”
“On the whole, Sir, the result of the survey showed that about 7% were found to be less courteous than before and in 1993, 94% of workers in department stores were found to be as courteous as before or even more courteous than before. So these indications show that, on the whole, we have made progress among the sales staff. It cannot be denied that there are some who will remain somewhat discourteous for one reason or another. Sir, courtesy begets courtesy. I think when the general public in Singapore goes shopping, it is expected that we should also be courteous to the sales staff and others. And it is normally found that those who are courteous to these people will be treated with courtesy too.”
“Sir, Dr Koh Lip Lin raised several points regarding the Courtesy Campaign in Singapore. When the Campaign was launched in 1979, it was clear to the Government and the Ministry concerned that we are into a programme that will take a long time to be successful. In fact, it takes a long time to change social habits. And the ultimate objective is to try to make Singapore a more gracious nation where people are more courteous to each other and there is a more pleasant environment, not just between the public and the Government departments but also in the private sector. So far, since the Campaign was launched in 1979, there has been progress made, as the Member noted in his speech. Every year, the Ministry, now through the National Courtesy Council, always targets the general population through the July Campaign, and we also target certain sectors, depending on the needs. We have also run regular surveys on alternate years and every survey has indicated that we have made progress. Of course, it does not mean that we have achieved our objective. We still have some way to go and in this respect, Sir. the National Courtesy Council works closely with the Singapore Retail Merchants' Association to address some of the concerns raised by the Member about sales staff at department stores and others. We also work with the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, even the Singapore Hotels' Association, to raise the level of courtesy in all these industries. As an example, there is the "Service Gold" award where the National Courtesy Council gives out jointly with the Singapore Hotels' Association. Last year, there were a total of 35 winners under this award. There was a survey done in 1993 and 1994.”
“Sir, the Minister in this case may want to address one issue that has been brought up through the feedback channel that many of these rewards were actually benefiting the not-so-poor or even the rich in Singapore. I am not sure this is true. But maybe it would help if we could assist Singaporeans to see the meaning of these rewards clearer so that they could appreciate it better, especially those in the lower income group. In future, I would also hope that the Government, through the Minister for Finance, would perhaps consider and think of other ways to reward Singaporeans for their hard work instead of these direct financial rewards. Of course, one way is, if you want to help the lower income group, to assist in providing financial assistance through various organisations, like one area mentioned by my colleague from Thomson GRC, Mr Leong Horn Kee, that the Government consider in assisting CCCs and other grassroots organisations to help finance the lower income group so that they could attend school in Singapore from primary one right up to university level without any financial worry. Sir, on this note, I would like to support the Budget Statement made by the Finance Minister.”
“I am sure this will draw welcome news from many people in Singapore. One matter that I would like to mention here today is the $500 top-up, comprising $200 CPF top-up and $300 Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme. Sir, to me, this is something very unusual, and for many Singaporeans it is also unusual that they are getting special cash grants from the Government although it started last year. I am sure many welcome it. But I am not sure how Singaporeans would be able to appreciate such a gesture. In the long term, my fear is that people will get so used to getting direct contributions from the Government that they would expect similar gifts every year, and every year they would even expect higher give-aways, ie, more money from the Government to them through CPF or other means. Already today there are some people who have said that the amounts given through the CPF and other means, like the payment of rental of HDB flats and S&C charges, were small and they compare this to the $1.5 billion collected by the Government through GST. Sir, it is also indicated that many people, or at least some of them, have forgotten that the GST was introduced last year and when it was introduced the level of income tax has already been brought down. I think we should wait for one or two years before further changes can be expected. These and other rebates given to flat dwellers, especially rental flats, I consider as bonuses from the Government to the people of Singapore as a way to share the nation's wealth that we have accumulated over the years. On top of that, the Minister for Finance also announced the contribution of $1 billion to the Edusave Scheme and a 10% tax rebate to income tax payers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget, to me, is both special and unusual. It really indicates that our economy is doing well and we are, to sum it up, on the right track. I think it is also clear that it was designed to bring Singapore into a higher level of economic development and, hopefully, more prosperity for our people. Some years ago, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Singapore had, on several occasions, been highlighted by many international magazines as one of the economic miracles in the world. Until today there are several more examples highlighted from time to time. It was Jurong at one time, later on the Port of Singapore, Changi Airport, Singapore Airlines and various other stories. Sir, all these were products of good and prudent financial policies, good Government and, of course, the hard work of the people of Singapore. Today, we have a Singapore, not as one of the richest countries in the world, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, but despite not being one of the richest countries in the world, we know, by international reports and findings, that Singaporeans today are enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world and by the purchasing power parity, ranked ninth in the world and the first in Asia. This is in a way another miraculous situation whereby our country has progressed so fast within such a short period. That means we have from year to year budgets that were specifically designed to manage the success stories of Singapore. I think this will become very challenging. Firstly, I notice that this year's Budget has no new tax introduced. Of course, what we heard from the Minister for Finance was that almost all of them are tax reductions and even financial contributions to Singaporeans.”
