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 5 of 7.
“Sir, I have never suggested that it is pleasurable. But since he is so persistent, he should go for a stint for a month and come back and report to us. We will then cheer him all the way, Sir. Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we should end this debate on lift attendants. The Member for Sembawang has totally missed the objectives of the Vigilante Corps.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I help resolve this situation? Before the Member for Sembawang makes this proposal, I would suggest that he himself goes on a lift-attending stint and then come back and advise this House as to whether it is pleasurable or otherwise.”
“Sir, I think the situation is getting from bad to worse. We on the Backbenches plead with the Minister, since he is a man with feelings, emotions and, we hope, with sympathy. We are dealing with a situation where these people have been living here for umpteen years. They have families here. Their husbands and children are here. Some of them even have their grandchildren here. It would, therefore, appear that to all intents and purposes, although they might not be citizens, the fact is that they are here. Therefore, there is no way in which one could think of really kicking them across the Straits of Johore. They are here to stay whether he likes it or not, or whether he grants them citizenship status or let them remain as non-citizens. But since they are here, why not grant them permanent residence status? Let us not keep this as another skeleton in our cupboard, and continue to maintain a posture which to me is oblivious of reality. I hope the Minister will be very obliging and humanitarian enough to look at the facts and consider them with sympathy.”
“Sir, I find the answers given by the Minister are not very satisfactory. He has said that the essential considerations were that "the husband must be well able to support the family" and that "these individuals will not be a burden on society". I would certainly like further definition of these two terms. To me, without any clearer definition, it gives the Immigration Department tremendous arbitrary powers to do as and when it thinks fit, I would certainly hope that the Minister could give much clearer guidelines to this House so that we can on our part do our little bit in explaining to the applicants. I also asked for his advice with regard to how visit passes could be extended from two weeks to three months, and from three months to six months, and subsequently to permanent residence. I maintain there are (lute a number of non-citizen wives who are on a two-week visit passes and that their applications for extension to three months have been rejected on grounds which we are unable to find out. Certainly there must be certain considerations here, and could the Minister let this House know? I am aware of the case of a lady who has been married to a Singapore-citizen husband for about 20 years now. They have four children. She is still on a $1 5-visa fee plus the inconvenience of having to travel to and from Johore Bahru. The Minister has not answered my third point, that is, on the stateless people in Singapore and how they may apply for travel documents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the sentiments expressed by the Members for Jalan Kayu and Anson During our meet-the-people sessions we come across numerous cases week in and week-out of problems with Immigration Department regarding applications for extension of stay in Singapore. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what are the considerations of the Immigration Department in granting a non-citizen wife a two-week stay in Singapore, and what are the considerations in extending this to three months or six months? We have numerous examples of a non-citizen wife who has been on a three-month visa for umpteen years. Surely at some point the camel's back has got to break. I think some reasonable explanation should be given. Secondly, Sir, I would like therefore to ask the Hon. Minister what are the criteria that the Immigration Department use for awarding permanent residence status to these people. Similarly, I would like to ask the Minister: are the same considerations used with regard to non-citizen husbands of Singaporeans? The third point I hope the Minister could elaborate concerns the possibility of travel and travel documents for the numerous people in Singapore who are stateless. Can these stateless residents apply for and be granted travel documents to enable them to travel out of Singapore, many of whom have very good reasons such as for business, for family affairs, and so forth?”
“(14) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BBA 8101.”
“Sir, I am generally very satisfied with the Minister's explanation but with the simple proviso that the Minister should exploit all possible avenues to prevail upon the Housing and Development Board either through its chairman or, better still, through the Minister for National Development, if necessary take him out for lunch and persuade him that these are really necessary measures. In view of the explanation of the Hon. Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of item (m) of subhead AAA 3020.”
“Sir, I appreciate the efforts made by the Fire Brigade to ensure that we do not have a natural disaster. However, I must say that the steps which the Hon. Minister has just enumerated are still not sufficient. Certainly the improvements and the new ideas that they have got are far behind the pace of development that this country is going through. I suspect that it is really the Finance Ministry that dictates the Dos and Don'ts of his Fire department. Nevertheless I would plead with the Minister that the real problem here is to get across to the masses. To me, organising courses for a few hundred people to take part is simply insufficient. I suggest that he should think of a national campaign, a sustained effort, to reach out to each and every one, particularly to all those living in high-rise flats. I was very happy that he was very honest in saying that the Housing and Development Board flats do not have sufficient facilities or safeguards against fire. This is a point that we need to stress to get across to the public that they do not have adequate facilities as of now and therefore they should constantly be vigilant. In my constituency, a fire broke out on the 9th floor just a few days ago. But it so happened that it broke out in the mid-afternoon when the tenants were in and the fire was put out on time. What would have happened if it had occurred in the middle of the night and the fire raging on? I do not relish the thought of a towering inferno in my constituency, and certainly not anywhere in Singapore too.”
“Further, may I plead with him to start a sustained intensive national campaign of public education through the schools, community centres, commercial enterprises, through the press, over radio and television, on the Dos and Don'ts of fire prevention and fire-fighting. Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister to enlighten this House on the points I have raised.”
