Ong Leong Boon
Singapore
“Sir, I am not at all surprised with the reply. In fact, it was more than one sentence, but the rest sounded like an apologia for what he could not offer. I am not at any time saying the Government is not doing enough. In fact, I started by saying that the Government has done quite a lot.”
“I am sure other sports associations - volley ball, basket ball, table tennis and many others - would also want very much to have similar facilities. The question is: how does one raise the necessary funds to build these centres? At this juncture, I think one can fall back upon the example of the construction of community centres.”
“460 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 1980," put and agreed to.”
“I think it is important that, in carrying out this scheme, consideration ought to be given to preserving some of these blocks because there is a social need for retaining them.”
“Sir, when I spoke earlier on, I refrained from going into the various details. But I can assure the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary that certain well-defined injuries which develop later complications could be included in the guidelines. This has been a recurrent problem in our everyday encounter with workmen's compensation.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code RD-06 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I move this amendment to seek information on the proposed Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I notice that there is a vote of more than $3 million for this Institute.”
The complete record
Every one of 320 lines we hold for Ong Leong Boon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Sir, I am coming to it very, very quickly. In essence, what I am trying to say -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad that you are also impatient with this subject. When we go on and on, there are certain characteristics that can be identified.”
“Yes, I do agree with the Minister. But, on the other hand, I am not so sure if I fully endorse the grounds that a candidate is a liability to the country. I have my reservation on the first one. He says: 'Persons who are likely to bring into Singapore wives, children or aged parents who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore;'”
“Perhaps the Hon. Minister has developed a certain immunity towards this problem. We still have not. We are not as hardened as he is. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I really hate to go on. But this subject has been raised and I - The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): You sound reluctant! Dr Ong Leong Boon: Yes, I sound reluctant, not because I am reluctant to speak but because I am reluctant to hear the same replies! Sir, on 31st July last year, the Hon. Minister in reply to a question by the Member for Kolam Ayer elaborated in fair detail the criteria for citizenship, and he gave about four qualities that are desirable for an applicant to become a Singapore citizen, and he gave seven qualities that are undesirable. The desirable qualities are: must possess a recognised professional, university or technical qualification; must be skilled or semi-skilled, entrepreneur or investor providing jobs; and must complete national service. Fair enough. I think these people are an asset to the country.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the same subject. I somewhat feel tired having to raise this subject again. But as MPs, we have our work to do. We have our constituents to attend to, and they keep on coming back. When I first started in 1972, I had people who applied for citizenship coming to see me. In 1973 I met the same faces. In 1974 I went away for a short while. I came back, and I still find the same people. They keep coming back. It does not bother the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs. It certainly bothers us!”
“Sir, this subject has been the object of so much debate year in year out.”
“Sir, I think we are all very pleased with the reply and the assurances given. We should all congratulate his Ministry for having done good work so far. I think more good work can be done. I hope the Minister will continue along this virtuous path and let us hope he is the last frontier man. With the explanation that has been given, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“That is, if you carry out a survey over a longer period of time, the rate of return to drug abuse will increase tom a figure of, say, 36.8% over a short survey to 66.5%. I think that is what is worrying us. That alone should draw our constant attention and vigilance to try and properly rehabilitate all these addicts. I think the Hon. Minister has a lot to say and he is very excited over the whole thing.”
“Does this really mean that these drug addicts refused to work? I can give another reason for that, namely, there is a normal bias towards certain jobs. Drug addicts come from different backgrounds. Some are from well-to-do families, some are tom middle income families, and some are from very poor families. They have different educational qualifications and also different character traits. True, they have a common pattern. Generally, they have a weak personality. To say that because so many per cent of them have turned down jobs means that all reformed drug addicts are lazy or refuse to work, I think, is not necessarily a logical or reasonable conclusion. The Hon. Minister has mentioned the problem of where to put drug addicts in employment. I am very happy that he has accepted the principle, and I hope he can persuade his colleagues in the Government that the same principle of wanting to put them back in normal productive work holds true for all Ministries, statutory boards, Government-owned companies or partly Government-owned companies. I think that is a tremendous idea. Then he raised another point of where to put them. Of course, the problem is one of job placement. He said, "We should not put the reformed drug addicts in a clinic." I think that is commonsense. It is like asking a person with a suicidal tendency to go to the roof top of an HDB flat. Surely you are encouraging him to jump down. It is commonsense that we should place them in places where they can be reasonably safe. Given that there is job emplacement and that he is accepted by society, there is a good chance that he will lead a normal life subsequently. Besides, Sir, I really think that the other figure which he gave regarding relapses proves my point.”
