Shriniwas Rai
Singapore
“Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration. Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament.”
“Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted. Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution.”
“Sir, I have the benefit of going through Mr Inderjit Singh's speech earlier, and I support his call for a two-tier category. I think it is something that is worthy of consideration. Although it may not be practical now, I think we should give it serious thought. Sir, this is a very judicious Bill.”
“Of course, if the need arises, and if it is useful for it to be corporatised, that can be considered. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong.”
“Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.”
The complete record
Every one of 327 lines we hold for Shriniwas Rai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.30 pm”
“The purposes have been spelt out very broadly in the Bill - to promote the financial industry and the infrastructure and training - and I think there will be many worthwhile avenues to which the money can be applied. Of course, what is done, we will report annually to Parliament in the MAS' Annual Report. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked why issues should not be raised in the High Court when there are appeals against decisions of Newco, whether these should not be heard at the High Court with an avenue of appeal to three judges at the Court of Appeal, rather than be heard in a District Court and appeal only to the High Court. It is a matter of how you want to balance the judicial system and where you want to put the prerogatives and the powers of the different levels of the Courts. It is our judgement, and I think also the Attorney-General's Chambers, that the offences can be dealt with by the District Judges because they have sufficient expertise, skills and experience to do so, and the offences do not attract capital punishment or life imprisonment. But at a more fundamental level, there is an appeal allowed directly to the High Court, because if MAS issues a directive to Newco and Newco is aggrieved by this directive, Newco can appeal to the High Court, and the High Court will judge the matter. And if the High Court rules against Newco, there is nothing to prevent further appeal to the Court of Appeal, which is very important, because it will mean that MAS' directives would need to stand up to High Court's scrutiny. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong].”
“TAS used to regulate and operate the Telecoms industry and PUB used to regulate and operate the utilities industry (water, electricity and gas). When they corporatised, they had to be split and their functions were divided up into the regulatory part and the operating part. In the case of the Stock Exchange and the Futures Exchange, MAS has always been the ultimate regulator. We have always had oversight, and we will continue to have oversight and regulate the two exchanges as well as the holding company after their merger and demutualisation. The exchanges themselves will always have to do a certain amount of policing of their own rules, but that is at a different level, and MAS will always be in an over-watching position. We have to maintain a balance between being hands-on and controlling everything and standing back and letting things run perhaps in the wrong direction. We have to be not hands-on but in a position to put things right, if necessary. And that is what MAS will do. On the Corporate Finance Committee, indeed, they made a large number of recommendations which we have been following up, and we have made progress in many of these. I think MAS will be putting up an update soon within a few weeks to keep the public posted as to the progress of the work so far. Finally, on the Financial Sector Development Fund, what should the money be used for and can we take views on how to spend it? As Members will know, there is never any shortage of suggestions on how money should be spent. In this case, we will certainly take ideas not just from the Stock Exchange but from the industry and the Financial Sector Advisory Group.”
