S. Vasoo
Singapore
“I would like to ask DPM whether the public as well as the Government-linked companies would be looking at some ways in which jobs could be created to absorb some of the older workers. In the longer term, I think job creation will become an issue, especially when many of the industries in the manufacturing sector are going to hollow out.”
“Our recruitment has been excellent over this past period and our attrition has been relatively low. But I am realistic enough to know that it is not just because of the Ministry of Education, the economy has helped a lot. I believe that I have answered most of the questions posed by Members.”
“Can I ask the Minister of State, when he claims that the LRT is of world-class standards, but the Member for Sembawang is complaining that there are so many frequent breakdowns, what world-class standard are we talking about?”
“May I ask the Minister whether the viewpoints of the commuters and the private bus operators will be solicited in his review? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, we are in touch with the private bus operators and we would definitely take the views of the public into consideration in the context of the overall framework of the public transport system.”
“It would be the last resort, as the Minister has put it, to institutionalise persons because, by institutionalising them, one breaks them up from the family, and family dynamics are disrupted. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that we have other means of rehabilitating young persons and juveniles within a community setting.”
“All the time, we emphasise on marriage as a partnership. We also accept, as one of our core values, the family as a basic unit. It is, therefore, desirable that the wording, at the beginning of this Bill, should reinforce this value. Under clause 13, the Minister will have powers to exclude certain classes of persons.”
The complete record
Every one of 879 lines we hold for S. Vasoo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 18.
“I would like to recall that I spoke to Mr Chiam after the Chee affair which we debated in April 1993. I think Mr Chiam would vouch for it that I told him, "Be careful with Chee and you should watch out for him. He is someone that can do you in." I did not use those words but I said that he is someone that you got to watch out. He is someone you got to be careful with. Otherwise, you may find that you may not be able to manage and deal with him. This is what I told Mr Chiam frankly. See what has happened to Mr Chiam. He has been turfed out. I am sure today Mr Chiam would concur with me. On hindsight, looking at what I had said, an honest appraisal of this man, he would agree with me wholeheartedly today that we are not dealing with a very simple person. We are dealing with someone who does not have honesty and integrity. Sir, Singaporeans must know of the dangers of the resurgence of anti-Singapore groups. This is very important and we should all be aware of. These groups have not gone away. They will surface under different guise to find inroads into vulnerable political groups and use them to disrupt Singapore's socio-political harmony and economic progress. I think there is always this resurgence of various groups trying to capitalise and find opportunities. We should all watch out for this. We must always be alert to deal with such potential dangers. Sir, I am recalling the various events so that Singaporeans will have an added dimension to evaluate Chee's character. Knowing him, I can tell you that he will continue to deny all his wrongdoings. I therefore would like to endorse the decision of this House to impose a penalty on him and other SDP members for their misrepresentations and false report.”
“Can he explain why he made the transport claim for Children's Day when it was a school holiday? As Members know, and I think the Minister for Education can vouch, it was Children's Day and the school was closed. There were no programmes. So why did he make this claim? I am sure he would come back and say, "Well, Dr Vasoo, you do not know what I was doing." But I think it is an interesting point. I am bringing this up to show that this is the type of person that we are dealing with. When I began to discover that he is not a trustworthy person, I had to go back to look at things and the more I discovered, the more I became convinced that I am not dealing with an ordinary and honest person, but I am dealing with somebody who is really dishonest and untrustworthy. The more you dig, the more dirt comes up. This is what has happened over the past few years. I feel that personal integrity and honesty are basic requirements for any aspiring and incumbent politician. Based on his past record, the public should judge whether he is someone we would like to entrust our future to. Sir, why I brought up Chee's misdeeds is not because I would like to do so. You know that I am a friendly person. I am very supportive. I am not a nasty person. I had helped him so much. I just want to point out to the House and the public that his past misdeeds show in his character. He cannot cover them up as I have proofs of his misdeeds. His political sideshows will continue with his political rhetorics in order to get attention. It is therefore important for Singaporeans to take cognizance of Chee's character as he is leading the SDP. Based on Chee's past record, Singaporeans should carefully judge whether he is someone we would like to entrust our future to.”
“It was a similar stance that he took when he was confronted by Members of the Committee of Privileges on his misrepresentation of data on health care. He claimed it was a typographical error and various other things. He could not read. He was confused. But he was not really confused. When cornered, he always tries to find some ways to come out of it. Third, I had pointed out that he made excessive transport claims from the NUS and when he was challenged on the matter, he cooked up answers. Let me give you something new which I had not brought up. I thought that at an opportune time I should bring it up. Today is quite an opportune time. So I might as well bring it up. This is something for Members to look at. Sir, I do not want to sound petty, by bringing up this issue of transport claims again. Because by looking at a transport claim, we can tell the character of a person. After a while, we can study the person. I feel that this is an important issue to highlight to the public. If Members recall, I pointed out that he made excessive transport claims between NUS and First Toa Payoh Primary School, among many other claims that he made. But I am specially picking this up because there is something interesting to highlight. The period was from 30th September 1991 to 16th October 1991. As Members know, 1st October is Children's Day and it is a school holiday. On 1st October 1991, there were no children in First Toa Payoh Primary School for someone to do research. He made a claim for 1st October 1991. Let me look at the transport claim. He made claims from 30th September to 16th October 1991. It was $12 a trip, which is reasonable but not that cheap. But at that time, $12 was quite a trip. 1st October is Children's Day.”
“You can cry until you are blue, he still says that he is not doing it. So you can assess how honourable this man is. I lost trust in this man. I asked myself, how can a man whom I have helped so much do such a misdeed, and was not man enough to admit taping the conversation. He lied when he said that he was not taping, which he did. This made me feel that he was an untrustworthy person. I was disappointed with his behaviour. Having done so much for him, argued and represented him, made a case for him, he then did this dishonourable act, which is unbecoming and untrustworthy. So how could a man who cannot admit such a misdeed be expected to lead Singaporeans? This is a very important question Singaporeans should ask. Recently, in the episode with Australia and the drug baron, he pointed his finger at Singaporeans and said that they lacked moral conscience. He should first examine himself and see whether he has moral conscience. Any decent honourable human being, when caught, would admit and at least say, "I am sorry. I did not mean it." But he never did. He argued till the cows come home and he still said no. So you can imagine what kind of a person we are dealing with. Second, he misused the university research fund to send his wife's PhD dissertation and he lied when confronted about the matter by Prof. Ernest Chew and me. I knew that this fellow cannot be trusted. You need somebody there to vouch for it. So I brought in Prof. Ernest Chew. I said, "Dean, you better examine this. You better be around in case he says that I am a PAP parliamentarian and therefore I am trying to fix him." But I am a decent man and people know this. He shifted his positions when the matter was investigated.”