“Sir, I am very happy with the reply by the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs, particularly with the figures that he has given at this Session. I think it is particularly heartening to note the figures regarding the ratio of new drug addicts as against the old addicts that were arrested each time. I think this figure shows a dramatic improvement. If we look at the figure for April 1977, it was 2.17%. It came down to 0.85% in 1978 and in January this year it was 0.21% This indicates that the measures that we have been taking are probably meeting with more and more success, and this really brings us to the problem of rehabilitation of drug addicts. Here then is the uphill battle that we are talking about, and when several MPs and I asked the Government to take a more positive and enlightened attitude towards employing reformed drug addicts, we were really thinking along this direction. As I said earlier on, we have no illusions as to the battle to totally convert drug addicts to normal behaviour and normal life. We should certainly try to place these reformed addicts to employment and for those who were previously employed we should try to restore their previous jobs. These are tangible means that the Government can do and must do. True, this is an uphill battle. This requires the cooperation of all concerned - parents, employers and the Government. I think this is the message that should be driven home. 6.30 p.m. I must congratulate the Member for Kampong Kembangan for taking the initiative in tackling the problem in Kampong Kembangan. He deserves a big applause for the fine work he has done. However, as he has said, and later on supplemented by the Minister, regarding the number of drug addicts refusing jobs, I am not so sure about the figures.”
“I can recall the reply from the former Senior Minister of State for Finance to the Member for Khe Bong regarding the Government's attitude towards drug addicts who have reformed. I thought the reply was not very satisfactory because the attitude was that if a reformed drug addict applied for a job and there was another person, not a drug addict, who also applied for the job, then chances were that they would employ the other person and dump the reformed drug addict. I think this is an important issue and it is necessary for us at this juncture to take stock of the situation. We have with us enormous problems. To me, it is a national problem. Thousands of youths are involved and, therefore, thousands of families in Singapore are involved. I think it should therefore attract the attention of the Government for an understanding attitude towards them. We should try to help them, and in this direction I think we can. Let us take the lead through the Government ministries and statutory boards and in so doing set an example for the private employers to follow.”
“Recently in Singapore we had some public information and a debate and discussion on this issue. This was highlighted in a case where someone was employed by a statutory board but subsequently dismissed because they discovered that he was formerly a drug addict. This really is the crux of the matter. If statutory boards and Government organisations or ministries do not adopt a more enlightened attitude towards drug addicts returning to employment, then one naturally cannot expect the private sector to do the same. I am taking this opportunity to call upon the Government to take the lead in situations like this, so that we can actually and properly add another measure to help in the rehabilitation of former drug addicts. Sir, I think this is important. Of course, I do not have any illusions as to the problem of trying to rehabilitate a drug addict. The problems are many. They can be social, educational or can well be emotional or psychological, and from my experience with them a good number of drug addicts do have many of these factors operating. So giving them their jobs back is just one of the possible means to help them. I repeat, this is important, because if we do not ensure that we help these drug addicts as far as possible (I think the Government is in a position to do so) then very soon we will find that we are not as successful in our programme of rehabilitation as we possibly want it to be. I would, therefore, once again say that this is important, and I hope the Minister for Home Affairs could enlighten this House on this matter. I do not know whether the recent discussion in this Chamber on this issue has any bearing on the attitude of the Government.”
“In our Singapore experience, one gets the feeling that the rate of recidivism appears to increase with a longer follow-up. I think this is to be expected because, if we conduct a trial over a shod period of time, we will get the impression that a good percentage are, in fact, rehabilitated. But over a longer period of time, we will find that the percentage of those who returned to taking drugs will increase. This is obviously a tremendous problem. The Minister for Home Affairs has also enlightened this House with regard to the regime of treatment of drug addicts. Last year the Hon. Minister went to great lengths to explain the five stages in the cold turkey treatment involving detoxification, recuperation, indoctrination and subsequently physical and mental rehabilitation, and phase V consists of work schemes to restore drug addicts to employment. Sir, in this particular aspect, I think it is important for us at this point of time to take stock of the situation. I refer here, in particular, to the rehabilitation programme because it is not possible for the Government to continue to apprehend drug addicts who have returned to drugs after a stint in the DRCs and to continue to put them in these centres. I think a more effective programme of rehabilitation is called for. However, I would like, first of all, to invite the Minister to give us some facts and figures regarding the dimension of the problem that we are talking about. Two points here about rehabilitation. Do we have experience from other countries where similar drug problems exist, and whether they have been able to succeed where we have failed? The other point is in regard to the return to employment of these drug addicts.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code QG-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the problem of drug addiction and abuse in Singapore has become a big one. It has been attracting the attention of the Government over the past few years, and I think the enormity of this problem is really demonstrated by the fact that something like 1% of national servicemen are known to be drug abusers. If we take this figure and reflect it on the population at large, one would appreciate the problem. It would mean that there are something like 15,000 people who are known to abuse drugs. Last year when the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs gave figures on drug addicts and abusers generally, he mentioned that, excluding those already under detention at the drug rehabilitation centres, as of January 1978, there were 5,164. This figure was larger than the previous year. It was 11,600. As a consequence of very active measures having been taken, particularly Operation Ferret I and II, where we were given a total figure of 26,000 arrests made, the drug situation, in the words of the Government, is contained. This is a happy note for all of us, but the situation in actual fact is not at all rosy and I would urge the Government to further continue with this enforcement and rehabilitation programme to rid our country of the menace of drug abuse. Going back to the question of drug abusers themselves, I think we are not particularly happy to note that the rate of recidivism is, in fact, quite high. The rates that have been given by the various centres varied from something like 90% - in some places the rate is lower - to 50% of drug addicts going back to drugs.”
