R. Sinnakaruppan
Singapore
“In the first place, is the reporting system of the hand, foot and mouth disease cases by the GPs to the Ministry quick enough? Could it be that by the time the Ministry gathered all the data, the disease has already spread?”
“It is, in some ways, like what the Government has done for our university by setting up a private university, the Singapore Management University.”
“Sir, the question I really have is this. While it is very encouraging to see that the Government has started this scheme late last year, I would like to ask whether, in addition to looking at the priority for older estates, there are wards where there are more private estates than public estates.”
“I would also like to ask that this lift upgrading programme, on a pilot scheme that has been planned, can be expanded and more of the mature estates in the city centre can be considered for this upgrading.”
“It must have greater compassion and greater commitment to level up the lower strata of our society. Like the call by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, it must do much more on public education on what we want to achieve as a nation. It must rally our citizens to help them cope with the impending changes of our economy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this more calibrated approach to killer-litter offences by MND as well as MHA. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in the light of this approach, the Housing and Development Act could be reviewed to raise the maximum penalty from $1,000 to $5,000, same as the penalty imposed by the Town Council, for the n…”
The complete record
Every one of 370 lines we hold for R. Sinnakaruppan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“People who abuse the Net must be given very severe punishment so that others would find it as a deterrent and would then self-regulate. In the United States, I understand that the Internet laws have been legislated and it allows fines up to US$100,000. So let us follow suit and make the fines severe. I understand from an NUS Internet researcher that the present difficulty in tracing abusers to the Net is largely because, strictly speaking, not every PC is assigned a permanent unique Internet Protocol (IP) address. What it means is that, unlike the phone which has got a specific number, the present system is that you have got a dynamic number which is shared by many other users. This is because internationally the IP address is based on a 32-bit system and there are not enough of such addresses to go around the world. I understand that the developments are underway to develop a 128-bit IP address system. When that happens several years later, it would be easier to trace Net abusers. Singapore should urge the Internet Society based in the US to expedite this process. Due to the rapid growth in Internet, it is difficult even for the Government to keep pace with the development. Therefore, I would strongly urge the Minister to set up a National Internet Advisory Committee along the lines of SBA's Programme Advisory Committee for TV and Radio programmes. Such a committee can complement the role of the Inter-Ministry Internet Committee and would be able to advise the Government on various matters relating to Internet. It can comprise industry experts, academia, businessmen, home users and parents. 4.45 pm”
“Sir, I declare my interest, if any, as a member of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Multi-media guru, Negroponte says, and I quote: "It is impossible to censor the Internet." We in Singapore would want to say, "In today's context, it is virtually impossible to completely censor the Internet." That would be more accurate in Singapore's context. As my colleagues have pointed out, full censorship is difficult because there are too many bypass mechanisms, too much information to censor and it is too expensive to do so, and it would kill the pace of Internet development in Singapore and around the world. So what Singapore should do is, as announced by the Minister, regulate and license the Internet access providers (IAPs) and the Internet service providers (ISPs). I have asked the Clerk to distribute a chart that shows the topology of Internet access in Singapore and we can see how difficult it is to censor information coming through. So at the first level, pornographic and other objectionable Web sites can be filtered at the public and private IAP level. This can only be a re-active process, as we would not know what objectionable Web sites would appear tomorrow. At the second level, parents can purchase client filtering software or Home Firewall, as they call it, such as the NannyNet to deny their children access to objectionable Web sites. However, this software would need to be updated from time to time for the same reasons mentioned earlier. With regard to the Internet e-mail, some irresponsible Singaporeans abuse the Net and get away with it because of the current cost of tracking and the limitations of the Internet technology. However, some of these people can be caught as in the recent case.”
“Because the SME bosses' short term interests were to meet production schedules, and with the tight labour market, they did not think that there were enough workers to send for training even though the training was free. Worse still, these SME bosses fear that if their workers are sent for training, they would then soon send them the resignation forms and leave them. So these employers think that in the short term, they would have more labour pain than gain when they train their workers although the Government and others may preach that there would be no financial pain but only gain when SMEs train. Given this reality, workers cannot wait perpetually for their employers to train them. So they have to find their own means to upgrade themselves. They now turn to NTUC and other organisations for low-cost training opportunities. Even then, they need to fork out some money as these courses can only be subsidised between 50% and 80% by training grants. As an example, the amount that one has to bear if he enrols on NTC-3 course at ITE is $144 and if he enrols in the same course with ELITE it is $800. In view of this, I request the Government to focus microscopically on the plight of workers. I strongly urge the Government to seriously look into the setting up of an individual worker's training account through the CPF mechanism and call it, say, SkillSave (like the Edusave Scheme for school children). The amount to be topped up can be contingent on budget surpluses, but these can go a long way in upgrading the skills of our workforce. I urge the Government to do this as quickly as possible. 2.00 pm”
“Sir, after all the efforts that NTUC has put in towards worker training all these years, I am very disappointed that there is no increase in the $1,000 salary ceiling in the SDF levy in this year's Budget. According to the Labour Force Survey 1994, the median salary of the workforce is $1,234. It is possibly higher now in 1996. I also understand that this includes part-timers as well. So the median salary could be higher. I am also given to understand that the SDF's levy collection for last year was below target. This shortfall is possibly because there are less workers in the $1,000 salary levels in our industries. Last year, Mr Goh Chee Wee, answering Mr John De Pavya, said that there are about 50% of the workers who would qualify at the present $1,000 levy. But I am not so sure what this 50% means. Can the Minister provide the accurate percentage of workers who qualify for SDF grants in 1996? I would also like to make a renewed plea to increase the SDF salary ceiling to $1,500 and the Minister should not wait for the next year's budget to do it. Let us do it right now or within the next few months. The SDF levy salary ceiling is important as it provides an incentive for companies to send their workers for training. But we know that very often companies, especially SMEs, treat training as a nice-to-have and not need-to-have or must-have for business survival in the short term. Some years ago, I was administering the EDB-National Semiconductor Local Industry Upgrading Programme. Then I offered nine SME suppliers under my programme high quality training programmes at National Semiconductor free-of-charge. Some of these cost about $1,500 per training and yet there were very few takers. Why?”