“We have seen a mini disaster at Robinsons and we have read of awful fires in Seoul city, in Sao Paulo, Latin America, and other parts of the world where tens and sometimes even hundreds of lives were lost, people roasted to death and many more burnt out of all recognition. Let us take immediate steps and make immediate preparations now because tomorrow might be too late. Sir, since the 1970s, buildings put up by private enterprises have to be provided with sprinklers and automatic heat detector systems before planning approval is granted. This is, of course, a very sound policy. However, I cannot understand why the Fire department should continue to grant approval to the HDB to erect gigantic structures, some of which house 500 units or more, without the minimum safeguard against fire. Some HDB flats do not even have a fire exit. It was most regrettable, Sir, that the HDB could publicly claim in the recent past that its flats are fire-safe and that these flats or units are so compartmentalised that fire will not spread from one unit to another. Surely we do not need a test case to make us realise that in case of fire the tenants can only pray for their lives. It seems to me, therefore, that the Fire department takes a very partial attitude towards the HDB and this is, wittingly or unwittingly, at the expense of public safety. I would be most happy if the Hon. Minister could enlighten this House regarding the fire-fighting capacity of the Fire department, and to honestly reveal its inadequacies, and what steps are being taken by his Ministry to modernise the fire-fighting capability of the Fire department.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BFA 1109. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of this House, and hopefully public attention and interest, to the hazards of fire breaking out in high-rise flats and buildings. While it is generally recognised by the Government that fires in such buildings could rapidly develop into disasters way beyond the fire-fighting capacity of the Fire department with inestimable loss to lives and property and certainly a real shokku to public confidence, I am disappointed, Sir, at the lack of positive action by the Government to prevent or to combat fires in high-rise flats and buildings. The situation in Singapore today, where some 50% of the population are housed in Housing and Development Board flats, demands very urgent attention. The trend towards building higher and higher upwards, reaching out to embrace the heavenly bodies, must surely awaken planners to the dire consequences of a towering inferno. Sir, large blocks of HDB flats are of 16 storeys and above and the present point-block flats are 25 storeys high. Further, private buildings vie for pride of place in the skies way up to 50 storeys. I understand that a 75-storey giant is well on the planning board. We have been extremely lucky so far. The God of Fire has benevolently chosen to spare us the agony of its unholy visitation and its almighty fury. However, Sir, we cannot continue to sit back and just pray that our good luck will hold out.”
“Sir, I wish to thank the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs for his comments on sports. Pursuing on the points that he has made, may I say that with regard to changing facilities and toilets at the tennis courts at Farmer Park where we have 14 tennis courts, there is not even one changing room. We would be most grateful if he could build a changing room for tennis players at Farmer Park. Secondly, I think the Minister did comment that in the coming year, eight new tennis courts will be built. Just two days ago, or yesterday, when the Minister of State for National Development commented on the fringe car parks, he said that those car parks could be converted into tennis courts and squash courts. May I suggest that the Chairman of the Singapore Sports Council approach the Minister of State for National Development in pursuit of this same matter. I would also suggest that the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs should approach the Minister of State for National Development on the same matter. Sir, on the point of allowance for football players in the inter-constituency games, I was told that this year the allowance would be exactly the same as last year. In fact, theme was a proviso to the effect that the allowance for this year might be slashed because of some Finance Ministry decision. Can I seek the assurance of the Minister for Social Affairs that the allowance for the participating teams for football anyway be maintained at last year's figures and, of course, if possible, increase it to a larger sum?”
“On a point of order. Sir. There is a subhead on fire fighting, and I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens could discuss that under the relevant subhead.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from the reply by the Minister. I must stress that at no time did I suggest that we should have the same standard of TV production as the BBC. If only he had listened to what I said, he would know that I did not at any time suggest that. All that I said was that we should try to improve the standard of production and direction of our Broadcasting Department. I asked him if he could inform this House what steps are being taken to make sure that the Broadcasting Department keeps on improving its standard of television production. 4.45 p.m. With regard to his reply on the second matter, I must say that it is wonderful to hear from a Member of the Cabinet that the Government does not jump on any speculative report. However, it is my impression, and I am convinced of this, that this Government is very sensitive to any public comment, It is very sensitive to any criticism in the press. We have examples of this. When somebody writes a letter to a certain press, within a week there is a reply. I am saying that the report which came out in that particular newspaper was not just a report tucked away somewhere in the middle pages, it was headline news. Because of that, I felt that it was appropriate for Government to reply on that score. Perhaps we lack a PRO, as my colleague mentioned here.”
“However, I would say that the timing of that release in the press was very unfortunate in that it was closely linked with other tax increases in this country. That gave rise to a lot of unhappiness, a lot of talk and a lot of unnecessary problems to various people. I have yet to read a statement from the Ministry of Culture or the Ministry of Finance saying that that report was unfounded and mischievous. I am beginning to wonder whether in fact, the Ministry of Culture was quietly delighted that that report came out and therefore the public is "conditioned." so to speak, to further increases in licence fees. I suggest that if that report was misleading, as it must be so many weeks after, then it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture to come out with a statement refuting the allegations and thereby clearing the air.”