“I think this is a very important issue that Singaporeans will have to introspect, appreciate and understand this man, in terms of his character and his integrity. Singaporeans would agree that it is not just words that count. It is the person's deeds that are most important. In the final analysis, it is the person's personal integrity and honesty that counts most. Sir, allow me to recall some of the past misdeeds which have relevance to his behaviour in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. This will enable Singaporeans to become more aware of his character in order that they can judge him when he makes his stand from time to time on public institutions or when he seeks election to public office. I think he is going to do so and we will have to watch out and be able to appraise this man in terms of what he has done. First, he secretly tape recorded his private conversation with me and denied itwhen I caught him red-handed. I caught him red-handed and I showed him, "Look, this is not right." He said, "No, no, I am not taping you. I am not doing it." I said, "Look, the tape is running. The light is on. How is that you are not taping? It is not right for you to do so." He said, "No, no, it is for my classes. Honestly, it is for my classes, and I am not doing this." A man you caught red-handed and he is not honourable enough to admit that he has taped you. You caught him red-handed and he can deny it. What kind of a person is he? Any honourable man caught in the act would admit, but he did not. So one should question how honourable this man is. From then on, after having caught him and he denied such a thing, I then had no trust in him. Because how can a man do such a thing and having been caught, he can still deny the fact.”
“He bites the hand that feeds him and he was not trustworthy. I will tell you later of what I found about this man. Sir, Chee's doing and SDP's stand have become public issues and Singaporeans must be aware so that they could judge him and the SDP leadership better. I think this is very important because Singaporeans must be able to discern honest men from dishonest men, and that is very important. I am very confident that Singaporeans will be able to discern honest people as it will be good for Singapore in the long term, because we will have progress and stability. Sir, Chee has been trying to draw public attention with his usual rhetorics. This is what he is good for rhetorics. Since he was sacked from NUS for dishonest conduct, he had tried each time to cook up new answers to support his case. But each time he is cornered, he finds new answers. So it is not very new. He started doing this very early, since I knew him. Chee, together with SDP leaders, attacked our key social institutions. In the Flor Contemplacion saga and Williams College affair, they had done Singapore in by siding with outsiders. When cornered each time on flawed opinions, Chee and the SDP would cover up by giving various excuses. This is quite an old story. He will continue to do so all the time. Chee has also not learned since he was caught by me for misuse of university research funds. He turned and twisted in the past when I had exposed him. He had demonstrated the same behaviour in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. How could he have changed public perception of himself by the series of exchanges in the press and public hearings? It is not his political acrobatics but the personal integrity that matters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the findings of the Committee of Privileges show how the SDP key leadership had made false representation and later, when confronted, they had tried to cover up their dishonest mistakes. What they had displayed in the recent public hearings make them unworthy politicians. The Committee of Privileges was right to recommend the appropriate penalty. At this point, I feel it is pertinent for me to share my frank and objective assessment of SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan's behaviour and stances, as he was the key player in the SDP's representation in the public hearings. I know this man very well. I had been with him for three years. He can hoodwink people very easily. Apparently, he did research on "hooded" rats. So he is likely to hood people too! The thing is this. I know this man very well. I studied him very closely. He presents himself very well in front of people. He is able to sell. But what is important is for us to know this man intimately. And I have known this man very intimately and I can give you my frank and very objective opinion. Chee was my subordinate in NUS and I had the opportunity to appraise him very closely. I assessed him yearly. In fact, I was very supportive and I helped him. I did what I could to help this man. But one important thing is that he would let you down ultimately.”
“On that note, Sir, I support the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“With the amendments, I am sure that the minorities in Singapore would see that their representation in Parliament will be continued. Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act do provide more flexibility to deal with changing demographic circumstances faced by various constituencies. For example, in my area, the population has been reduced. People have moved to new towns. Therefore, in older areas with declining population, we need to realign the constituencies and this allows for the realigning of old constituencies to provide for a better representation of Parliamentarians. Whereas in the case of newer areas, the population has increased and some realignment has to be made. Therefore, the amendments provide such a flexibility to meet these changes. The flexible provision is good as it addresses the demographic and other related changes. Sir, in the final analysis, we must ask ourselves whether the amendments would do good for Singapore. Is it going to build a more cohesive community? Does it strengthen our nation-building efforts? In short, my own appraisal of these changes is that it would bring about a socially healthier and more cohesive Singapore. We should, at all costs, support such an amendment. For the opposition, the problems will remain because the issue is for them to find honest people to meet the challenges. If they cannot find honest people, then I think they are to blame. Mr Chiam is not here. He cannot find honest people to join him and therefore he is left in a dilemma. He was turfed out of the Central Executive Committee of SDP, because he did not choose the right person. Sir, the crucial issue is that we need to find honest people to participate in the elections and be voted in to help in the nation-building process.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act will provide at least a quarter of the elected Members to come from GRCs, which is the minimum guarantee, but it does not prevent it from going up to at least 90% of the elected Members coming from GRCs. With the reassurance and support from the Prime Minister himself, you have heard that the PAP Government will ensure minority representation. This augurs well and, in future, any Government worth its salt must be able to carry the minority groups in the community. This has been the Government's policy and I hope that this will be continued with future governments. Sir, the maximum cap has been removed. We may ask, what is the rationale for this removal. The opposition may continue to argue that it is not in their favour. I would say that they need to find good and equally capable candidates. There is nothing to prevent them from putting up good candidates for the electorate to elect. Their arguments are therefore not really valid and they will use this as a tag line to argue that it is not in their favour. But I am sure that the electorate would be wise to choose honest and able people to represent them. Sir, the rationale, as I see, to remove the cap is to allow for flexibility and this is very important because Singapore is a dynamic society. Things change. Singapore is a small place. Therefore, we must make provisions which allow us to respond and to meet changing needs. We can ask ourselves whether such a flexibility is useful. It is very useful to allow us to respond to various changes. The concern about minorities has been addressed by the Prime Minister and he has given reassurance that minority representation would not be reduced.”