“Basant Kapur has noted in his letter to the Straits Times Forum page that the cost of HDB flats as a rising proportion of wages must be an important factor in constraining more housewives to go to work. As mortgages cannot be paid on single incomes, it has been suggested that Government subsidise the mortgage repayments to encourage more women to stay at home. Personally, I am not fully convinced that this alone would resolve the problem. I think that a pragmatic intermediate solution lies in encouraging women and, to some extent, men, if necessary, to engage them in part-time work or in new work arrangements, while the Government must look into introducing some fiscal measures in reducing the burden of mortgage payments and related domestic cost burdens. Dr Charles Handy, an internationally renowned management consultant, has advocated the development of a flexible labour force in his concept of the "Shamrock Organisation". Even Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft Corporation, also predicts that the home-office concept would catch on soon in this part of the world.”
“If such thinking prevails, it is symptomatic of the danger of a social upheaval in our society in the near future. The need for sound parenting has been resounded by our Prime Minister, Mr Goh, in his Lunar New Year message and by our Senior Minister, Mr Lee, in his recent visit to India. Mr Lee is worried that cultural values and attitudes are not passed on effectively because children lack direct interaction with their parents who are both working, except on weekends. He said, and I quote: `The inculcation of cultural values does not come from casual interaction. It comes from parent to child and it goes with the mother's milk. But our problem is that mothers go to work and babies are not being breastfed.' Even America's Pat Buchanan, a Republican presidential hopeful who won the New Hampshire primaries because he (and to some extent Steve Forbes) advocated that, and I quote: `When both husband and wife must work full time to make ends meet, many of the problems associated with hearth and home cannot be successfully addressed; children are more likely to become unruly; communication between the spouses breaks down in recrimination. The pressures fracture those families least able to manage. The divorce rate increases and so does abortion.' [Asian Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, 28th February 1996] For Singapore, does the solution lie in the Japanese model where there was a wise and strictly enforced understanding that once a woman got married and had children, she had to leave the workforce until her children were in school? Though there are potential problems with this model, I would not rule out this as a possible solution, as it points to a reasonable direction. Assoc. Prof.”
“According to my own rough calculation, for a National Serviceman's family earning a chargeable income of, say, $30,000 and living in a 3- or 4-room flat would receive about $1,200, in addition to the new tax relief of up to $2,500 of chargeable income. So this gesture is more than symbolic and younger Singaporeans must appreciate this effort by the Government to recognise them. As a young Singaporean myself, I am happy that the Government is focusing on issues affecting young Singaporean families. However, many young Singaporeans and their families seem to be caught in a web of spiralling costs of living and of perceivably conflicting policy pursuits. On the one hand, in order to ensure continued robust growth for the Singapore's economy, the Government needs to ensure that it can muster every human resource it has to join the labour force. For this, the Government encourages women to join the workforce. In addition, Government gives generous tax incentives to our young to have more children. On the other hand, in order to ensure that our children are imbued with the right values from early childhood, there is a need for young couples to give full time attention to their toddlers at that age. A female undergraduate at a recent dialogue session with the Prime Minister and the student leaders of our tertiary institutions said that she and her friends were confused by the conflicting signals sent by the Government. Some youths at different forums have also told me very frankly that in today's context, the economics of their survival would outweigh the need to have more children or to spend more time with their children. They think that making money is more important in the short term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Dr Richard Hu. This year's Budget Statement reminds me of a typical situation in a generous golf tournament. Everyone who participates walks away with at least a goodies bag. There is something for everyone who has contributed, in this year's budget. In particular, there is more for younger Singaporeans and their families than in previous years' budget. It is a well-known fact that living standards have risen sharply in the past decade in Singapore. In spite of this, or perhaps because of this, and the accompanying accelerated costs of living, younger Singaporeans are becoming somewhat disillusioned when they realise that however hard they work, some of the better things in life, like a condominium, car or country club membership, seem to slip further and further away from their reach. In 1995, although the CPI seems to have only risen by 1.7%, the education index showed an increase of 4.2% due to increased kindergarten, creche and tuition fees in tertiary institutions, the transportation and communication costs rose by a hefty 6.7%. In housing, it hit the roof. Private condominium prices have risen a hefty 36% in 1993, 42.2% in 1994 and 14.3% in 1995. The resale HDB flat prices also rose by 20% in 1995. Therefore, when Dr Hu's package of Medisave Top-Up, SOTUS Top-Up and the associated benefits to NSmen and their families, the 3%-5% reduction in income tax for income brackets of, say, $15,000 to $50,000 and the other rebates on SC&CC, PUB, and so on, one would have thought that these would have brought great cheer to the young couples. Apparently, not so. Perhaps, these families may not have calculated the accumulated total amount in dollar terms that they would stand to benefit.”
“I would like to ask the Minister, given the fact that very few Singaporeans take up the job as bus drivers, and the fact that the Chairman of SBS has announced that bus drivers get about 20% less than other transport operators, taxis and so on, would SBS consider increasing the remuneration for bus drivers?”
“Yes. I want to ask the Minister, if some of the workers leave their house at 3.00 am or 3.30 am and reach home at 10.00 pm, how much rest can they have? Therefore, in future, this could lead to a lot more problems. As the Minister has just said, because of a shortage of bus drivers, the present workforce is asked to work longer hours. I see that this problem could get worse and it could possibly result in more accidents.”
“Sir, I am quite happy to note that there is no correlation between worker fatigue and the accidents of late. But what is alarming is that I am given to understand that there are about 33% Malaysians working in Singapore, many of whom stay in Johor Baru. Let us say they work in the morning shift at 4.30 ---”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that the drivers are expected to work long hours, particularly in one of the shifts, eg, starting at about 4.30 am and another shift starting at 5.00 am, and some of these shifts finish at 4.30 pm or even 8.00 pm (12-15 hours). Are the drivers overworked in this respect?”
“At the same time, the Government also wants the people of Singapore to support the COE system and the ERP system, ie, buy more cars, use more cars, so that the Government would have more money pouring in. The Government also wants the people to cooperate to realize a world class transport system. So no matter how heavy the burden of your fares may be, it shall be deemed to be affordable. At the General Election, you must elect a government that can make more money from the people. This is perhaps the true meaning of this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System"!”