“But for my part, the cooperation that we have received so far has been adequate and we look forward to continuing cooperation from the Police to help alleviate or solve these problems.”
“Sir, I would like to join in this discussion on the Police cooperation with the local Member of Parliament. I would like to associate myself with the Member for Whampoa in congratulating the Police for being generally a very helpful branch of Government, in the sense that in my work too, similar to that done in Whampoa, in attending to problems like crime, delinquency and drugs within my constituency, we have found that the Police have given us very good cooperation all-round. Besides sending an officer to attend the meetings of the Citizens' Consultative Committee, we also have a very active woman police sergeant to sit in a special committee for crime and drug prevention. In fact, the Police have helped us to spearhead certain campaigns directed at certain problem areas within the constituency. For all that, I feel that the information and the cooperation that have been provided are adequate for the purpose of attending to these problems within the constituency. I must also add here that I think it is vitally important that the Police should not disclose too much information because confidentiality is important and it is right that we should protect the rights of our citizens who may be rightly or wrongly detained, whichever the case may be. With the information that is provided, I think it is sufficient for the Member of Parliament and the local community leaders to direct their attention to these problems. I really have no quarrel here. The Member for Kampong Kembangan's problems have arisen probably because his attention is directed at attempting to personally help these criminals or delinquents. Maybe that is what gave him problems because with insufficient data he felt a bit obstructed in going about his work.”
“To channelize the procedure, all applications received by the 10 offices will have to be sent to the Headquarters, and it might even, take a longer time for these applications to be processed through the centre and sent back. That is why we think it is better for the individual office concerned to deal directly with separate cases of applications for vacancies in the market under its jurisdiction. This would save time and a lot of trouble. Mr Ho See Beng( In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to my question. At the moment, in the market in my Constituency there are about a dozen stalls lying vacant, I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the applicants should apply to the HDB or to the Hawkers' Department for these hawker stalls? Would he kindly enlighten us?”
“This is no fancy-talk but real. On the other hand the Member for Kim Seng said that we should not pass the buck round to the different Government departments. This is not a fault with the Government department or administration, but it is really the applicant who has brought about this. Let me quote just one example, There was an application for a hawker stall under the HDB. The applicant wanted to apply to the Ministry of the Environment instead of the HDB. He was told that the hawker stall was under the HDB, and because we wanted to help him, we asked him to fill up the forms nevertheless and we helped him to transfer his application to the department concerned. There are similar cases. Some people living in HDB estates wanted to apply for hawker stalls in a market but it happened that the market concerned belongs to our department. That means the Area office concerned would have to transfer such applications to us. That is why applications are being transferred to and fro. There are other cases where stallholders under our department went a transfer to other stalls belonging to the HDB. So they will have to come to our department to apply for the necessary recommendation to the HDB area office concerned for the transfer. That is one reason why there is this duplication of procedure every now and then. 4.00 p.m. As regards whether such matters could be channelled into one centre, this matter was raised some two years ago. After careful consideration and also some experimenting, we found that there was more duplication of work and the delay was even longer. So we stopped short at that. For instance, at the moment there are altogether 8 or 9 HDB Area Offices. There will be one more such office to be added.”
“Sir, from the replies that we have received from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, it is quite clear to us here that in the work of meeting their constituents Members of Parliament have always been confronted with this problem of where to refer an applicant to. Very often when we refer the applicant to the HDB, the reply comes back, "No". and we may have, at the applicant's request, to again refer the matter to the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, sometimes an application to the Ministry of National Development may have to be referred to the Ministry of the Environment. I think there is a lot of unnecessary duplication in this. For the applicants themselves, this gives rise to a lot of running about and confusion, and there is a lot of unnecessary paper work and bureaucracies involved in this same exercise. Why is it not possible to centralise all applications for hawker licences through one channel? I think that would make life much easier. From the experience of the Ministry of the Environment, in the words of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, there has been cause for concern that there seems to be two different arms doing the same thing. And the example raised by the Member for Khe Bong is absolutely true. I can quote my own example, but I will just be giving one more instance for the same reason. Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I would like to touch on what the Member for Jalan Kayu has said, as to whether there have truly been such cases of "transfer". In actual fact, it should be "subletting". After the hawker has got his mall he cannot officially transfer or assign it to another. So he sublets it. There have been a few cases of subletting, not re-assigning or transferring.”
“Sir, I am very delighted with the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not exactly endorse the view that it is not a question of enforcement. If we in Singapore want to ensure that the environment is clean and green and impose a $500 fine for littering, the chances are that most people will behave. I agree, however, that education is important but this is a much slower process.”