“I am saying this because the objective of the CDCs is to enlarge the powers and functions of the CCC and the RC through the use of Government resources, and the nomination of their own people to run the show. I think it is unnecessary to set up the Community Development Council. With this establishment, the functions of certain Ministries and Government agencies would be taken over and the effectiveness of the CCCs would be reduced also. Furthermore, the functions of the CDC will duplicate those of the CCCs, RCs and some other Government agencies and thereby wasting our national resources. Our Constitution is to defend democracy. It cannot be amended at random. Otherwise, our democratic system will be undermined. Unfortunately, the PAP Government has always been looking after their own interest, and treating the Constitution lightly by amending and amending it all the time. The PAP Government has said that it wants to win handsomely in the next election. Are they trying to achieve this by this Constitutional amendment? If they do so, how can they say they have won handsomely? If they really want to win handsomely, they should revert to the single-member constituencies and abolish all the GRCs and compete with us, one to one. Otherwise, they would never be able to win handsomely. They would, at best, win ungentlemanly. Mr Speaker, Sir, unless we have a national referendum on this Bill, otherwise I will be against this amendment before us.”
“From the single seat constituency to GRC and from three member GRCs to four member GRCs and now they try to increase it further to six members. All these actions show that the PAP Government either lacks long-term vision or is trying to protect its own interest to consolidate and continue its rule in Singapore. As far as the GRC system is concerned, the People's Action Party Government said it was intended to ensure that minority interests are represented in Parliament. But its true intention is to make things difficult for the Opposition parties to compete with the ruling party. If you say that minority representation is for quality and not quantity, then the Government can even turn around to say that we can nominate minority representation in Parliament to achieve this purpose. The PAP always says that its candidates have been very stringently selected. Yet, their minority candidates would not dare to stand in single-member constituencies and they have to come under the umbrella of the GRC to get into Parliament. This is ridiculous. Let us look at Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the Workers' Party's Secretary-General. On his own strength, he was able to win in a single-member constituency against the so-called quality candidate of the PAP. It is a matter of regret that this Constitution (Amendment) Bill is tabled. It creates yet another advantage for the ruling party and reduces the representation of minority groups in Parliament. This Constitution (Amendment) Bill before us seeks to pave the way for the formation of CDCs and this, in fact, is the real motive of the amendment.”
“This has also led to the breakdown of many of these communities and societies because it allows for acrimonious arguments and debates as to how this quota is going to be fulfilled. This is a very dangerous route for us to take and we should at all costs avoid taking it. Sir, it is important for us to strengthen Singapore's social foundation, as it is in our long-term interest to ensure that our meritocratic principles should continue to be applied in the political arena. This is important. We have evolved a very good system by allowing the best candidate, the best person to be cajoled or encouraged to participate in politics and we should keep it this way. This would prevent our political landscape to be subverted by ethnic strife. This is also a very dangerous route for us to take and if we allow this, there is nothing to prevent us from opening up the ethnic Pandora's box. I would strongly advise against encouraging and allowing this to happen. Sir, what would I like to ask the Prime Minister is that, with these changes, will it make our social and political foundations stronger. This is a fundamental question that we have to ask ourselves, ie, with all these changes that the Prime Minister has suggested, is it going to further strengthen our political foundation? Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my main point with regard to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1996 is on the proposed expansion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP Government has always said that its action is in the interest of the people and the country and in the long term interest of all. But if we analyse it, you will find that this is only an excuse. In fact, when they amend the Constitution, it is to create better and greater advantages for the ruling party.”
“The underlying worry is the adequacy of minority representation in future. I see this is the nagging concern that many minority groups have. The issue of adequacy is a highly debatable one. How adequate is adequate is a question which is very subjective. I may say it is adequate. For example, Mr Harun Ghani may say it is not adequate. Mr Chandra Das may say it is more than adequate. Generally, it is an issue that is sharply debatable. There is no wholly acceptable formula. I do not subscribe, in Singapore politics, to having a formula because that is very dangerous and could lead to divisive politics in Singapore. And any move towards a formula must be discouraged. Sir, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to address the nagging concern about future minority representation in Parliament. I would like to ask him what mechanism do we have to ensure that there will be a reasonable minority representation in the future Parliaments of Singapore, now that we have these constitutional changes. This is an issue which I hope the Prime Minister will address. Sir, whilst we need to have minority representation in Parliament, we must not institute a quota system in political representation. I would avoid this and I for one would not support it. Sticking to the quota approach will be socially unhealthy to Singapore and may, in the long run, be ethnically divisive and can erode our nation building and community cohesion. There is nothing to prevent various community and minority groups from asking for special quotas and privileges for various social provisions, such as housing, education, employment and health. When we look at some countries which have instituted this in their Constitution, it has led to serious problems and consequences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the presidential powers as it sets out clear-cut procedures for the President to exercise his powers. It also allows the President various recourses to deal with anomalies that he will face. This is a good thing because there are various anomalies which would happen in the process of exercising his powers. Therefore, the amendments have set the right direction to reduce such problems. The other significant point about this Bill is that it allows for a mediatory process which is a good thing. Because there are a lot of things that need to be mediated, this could be resolved effectively through mediation. And I support all these changes. Sir, what I am concerned about are the changes to the Constitution with regard to the GRC provision. If you will recall, when we first made changes to our Constitution to institute the GRC concept, it was to allow for minority representation. This is a good thing because, in the context of Singapore, the changes will ensure Parliament to have representatives from minority groups. There was a fear that, at one stage, if minority candidates were to contest in single seats, there was a likelihood that they may not be elected into Parliament. So the whole concept of GRC is valuable in the sense that we have a balanced racial representation in Parliament. This is important to Singapore, as a whole, and for our nation building. Sir, the proposed changes could, in the worst scenario, if you examine it, provide a leeway for future governments to reduce the number of minority representation in Parliament because the new amendments set the minimum cap at 25%. The existing Constitution allows for a maximum cap of 75%. There has been express concern by the minority groups.”