“I still did not get an answer to my clarification from the Member. But anyway this is the first time I have heard that we are one of the richest countries in the world.”
“Sir, Mr Ling has not replied to my questions about per capita allocation and whether the money, as he said, is good to provide health care there in Hong Kong and other countries, and why is it that they have to allocate a higher percentage of their GDP to provide health care to their population. Part two of his reaction to my point is regarding the bomohs in Malaysia. I wonder whether the Member knows the number of bomohs in Malaysia who, he said, were somewhat involved in the health care service. I do not know about this, Sir.”
“Sir, unfortunately, the Member did not reply to the questions I asked, that is, the per capita allocation, why is it that they have to spend more money for health care there, and in what way is it more superior to Singapore.”
“I want to know more from Mr Ling with regard to his comparison of the health care provision in Singapore and Hong Kong. Mr Ling mentioned 1.2% for Singapore and 5% to 6% for Hong Kong. In his research, can he inform us what is the figure of the per capita allocation for the residents in Hong Kong as compared to Singapore? What I mean, Sir, is that 1.2% or 5% can be misleading in the sense that if I have $100 and I distribute among 10 persons, each one would get $10. But if I distribute $1,000 among 1,000 people, each one would get $1. That is the difference I wanted to understand. The second question is this: Can the Member inform us what are the causes for them to allocate a lot more from their budget for health care? Is it because of high cost of manpower, high cost of medicine or is it because too many people get ill too often in that country that they require a lot more money for the service? The third question is whether the Member can inform us whether the people in those countries also have a kind of savings scheme to help them to pay for medical bills, like what Singaporeans are doing now through Medisave and MediShield.”
“Mr Speaker, can I ask some clarification from the Member? Mr Speaker: Is there something in his speech you do not understand?”
“For films and video tapes with too much sex, 318 of them were banned and this comprised 17 films and 301 video tapes and laser discs. Sir, on the whole, it is clear that MITA and the Board of Film Censors will continue to monitor the entrance of various entertainment materials and we will continue to keep them within an acceptable norm.”
“I will reply to Dr Vasoo and Mr Goh Choon Kang on behalf of my Minister. Firstly, with regard to the question as to whether MITA has compromised the standards of censorship and the question of yellow culture in Singapore, I would like to assure the Members in this House that, in no way, will MITA allow the promotion of yellow culture in Singapore, let alone elements which we are sure will be bad influence to our society, not just to the young. And there has been no compromise in the standards of our control and censorship. In fact, for the past three years, the area of concern by many parents and community leaders is mainly on sex and violence, not only in films but also in videos as well as laser discs, which remain under strict control and censorship by the Board of Film Censors. In 1991, for example, we banned a total of 368 films, videos and laser discs from being shown or imported into Singapore. Out of this number, two of them were films depicting excessive violence and another 92 were in the form of video tapes and discs. In the same year, 1991, 13 of these banned materials were as a result of having excessive sex in films and 185 in video tapes and discs. In the following year, 1992, a total of 337 were banned from entering into Singapore. Out of this, 57 were related to too much violence, one of which was a film and the other 56 were video tapes and discs. And 232 were banned because of excessive sex, 23 of them were films, and 209 were video tapes and laser discs. Last year, the total number banned has gone up to 460. Out of this, 96 were because of too much violence - 92 were in video tapes and laser discs and four of them in films.”