“I notice an increase of dirt in and around the blocks of HDB flats. I had an occasion to go around and I even asked the Estate Officers about this. According to them, the problem lies with the sub-contract workers. It is difficult to get - these workers because of the salary and also partly because it is really very difficult to ensure that these same people do carry out the cleaning up of the estates dutifully. If that be the case, I wonder if the Minister for the Environment has any comments to make on this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, we are extremely fortunate in the sense that our country has been recognised locally and internationally as a place where tremendous emphasis is placed on cleaning the environment and ensuring that we are a pollution-free nation. I think this is very evident on the roads, in homes and on the beaches. The Government has ensured this through persuasion and also at times through measures to ensure that people do make the environment clean, green and gracious. However, I choose this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister the question of littering on the roads and public places. Ever since we started the anti-littering campaign, the environment has been definitely cleaner than before. However, it is my observation over the last year or so that more and more people seem to have forgotten that they must know where to put their rubbish and not just throw them on to the roads and public places without any regard. It has become a pretty common sight to see drivers or passengers in cars throwing out cigarette butts and boxes. Sometimes I even see cans being thrown out of cars. I wonder if this is because a lot of people, both local or work permit holders, have forgotten the anti-littering campaign and the laws we have enforced so strongly before, or is it because many people have just blatantly disregarded the law? I would ask the Minister if he would consider greater enforcement of the anti-littering laws. The second point relates to my observation of the Housing Board estates. I am not sure if this matter comes under the Ministry of the Environment.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister another question? Is it because there is a need to preserve these red light areas that he is not able to flush out all the gangsters?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister if he will enlighten this House on the reasons why gangsterism is so predominant in the areas he highlighted?”
“Sir, I think what is important really in highlighting these two topics is the fact that all parties concerned should pay an increasing and further interest on the subject. I think it is a very easy mistake to make if we think in terms of polarised position. Here we are appealing for cooperation from the various parties involved to improve the working environment for workers. In this context, I think the Ministry of Labour is indeed to be congratulated for the work it has put in, its enforcement measures, although we know that it is working under trying conditions. To avoid further cross-fire between the Government and the employer, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“occupational cancer, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said last year that they would be looking into this matter. Sir, I think it is important that the Labour Ministry should look into these areas. In fact, in certain work places where lip service is paid to the concept of industrial safety and health and where some employers appoint safety officers and safety committees just for the sake of complying with the regulations, then there must be more than just this compliance with the law. Actually it is my intention here to ask the Ministry of Labour whether, after all these years of talking about coordination, there are plans to set up an institution for the training of safety personnel under a more concerted and coordinated programme. This is important because as of now the job of attending to these areas lies separately with the employers, the union and the Government. Perhaps an Institute for Occupational Health and Safety could be established with haste. Sir, I hope the Labour Ministry could comment on the points which I have raised. 6.15 p.m.”
“It is important for the Government to periodically review its laws and regulations to ensure that we achieve a more acceptable level of industrial health and safety. Sir, on the part of the National Trades Union Congress, we shall give whatever assistance possible and support to ensure that the programmes for industrial health and safety are carried out. We on our part will continue to further our efforts. However, there is a noticeable reluctance on the part of some employers to appreciate the value of industrial health and safety. Some of them are, in fact, penny wise pound foolish, and they have yet to accept the fact that job safety and productivity are closely inter-related. Sir, a few examples where more intensification of enforcement could be carried out would be in respect of problems like noise-induced deafness which the former Member for Potong Pasir had very strongly advocated. If we were to refer to the statistics over the years, there is a very definite and sharp rise in the incidence of noise-induced deafness. I do hope that the Ministry of Labour will carry out compulsory screening of workers whose workplaces expose them to noise levels unacceptable for normal hearing. In respect of the use of chemicals, solvents, etc., I think it is important that the Government should insist that where chemicals are involved adequate notices be placed to inform workers of the chemicals they are using and of the dangers involved. Last year the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave a breakdown of the number of cases of industrial dermatitis, a total of some 177 cases. I think the figure could probably be higher this year. In respect of the new and more frightening area, i.e.”
“Sir, it is normally not my practice to touch on this subject but I am sure we all miss very sorely the presence of the former Member for Potong Pasir and more so the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Anyway, the subject of industrial safety and health is a matter of utmost importance in the context of Singapore today. The subject is made even more significant and pressing with the event of last year. Here I am sure Members know that I am referring to the national disaster, the Spyros incident. As this is a matter which is now before the court, it is not my intention to discuss the subject at any length or in detail other than to say that because of the disasters in industry such as this, it is very important that all parties concerned in the promotion of industrial health and safety pay more and more attention to this aspect. I am very happy to note that under the vote for Ministry of Health in respect of the item 'Employment Standards Programme', there is an increase of about $250,000 or 9.8%, and that the major contributing factor to this increase is the creation of 10 posts to enable the Factory Inspectorate to step up the enforcement of industrial safety laws and regulations. Sir, we note that in spite of the various concerted efforts by the Ministry of Labour and supported by the unions, we still continue to see a very high incidence of industrial accidents, in some cases leading to fatalities, in particular, the shipbuilding and repairing industry, the construction industry and, of course, the metal working industry. I think it is important that we should re-emphasise the need for Government, Employer and Labour to join hands to achieve industrial health and safety.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code MC-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, with your permission, can I also speak on my next amendment because the two subjects are interrelated, that is, industrial safety and industrial health.”