“Although we may have a good Bill which provides protection, many of these cases may require legal support which they face difficulty. I would like the Minister to see how we could provide easier legal support and services to this group who may otherwise not be able to put their case forward and for their problems to be dealt with. These are some of the critical issues that need to be addressed. From my assessment and reading of the amendments, we have made the essential amendments to provide further protection for mothers and children who are neglected and abused and who are to a great extent traumatized. Many issues relating to family problems cannot be dealt with by law alone. Even with these amendments, it does not guarantee the protection for mothers and children. What I see as most important is to be able to initiate more public education programmes for our younger generation in order to prepare them to be effective parents who would be caring and supportive of their family. If we can do that, then I do not think we would require further changes in our legislation to deal with such problems arising out of matrimonial difficulties. VISIT OF THE HON. REEIAL GEORGE, DEPUTY SPEAKER, FROM THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS AND HIS DELEGATION (Presence in Gallery)”
“They will be more effective in monitoring and providing services and in dealing with families that have matrimonial problems and difficulties. So the Bill strengthens their capacity to deliver and administer programmes in counselling and guidance to deal particularly with men who abuse their wives and children. There are two areas of concern that I have relating to the Amendment Bill, ie, the question of time lag to obtain protection order and the enforcement of protection order. The wife and children are, as you know, helpless when they are subjected to domestic violence by the husband. They have to be protected quickly because their limbs and lives are endangered. There is a need to narrow the time lag in obtaining a protection order. When a protection order is issued, it is most important to ensure that it is enforced quickly. Because of the bureaucratic rulings and applications, there may be delay. I feel that the Bill does not address this issue. There is a need for quicker action to deal with the problems of domestic violence. It is a matter which is urgent and where there is much abuse. When it is known and quickly reported, swift adequate protection should be given to the mother and children who are being abused violently. The last concern that I have is the legal cost. The changes and amendments to the Bill are good. They help to provide protection for the mother and children who require help and support. But it is the concern on the legal cost that these mothers, particularly those in the lower income group, have to bear. The legal aid support may be inaccessible because of the tight income ceiling eligibility set to qualify for legal aid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in our cultural context, women and children who are vulnerable need to be protected. If they are abused by men, I am sure my Parliamentary colleagues will agree with me that we need to protect them all the more. The amendments to the Women's Charter set the right direction in dealing with the problems arising out of matrimonial issues, maintenance, domestic violence and appropriation of matrimonial assets. I support the amendments to the Women's Charter. There are a few useful areas which the amendments have taken care of. First, women who have protracted difficulties, particularly those who have difficulty in ensuring that they are being maintained, now under these amendments, are being supported. I think it is in the right direction because many of the women and children are vulnerable. They are left with a financial burden and the amendment on this maintenance issue provides support for them and ameliorates them from becoming destitute and leaving the burden to the State to provide support for them. All the more, the responsibility is on the husband who has neglected and abused them to maintain his wife and children who, more often than not, are unprotected. Second, the usefulness of these amendments is that the mother and children who are affected by domestic violence are now being protected. This has been a growing problem in our community and there are many women and children who remain in silent pain who need to be protected. They will be relieved from being abused by their husbands. These amendments set the right direction to provide adequate protection for them. Third, I see that the usefulness of these amendments is that voluntary organisations will be given more support.”
“Sir, would the Minister review particularly the waiting time for first-time young couples applying for flats? The second supplementary question is whether the Ministry would actively review the burden of cash outlay, particularly for young couples who are purchasing resale flats, so that we could encourage more young couples to live nearer their parents.”
“It is important to intervene immediately in this problem area because they are most affected and aggrieved. We must be able to respond quickly to deal with the problems and relieve them of the distress. I think that is the crucial issue at hand. So I am asking the Minister whether his Ministry would be working very closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other social service agencies to ensure early intervention to tackle these problems as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we may have very good amendments but the problems are not resolved immediately.”
“I am glad that the Ministry is making attempts to try and get the problems mediated through counselling and dialogues between spouses before solving the problems at the court. There are two areas that I am basically concerned about. These are related to the amendments proposed. The first is the provision on the recognition of marriages for those who have undergone sex reassignment. There has been some controversy by various groups about this issue. The basic concern is the erosion to the institution of marriage. Are we indeed giving a signal that we support this direction?. If we are not, it is very important for the Ministry to debunk this notion that we are endorsing and allowing the institution of marriage to be eroded. I do sympathise with people who have undergone sex reassignment. It is a human problem and therefore we should be sympathetic. But what is most important is for us to set up, at least a board, to review the impact of these changes, and whether more people would be seeking sex reassignment is a question which we all do not know. It would be important for us to monitor the impact of these changes. I want to know from the Minister whether his Ministry would be establishing a board to review the impact of these changes that are to come. The other area of concern is that we may have very good legislation to deal with domestic problems, maintenance of spouses and problems related to abuse, but there is always a time lag between taking legal recourse and the intervening action to deal with the problems. So what I am asking is, despite the good legal provisions, whether the Ministry has the adequate machinery available to intervene immediately in the problems faced particularly by mothers who are not maintained and who are affected by domestic violence.”
“Sir, I share the viewpoints raised by the GPC Chairman of Community Development, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. I also welcome the recommendation by the Minister to refer the amendments to the Women's Charter to a Select Committee. This is very important because it gives an opportunity for various organisations and individuals to provide inputs to further fine-tune the amendments which have been proposed. Sir, the amendments to the Women's Charter are indeed timely, as it will provide relief to many mothers who are affected by problems of marriage. What is most important is that the amendments proposed will deal with the various contemporary issues related to marriage problems, particularly failures of marriage leading to domestic violence, neglect, protection for women and also failure to maintain the spouses. In this case, Sir, many of the spouses are in fact women and children who are helpless. This is an important move and the amendments address these problems. In the course of my work with many families, the issue is how to deal with wife abuse and neglect in terms of maintenance by the male spouse himself. The amendments do take care of the problems arising out of these areas. I feel that even with the best legislation and the best of intention, it will not be able to solve all the problems of marriage. So the best panacea is for the problems to be solved and mediated by the spouses themselves. If the spouses can resolve the problems, then there is no necessity for the problems to be taken through the legal process because it is going to be time-consuming and resource depletion. It is going to be a very painful process. The best thing is to find mediation for this whole process.”
“Yes. Will the capital grant of 90% be extended to them if they run childcare centres?”
“I am referring to childcare centres which are run by non-profit making organisations.”