“I think the Government is forcing itself to change the description of the North-East line from the original Phase 3 of the national MRT project to that of an extension line for the following reasons: (a) By calling it an extension line, the Government can use different standards to evaluate the North-East line, and may even ask the people to share the cost; (b) The Government knows that the people of Singapore want to improve the MRT system and so it is using the North-East line as an excuse to make the people pay higher fares in order that the MRTC can make more money and become a listed company sooner, so that the Government will no longer have to care for them. So if the MRTC wants to raise the fares, they can use the excuse that there is not enough passenger-load on the North-East line and make the North-East line the victim. The Government must not forget that the MRTC had made an after-tax profit of $100 million in the financial year 1994/95 alone, before transferring it to the reserves. Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" and from the way the Government is shifting its responsibility in building the North-East line, I finally understand why it is emphasized in the "Conclusion" section of this White Paper that to be able to have this "world class" land transport system, more importantly, the cooperation, support and understanding of the people of Singapore are necessary. So, the Government's intention is that the people must understand that in order to have a "world class" system, they must be prepared to pay "world class" fares.”
“The main reasons are as follows: (1) In recent years, the Government has been concentrating on the development of the Woodlands and Chua Chu Kang housing estates, thus neglecting the development of the areas along the North-East line. For example, they built a total of 44,297 units of HDB flats in Woodlands and Chua Chu Kang housing estates during the period between 1990 and 1995/96. But in Hougang and Serangoon housing estates, only 15,577 units were built during the same period. Today, the Government is using the excuse that there is inadequate passenger-load for the North-East line and therefore this is not the right time to build it. I think this is the result of imbalance in the Government's development of public housing. Consequently, the residents in the north-eastern part of the island are unable to enjoy the convenience of a MRT line. As such, the Government should not push the responsibility to the people and tell them that if they want to have the North-East line earlier, they would have to pay higher fares to cover the losses by bringing forward the construction date. We must remember that the reason why operating cost of the North-East line cannot break even is that the Government has neglected the development of the areas along the North-East line. (2) The North-East line was originally scheduled to be the third phase of the entire MRT project. But now, the Government is calling it an "extension line". If the stretch of MRT line from Jurong East to Chua Chu Kang is not an extension line, then how can the North-East line be an extension line?”
“" It also states "If the bus and train companies cannot receive the additional costs of providing the better service, they will not find it viable to provide it." If we want to achieve a "world class" public transport system as stated in the White Paper, based on this kind of principle, then the people of Singapore also have to pay a "world class" fare for their public transport. I think the people would then have to puff themselves up to their own cost in order to satisfy the vanity of the Government of achieving a "World Class Land Transport System". The White Paper also states: "Public transport projects must at least recover operating cost. The Government will fund the capital cost of the projects, but the project must at least break even on its operating expenditures." Of course, it will be even better if it can make profit immediately. The Government will allocate funds to develop the so-called World Class Transport System only under this principle. I think this is just feeding on illusions. It may well be just wishful thinking for the ordinary folks. The North-East MRT line is a clear example. The North-East line was originally scheduled as Phase 3 of the MRT system. As early as 1988, during the campaign for the General Election, the then Minister for Communications, Dr Yeo Ning Hong was reported by the Straits Times, on 31st August 1988, as saying that soil testing for the North-East line would begin. He also said that the North-East line would be the third phase of the entire MRT project and would be one of the main trunk lines in the MRT system. Yet, seven years later, this North-East line is nowhere in sight. The Government is repeatedly delaying the construction.”
“Therefore, to improve the overall public transport system and cut down the need for car ownership is the basic solution. But what the Government has done is, on the one hand, it wants car owners to pay more, to make money out of them, and on the other hand, it is dragging its feet in improving public transport system, and even wanting to involve the people in cost-sharing. The Government wants the private companies to operate the public transport system, and then asks the people to pay more to ensure the profits of these private companies. Is this reasonable? The White Paper states that the public transport operators should "extract efficiency dividends within the service standards and fare structure approved by the Public Transport Council". The people have to pay not only the increased fares to cover the rising cost of providing public transport, but also to ensure that the operators, who monopolise the market, get their reasonable profits. This kind of cost-sharing is very unfair to the poor people in Singapore. Therefore, in the Workers' Party programme, we have suggested the establishment of a National Transport Enterprise to take over the operation of buses and the MRT. This enterprise will ensure proper coordination between MRT and bus services to avoid duplication and to facilitate the use of a common farecard. More importantly, this National Transport Enterprise should not be profit-oriented. It should aim just to break even in its operation, and should plough back all the benefits derived from increased efficiency and productivity to the commuters to maintain low fares. In page 59 of the White Paper, it is stated "the public's willingness to pay for the services is an important indication that they value the service.”
“So, the Government is going to introduce the ERP system to discourage people from using their cars by the collection of toll. The White Paper states that the ERP system will make our main roads and expressways free flowing. However, if we take the experimental ECP system in the East Coast Parkway as an example, we will notice that this system can only result in more congestion in the roads around the vicinity. In order to solve the problem of congestion along the other roads where ERP is not implemented, it would be necessary to extend the ERP system to cover the other roads as well. In the end, every road in Singapore will be subjected to ERP. Moreover, in order that the toll system would be effective, and motorists would be discouraged from using certain roads, would it not be necessary to increase the toll charges again and again? It shows that once the ERP system is fully implemented, not only car owners will have to pay more, the cost of goods transport will increase, business cost will increase, and these increases will be passed on to the consumers and there is no way the poor people can escape from this kind of increases. Why, in spite of the high cost, are more and more people buying cars? As a matter of fact, most people own cars because of the convenience they offer and the present public transport system is not convenient enough. If we have a good public transport system, people do not have to waste too much time waiting for buses and changing buses to get to their destinations, like the London or Paris underground tube systems where train stations are within walking distance and easily accessible to the commuters, then I believe most Singaporeans will not want to own cars, and subject themselves to extra financial burden.”
“It may be appropriate for me at this juncture to quote Dr Charles Handy, a well-known management philosopher and guru, from his book "The Age of Unreason": `Governments, having discovered that the market, the mechanism of choice, liberates initiative and penalises inefficiency, are tempted to leave all to self-regulating choice. That would be dangerous. Markets do not look much beyond tomorrow, or at least next year. Markets are inherently selfish, disinclined to make investments whose outcomes cannot be predicted or whose benefits cannot be claimed in advance.' So, I urge our Government to spend much more of our budget surpluses on public transportation because of our limited land, unlike what Mr Chng has said. The Government must make the land transport system so good and so affordable that the desire and the propensity to own a car would be drastically diminished not in the long term but in the short term. Sir, I support the motion. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this White Paper can be said to be a prelude to the full implementation of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system by the Government. First of all, let me deal with the question of private cars. The Government has always been using the method of increasing the burden of car owners to control and attempt to solve the land transport problem. From the road tax increases and the Additional Registration Fees (ARF) in the initial stages to the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) today, the Government has always been using the price mechanism to control the increase in car population. The result is that car buyers have to pay very much more to own cars, and Singapore is still faced with the problem of traffic congestion.”