“Sir, I am also equally surprised that the Minister for Health has been rather stingy with tough remarks in this direction. I would just like to say that in actual fact we agree in the principle; perhaps in terms of approach it is different. As regards volunteering for the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, that is a private matter. I can see the Minister afterwards on that matter. Because of the very satisfactory reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Is this our experience? The last point which I wish to comment on is the zoning of the hospitals. As we all know, Singapore is now divided into four zones and all general hospitals are treated alike. However, due to population shifts, some hospitals are increasingly getting less patients while others are facing a comparative overload of patients, and the spread of medical personnel is not exactly even. I refer, of course, in particular to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital where in certain departments there is a tremendous overload of patients. I wonder if the Hon. Minister for Health would comment on this, and if he considers it necessary to rezone some of the hospitals to ensure that patients receive equal standard of care and speedy treatment.”
“I support the Government's concern that talent must be better spread amongst the various disciplines at the University. Indeed, it is timely that measures are taken to ensure a more even share of good students among the disciplines. I feel, however, that there are other means available to ensure the spread of talent without resorting to prohibitive measures, such as public education or incentives in the form of attractive scholarships and bursaries, better job and promotional opportunities could be offered to attract students to move away from medicine and dentistry to study the other professional courses, or the sciences, arts and social sciences. By denying certain top students from pursuing a course of study they elect, the Government cannot be assured that these top students will enrol in courses the Government favours. The introduction of such a ruling must surely come as a rude shock to many students and parents alike. I hate to say that it has come as an unhappy reminder to them that they no longer have an absolute free choice in determining careers for themselves or for their children. As regards the ruling that fewer ladies be allowed to study medicine and dentistry on the ground that job placement in the Health Ministry is more difficult for them than for men, I wonder if it is not the common experience of other employers in other fields in dealing with female employees. I am sure that women libbers will have a lot more to say on this matter than I have. For myself, I would like to enquire from the Health Minister if he has facts and figures to show that female doctors locally are indeed a more difficult species of homo sapiens. I know that the Health Minister knows that the British experience has it that 15-20% of lady doctors are lost after graduation.”
“If the principle of bonding was that they are on public subsidy, then I contend that other students should likewise be bonded to serve the Government for varying periods on a pro rata basis. That was evidently not the case. I must, however, congratulate the Health Minister for finally settling the issue amicably by offering students to sign a pledge or undertaking to serve in the Health Ministry after graduation. We know, of course, that one really cannot expect the Government to buckle in the face of student opposition. Under the circumstances the "undertaking" was the next best alternative, and all medical and dental students had subsequently and grudgingly signed the undertaking. More disturbing, however, was the way the University reacted to the issue. A clumsy and unthinking declaration was issued to the effect that recalcitrant graduates would not be conferred degrees if they did not sign the bond. I would have thought that the University should know the distinction between the conferment of degrees which is its job and full medical registration to practise in Singapore which is the prerogative of the Health Ministry, and specifically the Singapore Medical Council. The second bombshell was delivered a few days ago. The Government, alarmed at the uneven spread of talent, announced that too many top students at "A" level were opting to study medicine and dentistry; henceforth only 15% or 19 students, whichever is the lesser, of the top students in the bracket 60-64 points at "A" level will be allowed to pursue University courses in medicine and dentistry. Further, not more than one-third of the total University intake in these two courses can be female students.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1100 of Subhead Code KA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year at this same Budget Session, I spoke at some length offering some ways and means of retraining junior staff in the Health Service. I had, in fact, suggested that no special treatment in terms of fulfilling National Service obligations be accorded students who wish to pursue a career in medicine and dentistry. I further suggested that doctors be made to serve in the Government hospitals for 2 - 3 years after housemanship as part of professional requirements for full medical registration to ensure better trained doctors and, at the same time, this will ensure an adequate supply of medical officers to man the various posts in the public health service. The Hon. Health Minister appeared pleased with my views last year. Although he did not agree in toto, he was delighted enough to say "it is not always that the Member for Kim Seng see eye to eye with me on the question of doctors." Little did I expect a bombshell so soon afterwards when the Government introduced compulsory bonding of medical and dental students to serve a period of 5-8 years after graduation. I would like to say that I give tremendous credit to the medical and dental students who rallied together to oppose compulsory bonding. I must confess my personal objection to the practice of selective bonding of students on the grounds that these students receive the heaviest public subsidy for their education, as compared to students in the other professional courses, the arts and sciences.”
“The other point which I would like to speak on concerns the role of community centres, and this was very adequately elaborated in the report on the Third Conference of Community Centres' Management Committees in April 1978. Looking through the list of recommendations from a knowledge of community centre needs to new directions, to child care centres, etc., one gets the impression that if each community centre could function efficiently, then it becomes totally redundant for us to have the Ministries of Finance, Social Affairs, Culture, Education, and even the Ministry of Home Affairs. I think it is really important for us to remember the words of the Deputy Prime Minister - the Senior Minister of State is here - when he advised the People's Association to be realistic in its approach towards what it can do and what it cannot do. On this note, we hope that the People's Association, in its approach to the role of community centres, will be more pragmatic and down to earth and be realistic in setting out its goals.”