“We will also be able to help the children enhance their development by putting them in childcare centres where they have an earlier headstart in their life. So may I suggest an upward revision of the scale to three children because the more children working class parents have, the greater their burden. This would, in a way, help to solve some of the problems faced by working class parents. This will also help to reduce the financial burdens of families with two or three children seeking child care services. 3.00 pm The other issue that I would like to ask the Minister to review is that it is important to study the impact of child care services on the lives of children, and whether the Ministry has in fact done any evaluation of the programmes undertaken by the child care centres itself. And what is the impact? In understanding the impact of child care services on the lives of children, whether they have become better after having gone through such a programme, we will be able to plan more effective programmes to improve the delivery of services in the child care arena.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. My cut is on child care. Sir, at the moment, a majority of our children are being cared for by their parents and grandparents. This accounts for 82%. Such a care arrangement is good, but it is likely to change. Sir, child care by maids accounts for 8%. Child care by foster mothers accounts for 3% and by childcare centres, 7%. All these patterns of care arrangement are likely to change as more mothers are entering the labour force. As reported, one in two women are entering the labour force at the moment. So the numbers are expected to increase further in the years ahead. Therefore, the demand for childcare centres is expected to increase. I would like to know whether MCD has projected the demand for childcare centres in the next three years and what is the demand pattern like. Sir, access to childcare centres is very important. Unless there is easy access and a reduction in the waiting list, we cannot prevent the children from becoming latch-key children. This problem is also likely to increase if access to childcare centres becomes a difficult one. I would like to urge the Ministry to look at the non-profit childcare organisations which are interested to expand their services. They are unable to do so because of the increased operational cost, particularly in terms of manpower cost and outlay for capital expenses. I feel that the grants and subsidies provided by MCD, at the moment, should be revised. It would be timely for the Ministry to increase the grants as it is a worthy area for active consideration because, by deploying additional resources in this area, we will prevent problems like latch-key children, juvenile delinquency and other related problems.”
“They are many more social problems not reported in the newspapers. Sir, the Government is advocating a more caring society. We should not only ask Singaporeans to dig out from their pockets to do charitable work. We should show more care and concern for our fellow citizens. The Government is providing only very limited resources and they are leaving it to the voluntary organisations to do all the work.”
“They are the ones looking after the under-privileged people in our society. The Government has been pushing away its responsibility of looking after these unfortunate people to these volunteer social workers, charitable and religious organisations. The Government thinks that by providing 50% of the operating expenses, it has already fulfilled its social obligations. As a result, these organisations not only have to look for volunteers to do social work, but also devote a large portion of their time and efforts to go all over Singapore to raise funds to meet the other 50% of the expenses. This is the so-called social services provided by the Government. No doubt the Government can provide figures to say that they have done their part, but from what I have seen, the situation is indeed regrettable. Sir, according to a report in the Straits Times dated 22nd May 1995, some 166 handicapped children are waiting for places in the two special schools in Singapore. I quote: "There are a total of 166 children waiting to enter just these two institutions and they may have to wait for years." On 9th September 1995, again in the Straits Times, there was a report with the caption: "Long Waiting List for Autistic Programme". It seems that some have waited for up to 3 years for admission to the programme. On 21st November 1995, the Straits Times carried this headline on its home page: "What I Want for Christmas? A Roof That Does Not Leak, please?" highlighting the plague suffered by Ramakrishnan Mission Boys' Home. On 25th December 1995, again in the Straits Times, I quote: "A 56-year old woman went into shock when her husband died and kept his body in their Housing Board flat for days before police found them on Friday night." These are some problems we read from newspaper reports.”
“The other aspect will be singlehood and I think there will be a growing number of persons who will remain single and unsupported and, to some extent, they are the community's problem. One needs to look at that. There are also increasing signs of family breakdowns and domestic conflicts, which will be an emerging problem. Our community needs to address it. The problem of latch-key children is likely to come about as many parents are going out to work, particularly those low-income families. Finally, the erosion of social values. This and others are some emerging problems that our community is likely to face. All these problems will have to be examined more carefully to see what we can do to rally the community to deal with them by the turn of the century. What I wish to enquire, Sir, is whether the Ministry have got plans to deal with the new emerging problems that we expect in the near future. In the interim, the Ministry has set up the Inter-Ministry Committee to study the problems and it has come out with a report to deal with dysfunctional families, juvenile delinquency and drug abuse. What I want to find out from the Minister is what plans has the Ministry made so far in the implementation of the Report of this Inter-Ministry Committee? What are the plans that the Ministry is likely to implement in the next two years to address these urgent problems? Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, in recent years, the Government has been advocating the cultivation of a more caring society. Looking at the social services available now, most Singaporeans who need help are being helped by the voluntary charitable organisations and volunteer social workers. These voluntary organisations are the main force behind our caring society.”
“We should try and assist these volunteers to do a better job and help them to manage these organisations more effectively. We should try and see how their task could be made more effective and efficient and we should persuade many other volunteers from the community to do their fair bit and to help others who are less better off in our community. I feel the Government can provide a signal by doing its fair share in encouraging and supporting voluntary organisations to relieve their funding problem. The voluntary organisations can do a better job and I hope that the Government can do its part to support them by bringing sunshine to the lives of those who are less better off. The other issue that I would like to bring up is the challenge of new emerging social problems and issues that our society will face by the turn of the century. The problems of the care of the aged will become very acute. In 20 years from now, it is expected that one in five families in Singapore will have an aged parent. A large proportion of these families are likely to have parents who are disabled and aged sick. In this respect, many of these families too require the support to manage the aged sick members of their household. This problem is likely to become very acute and I am glad the Government is taking various measures to see how these families could be supported, how the aged themselves could be kept healthy and able to manage the tertiary aspects of their life. 5.45 pm The other crucial factor that we are likely to face is the problem of youth aggression and delinquency. By the turn of the century, we will confront the problem of affluence and youth delinquency would be one area that we need to address.”