“But if the matter is tried in High Court, he has got a chance in the High Court with one judge; and then in the Court of Appeal with three judges. In view of the seriousness of the issues involved, I hope, if not now, at least in future, the Government will consider this position that the High Court should be the proper forum to hear criminal cases. Sir, with this observation, I am more than glad to support the Bill, and I think it is a timely Bill. In fact, when I was in Sydney some months back, I never thought that it would be so soon, but it has in fact come to this House, and I support this Bill. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leong Horn Kee has asked whether the Government will consider speeding up liberalisation of brokerage commissions. Indeed, the timeframe for liberalisation of commissions is being reviewed by the Financial Centre Advisory Group which we set up with private sector participants, and MAS itself is also studying this issue. A number of factors need to be taken into account, for example, the schedule of liberalisation of commissions may need to be dovetailed with the timing of various other regulatory changes affecting brokers. It is a very swift moving industry. Events are happening around the world, and if we are 12 months late, we may be out of the game. So we may well have to revise the schedule. But there will be other parts of the plan which also would have to be dovetailed as well. As for the regulatory functions to ensure that shareholders are properly protected, the merged exchange will be in a different position than, say, SingTel or Singapore Power, because SingTel and Singapore Power came out of statutory boards which both used to regulate as well as to operate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. I wish to make some observations. The merger of the three entities that has been outlined by DPM is to be welcomed if we are going to play a major role in the financial market. Thanks to SingTel and to Government policy, we have got the most shareholders in the region, and I would also declare my interest that I am also a shareholder of some listed companies. It is very important to have an exchange that is forward-looking and I am glad the Minister pointed out the example of Australia and even Hongkong. However, I would like to be much more nearer home, Sir. I would urge the Stock Exchange, when it is merged, to try to educate the public, because there is this lack of knowledge of how the Stock Exchange works in Singapore, and everybody who has got some spare money wants to make quick bucks, and their money goes into shares. I am not going to say that the Stock Exchange should prohibit people from being speculative, but I hope that some sort of public education will do us some good. In the same vein, I would like to urge the banks in Singapore to take heed of this Bill, that if the banks were to play an important role in this country, they should try to think of merging as fast as possible. Otherwise, we will be behind time. Another area which I am a little disturbed in this Bill is clause 17. Clause 17 of the Bill deals with the question of jurisdiction of the District Court. As hon. Members are aware, if a man is convicted in a District Court, his right to appeal lies only to the High Court and no more. He cannot go to the Court of Appeal without the leave of the Court of Appeal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, item 5 in the Annex says that parents could not be contacted at the address stated. The Minister just now has addressed the problem. May I ask the Minister whether he will consider speaking to the neighbours of these people to find out whether they could be contacted because the figure is quite alarming? At least, other steps should be taken to address this matter. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I leave it to the people on the ground to do this. These are quite dedicated people and they are interested in wanting to get the children to go to school. In fact, what we are doing is that we especially hire some retired teachers and give them the list and ask them to go and try and trace these children. These people are quite dedicated. They have the interest of the children at heart and they do try their best to find them.”
“Sir, the Tuas Second Link is now under utilised. Would the Government consider working with the Malaysian government in a scheme to popularise its use, so as to ease the congestion at the Woodlands Checkpoint? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the means of regulating the use of the Causeway and the Second Link are by means of the tolls. And as the Member knows, toll amounts are not just derived at from one side. They are derived from both sides, taking into consideration what each side is paying for the tolls. This is something that cannot just be unilaterally changed by ourselves. In terms of regulating traffic flow, this really comes under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). It is something that MCIT can consider. Like I said, it is not just a matter of simply raising tolls to regulate traffic. I think what we have to do is that we have to recognise that the main bulk of traffic will still come through the Woodlands Checkpoint. Like I have said, there were, of course, initial teething problems. But arising from the various measures that have been taken, these problems have been largely solved, and the situation has stabilised.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I share the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the other Members of this House. The loss of the First Lady has been a loss to the whole country. The loss to the President and his family is irreparable. The First Lady, in her lifetime, had contributed to the country and to the community, especially her contribution to education would be a living testimony. During the last few days, people from all walks of life have gone to the President's house to pay their last respect. We pray that President Ong will find fortitude in the days to come. Sir, I end my speech by quoting from Bhagavad Gita which says, the body leaves the world but the soul lives on. In a few hours, the mortal remain of the First Lady will leave this world. But her good deeds will live with us. We in this House pray for the President and his family. May God grant them strength to overcome the present grief. The President's loss is the loss to the whole country.”
“I can understand the position of an accountant or a lawyer who is handling money. But a dentist who is bankrupt can practise but could not serve on the Council. I find that this is a very contradictory position. I hope that this provision could be reviewed. Sir, the other clause that I am a little concerned is this. Clause 15(5)(b) refuses to register any applicant who is not of good reputation and character. These are very subjective tests. What happens if the dentist has a girlfriend? Does it mean that he is not of good conduct? I think we must have a definition, Sir. But I am just stating the worst scenario as an example. I am asking this House that when we have a legislation of this nature, which is going to be interpreted by the Dental Council, possibly by the court if it goes before the court, a definition ought to be put in. In fact, I do not think this clause should be in the Bill at all. But if we insist on it, then we should provide for it. The other worrying trend is that, with due respect to the Minister, the Minister's decision is going to be final in clause 15. This would affect the livelihood of a professional colleague. It would be very important for us to provide an avenue. If there is a refusal, he should have right of audience to the Court. I may be the only lone voice in this Chamber where I think it is very important for us to have a safeguard. I am quite sure that there would be no abuse but the question is the precedent that we are going to set in this House. I hope the Minister will consider this because it is going to affect the career and livelihood of the man. Sir, Dr Lily Neo has, more than a lawyer, argued the case so well that I cannot add anything further other than those two comments and I ask the Minister to consider the proposal.”