“Sir, I take this opportunity to bring up two points on which the Minister might like to enlighten this House, The first point is to lend my support to those Members present here who have voiced dissatisfaction with the standard of production and the lack of sophistication in the direction of programmes that are produced locally. I recognise that our Broadcasting Department is in many ways in the stage of infancy and perhaps, because of a shortage of personnel, we will not be able just now to produce programmes of a reasonable standard. I am not trying to compare the programmes that we have produced locally to those of the NBC or the BBC. But a better standard of production would be consistent with the stage of development, the level of education, the general sophistication of this country and its people. I am frequently appalled by the programmes, and I would like the Minister to enlighten this House on the steps that the Broadcasting Department is taking or shall be taking in this direction. The second matter which has been disturbing me is the fact that not so long ago an afternoon newspaper came out with a headline report which we all discovered later to be rather mischievous - I refer to a report which stated that Radio and TV licences were to be increased by two to four-fold. I recognise that this need not necessarily be within the portfolio of the Ministry of Culture. But one cannot deny that the Broadcasting Department is under the Ministry of Culture. 4.15 p.m. As it turns out today, more than a month later, there has been no increase in TV or Radio licence fees and no quadrupling of the licence fee for colour television, am not saying that we should increase the fee for colour and black and white television or radio. I think we should maintain the status quo.”
“After paying the fee for entry, they will plough in and out of the CBD charging each and every passenger the full fee for which they have paid for just one trip. To that extent they are making a tremendous profit and, in fact, fleecing the public. This is a matter that can be looked into, and I would suggest that urgent attention be paid to it. With these remarks I would like to thank the Ministry of Communications for its constant attention in continuing to improve our public transport in the last year or two. 6.30 p.m.”
“I would be most grateful if the Minister could inform us as to the present state of the feasibility study of the MRT in Singapore, its cost and the time that will be taken, if accepted, to implement the system. The other point which I would like to emphasise is the question of road discipline. Road discipline is something which is two-way. One is on the level of public sophistication, its discipline, its educational status, and its social consciousness. The other is the question to which officialdom and Government is willing to impose and to instruct. May I suggest that where the public has been failing or unable to live up to expectation of good road discipline that there is place for the ROV to impose stricter penalties upon bad use of roads. I know that there are many problems involved but at least in one respect may I suggest that the Ministry look into this: when ambulance cars, fire engines and police patrol cars are answering emergency calls, all other traffic should be cautioned and told to pull aside to facilitate these urgent vehicles answering emergency calls to get to the scene of the accident, fire, or crime or the scene of any other urgent matter. One other matter which I would like the Minister to look into is the Area Licensing Scheme and the entry of vehicles in and out of the CBD during the hours of 7.30 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. We all know that the Area Licensing Scheme has produced somewhat remarkable results in terms of cutting down traffic within the CBD, but taxis are a notable exception. It is common knowledge that the introduction of the Scheme has turned out to be of great benefit to a considerable number of taxi drivers. They pay the $4 fee to enter the CBD and during those 2- hours they embark on a great profit-making exercise.”
“Sir, after the glorious speech by the Member for Anson, may I add my own comments to this subhead? First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Ministry of Communications for the steps they have taken to ensure that Singapore has an improved system of public transport. It has taken time, but the fact that there is progress means that there is hope for tomorrow. The problems that faced the Ministry have in fact taken a great cost and toil to officers of the various departments and to the public. But I am encouraged by the fact that the bus system today is an improved version of what it was two years ago. In addition to the comments that the Member for Anson made earlier on with regard to bus guides, may I humbly suggest to the Minister that instead of issuing bus guides, bus routes could very well be placed at all bus stops under the heading of the particular service number so that it is readily available for easy reference. That is, some form of laminated card boards with the bus numbers and the bus routes which. I think, is not difficult to make. It only requires some organisation and some effort by the Ministry of Communications, the SBS in particular. Sir, with regard to the topic on Mass Rapid Transit which the Member for Anson has mentioned earlier, may I say that there has been tremendous public attention and interest on this subject. We realise that Phase I is over and Phase II of the feasibility study has just been completed. In addition to that, the Prime Minister himself had made a personal and important trip to Hong Kong to study the MRT system.”