“In preparation for the ERP, the trends in the peak and off-peak traffic pattern in the CBD would allow the policy makers to determine road pricing at different times of the day at different locations. We must be very careful in the way that we determine prices when ERP is implemented. Already there are symptoms in the White Paper that perhaps the ERP is the world's first system and that there would be limitations. The White Paper goes on to say that the amount charged for using the road space will not be very precise, and that we should not wait indefinitely for an ideal system to evolve. I am very concerned that this reflects a typical bureaucratic thinking. As I have mentioned earlier, we must not create more problems, especially political problems by introducing ERP. In fact, our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has already pointed out in November last year that the ERP could be more of a political problem than the present Vehicle Quota System. The car owners pay a one-off COE which perhaps agitates them for a year or two, after which it gradually fades away from memory until it is time to buy another car. But with the ERP, the car owner would have to worry about paying and paying every day. So the agitation and the possible political problems would be magnified. So we should study the ERP implementation much more carefully. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that the White Paper is a landmark document. I want to reiterate that the plans to integrate the public transport system be accelerated and at least 80% be completed within the next five years. The Government must not be too rigid in its free market policy concept in the case of public transportation.”
“The ALS was first introduced in 1975 and has been effective in controlling congestion in the CBD, even though the vehicle population has more than doubled. While I fully agree that the morning and evening ALS has been effective, I think that the whole day ALS, introduced in 1994, appears to be ineffective. According to the White Paper, the whole day ALS only helped to reduce the traffic volume in the CBD by only 9.3%, less than 10%. Even if we assume an annual increase of 3% in vehicle population, the reduction in traffic in the CBD during the off-peak period, though has plateaued, is not too significant. Somehow, the end result is that the extra collection of ALS fees inevitably adds up to the budget surpluses, and this somewhat agitates the car owners and others. There is another problem with the whole day ALS. I refer to Chart 5 in the White Paper. While the traffic during the off-peak periods, as I said, plateaued a little, more cars are coming into the CBD during both the morning and evening peak periods. This increase in the peak periods seems to defeat the whole objective of the ALS scheme which was very effective in the last 20 years in cutting down the traffic during the peak periods. And I personally experience this after the implementation in 1994. I find it more difficult to get to work or get home. Of course, there is a counter argument. The ALS fee for the peak period is $3 and the off-peak is $2. So it is possible to argue that because it is only a marginal difference of $1 for the peak period, it is not sufficient to deter motorists from entering the CBD during the peak period. I do not think that we should increase the ALS fee for the peak period. Perhaps the off-peak rate of $2 should be reduced to $1 or be removed completely.”
“So, many Singaporeans, especially those living in the North-East line, thought that the rule for the bus operators should apply to the MRT operator. But perhaps this is not a `light to light' comparison because the assets or capital costs for MRT are so much higher. If we apply the present rule for the bus operators to the MRT operator, the rate of increase of MRT fares could be more significant across the board. Perhaps, it could be even 30 cents or more across the board. Given this scenario, perhaps one suggested approach, on hindsight, that should perhaps have been taken when the announcement on fares for the North-East line was made, is that the Ministry could have put two options forward to the people: One is to follow the bus operator's mechanism of cross-subsidy from the profitable routes to the less profitable routes, and the second option is to make the North-East line, as announced, to pay more. If that had been the case, perhaps 80% of the MRT commuters would have possibly said that making people pay for usage of their own lines is better and that the North-East line commuters should pay for the cost of their own line. This may sound selfish but it is a natural human reaction. Of course, I concede that some others could have said either way the Government should pay for it. Now, after the `storm', the Government has now agreed to pay for the asset replacement cost. But it appears somewhat reactionary. I would like to urge the Ministry to rally its machinery of administrative service bureaucrats to better package transport policies so that the policies are prudent and yet palatable to Singaporeans. Sir, I like to now move on to the demand management of private cars and, in particular, to the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS).”
“Anyway, to complete my little anecdote, I must add that I went back to check the White Paper and true enough, I could not find the full wording for SURS in the main report. It is not in Chapter 4, but I managed to find it in the Executive Summary where it says that SURS stands for Singapore Underground Road System. So I called my classmate the next day to tell him about it. Sir, the way the Government puts forth its policies, especially sensitive policies, such as the land transport system, is important. Otherwise, very often the good intentions of transport policies are misunderstood and misinterpreted. A case in point is the announcement that the commuters on the proposed North-East MRT line have to pay more for the line because of the lower usage. According to reports, the usage, if the line is completed by the year 2002, is about 240,000 compared to 709,000 on the existing lines. For the North-East line this works out to about 20% of the total MRT commuters, assuming today's commuter size. When the announcement of the fares was made by the Ministry, it did not just upset those 20% of the commuters or, say, 20% of Singaporeans, who live mainly along the North-East line. It upset almost everyone. Even those who may never ever take the North-East line found it fashionable, as always, to criticise this over a cup of coffee with friends. Presently, the bus transport operators, SBS and Trans-Island, are required contractually to operate both profitable and not-so-profitable bus routes so that Singaporeans living in the remotely linked areas can still have access to the buses. But I believe that passengers pay more or less the same rates as those using the profitable bus routes.”
“Last night, at a dinner, a prominent banker confirmed that in his own market segment, which is quite large, the personal savings of Singaporeans had reduced very much because they have either a hefty car or housing loan to pay up. It is the banking industry that benefits from increased loans and the Government, inevitably, accumulates a budget surplus from COEs. But the perceivably wealthier Singaporean who has some reasons for needing to own a car is in effect an urban poor after buying a car. So on hindsight, effective integration of the public transport system could have been yesterday's answer to today's and tomorrow's problems. I am glad that the White Paper spells out a comprehensive plan to integrate the public transportation system. I hope that this is done fast, and I urge the Government to make it so convenient and so affordable that Singaporeans who drive just to work and back home would be made to look like fools who want to part with their money or fools who want to slog and pay their hefty car loan. Sir, I met an old classmate of mine recently. He had read the White Paper and he jokingly, or maybe cynically, made a remark on an acronym used in the White Paper. He was referring to SURS. He said that he had searched the main report quite thoroughly and could not find out what the acronym SURS stood for. So he said, and I quote, "It is possibly an abbreviation for all the surcharges that would come with the world class land transport system." This remark could either be taken as a snipe or as a reflection of the pinch that our society feels due to our over-zealous pursuit of a free market economy.”