“As we know, the Community Chest, which is a national voluntary organisation in terms of funding, has been able to raise and distribute about $37 million this year to the various charitable organisations. The Community Chest itself is finding increasing difficult to raise the dollar. I feel that perhaps the Government could consider boosting their Share programme, which is contributed by the public, by matching on a dollar-for- dollar basis, up to a cap, to meet funding needs. Perhaps by doing so, the Government will be able to encourage others in the community to further fund the Community Chest to help other voluntary organisations. They are providing useful services to the community. In short, I feel that it is urgent to review the funding formula itself so that the voluntary organisations could be helped to deliver new programmes which are expected of them, and also to reduce the burden of fund raising. This will also enable those who manage the voluntary organisations to redeploy their time to look at how they could efficiently deliver services and manage their organisation more effectively. What I want to find out from the Ministry is the amount of grants that has been given out over the years, the amount of funds allocated to voluntary organisations and whether the Ministry could look at the issue of providing on a dollar-for-dollar basis to fund new areas of services and help to relieve organisations of their burden of fund raising. Sir, we should ask ourselves this question. If tomorrow, many of these organisations cease to operate and they have real funding problem, would the community be any better? I do not think so. Many of these organisations are promoted and supported by volunteers.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I will proceed with the two amendments that I have. Sir, first, I would like to persuade and urge the Minister and perhaps to nudge him to see whether he could increase the subventions for voluntary organisations. I hope that he is not affected by compassion fatigue as a result of my urging him over the years. But I know that he is looking actively into it. First, many voluntary organisations have expanded their work and they are playing a major role in the voluntary welfare field. Increasingly, over the years, they have been expected to undertake many other functions, right from the services for children to the elderly. With the increasing role, thet face a burden in terms of funding and they need to find additional funds to deliver these services. The second cogent reason is that fund raising has become very competitive. There are many organisations out there, including the self-help organisations and others. They are competing for funds and many of these organisation are approaching the same pool of people and persuading them to contribute. I think many Singaporeans are doing their fair bit and I must say that they have been very charitable. But then the donor pool is limited and therefore it poses a problem for many of these organisations. The third cogent reason is that many of the organisations have outdated and old facilities which require to be upgraded. This also poses a problem for them to find additional funds to renovate their buildings and upgrade the facilities. The Government has helped by providing a dollar-for-dollar funding programme but this formula needs to be reviewed. Perhaps a better formula of 60-40 funding might be helpful to many of these organisations.”
“If he could help this group, then many of them would probably be able to get support from their parents in meeting their child care problems and they could also provide other related support to their ageing parents. I think the buy-back scheme which has been extended to the lower income families could be a possible scheme to assist this group of young couples who want to live with their parents in the older housing estates. I think this is worth looking at and I urge the Minister to consider this.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate again. Sir, on the allocation policy of HDB flats, many young couples, particularly those planning to set up a family, are indeed frustrated with the long three-year wait for their flats; sometimes longer, depending on the area. Sir, when I asked them why they were frustrated, they replied, "Cannot get married because I have no flat." When I asked them why they delay to get married, they replied, "I do not have a flat and cannot plan to have children." When I asked them why they do not have a family formation, they replied, "I do not have a place at the moment." I think these are some of the common problems that young people are really concerned about because they need a home in order to solve some of their family planning issues. Imagine what impact the Minister could bring if he revises the housing allocation policy for this group of people. He would solve a number of key concerns. First, he could facilitate earlier marriage. Second, increase family size. Third, encourage family formation. I think he will be playing a tremendous role in helping to deal with our declining population. Sir, would the Minister review this urgently and take action to provide the highest priority for these first-timers who have either just got married or are planning to get married. He will probably be helping this lot of first-timers to meet their needs. The other issue that I would like to ask the Minister to address is whether he could think about a modified buy-back scheme to help this group of young first-timers because there are many young first-timers who want to live with their parents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the household income ceiling set at $1,200 to help low-income families to upgrade their housing is helpful. I must say that it is laudable. However, the ceiling is not realistic in terms of today's income earnings of low-income families. I want to ask the Minister how many low-income families have been helped since the revision of the ceiling to $1,200. I would like to strongly urge the Minister to increase the household income ceiling to $1,500. This would be about right and realistic because it represents at least the median income of low-income families. Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to consider this because it will benefit more low-income families to upgrade themselves.”
“Sir, on preventive health, from the annual report I assess that the amount of fund allocated to primary health care and preventive health care is rather dismal. It is about 12% of the Ministry's total budget. In this respect, preventive health care is not given as much attention as it requires. We are in fact trying to promote healthy lifestyles. Prevention is, in fact, better than cure. I am sure the Minister will agree with me. We do not seem to be paying more attention by deploying more resources, more manpower and more attention to this area. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what plans the Ministry would be taking to give more emphasis to this aspect of healthcare, which is of growing importance. What incentives are being planned by the Ministry to promote more healthy lifestyle programmes and other related programmes of a preventive nature in the work setting where we have a large working sector? I think it is important that we try and find ways to promote preventive healthcare programmes into this sector.”
“Sir, both the middle income and low income families are concerned about the insufficient B2 and C class wards. This is obviously due to the increasing demand by this sector and many of them eventually land up being put into higher ward classes. Consequently, many of them have to pay more than they can afford. So what I want to raise is whether there are sufficient C class and B2 wards available in Government restructured hospitals. The consequences are obvious because there is increasing demand generally in terms of hospital admission in the last few years. So this concern has to be addressed. The second issue that I would like to raise is a concern which has been raised by the GPC Chairman, Mr Loh Meng See. He has said that there is higher attrition in terms of manpower in the Government healthcare sector. I feel that the efficiency and quality of healthcare depends on whether the restructured hospitals and Government hospitals are able to attract and retain able medical healthcare personnel. In this respect, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give an assessment of the medical manpower situation in the hospital sector. The other point that needs to be addressed is the issue of morale of the staff in the hospital setting. I would like to recommend that there is some urgency in setting up a health commission, like the Education Commission or the Armed Forces Commission, to study and make recommendations to improve the morale of the workers in this sector and their terms of service and conditions. This is urgent because the health sector is one of the largest public sectors in terms of service. I think the problem needs to be addressed fairly quickly.”
“Sir, I have two cuts. Can I take them one after the other?”
“Some people say that this is one budget where the Government is sharing its wealth with the people and the newspapers are presenting it with a fanfare that the Government is giving away lots of hongbaos. Let us take a look at these hongbaos from the angle of the revenue and expenditure of the Government. 1. Since the middle income groups have paid a lot of taxes in terms of COEs and foreign workers levy, the Government has designed some tax deduction measures for them. Although the Government suffers a revenue loss of $3.75 million, it had actually collected, in the previous fiscal year, more than $3.6 billion from the relevant taxes and levies. 2. The service and conservancy charges, rentals and public utility rebates for the lower income groups may result in a revenue loss of $126 million for the Government, but, in the previous fiscal year, the Government collected $1.64 billion in terms of Goods and Services Tax (GST). 3. The so-called "sharing the wealth with the people", CPF Top-Up scheme and the Pre-Medisave Top-Up scheme may cost the Government $955 million, but on personal income tax alone, the Government's revenue was more than $2 billion. So in fact, the so-called hongbaos and the measures to distribute the wealth to the people will take up only 6% of the Government's total revenue for the year. Moreover, the Government's revenue over expenditure is more than $6 billion which will go to the reserves. Therefore, through all these policies, the Government has collected a lot of taxes from the people. Then in the Budget, it is just taking a drop from the ocean, but it plays up the whole thing and says that it is sharing the wealth with the people. "Eating up the big and paying out the small", this is the essence of this year's Budget!”