“In spite of this argument, let me say this. From our own experience with our constituents through the meet-the-people sessions, we have come across numerous instances where small family units have applied for transfer. Although they were following Government's policy, yet they were told by officers of the Housing and Development Board that "because your family unit is too small, seven and less, you do not qualify for transfer." I am very confused and I should certainly appreciate the Minister giving us some logical explanation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to make two points. One concerns the question of one-room HDB flats. I have asked in this Chamber before as to the possibility of the Housing Board considering, at some time in the future, pulling down these units completely and then rebuild new ones in their place. I was given the assurance that it would consider so. Till then, it would appear to me that the people living in these one-room flats will continue to live in these dark tunnels minus ventilation, and hopefully minus peeping Toms and other nuisances. Sir, it is indeed appalling that in our visits to the one-room flats we do frequently come across something like eight, 10, 15 or more people live in them. I can certainly name one instance where there were about 23 people crowding in a one-room HDB flat. This is a fact. They were living on different layers of structure put up within that one room. This is certainly an exceptional case. I have quoted this case in order to draw the attention of the Housing Board that conditions in these one-room flats can be appalling and if these people have asked for a transfer, they should be given priority. This brings me to the second point which has been raised by two of my colleagues, and that is, priority for a transfer - whether transfer to a bigger unit should be given to a family of four, i.e, father, mother and two children, or to one of 10, i.e. parents plus eight children. I understand that it is our Government's policy to encourage small family units but we must recognise the fact that the family planning policy was instituted only of late. Therefore, people whose established families are large cannot be blamed for actions for which in many instances they are not entirely to be blamed or are responsible for.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, following what the Hon. Minister has said earlier regarding the availability of jobs and the fact that our workers are too selective, can I make a request to the Minister if he could circulate a monthly list of available jobs to all Members of Parliament or to all community centres? We, on our part, I am sure, will be able to better advise job seekers that we so often see during our meet-the-people sessions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the request of the Member for Boon Teck. I am not at all impressed with the reply given by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. The Member for Boon Teck said that where there is a failure to provide adequate safety measures leading to work stoppage and where the fault lies with the employers, then the workers should not be penalised. This is the point which I would like to emphasise: if it was the fault of the workers that the work had stopped, then it is surely reasonable and fair that the workers should be deprived of their pay. But if, on the other hand, it is the failure of the employers to provide the necessary safety measures, then I believe the Ministry of Labour should ensure that the employers be made to comply with the safety regulations by providing precautionary measures, and for any number of days in which work had stopped the employers should be made to pay the workers, because the workers are not responsible for the provision of these safety measures but the employers. I would like to have his considered reply once again, and if it is not satisfactory we shall pursue it further.”
“(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 3030.”
“Sir, in view of the reply by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement --”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item )b) of subhead AAA 2110. Sir, Singapore was evicted from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965. Since that day, to my knowledge. Singapore has continued to contribute a sum to the tune of $� million for the maintenance of Malaya Hall in London. To my knowledge too, that Hall is not frequented by any Singapore citizen on by any of our students in London. To my knowledge also, it is only used by a certain sector of people from Malaysia. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs why Singapore still continues to contribute $� million a year for the maintenance of Malaya Hall. At the same time, the Students Department of our High Commission in London is rather poorly maintained. I would have thought that the same amount of money could have been better used for the promotion of activities for students and Singapore citizens who are away in the United Kingdom.”
“Sir, I am fully satisfied with the reply given by the Hon. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I would be most happy if the Minister of State could give this assurance, and further. that Singapore on its part in ASEAN and ASEAN as a whole would collectively make no move that can be construed as inimical to forces that are envious of the establishment of ASEAN. Thirdly, can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and perhaps jointly with the Ministry of Defence assure us Singaporeans that none of our troops and national servicemen will at any time be sent to combat insurgency movements in foreign territories? Sir, one of the highlights of the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Concord was the statement of declaration that this region of the world be declared a zone of peace and neutrality. I have to grope in my mind for a well pronounced policy that we used to espouse in the past - that we in Singapore believe in the policy of dynamic equilibrium in this region, that policy being more realistic because no super power would ever stay away from an area that is a vacuum. In other words, if the Americans were to withdraw from South-east Asia, it is very likely that the Russians would move in, and then what? Hanoi? China? Or the Americans back again? In view of this, how is this erstwhile policy of ours reconciled with the declaration of the Zone of Peace and Neutrality as stated in the Treaty of Amity and Concord? Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to state Singapore's position with regard to the Law of the Sea Conference, in particular to the Straits of Malacca.”
“What I really would like to know is: is Singapore's posture essentially one of waiting for the Republic of Indonesia to establish relations with China? And will that posture be adopted even if Indonesia were not to have relations for the next 1 0 years? I would like to know if there are other considerations which the Hon. Minister of State might like to share with us that might make Singapore go ahead with recognition, independent of Indonesia's move. Coming back to the ASEAN summit at Bali. I would like to take this opportunity to give my wholehearted support to this concept of regional cooperation, this concept of amity and good neighbourliness. I think it is a good thing and a move in the right direction for all five ASEAN states. To me, it is an awareness that had been precipitated in particular by the collapse of the three Indo-Chinese states. It is a kind of a shock therapy. It seems to me that it is a common realisation that the best interest of each ASEAN nation is best served through the collective interest of the group. I am very happy to note that the five nations have moved forward with great caution, with great deliberation, and that positive steps have been taken to ensure that we are not just coming out with another of these international agreements. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this opportunity to ask the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that whilst ASEAN today is essentially an economic and socio-cultural association of nations, will the Minister of State give some kind of assurance that ASEAN will not in the foreseeable future turn into a military alliance, an alliance that might be regarded by certain outside forces as another South-east Asian Treaty Organisation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 1105. Sir, after the lengthy statement by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, my entire trend of thought has been thrown into disarray. I would, therefore, attempt to throw his trend of thought into disarray by asking a question which he probably would not expect. Under this subhead. I would, first of all, take this opportunity to discuss Singapore's position, on which he has touched earlier on in regard to our relations and postures towards super power politics. 6.30 p.m. It is well known that the world is so polarised not just into two areas but into three or even more spheres of influence. Whilst on the one hand Singapore propounds a policy of neutrality, friendship with all nations, enemies with none, yet Singapore adopts a posture of establishing full diplomatic relations with some super powers and yet not with China, It is in this context that I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Hon. Minister of State: what are the considerations in the mind of his Ministry before Singapore establishes full diplomatic relations with China? Singapore is part of ASEAN and three out of five ASEAN states have already, for various reasons which are obviously sound, established diplomatic relations with China over the last two or three years. Singapore has chosen for good reasons not to establish relations with China just yet. I recognise that we have various channels of communication as established in the past and the recent visit of the Minister of State to that nation certainly will lend greater impetus to further relations between Singapore and China.”