“The MRTC decides where to put their stations, and the PWD decides where to build the roads, and the bus operators decided where to locate their bus-stops. It is like the story of the seven blind men describing how an elephant looks like. The poor Transit Link Pte Ltd is possibly caught between these giant agencies who are pulling in different directions. It is certainly a sigh of relief, though 10 to 15 years too late, that the LTA has been formed to manage the agencies under one roof. Well, it is better late than never. To be fair, the Government did well to address the problem of road congestion in the Central Business District (CBD) by introducing a string of measures, 10, 15, 20 years ago. These included the ALS (which was introduced, I think, 20 years ago), and others like PARF, ARF and so on. But, in my opinion, the integration of the public transport system was not addressed as adequately as the road congestion problem in CBD. The MRT trains started to roll in November 1987. Had we visualised and implemented a comprehensive, integrated public transport system before the first MRT trains rolled, we would not have needed a Vehicle Quota System (VQS) or a tender system like the COEs. It may be argued that a Vehicle Quota System was necessary because more Singaporeans are wealthier and therefore they had generated a greater demand for cars. While Singaporeans are more wealthier than before, very few Singaporeans can actually pay cash for new cars and COEs. Many of those who buy cars go to the bank for a loan. We read in the papers very often that the quantum of personal loans had increased significantly in the past few years.”
“Maybe it is because of our hectic pace of life or maybe because many of us had little choice but to pay hefty sums of money to get that elusive and expensive COE so that we could have a certain level of comfort and an uninterrupted journey from home to our destination. A car in Singapore is not a nice-to-have item but really a need-to-have item today. Many Singaporeans had little choice on deciding whether or not to buy a car and so they are prepared to stretch themselves and pay a big price for COEs and cars because our public transportation system is not effectively integrated. The conclusion segment of the Executive Summary of the White Paper says, and I quote: `We must start solving tomorrow's transport problems today.' This is a very wise statement indeed. But had we started doing this effectively, say, 10 to 15 years ago to provide a more effective integrated public transport system, then we would have solved many of today's public transport problems yesterday. And this is what the typical Singaporean is saying. Let me quote a comment in today's Straits Times, and I quote Clement Chua, a company executive: `If door-to-door public transport really materialises, then I won't really need to drive a car.' Let us look at Hong Kong. They have a very effective integrated public transport system which includes the MTR, buses, mini-buses, taxis and even ferries. Their inter-connectivity points are very well planned. The all-weather sky bridges may not be aesthetically good, but functional, and the planning and coordination to co-locate bus stops with MTR stations, and key building complexes are superior to our own integration efforts so far. Our integration efforts were not well coordinated overall by any one single agency.”
“Sir, the White Paper is an excellent qualitative document setting out the future corporate vision on land transport. But having said that, I must present to the House candidly the feedback that I have received from my grassroots leaders, residents, trade unionists and other people known to me. The White Paper has not made a significant impact on the general public. There is neither too much praise, nor is there too much of an adverse reaction. On the plus side, people, especially those living along the proposed North-East MRT line as well as other public transport users are very relieved that the Government has revised its definition of operating costs, so that the bulk of the asset replacement would be borne by the Government. It has been stated in the White Paper that for the existing North-South/East-West lines, the operator's share of the replacement cost will be $1.6 billion. Assuming a historical asset inflation of 5%, the balance cost of $5.3 billion would be borne by the Government. This revision to the basis of charging and breaking even will moderate fare increases. Had this not been done, the full replacement cost would have effected an immediate fare increase of 30 cents across the board. Had that 30 cents increase come about, it would have caused too much of a thunderstorm - which we cannot afford as we approach the "harvest" season. On the minus side, I have, as expected, or as is usual, received more feedback. First, it is said that the vision set out in the White Paper would be achieved in 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, many Singaporeans find this far too long a period to wait. It translates into three to four elections before the vision is accomplished. Generally speaking, Singaporeans are impatient.”
“Sir, the point that I am raising here is that the price is not demand-related. In other words, there are some programmes which have 30,000 people calling in, eg, on-the-line programmes and the Pyramid Game. There are other programmes which have a few hundred people calling in and they are all charged 75 cents. The question is that there must be some supply and demand. Secondly, there must be some control because, first, it started with on-line programmes and now we are flooded with so many of this kind of 1900 calls which have a great visual impact on the listeners, especially the younger children. I would urge the Ministry to take this seriously and regulate it so that TCS and TV12 do not go over board in trying to get revenue. 1.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask Question 11, I just want to declare my interest, if any, as a Singapore Broadcasting Authority member. In Question 11 on TCS, I wish to include TV12 as well.”
“How about my question to allow 4 weeks as well for private individuals?”
“I agree that one week is not too much of a difference. But I want to make the point that HDB should deal with private individuals as well as agents on equal terms. Let us try and target for four weeks. Secondly, we should publicise what the Minister has said. HDB must publicise more of this to the public so that they are aware because right now they think that their transactions take seven weeks while it is four weeks for the agents and that the HDB is really trying to encourage them to use the services of the agents.”
“Sir, it was reported in the papers last month that the private individual transactions will actually take seven weeks. I am happy to hear now that the target is five weeks. But I really want to understand why there is still a one-week difference. Are we trying to encourage people to go to an agent? A 1% fee for an agent for a flat, say, in Bishan, which is now $770,000, is $7,700. So it is quite significant. Why can we not make it four weeks for private individuals who submit all their documents on time just as in the case of agents? Why do we not make it the same for both cases? Also, can we not make the punishment for private individuals the same as that for the agents?”