“At that time we were happy to note, in fact, we were joyous to discover, that the Government was very generous to increase the subsidy to a sum which we thought would be more than adequate in terms of Government participation in helping us build new centres. For phase one we were advised that if a constituency could raise $100,000 then phase one, with a Government subsidy of $350,000, could begin. For phase two, it was a dollar-for-dollar subsidy up to a maximum of $200,000. Working on that basis, therefore, if each constituency were to raise $100,000 to $200,000, making a total of $300,000, they would be in a happy situation to develop both phase one and phase two of a modern community centre. This figure was hard to reach. Nevertheless in some constituencies they have arrived at the target figure of $300,000. Unfortunately for reasons best known to the People's Association, through their architects in the HDB or through difficulty in getting money out of the Ministry of Finance, we find that although money had been raised in some constituencies one, two or even three years ago, the centres are still not being built. What is unfortunate really is that the cost of building materials keeps going up, and if tenders are delayed three to six months the cost goes up by 10%, 20%, or even 30%. My good friend, the Member for Brickworks who sits across on the other side, had enough money to build a $900,000 modern community centre, only to discover that it now costs him $1.1 million. I think this is an experience which is not unique to Brickworks. Because of that I thought maybe it is important that the People's Association would expedite all this bureaucracy in getting the new building plans approved as soon as possible.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 3110 of Subhead Code IF-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, looking at the Budget allocation for the People's Association for the last three years, the amount of expenditure for the People's Association has increased from $14 million in 1977 to nearly $19 million in 1978, and to $23 million in 1979. The increases of almost $5 million in 1977-78 and $4 million-plus in 1978-79 were actually due to the increase in development expenditure. The People's Association has started drawing up a list of community centres that require rebuilding. For 1978, something like a dozen community centres were supposed to have been pulled down and modern new centres built. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State with direct responsibility for the running of the People's Association, to enlighten this House as to the actual progress made in the rebuilding of these various centres earmarked for rebuilding in 1978. 4.15 p.m. I had the experience of fund-raising to build my centre and, like the experiences of my colleagues here, fund-raising really is not an enjoyable experience. It requires a lot of hard work on the part of the volunteer workers at the constituency level, with the participation of people inside and outside the constituency. I think it is very important that we should record our appreciation of all those people who have given so much of their time and attention and, in the case of many people, money, towards rebuilding schemes. What I find somewhat disappointing really is the fact that in 1977 or 1978, we were all advised by the People's Association, and I am sure also the Ministry of Finance for being partly responsible, as to the cost of building new centres.”
“Sir, I really would like to re-emphasise the point that in every constituency there are so many grassroots organisations. Right now we already have the MCs. In some constituencies, there is only one MC and in others there may be more than one. We already have the CCCs. In some constituencies, we also have educational centres which have been set up with Management Committees. And now we have the Residents' Committees. So in each constituency, we are going to have a situation where there are three, four and maybe five or even more committees going. It is interesting to note that virtually all of these committees would come under the portfolio of the Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office. That being so, I think it is probably very good from the point of view of rationalising, streamlining and coordination to have their responsibilities better defined. From our experience at the grassroots level, I have said earlier that these people are volunteer workers who do it out of community spirit, but the question of recognition and according esteem and status could well be the primary motive of some of these workers. Unless we can resolve this issue, the introduction of new committees, like the RCs, may add on to the already complex situation as some of us have experienced.”
“Further, while members are accorded social recognition, it is also necessary to extend such recognition to RC members, even though we know and appreciate that RC members, who like CCC members, are volunteers who out of pure selfless altruism and community spirit work for the betterment of their fellowmen. 3.45 p.m.”
“In that scheme, each constituency was given sufficient leeway to modify the composition and structure of RCs. However, I cannot recall any sitting of Parliament over the past two years when the subject of Residents' Committees was raised and discussed. I am therefore seeking this opportunity to invite the Minister responsible to report to this House on the institution of Residents' Committees, the progress of RCs already established and, if available, a critical analysis on the performance so far, and to elaborate on their role in the social life of the community. I wish to state here that I support in principle the formation of Residents' Committees. There are, as we know, many good reasons for residents in any block of HDB flats to form such a committee to promote neighbourliness, goodwill and understanding amongst residents, to liaise with other existing committees in the constituency and to consult with the Members of Parliament to promote the physical environment and the social affairs of all residents. Before I start similar Residents' Committees in Kim Seng Constituency, I wish to hear and learn from the experience gained in those constituencies with RCs under the pre-pilot and pilot schemes. Most important, I would like to satisfy myself and my constituents that these committees, in practice, will further enhance the living environment in the physically compact and densely populated HDB estates, and that there are adequate safeguards in the formation of RCs to ensure that such committees will not one day turn out to be miniature Trojan Horses working against the interests of residents. There is, I think, a need to rationalise the similar, though different, roles of RCs and CCCs.”