“Sir, I rise to support the Bill. My interest in this Bill arose after a judgement by Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh which was referred to by my colleague earlier. In that case, he mentioned, in his judgement, that it is time the Dental Act be reviewed. I am glad that the Government has done that. In fact, I have never expected it to be done in such a fast speed and I congratulate the Ministry for doing it so quickly. Sir, it is important for this Parliament to review from time to time legislation which are out of time and to repeal and re-enact them in keeping with the needs of the society. Sir, Dr Lily Neo has mentioned some of the provisions but I would like to mention some other provisions. In particular, I am gratified that now, the Dental Council will be made up of both elected and appointed members. My regret is that the appointed members would be in the majority. I hope that, in keeping with the other professional bodies like the Law Society, where only two representatives from the Ministry sit in the Council, we should have more elected persons. Sir, the other point that I would also like to commend and applaud is the compulsory voting. It is very important for professionals to take an interest in their professional body, just like every Singaporean is required to vote in a parliamentary election. I think this is a healthy trend. We should require that if every professional wants to practise, he must vote unless he has got exceptional reasons. Sir, the functions of the Council have been well laid down and it will help in the growth of the dental profession. My only concern is on clause 7 "disqualifications for membership of the Council". Why should a person who is an undischarged bankrupt not be allowed to sit on the Council?”
“Sir, generally, we have a balanced legislation here, and I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, the Minister has given the background why this legislation is necessary. I am generally in support of most of the provisions. I have some reservation on some of the clauses which I will come to later. First, let me address the basic philosophy why we need to have this legislation. We had for a long time in the early 70s taken seriously the question of drug and drug trafficking. It is important that our legislation takes care of drug trafficking and money laundering. In many parts of the world, drug trafficking is becoming an acute problem. We need to have legislation that will take care of this, and I am glad that the Government has taken the step. I am a little unhappy that under new section 43 the fine is only $30,000. $30,000 is a paltry sum for traffickers and those who are helping the traffickers. I hope that this will be reviewed in future. Sir, I am also concerned with clause 22. As a lawyer, knowledge is a very important factor in a crime. But I am prepared in this instance to support the proposed amendment because we have to seek from actual knowledge to one where there is a reasonable ground to believe, and I think the court will no doubt take a great deal of pain to see that this is observed. Initially, I have my doubt whether this piece of legislation should be worded this way. But after carefully considering the fact, I am prepared to support the provisions in the Bill. Sir, initially I have also reservation on increasing the penalty from $100,000 to $200,000. But I support again because I think it is timely to increase the fine from $100,000 to $200,000. In fact, I would have been happier if it was higher, but let us go stage by stage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the DPM. Firstly, I see that we cannot go to WTO. But could we explore the possibility of arbitration in a third country? Secondly, would SES demand, and I use the word "demand", MCD to comply with the agreement reached on 18th September between SES and KLSE SCANS on the question of migration of Clob shares, especially as the Clob shares have been transferred to an omnibus account? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will explore all possibilities and take QC's advice as to what our rights are and how they can be given effect. The QC's advice is that this is a legally binding enforceable agreement and that, in fact, we are entitled to specific performance from the other party. How to get that done, whether arbitration or not, these are matters which I leave to the lawyers. As for demanding that MCD complies, indeed that is what we have been raising with MCD. It is not a matter of raising our voices. It is a matter of getting rights recognised.”