“Sir, I am not terribly impressed with the reply, but it is much better to have a short reply rather than a verbose one. In any case I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $182,257,480 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $52,576,100 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head M -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BAA 8103. Sir, this is in regard to the redevelopment of the Singapore General Hospital. The new Singapore General Hospital is going to cost the Government something like $200 million in total. With a provision of about 1 .900 beds as compared to 1 .400 beds at present, this new hospital will therefore require more staff. In reference to the statements made by previous speakers, I would like in brief, firstly, to ask the Minister responsible if he would try to encourage more people to join the staff of the new General Hospital, and if he has made any move to ensure that the 200 units of housing promised for medical officers in this House two years ago would be implemented? Secondly, in order to encourage more people to take up the medical profession. would he reconsider the slashing of the two weeks vacation leave of the house officers? Will the two weeks' leave be restored? Thirdly, would he consider overtime pay for the medical staff? Fourthly, with the redevelopment of the Singapore General Hospital on the same campus as the University Faculty of Medicine, would he encourage more Singaporeans to go into the Faculty of Medicine, thereby cutting down the number of non-citizens who are at present taking up places which could very well be given to our own citizens?”
“Few doctors would leave the serviie if they can be kept reasonably happy at work. If they leave for private practice, it is more often than not, in pursuit of money. If this is so, then it is indeed a sad reflection on the medical profession but sadder still it is a reflection on the moneytheistic society that we have nurtured over the last decade.”
“Instead they discovered later that, in fact, they lost. The Ministry of Health assisted by its clever lieutenants, the Director of Medical Services and his Deputy Director, won. How? Annual vacation for housemen was slashed from four weeks to two weeks. I am sure this House needs a lot of persuasion that the housemen got a pay rise. May I plead with the Hon. Minister for fair play and fair reward for a good day's work. Let us not play games. Let us not resort to Change Alley tactics. If doctors cannot be given a fair basic salary commensurate with their work, then may I suggest they be paid overtime pay so that the civil service salary structure need not be disturbed. This is a reasonable request and details can always be worked out. In the U.K. last year there was tremendous dislocation of the medical service when the National Health Service doctors and hospital consultants went on strike or worked to rule in their fight for fair pay and service conditions, and I am sure our doctors here do not wish to resort to silly industrial action in pursuit of fair play. Two years ago the then Health Minister reported to this House that 200 units of flats will be built for doctors working in public hospitals. Today no further development is heard. I am reliably informed that the Ministry is still thinking about it -- one of several thoughts that hopefully one day will see the light of dawn. Housing is a very serious problem not just for our doctors but for our young professionals and our middle income wage earners. It is one area that the Government can help and must help immediately. Institutional practice has definite and certain advantages and opportunities such as training facilities. experience and work satisfaction that private practice cannot offer.”
“If only the same money were made available in the form of scholarship to students to take dentistry, I am confident there shall be in a few years increasing numbers of fully qualified dental surgeons who are best trained to care for our nation's dental health. In the meantime Division II registered dentists and quacks are having a field day. I wonder how many Members of this august Chamber can claim to have a family dental surgeon. Equally I wonder how many Members present here this afternoon have lost salvageable teeth so necessary for mastication, if not cosmesis by an inadvertent visit to a dental quack! Why are so many doctors and dental surgeons unhappy? Doctors work long and irregular hours, frequently exceeding 100 hours a week. Their work is exacting, seven days a week. A wrong diagnosis, an inadequate resuscitation, an incomplete surgical exploration, otherwise termed surgical misadventure in the wee hours of the morning when this Chamber and all Singapore are fast asleep, may end up in the never-never territory of the inquisitive pathologist at the mortuary. Patients and relatives rightly demand courtesy, good manners and care even during odd hours. I have asked for a salary revision for doctors and dental surgeons, and I am not satisfied with the mini-adjustments that were made. The vast majority of medical officers have seen no change in terms of employment for more than 10 years. Of course, they receive NWC recommendations - who has not in Singapore? The case of the housemen is a unique exercise in salary revision. The housemen got a salary adjustment from $750 to $850 per month last year after an unfortunate though abortive exercise of not reporting for work on the first day. They thought initially they had won.”