“This new principle is based on the output and performance indicators of the various departments to decide how much funds should be allocated to them. This would have far-reaching effect on Singapore. For example, if the Traffic Police sets a target of issuing 100,000 summonses for traffic offences a year, and in order to reach this target, does it mean that the Traffic Police will step up their efforts to issue more summonses? If the Police Department fixes a target of 50,000 cases of prosecution a year, what would happen if they cannot attain the target? At the same time, if the evaluation of salaries and promotion of the CEOs and senior officers of these Government departments which have become autonomous agencies are to be based on whether they can perform beyond their pre-set targets, then I am afraid Singaporeans will have to pay even higher fees for their services. Moreover, those departments whose output cannot be quantified or the nature of their services is such that the volume of output is fixed, does it mean that they will be ignored in the budget, or that they will never get what they asked for in the budget? For example, in the Ministry of Education, the number of students it serves is more or less the same every year. They are in no position to perform beyond the target of service, and hence they will have no surplus to retain. I hope that when the Government uses this new principle of budgeting, it will make public, in detail, the target of each and every autonomous agency, the funds allocated under the budget, and how the Government supplies the funds according to the output of their services, and the ratio, etc. Now, let me analyse this year's Budget.”
“Then as the major shareholder of these privatized companies, the Government would make a lot of money and they can then give a lot of hongbaos when presenting the Budget. However, come a day when we are unfortunately faced with an economic recession, and the Government's budget would have to focus on how to stimulate the economy and attract foreign investment, it will have no money left to give subsidies and rebates. Then the ordinary folks will have to pay higher tariffs with no offsets or rebates. Worse still, if they lose their jobs, how are they going to make ends meet? Secondly, upon privatisation, the public transport system and health care services will be operated in the commercial way to generate profits for its shareholders. On the other hand, they are under certain pressure where the charges for these services cannot be raised too high for fear of increasing the burden of the people. These service industries cannot substantially raise their service charges, yet they have to ensure their shareholders of a considerable return. Then, they will have to find ways and means to reduce their operational cost, at the expense of certain aspects of their operations, such as the safety measures of public transport, the quality of medical service, etc. In the long run, will this not result in deviations and getting into great trouble? Thirdly, once these bodies, whose original duty was to provide basic services to the people, are privatised, they will no longer come under the control of Government departments. One day, if the nation has to face a crisis and the cooperation of these bodies is needed, will there be a problem getting these privatized corporations to cooperate? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now talk about the Government's new principle for formulating the budget.”
“On the other hand, if they agree to an increase in the tariffs, their cost of living would go up. Then the Government can unashamedly say, "Well, in the interest of the majority of Singaporeans, the tariffs have to go up!" In the end, the tariffs are raised. Now, these ordinary citizens who are minor shareholders may make a little money from their shares, the Government as the major shareholder will make big money. In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister pointed out that the increase in electricity tariff is to have a correct pricing of the factors of production. However, electricity is not only a factor of production for the industries. It is also an essential utility to the daily living of the ordinary people. So the Government has treated the supply of electricity as an investment and it says that we must have a good rate of return on the investment. This is not in conformity with the principle of the Government having the fundamental duty of providing essential services to the people. If the Government applies this principle of demanding returns on its investment to the other services, like the MRT system, and raise the fares in order to attain good returns on its investment, then the fares will be substantially raised. When privatising these organisations whose primary duty is to provide basic services to the people, the Government should carefully consider the consequences that may follow. First, when these Government bodies are privatised, labour costs and other costs will increase. At the same time, in order to gain sizable profits, or to attain the due returns on the investment, charges for the services provided can only increase and never decrease.”
“In this respect, we should have more policies to encourage and give incentives for good saving habits. Good saving habits should start with the young. I hope that the Minister will look into this issue. And I would like to ask the Minister whether he will implement proactive policies that would encourage savings and whether current policies would be reviewed. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister for Finance and commend him for a very generous Budget for 1996. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard a number of PAP MPs praising the Finance Minister for being very generous. But we must not forget that he is being generous using the money of the citizens of Singapore. First of all, let me talk about the Government's economic principle. All along, the Government's principle on all the domestic services is that these services must be able to yield economic benefits. For example, the public bus services must not only not run into losses, but they must also ensure that the shareholders can make good profits from their operation. Now the Government wants to increase electricity tariffs. They claim that the rate of return on the investment is low. But in fact, what they really want is to make sure that the shareholders have good profits after privatisation of the Singapore Power. Of course, once this organisation, whose original responsibility was to provide essential services to the people, has been privatized, the Government would encourage the people of Singapore to buy its shares as a form of investment. Later on, if the tariffs are increased, the citizen-shareholders will be compelled to suffer in silence. If they do not agree to an increase in tariffs, there will be no return on their investment.”
“I would also like to urge the Minister to extend Edusave grants to disabled children studying in special schools. Since these children are studying in special schools, they should be made no different from normal children who are studying in other schooling institutions. I do not think that we should deny them this benefit, Sir, because they are our children and despite their disability, they are being educated in special schools. I hope that the Minister for Finance will look into extending the Edusave grant to this group of children. Sir, I would also like the Minister to consider higher allocation of financial grants to voluntary and charitable organisations. Presently, the Government provides grants on a dollar-to-dollar basis. It would be helpful for Government to review this formula and perhaps increase the grant on a formula of 60 to 40 basis. Perhaps a one-time grant to these organisations on an annual basis, subject to good economic performance of the country, could also be considered. This itself would be a signal to encourage all those who are providing voluntary efforts in supporting community projects to enter into a greater partnership with Government to implement more programmes in helping the less able and disadvantaged in our community. Sir, I hope that the Minister will be able to look into this area as many voluntary organisations have requested for further support to enable them to do a better job. Sir, the last area that I would like to bring up is incentives for saving. We should not allow agencies and credit organisations to encourage people, particularly our young, to spend more than what they can afford. We should encourage thrift amongst our population and this is important to propel our economy further.”