“Sir, I would like to say that I share some of the reservations which the hon. Member for Punggol has voiced earlier on. In many ways, my constituency and Punggol are not the same. Punggol now has the new experience of Housing Board flats in its constituency. The formation of Residents' Committees is, I understand, directed primarily at Housing Board flats. The departure from the typical environment of lorongs and kampongs, typical in Punggol, is something which my constituents can only look back with nostalgia. Sir, in 1978 a revised sum of $130,000 was allocated for Development expenditure under the item "Residents' Committees", and if we look at the budget allocation for this year the sum is $1,113,050. This represents a nine-fold increase in estimated expenditure. I am therefore led to believe that the concept of Residents' Committees is now institutionalised and will be further expanded into more constituencies with Housing and Development Board estates, when residents will be required to form RCs to look after the physical and social affairs of their estates, I am also informed that the concept of RCs could be extended to rural constituencies. These RCs will, I hope, complement the role of existing committees in each constituency. By these committees, I refer to the Citizens' Consultative Committee, Community Centre Management Committee, Youth Group, Women's Sub-committee and the Constituency Sports Association. The introduction of Residents' Committees was made, I believe, two years ago through the pre-pilot scheme which was started in Marine Parade and Bedok. Undoubtedly, there must have been qualified success. Following that, a pilot scheme was subsequently started in 1978 in five constituencies of Ang Mo Kio, Boon Lay, Kolam Ayer, Toa Payoh and Bukit Merah.”
“Further stopover surcharge at Singapore or any ASEAN country should be nominal and not prohibitive as proposed, and finally there should be no reduction on present airline capacity between Australia and Singapore and there should be provision made for future increases in airline capacity based on traffic demand between Australia and Singapore. It is indeed heartening to note that ASEAN has decided to adopt a common stand on this matter and presently are engaged in negotiations with the Australian Government in Canberra. It is my purpose this afternoon to highlight this issue and to reinforce our Government and ASEAN's common position vis-a-vis the new Australian policy. Let us stand firm on our convictions. Let us remind Australia that no shortsighted, protectionist move on its part will be acceptable to its ASEAN neighbours. Let us impress upon Australia that any act of hostility towards 250 million ASEAN neighbours will only harm Australia in the medium and long-term and, finally, while we hesitate to think of retaliatory measures, pending the outcome of the present negotiations, it is perhaps not untimely for us to re-examine a previously unquestioned assumption, and that is that Australia has been regarded traditionally as a friendly part of Southeast Asia. 4.07 p.m.”
“traffic from Indonesia to Australia. Without traffic rights between intermediate points and Australia, certain European carriers would also have to reduce their operations to Australia as well as Singapore. This will, in turn, reduce SIA and other ASEAN airlines operations to the countries of these carriers. What are the implications for ASEAN countries? They are similar. In 1977, the number of Australians who visited the other ASEAN countries by air was as follows: Indonesia 53,000; Malaysia 57,000; Philippines 60,000 and Thailand 63,000. It is again estimated that about one-half of these Australian visitors represents stopover traffic. Further, intra-ASEAN traffic rights may have to be given to the European airlines or any other non-ASEAN airlines to compensate such airlines for the loss of their traffic rights between intermediate points, i.e. Southeast Asia and Australia. This would mean a drop in market share for the ASEAN airlines in the intra-ASEAN air traffic market. Singapore has stated quite categorically that it welcomes the concept of low fares, but we are extremely concerned about the Australian proposal to allow only Qantas and the national carrier of the other country to carry passengers on such end-to-end low fares. We subscribe to the principle of open competition and free enterprise in international civil aviation and we contend that airlines other than Qantas and the national carrier of the country concerned should be allowed to participate in such low fares. This will be to the benefit of the travelling public.”
“Perhaps if Singapore Airlines had been less aggressive in hard-sell and more discreet in advertising, Qantas might tackle Freddie Laker's challenge without resorting to unfriendly acts that spell of protectionism. This new policy arrangement dictating duopoly on the Australia/UK route for Qantas and British Airways to the exclusion of fifth freedom carriers like SIA smacks of collusion between the two governments. The Australian initiative will eventually lead to aviation protectionism which, if allowed to grow into global proportions, will benefit only the airlines of developed countries and those airlines with big domestic markets. This will surely raise the ugly spectre of developed countries ganging up to squeeze out of business airlines from the multitude of less developed countries. It is indeed ironic that the Prime Minister of Australia should take such pains to go aknocking at EEC capitals seeking preferential treatment for Australian goods and exports and dejectedly accused the EEC of protectionism, whilst at home in Australia without any hesitation erected trade barriers, import restrictions and other protectionist measures against exports of ASEAN and other developing countries to Australia. What are the implications of AICAP for Singapore? These are two-fold: Tourism and Aviation. Based on 1977 figures of 200,000 Australian visitors, half of whom represent stopover traffic, and each Australian visitor spending about $452 in Singapore, the annual loss to the tourist industry will be about $45.2 million. For the Aviation industry SIA would lose the opportunity to carry passengers between Australia and UK/Europe. SIA will not be able to carry traffic from intermediate points between Singapore and Australia to and from Australia, e.g.”