“Last year the then Minister proudly proclaimed that only 90-plus doctors resigned from the service while 110 joined making a net gain of doctors in the Ministry of Health. To me this is a very naughty reply from a clever politician. He omitted the breakdown analysis of these figures in terms of experience, qualification and training. May I humbly submit that 90 captains leaving and 110 captains joining the SAF is quite different from 90 captains leaving and 110 recruits joining the SAF. What are the figures for doctor resignations this year? How many doctors and specialists have emigrated to other countries? I drew the attention of this House to the high proportion of non-citizens in the medical school two years ago. In a graduating class of about 120 last year some 50% were non-citizens and today in our hospitals we have an acute shortage of housemen. This situation will continue unless measures are taken with haste to encourage more Singaporeans to study medicine, I shall be most grateful if the Hon. Minister could provide figures to show that corrective measures have been taken to ensure a continuing supply of new doctors to run our hospitals. As I have mentioned before, non-citizen graduates of our medical school are birds of passage: they have amply proven to be so: and they cannot be relied upon to man our hospitals. Are we then to recruit doctors from, say, the Indian sub-continent? The situation with dental officers is even more pathetic and appalling. Because few Singaporeans chose dentistry for a profession, the Government instead of encouraging students to study dentistry opted to spend some $5 million ~to train a corps of dental therapists. Each dental therapist-in-training receives an allowance of about $300 per month. I am amazed at this scheme.”
“I feel, however, that notwithstanding the above, the Ministry's prescriptions to tackle the issues will remain haphazard and ineffective as long as the medical service remains a low priority on the Cabinet's abacus. Singapore was re-zoned into four catchment areas to alleviate pressure on the Singapore General Hospital. After almost a year in operation, demand on the Singapore General Hospital remains high. It is hoped that with time the peripheral hospitals will assume a greater load of patient-care. A new Singapore General Hospital costing, in all. some $200 million is under construction to replace the old Outram Road General Hospital. A new Teaching Hospital at Kent Ridge is on the planning board, costing, many millions more. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what his plans are to staff these large hospitals. No doubt more doctors. specialists, dental surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and ancillary staff are needed. Otherwise we shall be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to erect gigantic white elephants. The Teaching Hospital in a neighbouring country is a constant reminder that impressive, expensive hospitals can be built given the money, but finding the required number of doctors and other staff to run them is to me an entirely different proposition. To me a happy doctor in a cow-shed is more productive than a grumbling stethoscope behind four great walls, and a smiling nurse who calls her patients first names in a small unassuming hospital is more therapeutic than that pompous touch-me-not impersonal creature on two legs that patrol the corridors of imposing institutions - all morning glory.”
“Singapore is generally well regarded for the quality and standard of its doctors, specialists and medical services. Unlike doctors from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, our doctors are accorded instantaneous full registration in the United Kingdom and other parts of the Commonwealth. Patients going to China in the past few years with blind faith seeking cure with the acupuncturists were sadly disappointed and referred back to us for medical attention. Chinese medicine is no magic formula. We take great pride in our medical school which is 71 years of age today. Unfortunately, in the entire medical set-up in Singapore today there is an all-pervading mood of disaffection, and restlessness among the doctors, dental surgeons, nurses and even ancillary Division IV staff. The attitude has regrettably become one of "if-you-can't-stick-it, hang it." Institutional practice has today become a stepping stone to private practice. Worse still, and this demands urgent attention, increasing numbers of doctors and specialists emigrate to Australia, New Zealand. Canada. United States and the U.K, seeking greener pastures. It is not enough for us in the political leadership to say "good luck, bon voyage and May God Bless You". It is neither correct for us to just throw stones at these professional people and label them as "quitters". Why should this sorry state be so? Surely Hippocrates oath, which every medical student takes on admission to the University, is not entirely lost. Has the medical profession shunned the lofty heights of a sacrifice and selflessness and the noble profession of all virtue and-no vice? I believe. Sir, many factors contributed to this sick malaise. I am confident that our leaders are generally aware of the problems facing the medical service.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, this House will recall that in the 1973 and 1974 Budget. I voiced strong reservations about the pathetic state of health of the Health Ministry and its hospitals.' The then Minister, and subsequently his rather short-lived Minister of State, had chosen mischievously to avoid the debate squarely and instead performed cosmetic surgery to facelift a badly scarred Ministry. Now that the Ministry changes leadership after eight lean years, doctors and patients are eagerly waiting for the rain after the humid long hot summer. A new Minister brings new hope and expectation, and I have chosen to speak today confident that a new spirit of dynamism and enquiry is in motion. Rest assured that, doctors and nurses are amongst the most agreeable lot of homo sapiens, and our patients exemplarily patient and tolerant. We shall give the new Minister plenty of time to settle down to his unenviable job of salvage and acute resuscitation. 4.15 p.m. It is true that we in Singapore have the best doctor population ratio of 1: 1200 in South-east Asia. This measures creditably even against the advanced countries in the West. Our patient-care is fairly good, though it is admittedly a long way from ideal. It is also true that increasing numbers of Malaysians. Indonesians and even Westerners have come here for medical care making Singapore, in the words of a certain Minister. "the centre of medical excellence in South-east Asia". We have never ceased to publicise Singapore's pre-eminence in medical standards in this part of the world and the medical profession will continue to promote and organise international conferences, seminars, and meetings for the advancement of medical knowledge and expertise.”