“Sir, I will reply on behalf of my Minister. The advancement in technology opens up new avenues for creativity and abuse. If a person uses computer materials to which he has no authorised access, he can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act. If the person uses digital technology to produce materials which are objectionable and undesirable, he may be liable under other legislation such as the Undesirable Publications Act. The person may also be subjected to civil actions that may be brought up by the offended party. Sir, from time to time, it will be necessary for us to update our laws to keep up with the revolution in technology.”
“Sir, I was not yet born in 1947. But certainly, the Member will accept that, today, you can buy almost any fruit available in the market and there is so much more to enjoy. I think it is not the same as in 1946 which was just after the War. I do not know what kind of fruits we imported then. But anyway Mr Chiam may be able to tell us.”
“They were probably imported by someone who later became a member of the PAP.”
“I think many people realise this which partly explains why many Singaporeans always go overseas and many frequently go across the Causeway, the most convenient place to go, because they want to go to a bigger country with a lot more space to move around. With their level of income here and the strong Singapore Dollar, many feel a lot richer there. In fact, many things are cheaper, and if you pay in Malaysian Ringgit, you feel even more so. As a result, some people decide to have the best of both worlds. So, they go to JB very regularly to shop. They do not mind the Causeway jams. That is their choice. Nobody is complaining. There are others who have bought their homes in Johor and shuttle to Singapore daily to work and earn a living. Again, that is their choice, no matter how uncomfortable the journey and the jams may be. However, Sir, back in Singapore, we should not start to expect the impossible, like wanting to earn a Singapore level of income but, at the same time, enjoying a Malaysian level of prices here in Singapore. Even in Johor, property prices in JB are not the same as that elsewhere in the State. Sir, in conclusion, I hope and believe that, in fact, Singaporeans will remain a people with realistic hopes and aspirations. The Government can do its bit to educate Singaporeans on this. For this, I believe, is the better way to achieve the good life.”
“With the Indochinese states joining the rest of Southeast Asia to pursue economic goals instead of political and ideological objectives, our future seems destined towards greater prosperity. Sir, at this juncture, maybe I should do a review of my own comments and observations so far. Hopefully, I have not given the impression that I am complaining too much about our complaining attitude against our own success, wealth and prosperity. I think Singaporeans generally can and will remain realistic in their expectations of the good life. They need not moderate it. In fact, they need just to be realistic. Many things are possible if you are willing to work for it. Whatever the level of prices today, especially for luxury items, like cars and properties, we need not feel so deprived. We need to remain a hardworking and possibly a smarter team of people so that we can get what we believe we could, be it a bigger HDB flat or any other. Maybe I should add that not everyone in Singapore aims to own a car and landed property and we should not assume so. Many families are enjoying the good life without one or both. They are happy living in a nice HDB apartment with many friendly neighbours. And they are the majority. Their children are growing up in a safe environment and getting good education and they are not working less hard than any other Singaporean. Sir, I believe that as a nation, we can achieve even more. Every Singaporean can do even better. In doing so, we must always be realistic. We are not as cheap as before but we are not beyond reach. And no matter how rich we become as individuals or as a nation, we remain a tiny state.”