“This restructuring of air routes would result in changes to the present traffic flows, but Australia asserts that the introduction of lower end-to-end fares on all routes would result in an increase in traffic volume. However, to achieve higher seat factor (i.e. occupancy rate) that would support commercially viable operations at lower fares, Australia maintains that there would be need to have a reduction on total capacity presently operating into and out of Australia. Australia has, therefore, proposed reductions in the number of Singapore Airlines' flights between Australia and Singapore on the premise that the existing frequency will become excessive as Singapore Airlines, being a third country carrier on the Australia/UK/Europe route, will no longer be able to participate in the end-to-end traffic carriage between Australia and UK/Europe. Mr Speaker, Sir, this new Australian policy smacks of protectionism for their national airline - Qantas Airways. The AICAP is protectionistic because a special low fare would be introduced which would prevent passengers from making stopovers en route. The present stopover surcharge of A$75 would be raised to between A$302 (S$755) and A$432 (S$1,080) under the AICAP. This policy would effectively cause the bulk of passengers going from Australia to Europe to travel by Qantas or British Airways and forgo stopovers in ASEAN as the cost of making a stopover in any of the ASEAN countries would be prohibitive. It may be that the phenomenal growth of Singapore's tourism from half a million tourists in 1970 to two million in 1978, and Singapore Airlines' spectacular success story overwhelmed our friends in Australia.”
“On the occasion of the Chinese Vice-Premier Teng Hsiao-Ping's visit to Singapore in November 1978, our Prime Minister noted that the geopolitical situation in Asia was changing so rapidly that many people are now re-examining previously unquestioned assumptions. In order to minimise surprises and to ensure Singapore's durable future and peace in Southeast Asia, we have to try and identify "the key forces which are shaping the future of the world". The need to re-examine a previously unquestioned assumption is singularly true in respect of civil aviation and tourism. It is my hope this afternoon to contribute to the debate on the President's Address by expanding on this subject. I am referring specifically to the new Australian International Civil Aviation Policy (AICAP). If unchecked or unchallenged, the new arrangements for Qantas and British Airways to monopolise the end-to-end traffic between Australia and Britain will be implemented by 1st February 1979 with serious consequences to our aviation and tourist industries. What is the new Australian International Civil Aviation Policy? This policy was announced by the Minister of Transport, Mr P.J. Nixon, on 11th October 1978. The Australian ICAP maintains that there is inefficient use of resources in the provision of air services resulting in passengers having to pay higher fares than necessary. AICAP provides for traffic between two countries to be carried only by the national carriers of these two countries. All other airlines would be excluded from carrying such end-to-end traffic. It follows, therefore, that only Qantas and British Airways would be allowed to carry the end-to-end traffic between Australia and London.”
“We must continue, as we had demonstrated in the past, to develop the capacity and flexibility to accommodate external events, no matter how painful these adjustments may be; so as to ensure our further growth and national sovereignty, Singaporeans must discard the mantle of insularity and look bravely upon the world as our hinterland. We must also be able to critically evaluate developments, regional and global, which may sooner or later have implications for Singapore. We must learn to read beyond words and written assurances. In our relations with other countries let us judge others as others judge us by actions and deeds and not promises. In October 1978 the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr Pham Van Dong junketed around ASEAN capitals with the olive branch in one hand and liberally proclaimed verbal promises of respect for national sovereignty and territorial inviolability. Three months later, Vietnamese forces blatantly invaded Kampuchea leading to the dramatic collapse of Phnom Penh and sent Pol Pot into the jungle. Whether the rape of Kampuchea represents proxy war or fratricide, the fall of Phnom Penh serves as a telling reminder to all ASEAN countries the urgency to rally together for greater economic, social and political cooperation, and to further translate potentialities of ASEAN into realities. In this context, I have serious doubts about the statement in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Addendum which declared: 'For Southeast Asia, the post-Vietnam period, defying earlier predictions, has turned out to be more hopeful, particularly for the ASEAN countries'. We know, of course, that statement was made just two weeks before the fall of Kampuchea.”
“Mr Speaker; Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Serangoon Gardens, thanking the President for his Address on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament on 26th December, 1978. At the same time, allow me to heartily congratulate President Sheares on his unanimous re-election to a third term as President of the Republic. May I wish him many years of good health and happiness. I am confident that Singapore will continue to develop and prosper under his wise and able leadership. In his Address, President Sheares highlighted three major issues that will influence events and focus the attention of this Parliament: namely, the world economy vis-a-vis Singapore's economic growth, the conflicts in Indo-China and repercussions for Thailand and Southeast Asia, and thirdly, the question of Singapore's future political leadership. Many hon. Members have delved at great length into these subjects and I do not propose to go further into these other than to say that I have no doubt that under the Government's direction, Singapore will, as recent history has proven, find the right solutions to these major challenges for the immediate future. May I join in the usual rhetoric and exhortation to all Singaporeans not to take the good life we presently enjoy for granted and to stress the virtue of hard work and industry. We must also be prepared for less favourable times. Singaporeans must be cautioned of the need to understand our vulnerability to events and developments in this region and the world; factors and variables which are beyond us to influence or control, and to be guardedly optimistic about the future.”
“Sir, as time is running short and as a lover of a less expensive and less dangerous sport, could I kindly just ask the Hon. Minister in charge if he could elaborate on the Master Plan for Sports for the next five years? If the information released previously were true, what progress has been made? Was any emphasis given at all for the construction of indoor stadia, and in fact is any indoor stadium to be built?”