“May I suggest to the Finance Minister that if it is his genuine intention and also that of the Government to be concerned for the health of the people, then he should increase taxes on cigarettes and tobacco by 200%, not 10%. Ten per cent is a tax gimmick. I treat it at that. With these words, Sir, I hope that the Finance Minister will give us honest replies. I do hope that he will give us an assurance that at least for the coming year there will be no new taxes between now and the next Budget so that we do not have to sit in front of the television set every night to wait for the "9 p.m. Shocker". 3.20 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the third matter is manpower research. From time to time we have faced problems with regard to manpower placement, projections of manpower requirements and the supply for the years ahead. We are, in fact, facing such problems now as we faced them sometime ago, the various problems of manpower shortage. I think it is primarily due to the fact that there is no Central Manpower Planning Unit. I understand that the Finance Ministry has a Manpower Research Unit. So has the Labour Ministry, the Defence Ministry, and perhaps even the University of Singapore. Why can't these various manpower research bodies be combined into a Central Research Centre whereby projections can be made for the future? One Ministry planning something quite irrelevant to what another Ministry is planning can lead to a lot of cross-purposes and wrong projections. A last matter which I think would be of current interest is the mini-tax that the Finance Minister proposed this time, and that is, the somewhat friendly 10% tax increase on cigarettes and tobacco. On the matter of a rather moral judgment passed, the Finance Minister called those smokers "anti-social elements". I am sure he is aware that the Prime Minister, in his earlier years, used to smoke something like 50 cigarettes a day. I am just wondering whether in those younger days the Prime Minister could be described as anti-social. On the other side of the argument, the Finance Minister said that it would be wonderful if all smokers were to, now and henceforth, be good boys and girls and therefore give up cigarette smoking for the sake of their health.”
“As my colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, has mentioned earlier on, these people are already heavily taxed in terms of time and energy in their own Ministries and so how could they possibly give of their best to run these various companies which are wholly or partly-owned by Government? Sir, I wish the Finance Minister could throw some light on this policy of appointing the same people to various companies. If you look at company X, the people on the board of directors are A, B, C, D and E. In company Y, it is B, C, D, E and A. In company Z, it is C, D, E, A and B. And it goes on in that fashion. Next, I would like to touch on a matter which I think would be of common interest, The revenue of the Republic of Singapore comes mainly from taxes and that taxes come from 20% or 30% of the wage earning population. Therefore, it means that something like 70% of wage earners have, in one way or another, not been paying taxes. We all know that if the Finance Ministry were to apply its genius (and there is no shortage of genius in the Finance Ministry) taxes could very well be borne by a greater section of the population. This, therefore, means that this 20% to 30% of taxpayers need not shoulder the responsibility of revenue contribution. I wish to draw particular attention to the hordes of taxable hawkers, shopkeepers and such like people who, year in and year out, have not been paying taxes. Many of them are driving around town in Mercedes Benzes, Jaguars; you name the biggest car on the road and they have it. Yet the Finance Ministry has blatantly turned a blind eye to these people. I think they should be taxed. I do not know how they should be taxed. I feel humble to make suggestions but I trust that the Finance Minister's officials will 1ook into this matter.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of the motion by the Finance Minister on the Budget policy for FY 76. I must congratulate him for the way he presented the Budget statement and for the general thoughts on financial policy. However, I would like to make some comments on his Budget statement. First of all, and most notable is the fact that the Budget statement this year was described variously and by varied people as "painless, friendly," etc. The Budget statement is obviously painless because the Ministry of Finance has perfected the art of taxing without appearing to be really trying. The Finance Ministry has from time to time imposed tax increases and sometimes even without reference to Parliament. Quite often, news of tax increases come out of golf courses long before Members of Parliament realise that they are in for a new tax increase. I think this has very serious repercussions, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would like to make use of this opportunity to delve on some of these thoughts. As my colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, has mentioned earlier on, in Singapore today we are breeding a horde of exceptionally powerful top civil servants and may I call them "The Magnificent Seven" (or Eight, or Nine). I believe that if too much power is vested in the hands of too few, we may be courting trouble in the years ahead. As I understand it, these top civil servants have been given tremendous incentives to remain at the top by giving them directorships of various Government-owned companies.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir,I am sure the Hon. Minister is aware that the credit squeeze has resulted in very high interest rates and difficulty in getting loans. Even if we work on the basis of a $100,000 flat, payable in 10 years at 10 per cent interest per annum, we have got to pay $200,000 in 10 years, which means $20,000 per year or about $2,000 a month. Can a wage earner earning $1,500 to $2,000 afford this kind of housing? If my figures are correct, then it is not possible for him to purchase such a flat. I think there is a strong case for the Government to step up its building programme for the middle income wage earners. Priority, of course, must be given to those in the civil service. Mr Hon Sui Sen: Sir, I have already said that I fully agree there is a need for more housing to be constructed, whether by the Housing Board, statutory boards, JTC, or by firms. I am sure the executive housing in Jurong is within the means of the junior executives in Jurong. If any of our Members of Parliament wish to buy the kind of executive flats that are being put up in Jurong, I think we can easily build quite a lot more in addition to what my colleague has been building. With regard to the credit squeeze, I think that is generally applicable to purchases of luxury-type apartments and housing, and it is not intended for the kind of loans which companies make to their employees. If, in fact, the credit squeeze is being operated in a way which has prevented this, I am sure my Ministry and the Monetary Authority of Singapore will be prepared to consider a relaxation of this kind of credit control to the benefit of the middle income group.