“Today, bananas remain a favourite fruit in Singapore but no longer as cheap. But we are still buying lots of it. And in most Singapore homes today, people are eating so many varieties of imported fruits which come from all corners of the world, including Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and even as far as USA and Canada. These are clear examples of our better standard of living and quality of life. We can afford to enjoy so much more things today than ever before Life, I must say, has never been better. With such a strong demand situation in land scarce Singapore, I do not think we should be surprised that prices of properties have gone up by so much. In fact, the majority of Singaporeans who are home-owners themselves must be very happy. Their investments in properties have proven to be extremely profitable. Sir, we may never be able to explain completely what really happened the past year or so that prices of certain items have gone up by so much. Maybe properties in Singapore have been under-priced for too long. For all we know, it may even go higher in future, especially with the Asia-Pacific region looking so promising. And already, yesterday, a report on the BBC said that lots of money and probably lots more from America and elsewhere are pouring into the stocks and property markets in the region. They believe our stocks and properties are still cheap and are providing very good returns. In the midst of all these activities, there is Singapore, the global city-state. Our economy is still growing steadily and the Singapore Dollar stable and strong. Also, Sir, Southeast Asia has never been as stable and promising as it is today.”
“Are there any examples in any part of the world where the people and the country prosper but prices remain the same for 5, 10, or 20 years? Definitely not. Instead, there are too many examples of how wealth were accumulated by only a select few and misery suffered by many others in the same country and this is contrary to what is happening or has been happening in Singapore for many years. Sir, some two or three decades ago, we were still a poor nation. Before that, just a poor colony trying to survive. Our population was smaller. Even our land size was slightly smaller. Many were unemployed. Salaries were many times lower. Very few people could afford anything beyond the basic necessities. As a result, there were very few cars on the road. Even fewer people could afford their own homes, let alone landed properties. At that time also, banana was the favourite fruit, plus maybe a few local varieties. Everything was cheaper. In fact, very cheap. There was very limited demand due to very limited buying power. How things have changed. Today, there are too many cars on our roads. Most roads are crowded, even on our superb expressways. One breakdown of vehicle is enough to break the system. This despite the COE and today's high prices of cars. But then, we are still not barred, or disallowed, from buying a car. Demand is still high. Buyers have to queue for new releases. Those who cannot afford brand new cars can easily afford a second-hand car. Public transport is very good. Sir, on top of that, most people already own their own homes. A growing number, including HDB flat dwellers, has additional properties. So many can afford luxurious condominiums and landed properties. Clearly, Sir, so many of us have so much money.”
“It is our achievement as a people, as a nation. So the question is: what went wrong? Really, Sir, I must say nothing. Oh, yes! Prices have gone up. I almost forgot. But then, what is so unusual or unnatural with that, when at the same time our income levels have increased manifold for the past many years and, in most years, at a rate higher than inflation or even our own productivity. And yes, I am also sure that many of us heard that in this same world of ours, there are people in other countries who are still very, very poor, unemployed for a very long time, or even facing starvation. And we must have heard, read and saw on TV that even for those with money, lots of money, they cannot buy anything in their jumbo supermarkets simply because there was nothing available for sale. Sir, I am also sure that given a choice, there are probably many millions of people and nations who would willingly exchange what we have in abundance, that is, money, food, luxury items and the good life, with all that they have, or more correctly, with all that they do not have. It is clear that the good life here (probably seen as extremely good by others) that we so leisurely take for granted, are things that millions of others could only dream of. And yet if we all hear correctly, Singaporeans are complaining. Yes, Sir, we are complaining against our own prosperity. Prices of almost everything have gone up. That is very true. From a cup of coffee to a simple hair cut, from vegetables to HDB flats, from cars to landed property - they all cost more today than 5, 10, or 20 years ago. All these came about because we are so prosperous. How else can it come about?”