“If we say no to this Bill, it must be on the understanding that we are not saying no to the principle, that the details will come up again, and that much of the drafting and suggestions here will eventually be incorporated into the Women's Charter. It is very difficult at this time, as Mr Low has pointed out, to actually make a judgement as to which set of proposal is better because we do not know what is going to go into the Women's Charter. But if past practice is any guide, may I urge, like Mr Sinnakaruppan, that the Minister refer the Women's Charter amendments to a Select Committee, and at that point these provisions can again be suggested and debated. In conclusion, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the exercise is valueless. In fact, it is very good that Dr Soin has brought this to consciousness and, as the Minister himself has acknowledged, it has provided the impetus for consideration of this problem. If, at the end of the day, it is the feeling of this House that it would be better to deal with the amendments within the context of the Women's Charter, then so be it. But let us keep in mind that it is not the principle we are rejecting. We may quibble about the details but I think we are all agreed that it is necessary that the law should be beefed up. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“To provide penalties for contravention of Protection or Expedited Order. At present, in the Women's Charter there are no penalties for contravention of the Protection Orders. I think you will find this also in Dr Soin's Bill. Amendment (6). To allow applications to be made by a child or an incapacitated adult. Amendment (7). To attach power of arrest. So really the controversy seems to boil down to Part III of the Bill, which is the question of police intervention. I have listened to the Minister for Home Affairs and I think what he says has very much substance. The Police are really not equipped to do this. But that does not mean, with respect, that we should throw out the Family Violence Bill. It would be ironic indeed if after all these debates and after accepting the general principle, that the law does need to be beefed up, we throw out this Bill and when the Women's Charter amendments come up, basically the same provisions surface again in slightly different form. The Women's Charter itself, if I may borrow a phrase from Lewis Caroll, is a portmanteau. It is an act that has several things in it. If you look at its history, it replaced the Christian Marriage Ordinance, it replaced the Civil Marriage Ordinance, and it has got bits of the Minor Offences Act stuck in it. Members have called for the expansion of the Women's Charter into a comprehensive family code, a call which I fully support. I fully support the approach that has been suggested time and again in this House that the courts are not the best mechanism, not the best forum for handling family disputes, whether they be violence or whether they be maintenance.”
“We have heard from the Minister for Community Development and the Minister for Home Affairs that they are basically in agreement with the principle that the laws we presently have need to be enhanced. If one looks at the press statement that was issued by the Ministry of Community Development, one cannot but be struck by the fact that many of these proposals are in fact almost the same as those contained in the Bill that has been proposed by Dr Kanwaljit Soin. If I may just take this House through the proposals in the MCD's paper. Amendment (1). To extend protection to cover other victims who in the opinion of the court should be regarded as a member of the family. That is in the Bill. Amendment (2). To provide a wider coverage on types of actions which can be considered as family violence, wilfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place the victim in fear of physical injury, causing physical injury to the victim by such act which is known or ought to be known would result in physical injury, confining or detaining the victim against the victim's will, causing mischief or destruction or damage to property with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause distress or annoyance to the victim or causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause distress to the victim. Again, if one compares that with clause 3 of the Bill, most of it is there. There are, of course, differences. But these are differences of detail, not really differences in principle. Amendment (3). To make the burden of proof a balance of probabilities. It is in the Bill. Amendment (4). To confer on the court broad powers, to include additional orders in the Protection Order. It is there as well. Amendment (5).”
“Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, made a submission to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. Similarly, the former NMP, Mr Chia Shi Teck, also made a similar representation. I would therefore urge Dr Soin to do so if the Women's Charter is sent to the Select Committee. Sir, after Dr Soin has listened to the views of this House, I would urge her to withdraw this Bill. Today's discussion is very beneficial. I am sure that the Minister would take the views of the Member and other Members into consideration when he makes the amendments to the Women's Charter. Sir, although I do not agree entirely with Dr Soin's Bill, I would nevertheless like to acknowledge the contribution that she has made in enriching family law. I like to believe that she has achieved her objectives. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would try to be brief considering the time we have reached. I have listened carefully to all the speeches that have been made in this House. It seems to me that we have broad agreement on a lot of things. We are agreed that the law is not a panacea and that the law is not the first line of defence against the erosion of family values. It is education, it is creation of an atmosphere, creation of a societal value, that preserves the family. But we must also be aware that we cannot leave it entirely to education of the morals. You look at China, it has got 4,000 years of history and it is still not a perfect society. I do not think we ever would reach a perfect society. Every moral imperative has to have some sort of support from the law if it is to be effective.”
“This filmlet has received favourable feedback from the community. Therefore, while legislation is necessary, public education on family ties is just as important, if not more important, and the Government must continue to allocate sufficient resources towards this end. Sir, I would now like to refer to an article written by journalist Ms Wang Hui Ling in the Sunday Times on 15th October 1995. In this article Family violence deserves support, she made a passionate appeal to MPs to support the Family Violence Bill. In her opening paragraph she said, and I quote: `Nominated MP Kanwaljit Soin's Family Violence Bill seems unlikely to become law, judging from the reactions of Members of Parliament interviewed by the press so far.' She goes on to explain why it deserves support and she ends by saying, and I quote: `MPs might want to ask themselves this when discussing the issue: If my parents, my daughter or son were in this situation, which piece of legislation would I want in place to protect them.' I want to point out to Ms Wang that when the PAP MPs, I do not know about the Opposition MPs, debate in Parliament, they would not in any way be prejudiced by pecuniary interests. As legislators and as peoples' representatives, we approach issues in exactly the same way, whether it affects or protects our kinship or our constituents. I hope Ms Wang is enlightened about how the PAP MPs approach parliamentary debates. Sir, in conclusion, I would urge the Minister to eventually send the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to a Select Committee where the public could be invited to give suggestions to improve the Bill. In this way, we would be getting the public to make valuable contributions to the proposed amendments. Sir, the hon.”
“It would be difficult to train the crime busters to become patient family counsellors, as the Minister has pointed out. The job of investigation and counselling should be left to the social workers, the professional counsellors and the Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs). I cannot imagine how the police officers, especially young 18 year old National Servicemen can effectively deal with complex family violence matters. According to the findings of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Spousal Violence, the pilot project at Ang Mo Kio Police Division has shown that the majority of the family violence cases do not want outside intervention, especially police intervention. The police should only be brought in when there is physical hurt. While I maintain that police intervention is not the answer to handling family violence cases, I strongly endorse that no effort should be spared in finding other means to assist the victims quickly and to appropriately preserve the family. At the same time, recalcitrant wrong-doers and abusers must be punished sufficiently to ensure that it becomes a severe deterrent for other potential violators. Sir, the feedback that I have received from the Indian community is that family violence is on the rapid increase and that the Government should take appropriate steps to bring it down. Ten years ago the divorce rate in the Indian community was low. Now it is rapidly increasing. Both parents are now working and as a result they spend less time not only with the children but with each other. Children are at the receiving end. SINDA and other community organisations are trying to step up their drive to build strong family ties. The Ministry of Community Development and SINDA have jointly produced a filmlet on family.”