“In the last few years, we have seen active efforts by Government to restructure and privatise public and statutory bodies. The objective of such direction is clearly spelt out by Government. Perhaps it will achieve economic efficiency. However, the outcomes and the consequences of this privatisation and restructuring exercises are less predictable. I would like to ask the Minister the overall impact of such restructuring exercises implemented by the Government on the economy. Has economic efficiency been achieved at the expense of increased prices? Sir, there are concerns that some of the restructured corporations such as Telecom, TCS, SMRT and others in the pipeline, such as Singapore Power and PSA, would be providing monopolistic services. Sir, would future price increases be capped and the charges moderated? This is important because these are all monopolies and there is a need to ensure that the consumers who are helpless would to some extent be protected against steep increases in prices of their goods and services. And with the move towards privatisation of various Government bodies, I think it is very important that this issue be further examined fully. In this respect, I would suggest a Monopolies Commission be established to deal with them and to moderate profiteering by such privatised or corporatised enterprises. Sir, in relation to the tax relief for the disabled, I would like to say that the Minister for Finance could afford to be more generous in support of families with disabled children and aged sick parents. These families deserve to be given higher tax relief so that this could reduce their financial burden to care for their dependent and disabled family members.”
“We have made good progress, because of good Government, political stability, and good investments, and to some extent, good fortune. And this, I think has contributed to Singaporeans being able to enjoy a good life and good progress each year. Sir, the Opposition will always paint a negative picture about this. One must ask them to identify which countries have, in the last few years, been able to give generous benefits and tax incentives to their people. I know of very few countries in the region and elsewhere that have done so. Sir, the Singapore economy is doing well. Generous allocations have been made to various economic sectors to expand. Would such an increase, both expenditures in the public and private sectors, drive up inflation? Our inflation has been kept low at about 3% to 4%. What is the anticipated inflation rate for the year? Sir, with increase in inflation, the real income of families will be eroded, and this can affect low income families. I would perhaps like the Minister to address this growing concern facing Singaporeans. Would the Minister give an indication whether he would expect an increase in inflation this year? Sir, there is also a nagging concern about the increase in cost of living. People generally complain about this. Has cost of living really been going up steeply or is it going up steadily? I think this concern has to be addressed and clarified. Sir, the working class families have indicated to me that prices of goods and services, particularly prices of food items in their neighbourhoods, seem to have increased higher than the inflation index. I would like to see that monitoring of steep price rises be closely undertaken by the Government and action must be taken against those for over-profiteering.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the Finance Minister has been very generous for the 1996 Budget. Despite his generosity, I hope he is not lean to Parliament House because we have a spalling ceiling problem. I am concerned about his safety and the safety of Members there. Sir, despite that minor problem, and to get back to a more serious note, I must commend the Finance Minister for a very generous Budget for 1996. Almost all Singaporeans stand to benefit from various rebates and allocations made in this year's Budget. It is indeed the best Budget that I have heard so far in my years in Parliament. Sir, Singaporeans have benefited from the good economic growth our country has made in the last few years. Opposition parties will deny this. They always cry wolf and say nothing has become better, and people are taxed more. This can be easily debunked. My parliamentary colleagues have given clear examples and explanations which have debunked them on this issue. Sir, it is only with economic growth that more provisions could be made. If you look around, people in many countries do not enjoy such economic benefits. Many of them in these countries have to pay more through higher taxation. Taxes are increased and this is a norm. People are disturbed and they have to bear the hardship. Life for people in many of these countries has not improved. We are in a more fortunate position and we are not facing this problem and many Singaporeans have enjoyed a better life over the years. We must therefore examine why this is the case. Why have we made such good progress and people have been given more benefits over the years?”
“As many of them need to work and commute, I think we should try as far as possible to see how we can make arrangements for a specialised transport system to meet their needs. These are the various issues that I hope the Minister would address to see how a better world class system can be realised. I support the proposals in the White Paper.”
“As pointed out in the White Paper, travelling will be made efficient and comfortable, but then how long is it going to take them to commute to their work places. Sir, we may have a first class transportation system but with a poor supporting feeder service, it would be counter-productive. People travel very quickly by MRT from one destination to another but the supporting feeder system takes them more than 45 minutes to get to their home. That defeats the whole purpose of having a world class system when they travel very quickly by MRT but the other system clogs them up. Therefore, it is crucial to build a more efficient supporting system, such as LRT and a good feeder system, that will allow commuters to reach their destination very quickly. Sir, the third area where the White Paper has not paid close attention is the needs of the growing aging population. In view of the fact that one in five persons would be 60 years and above in the next two decades, what are the specific plans of LTA to make the public transportation system more user-friendly to the elderly? Do not forget that we would be having a larger number of go-slow and slow-slow aging commuters whose transportation needs are different from the more agile and mobile population. I have not seen any specific suggestions that the White Paper has addressed for this group. Finally, Sir, the special needs of the disabled persons have not been looked into. One may argue that it is difficult to cater to their transportation needs in the White Paper. However, I feel that arrangements would have to be made to look into the travel needs of the disabled. Their travel needs have to be addressed so that they will also be brought into the mainstream of our society and enjoy it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the White Paper on a World Class Land Transport System provides a comprehensive plan to meet the transportation needs of our population. Most commuters whom I have spoken to are impressed with the various plans which are said to likely solve our transportation problems. While we solve the problems at this juncture for the next five years, new problems may arise and we will probably need another White Paper to look at this whole issue again and try to see how we can solve the problems. Sir, whilst the proposals are good and comprehensive, there are a few issues which require attention. First, with a first class transportation system, will transport cost for the average working class commuters remain affordable? I think the major question in the minds of many commuters, particularly the working class, is the fares between their home and their work place. Sir, about 14% of their income is being used for transportation. What would the threshold be? Would it be 20% of their income in the next five years? Is there a need for us to maintain some balance in allowing for affordability because a large number of commuters travel by public transport? Sir, this is very important. We must not have a high class transportation system that remains inaccessible to the greatest number of travelling public. I think this issue would have to be addressed by the LTA to ensure that there is a balance in terms of the charges. Sir, the second issue is that with the changes to the present transportation system, will travelling time be reduced? That I think is an issue that many commuters are also asking, ie, whether the improved changes would be a change for the better.”