“These and others, I believe, will raise questions in the minds of many Singaporeans. In fact, Sir, for me, after going through some of these reports, I cannot help wondering whether COST is really the right issue to come under review. For that matter, I think the CRC should stand for Conscience Review Committee. This is going to be difficult, but I will try to explain what I meant. Firstly, I am sure that deep inside, many Singaporeans are happy that we have grown from a third world swamp, probably a slum, into a successful city-state, and almost fully developed. And with that come all the many fruits of our own hard work, our people's hard work, from one generation to another. And not to forget, a strong, capable, responsible and committed leadership; again from one generation to another. How lucky we are! Singaporeans today are enjoying the prosperity we have achieved. Some 90% are property owners - be they HDB flats, private flats or other landed properties. We enjoy overseas holidays. We enjoy very good food, affordable good food. At the same time, the car population keeps growing - whatever the price. After all that, there are still the billions of dollars more being invested in the stock market. And many millions of dollars more are being invested in properties and businesses overseas, be it in Malaysia, Batam, China, Australia, or other countries. All these have been achieved despite our smallness in population and land size. We do not even have enough of our own water supply, even if it is to be used for the purpose of drinking only. And no natural resources to talk about other than our own people. Sir, I am sure that deep inside, Singaporeans know and must have felt that all these cannot be anything other than a remarkable achievement.”
“" This is on the same day of the Straits Times, and I quote: "Singaporeans' expectations of what constituted the good life have contributed to the cost increases in recent years, says the CRC. There was nothing wrong with Singaporeans having high aspirations as this would motivate them to study and work hard. But given the country's scarce resources, not everyone would be able to achieve what he desires. The Singaporean notion of "the good life" would need to change in years to come, and would have to be seen as a total package. "Given the country's resource constraints, not every graduate will be able to afford a car or private property."." Sir, while I respect the views and comments made here, it seems that, to some extent, a car and a private property have been regarded as the ultimate aim of our people, mainly the graduates. This is an area which we can discuss further for I am doubtful, and I hope it is not something to be taken that everyone aspires for the same things in life. Another example, Sir, again on the same day in the Straits Times: "Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang said that the Government should increase its public spending to offset living costs." Here, Sir, on the same day, Singaporeans read and probably thought that the Member for Hougang had found a solution to the whole problem - a very simplistic one though - just increase public spending. The same approach, it seems, has been tried in other countries and so far most have not been successful. In fact, in many cases, it has been found that throwing money at problems only increases more burden to the state, taxpayers and creates more problems. Sir, these reports are examples of what Singaporeans read following the release of the CRC Report.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first congratulate the Chairman and members of the CRC for having done such a thorough review and completed a comprehensive Report. With your permission, Sir, may I highlight some of the important points in the Report which were reported in the media at the end of September. Out of the many reports in the Straits Times of 28th September, one of which has the first few paragraphs stating that: "Fast-rising wages allowed Singaporeans to enjoy higher standards of living although prices rose in the last 12 years. There were, however, sharp increases in housing, health, education and transport costs in recent years, which made people fear that more increases were coming, it added. Between 1980 and last year, prices went up by an average of 2.4 per cent. But nominal wages ... went up by 8.9 per cent over these years." Sir, this is a fairly straightforward report from the Cost Review Committee's findings. Second example - this is again in the Straits Times of 28th September: "When people say that living costs have increased, they actually mean their present lifestyle is more expensive, not that prices have gone up. Because they did not always distinguish between the two, they perceive living costs as having risen by more than what was reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)." This is another conclusion, Sir. But unlike the earlier one, this is not so straightforward a comment or observation, and I know that there are people who have difficulty understanding and accepting this view. Another example headlined "Scarce resources, so notion of the 'good life' must change.”
“Should they buy the car park lots like in condominiums?”
“Sir, I just want to ask the Member for Bukit Gombak a few questions. One, in his speech, is he suggesting that Singaporeans should pay in advance to get a car park lot when they buy a HDB flat? Two, how did he arrive at the figure of $100,000 based on $50 a month over 99 years? My calculation shows that it is about $59,000. And these are paid $50 a month, and not in advance, or a lump sum. The third question is: can the Member explain what was the main point that he wanted to drive across in his speech because I have some difficulty in trying to grasp the meaning?”
“Mr Speaker, can I ask some clarification from the Member?”
“I hope the Minister can enlighten the House on these matters and give his assessment on the current state of affairs of Singapore-Malaysia and Singapore-Indonesia defence cooperation and whether he is confident that things will develop positively in future.”