“The Family Court should be assisted by full-time trained conciliation officers. This Court should come under the purview of the Ministry of Community Development rather than the judicial system. It should be headed by a President who should be a family man or woman. Sir, now let me comment on the provision in this Bill for police intervention. To me, this is by far the most bizarre and perhaps the most unpragmatic aspect of this Bill. The Minister for Home Affairs has spoken at length as to why this is unpragmatic. This provision criminalises family violence and could exacerbate the already fragile family relationship. If this becomes law, soon our Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs) will have to be renamed Family Counselling Service Centres. Let us not get carried away. We have about 7,000 full-time regular policemen in Singapore and some more National Servicemen. Their primary job is to keep Singapore crime-free and to keep our roads safe for motorists and pedestrians. Let me give a simple analogy of a policeman's intervention to a family violence call. I will use the scenario of a traffic accident as an analogy. When two cars collide in a road accident, and if a traffic cop is nearby or is summoned to the scene, he is not going to arbitrate to determine who is right and who is wrong. Neither is he going to counsel the two drivers. All he would probably do is to just book them, book them both, or arrange to arrest them, if necessary, and get them to clear the road as soon as possible. That is what he is trained to do. And if he ever tries to counsel them, I sure do not want to be caught in the ensuing traffic jam. Sir, the point that I am making is that police intervention could lead to a more adversarial and confrontational approach to the issue of family violence.”
“So, as it does not work in Malaysia, I feel that we should evolve our own law and not adopt laws from other jurisdiction whose social and economic conditions may differ or where such laws simply do not work. The Family Violence Bill would encourage a confrontationalist attitude in the family. We cannot allow this to happen to our basic building block of our society. Contrary to Dr Soin's intention of containing family break-up, it would instead lead to diametrically opposite consequences. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are an Asian society. Our legal system which is largely based on the English system is adversarial. Our family law should reflect the social values of our society and we should cut off our dependency on English legal precedents. We should encourage mediation, conciliation and counselling. I had made this same point during the debate on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. I am happy to note that the Select Committee has adopted this approach in their recommendations. The idea of mediation and conciliation has also been proposed by a senior lawyer, Mr Shriniwas Rai, in his letter to the Straits Times published on 18th October 1995. Mr Rai called for development of our family law which reflects our own society's needs. The next point that I would like to make on the Family Code is that cases of family violence should not end up in criminal courts, as envisaged in the Bill. Instead, cases involving family violence, both physical and emotional, should be heard by the Family Court. Differences between family ought to be tried in an atmosphere of conciliation rather than confrontation. I would urge the Government to transfer the entire divorce, custody, maintenance and matrimonial property disputes from the High Court to the Family Court.”
“Sir, we should develop comprehensive family laws incorporated into one legislation and for this, the Women's Charter is the most appropriate vehicle. The Charter, when it was first enacted, was hailed as enlightened law. It still is. It requires some fine-tuning. Many representations to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill asked for the establishment of comprehensive family laws. In this regard, first, the title of "Women's Charter" should be amended and I would urge the Minister to do so. It could perhaps be called "The Family Code", not the Husbands' Charter, as Mr Chin Harn Tong has said. We could then bring about other related laws into this Code. Many men ask half in jest, half in sarcasm, where is the Men's Charter? This Family Code would cover every member of the family. When we develop this Family Code, we cannot simply ape the legislation and policies of the western or other societies because social norms differ. During a recent regional meeting, I discussed the Family Violence Bill with some of my ASEAN parliamentary colleagues and, in particular, I had the benefit of drawing on the experience of a legislator from Malaysia. He felt that their Domestic Violence Act 1994 was not working very well in Malaysia, as Dr Soin has said. But the difference is that I understand from professionals and even from the senior officials of MCD that the Family Violence Bill, and not the amendments to the Women's Charter, is modelled after the Domestic Violence Act. In other words, it is the Family Violence Bill which is being modelled after the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia, and not necessarily the amendments to the Women's Charter.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all Singaporeans cherish the desire of building strong family ties. Nobody likes to see violence, whether physical or emotional, in the family. It is destructive, it is depressing and it is demeaning. The Government has been looking into this seriously in the last two years. As early as 1993, MCD has embarked on a comprehensive review of the Women's Charter. In 1994, an Inter-Ministry Work Group has been set up to address spousal violence issues and concerns. The Family Violence Bill, tabled by Dr Kanwaljit Soin, somewhat duplicates a significant portion of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter. Nevertheless, the spirit of her Bill is laudable, her efforts commendable. The problem is that the cart was placed before the horse. Dr Soin publicised her Bill and with the ensuing media blitz, she has touched the hearts of many Singaporeans. I give her credit for her efforts. But the Ministry of Community Development, who chose not to publicise their proposals in the past two months or before because the amendments are still being fine-tuned, has somehow not been given due credit, either by the press or by some sectors of the public. The press said that the Minister killed the Bill. The Ministry of Community Development and the Minister deserve much more credit as they had initiated the whole process more than two years ago, long before the Family Violence Bill was conceptualised, as Dr Soin said, 1 1/2 years ago. No one, not even the Minister, is opposed to the broad principles of Dr Soin's Bill. What the Ministry of Community Development is saying is that when we have an existing legislation which could be amended, it is meaningless to have another new legislation. It does not make any sense. It would be like reinventing the wheel.”