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill in its spirit. I think it is a laudable Bill in that the intentions as expressed in September last year were to have a stabilising effect upon the rising cost of land and private property. What I would like to know from the Minister, however, is: what has been the actual effect of this Bill on the state of things today, whether the announcement in September last year has produced any decline or stabilising effect on the prices of land and private property in this country? The Minister has quite rightly pointed out the plight of the middle income wage earners. As it is today, I think even with a knowledge of the present inflationary trend, private property and land are well beyond the reach of the middle income wage earner. To my mind, the proposition that the Government has made and the measures it has taken to build more flats and also the intention to build condominium type of terrace houses for this middle income group is something worth pursuing. What I feel is that the Government should step up the construction of these flats and houses. This will probably contribute more towards the welfare of the middle income wage earner than the Bill as such, although in principle and in spirit, it has laudable objectives. May I ask the Hon. Minister if he could explain to this House whether this Bill has or will have any real effect upon the state of property and land values today? 5.20 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support, in principle, the introduction of this Bill. I think it is unquestionable that the spirit and intention of the Bill is good. However, I would just like to add my own comments on what I feel are the important points. There are provisions in this Bill for reference to be made to the Minister, and giving the Minister certain powers to decide. This is, I am sure, a good point. But what I would caution as a possible reaction is that a decision of the Minister might be interpreted as partial or biased at times. I do not wish to question the Minister on this point, but I am just suggesting that the number of references or provisions allowing reference to the Minister may by itself create a problem and misinterpretation. I think it is important for us to realise that in Singapore today we have a great desire and a need for a constructive and responsible press. This is one laudable objective. The second is that we have to ensure and provide for adequate measures to prevent subversive activities or subversion in Singapore through the mass media. To meet this end, this Bill is appropriate. I would like to point out that there is a possible side effect of this Bill. But it is my hope that the measures contained in the Bill will not lead to a curbing of genuine public expression to the extent of stifling a healthy debate on issues of national and international interest through the mass media. I think this point has to be taken very seriously and I am sure that the Hon. Minister has this point in mind when he decided to commit this Bill to a public hearing. I give him my whole-hearted support. With these comments and reservation, I wish to express once again my support for the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill.”
“Sir, although I hate to end this debate, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $27,152,150 for Head MA ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,600,000 for Head MA ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head MB --”
“Sir, I do not wish to quote cases. But if the Minister wants, I can give him cases. There was one classic case of a trainee who went on leave for one week. On Monday, the Head of Department received a letter of resignation but two days before that he had already left for Australia. As for part-time lady doctors, I am thankful to the Minister for mentioning that there are cases. But it is surprising that this is somewhat unknown or mysteriously hidden. There are in actual fact a good number of doctors who have applied but have been rejected. With the Minister's assurance, I am sure more doctors will apply for this scheme because in all sincerity I hope we attract back into the service more people, whether they be ladies or men, because we need them just as the Minister has said quite clearly earlier on. We cannot afford to be choosey.”
“Sir, with regard to part-time doctors, some 20-30 per cent of doctors are females. It is a well-known fact that many female doctors are not practising their professional expertise as they are also at the same time expected to be good housewives and mothers. In view of the current staff shortage, would the Hon. Minister reconsider the Ministry's stand not to accept these lady doctors for part-time service? Requests for part-time employment in the Health Ministry by lady doctors have up till today been rejected. The medical establishments can well do with these additional hands. The public spends almost $10,000 a year to train medical students to become doctors. Can the Ministry justify this huge expenditure if the expertise obtained is to waste behind kitchen doors?”
“This problem has been raised in Parliament during this Budget debate and the Government has shown full cognisance of it. The cost of private housing has soared way beyond the reach of doctors and other middle income wage earners. I am confident, Sir, that doctors will stay in service if housing benefit is extended amongst other incentives. The Health Ministry has made desperate attempts to solve the doctor crisis by recruiting foreign doctors into Singapore. More and more doctors are being recruited from India and Ceylon. Recently, doctors from the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea and even Indo-China are recruited to prop up our hospitals. I wonder if this move of the Health Ministry is a temporary measure to meet the doctor shortage, or is this going to be a permanent feature. Paradoxically, we in this country have enough doctors of our own to staff our establishments. Sir, I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of recruiting foreign doctors. What I hope will not happen is a situation in this country like that in Britain today where its hospitals and allied institutions are run by foreigners. Besides the need for a review of salary and service conditions, there is an urgent need to attract and to encourage more students to study medicine. This is all the more necessary with the projected plans to build new hospitals. Has the Health Ministry made any projection of its staff requirement say, in five years' time? Sir, this month, out of 26 dental surgeons who graduated from the University of Singapore, not one is a citizen of this country. With more than 100 houseman-posts available, not more than 60 Singaporeans are expected to graduate as doctors from our medical school which proudly boasts to be one of the top medical institutions in the Commonwealth.”