“Sir, I am glad the Minister for Community Development has told the House yesterday that family ties will be further strengthened. I am heartened by his remarks. I also agree with my Parliamentary colleague that we should seriously study the five-day week proposal. My proposal is this. The rest day could be any day from Friday to Sunday. If a person works from Monday to Saturday, he could have his rest days on Sunday and Monday. In this way, we would not disturb the economic life of Singapore. I am glad that some firms have started it. On this note, I join my friend, Mr Chan Soo Sen, in quoting from the Indian epic Ramayana jaha sumti taha sampti nana . which simply means where there is unity of mind, unity of purpose, there is peace and prosperity.”
“A better phraseology would be to call the Government party as the majority party and the opposition as the minority party. Sir, the title of the Report "Together, We Make the Difference" is very apt. These five words are pancharatna which in Sanskrit and Hindi means five jewels. In Malay, I think it means the same. Sir, let me share my own experience with one organisation with which I have been involved. I would like to disclose my interest that I am a member of the Hindu Advisory Board and a former member of the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB). The HEB has been involved in many community projects. We have seen active participation by the Hindu community in various projects, whether it is in the area of education, social or medical. Because we have a strong leadership. This has come about in the last 15 years when Mr S.R. Nathan was appointed Chairman. He transformed the whole of the Hindu Endowments Board into a very dynamic organisation. He and his successors, like V.R. Nathan and V.K. Rajan, built on this base and today, numerous projects are undertaken by the Board and people from all walks of life have come to support the projects. It is therefore important that the country has dedicated leaders who can provide impetus and inspire the community to greater heights to serve the people. I move on to the subject of strong families. Although we have strong family ties, we cannot run away from the fact that the extended families are slowly diminishing. We must come to terms with this issue and a study has to be made as to how we can resolve this problem. As economic necessity dictates, both parents are working. The children have to be looked after by somebody else, either a maid or relative. But the maid cannot substitute the mother.”
“Sir, I would urge both the Government party and Opposition parties to come to terms with the fundamental values that we share in this country. They are our sovereignty, national defence, multi-racialism and multi-lingualism. To question these values is to destroy the very fabric of our Singapore society. We must take steps to strengthen these values. I remember that some years back, when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill was introduced, some people felt that it was an infringement. We have seen that, because of this law, there has not been a single case of any religious disturbance. It just goes to show how farsighted the Government was. In many countries, the opposite is the situation. Some Singaporeans feel that if they do not agree with the Government's policies, they would be black-listed. This is indeed very sad. There must be mutual respect and trust between the people and the Government. We must allow diverging views to appear and try to work out a consensus. But we must at the same time admit that not all views can be accommodated. So those whose views are not accepted must see it in this perspective. Sir, we can only have a vision and a dream if we have a strong and stable Government. We have seen the fate of weak governments and, worse of all, coalition governments. Sir, we must evolve our own political culture. The British system is adversarial. We should encourage, as I have said earlier, consensus building. We must institutionalise these into our political process. Sir, on this note, may I urge some change in the thinking. In many of the former British colonies, we call the ruling party as the government party and the opposition party as the opposition.”
“Similarly, Sir, the House has seen two Select Committee Reports submitted and I refer to the Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill and the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. Both these committees received numerous public proposals. It shows that our public is concerned. It shows something more. The Select Committee, the Government and this Parliament are concerned with the public views. The public views were in fact incorporated in the law. Indirectly, the public has become law makers. Very few countries have this institution as we have it here. The next issue which I would like to touch on is active citizenship. The Report says, and I quote again: "We will benefit from greater responsiveness, more consultation and a wider range of views and ideas. The crux is how to do so without losing the efficiency, decisiveness and collective action that has enabled Singaporeans to thrive. How do we build more mutual respect, trust, ownership and participation, so that our many contributions and efforts will combine together to steer Singapore to a brighter future?" Sir, the consultative process has already started some years back and it is being strengthened. Before any public policy is introduced, our Ministers, MPs and community leaders get the feel of the ground, listen to public views and then take into consideration these views when the policy is formulated. This is a good policy and we should see how we could further strengthen this. What I would urge the Government to do is when a public proposal is accepted, the Government should acknowledge publicly that this is a public proposal and give credit to the people who have introduced it. In this way, the public would be encouraged to submit their views.”