“Sir, I share Mr Othman Haron Eusofe's concerns on the corporatisation of the refuse collection service. This corporatisation exercise would involve a significant number of daily-rated employees (DREs), many of whom are older workers. These workers have given many years of loyal service in carrying out the difficult and unenviable task of refuse collection. So when the new company or statutory board is formed, I hope that the efforts of these workers are duly recognised. There are many workers who have some apprehensions whether they will be retrenched. Personally, I think that because of the manpower shortage, there should not be any retrenchment. But the Ministry must clarify this apprehension as early as possible. There are also other workers who are looking forward to a more competitive compensation package, better terms and conditions of employment and also looking forward to an attractive one-off incentive payment when they are transferred to the new set-up. I hope the Minister would not disappoint them. Another area of concern is with regard to the medical benefits scheme. Last year, when the Government introduced the new scheme, some of the labour MPs and I appealed in Parliament to make the necessary arrangements so that these DREs need not pay upfront outpatient and specialist fees when they receive treatment in polyclinics and Government hospitals. With corporatisation, I hope that the present method of not paying upfront will continue as far as these DREs who are transferred are concerned so that they will not be unnecessarily imposed to pay such fees upfront. Sir, I hope the Minister will look into these concerns.”
“As such, provision must be made for these skills to be certified to the equivalent of one or two modules of a skills-based NTC-3 course. Such a credit system would help to close the gap between OJT and NTC certification without affecting standards. It would also become an incentive, as workers can get an NTC-3 certification in a shorter period of time. Sir, I hope that the Minister would look into this urgent and important matter.”
“Sir, the National Productivity Board (NPB) and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) have made good progress in promoting structured On-the-Job Training (OJT). Presently, there are more than 80 approved OJT centres at the various companies. These centres operate on the basis of a OJT blueprint that aims to bring about skills acquisition specific to the job. Workers who successfully complete the OJT are given a Certificate of Competency. But these certificates do not have national or industrial recognition because of the wide variation from company to company and programme to programme. The gap between the NTC-3 and this certification is indeed very wide as a result. Figures available indicate that the number of workers signing up for apprenticeship schemes has started to drop significantly. Employers should not see OJT as an alternative to acquisition of broader skills that is obtained through NTC courses. They should be made to see that OJT is a stepping stone for unskilled workers to acquire higher skills through NTC certification. It must be seen as complementary to NTC courses. This message must be clearly understood by employers and also, to some extent, workers, so that they would continue to place emphasis on our national skills certification courses. The NPB and ITE should also look into how the gap between OJT and NTC certification can be narrowed. OJT progress must also become more and more structured. NTC courses, on the other hand, should be made more skills-based rather than being occupational-based, at least at the NTC-3 level. For example, machine operators can be taught basic skills in handling equipment and hand tools, understanding of electrical and electronic works, safety, and so on. These are likely to be part of any typical OJT package.”
“The Ministry of Education should encourage the top schools to take in poor performers along with the top performers to provide them with a better environment and professional guidance to help them improve on their performance, or to "add-value" to them. Let all the secondary schools, including independent schools and autonomous schools, have Normal stream and Normal (Technical) stream classes so that there will be a better spread of students in every school. In that way, Normal stream students will have the chance to study and work along with the better students so as to spur them on. On the other hand, the good students will have the opportunity to mix with the Normal stream students and interact with them so that they will have a chance to understand the problems of students coming from different backgrounds. This is something good, and we should look into it.”
“I do not wish to argue about the merits or demerits of streaming, but one thing I can say for sure is that these students, who were unfortunate to have done poorly in their PSLE for various reasons, are now concentrated in one class or in one school, and this is certainly going to cause a lot of disciplinary problems and the school reputation will be affected. Teachers who are responsible for the charge of these students will have the problem of managing these students. I hope the Ministry of Education will look into this matter and try to find some ways to solve the problem. At the moment, the Normal stream students are concentrated in the neighbourhood schools. Some schools are hoping that they can have less classes in the Normal stream so that they would not lag behind in the annual ranking of schools. According to a report in the newspapers, a certain school transferred a number of students who did not do well in their examination to other schools on the excuse that it has no Normal stream class in the school. I think this principal is certainly looking for an easy way out. If students are no good, then kick them into the Normal stream and the parents will have no choice but to take their children to another school. That is too easy. If the Ministry of Education does not rectify this situation whereby schools are at liberty to admit only good students, and to reject all those whose performance is below par, then there will come a day when our education system will become nothing but a tool for the production of economic manpower, and our schools will become factories for the manufacture of economic and human resources. That will be a great tragedy to the modern history of mankind!”
“Sir, with the Government's thrust towards developing our external economy, more and more Singaporeans are accepting overseas postings. As many of them bring their families with them, there is a need for Singapore to set up international schools in countries where there is sufficient demand for such schools. In this regard, Singapore has already set up its first school in Hong Kong. I would like to know what is the progress made in this school. I would also like to know if it is true that Normal Stream students are not accepted into this school even though their parents may be working there. I would like the Minister to clarify this. I would also like to know if there are any plans to set up more of such schools in China, India and possibly Vietnam, as a number of Singaporeans are working in these countries. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, was talking about ranking of universities. I do not know whether he is aware that, in the past, universities were ranked as follows: Class I: Cambridge University of England and Harvard University of the USA; Class II: University of Singapore; and Class III: Nanyang University. Now, let me talk about the Normal Stream in our education system. Since we started to adopt the streaming scheme in our education system, students who did not do well in the PSLE were streamed into the Normal stream or Normal (Technical) stream. Apart from demoralizing the young children and breaking the hearts of their parents, this exercise creates a stigma on the students and causing them to be treated as persona non grata by the schools.”
“Sir, I hope the Minister would take up this suggestion.”
“Sir, every year, the universities and the polytechnics are allocated millions of dollars for the purchase of equipment, setting up of new research centres and to embark on developmental projects. Usually, these funds come from a variety of sources - the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, the Economic Development Board, National Science and Technology Board, and so on. While the various schemes have separate accountability, it appears that there is no central agency to coordinate and control the total fund allocations to the respective faculties or departments of the universities or polytechnics. It is common to find that some lecturers embark on projects that may be of personal interest to them and these projects may be of little relevance to the department or faculty concerned. If such a lecturer is enterprising and is able to write well, he is able to source sufficient funds from external agencies for his research work. Therefore, there is a need to institute proper coordination and control in the manner in which funds are sourced and distributed. Perhaps a quality audit system should be in place to ensure coordination of fund allocation. Such an audit can be carried out at two levels. At the first level, the central administration of each tertiary institution could set proper guidelines and rank the needs of each of their departments or faculties. At a higher level, the Minister can appoint a panel who can do random audits on projects and research work carried out by individual departments or lecturers. This panel could also help to coordinate the level of funding extended to the various tertiary institutions by the different sources and also set stringent performance indicators so that the funds could be spent more prudently.”