“Family, friendship, fond memories of growing up, landmarks, well-known areas and buildings - all these provide a feeling of familiarity and comfort in the midst of rapid change." Sir, Members will recollect that some years ago this House endorsed the Shared Values. These are important values. One of the values is consensus building. The Government must encourage the process of consultation. Some people feel the process of consultation is a mere public relations exercise. They are wrong. When Government leaders do not agree with the proposal or criticism, I urge them that they should not become adversarial. Take Catherine Lim's episode. One of the MPs could have replied. But it would occupy more space than it deserved. Sir, let me touch on another political innovation of Singapore which is a creature of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and I refer to the GPC. It is a very novel institution, still young in Singapore. I remember President Wee in his address to Parliament years back said that the GPC's role would be enlarged. The Prime Minister also said that the GPC's role would be increased to gather views from the public. I would urge the Government to seriously consider how the GPC's role could be further increased to reflect the public view. I would also urge the Government to give the GPC financial and administrative assistance so that it can be more effective. Sir, before a Bill is introduced, the Minister would often take the GPC into confidence. The GPC could organise feedback with interested groups to study the issue. This is a valuable institution and we should try to see how this body could be further strengthened.”
“Sir, I would urge all political parties to join hands with the Government because on Singapore 21, we cannot afford to be partisan. We must develop a strong sense of attachment to this country. As the Prime Minister has always said, we must have a passion for our nation. This is where our roots lie and this is where our children's future lies. Sir, in seven chapters, the Committee has studied the problems we are facing and also provided the answer. The five dilemmas that the Committee faced are as follows: 1. Less stressful life vs Retaining the drive; 2. Needs of senior citizens vs Aspirations of the young; 3. Attracting talent vs Looking after Singaporeans; 4. Internationalisation/Regionalisation vs Singapore as Home; 5. Consultation and consensus vs Decisiveness and quick in action. Out of these five dilemmas have come five ideas and these five ideas are worthy of consideration by this House. Sir, it is important for us to create a vibrant Singapore where every citizen feels for his country and is prepared to do his utmost for the country. This is our heartland. This is our motherland. Citizens, whether born in Singapore or those who decided to make this their home, have only one dream, to see Singapore prosper and that people enjoy a good life. Compared to the other countries, Sir, we are a very young nation. Future generations of Singaporeans will look upon us. They will ask if we had laid a strong foundation. If the answer is positive, then they will credit us and strengthen the system. If we are weak and divided, they will never forgive us for our sins of commission. Singaporeans must provide emotional anchors. And let me quote from the Report: "Singapore is home because of emotional and social anchors in the country.”
“Sir, thank you for catching your eye and for giving me this opportunity. Sir, the Report by the Singapore 21 Committee which was headed by our Minister for Education and 10 other Members of this House has received wide support from the public since it was launched by the Prime Minister on 24th April 1999. Sir, this is not a political manifesto. It is a study by both the PAP and non-PAP MPs, namely, my two NMP colleagues. More than that, it has seen the participation by some 6,000 Singaporeans whose contributions the Committee has rightly acknowledged. These people come from different organisations and they included Members of this House. I see the names of Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr S. Iswaran and many other names, some familiar, some not familiar. Sir, the contributions have come from community leaders, self-help groups, professional bodies and civic bodies. In fact, they cover the mood of Singapore. There have been active public discussions and it should be so. The public interest has been aroused. Sir, I was very touched and impressed by last Saturday's Insight Report by two Straits Times' journalists, Warren Fernandez and Chua Lee Hoong. Both of them were in fact members of the Committee. It reflects the thinking of young Singaporeans about Singapore. With your permission, Sir, may I quote: "Every Singaporean must matter as an end in itself. And every Singaporean will matter only when other Singaporeans let them feel that they too are valued. Put in this context, the ideal that `Every Singaporean Matters' is no mere motherhood statement. It is a bold, radical, ambitious view of how Singaporeans want society to be, and what it must do to make it so." This epitomises the values that many Members have tried to raise in this House.”
“We all know of the fact, Sir, that Desker Road is a red light area. It is right in the heart of the city. Can we move these brothel houses to elsewhere? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, it is a traditional area. People know about it. If we disperse the brothels there, it will create new problems. ENROLMENT INFORMATION ON OVERSEAS UNIVERSITIES (Setting up of special unit) 6. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry has any plans to set up a special unit to (a) provide enrolment information on overseas universities to students who are unable to gain entry into the local universities and wish to pursue their education overseas; and (b) establish contacts with our overseas students, letting them know of job opportunities available at home, thereby encouraging their return.”
“Would the Minister consider moving brothel houses from the city centre - I am speaking of Little India - to somewhere else?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while agreeing with the Minister that the families are getting smaller, there may be some families, because of affluence, that want to have bigger flats. Would the Minister consider the plight of those families?”
“But, nevertheless, we must see that our laws are framed in such a way that the individual rights are protected when a property is acquired. In this particular case, no property is going to be acquired. The owners themselves are going to agree or disagree whether they are going to have the proposed development. Sir, the other important factor which the House is aware is the mediatory role of the Board. I can assure the House that, since I joined the Board, I have seen more often than not the cases are resolved through mediation. And I am glad that the Select Committee has decided to have the Strata Titles Board instead of the High Court. It would be cheaper and it would also not strain the resources of the High Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill has also specified the role of the Board. Hence, it would be easier for the Board to follow certain guidelines that have been laid. The Board will of course have to see the value of the property. The Board will also see that the sale is at arm's length. It is fair and equitable as it is specified in paragraph 47 of the Report by the Select Committee. The Board will review a case "(regardless of whether there is an objection) to see whether on the face of the application it is satisfied that the transaction is in good faith and at arm's length, after taking into account the sale proceeds, method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of purchaser to any of the owners." This is a very important safeguard which the Bill has introduced. Sir, I would urge the Minister to consider, when appointing the members, as I have said earlier, that there is a broader representation so that public confidence would always be maintained.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, may I declare my interest. I am a member of the Strata Titles Board. Sir, the Select Committee received 46 representations. The Minister has given the breakdown. They were very useful representations and I am glad that the Government has sent this Bill to a Select Committee. The public input has improved and the Committee has agreed to many changes which the Minister has dealt with. These changes are to be welcomed. Sir, my only concern is that all the 46 representors who wrote to the Select Committee were in the English Language. I think a message could be sent to the public at large that, despite the advertisements in the newspapers, representations have not been made in any of the four languages. It would be useful for non-English educated Singaporeans to give their input. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to go beyond the practice of the High Court where the advertisement only appears in two languages. We have advertisements in four languages. I welcome this. Sir, I have a proposal for the Minister. The Board members are going to be increased from 24 to 30. Since we are going to deal largely with the value of the property, may I urge the Minister to consider appointing more valuers and some community leaders to this panel. I am also glad that from two, we are going to have four and effectively, we either have three or five members. The discretion lies with the President or Deputy President. This is most welcomed. My learned friend, Mr Chiam, spoke about the sanctity of land. I beg to differ. My philosophy has been that, had we stuck to the old English concept, Singapore could never have made progress. We are a country of limited land size.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister a serious question whether he would start a campaign for people to eat more vegetables and fish?”
“Nevertheless, since they had written to the NMPs, we owe a duty to have this publicly aired. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must bear in mind that not all proposals before any Select Committee can be accepted. Only proposals that are workable and within the legal framework can be accepted. Therefore, many representors may be wondering why their views have not been heard or accepted. The simple reason is that only views which will reflect the majority view and will be good for the Bill are accepted. Sir, the civil law and the syariah law are going to operate side by side. The Muslim community has a choice. I would like to assure the Muslim community that the civil jurisdiction does not take away the Muslim position. Whenever the law is being interpreted, the Muslim position is considered by the judges. Another aspect which I would like to share is this. We should strengthen the Syariah Court's position, as is being done in the Family Court. We should allow for more mediations and discussions to help people who are going through a dispute. In the past years, the Family Division of the Subordinate Court has done very well. I hope the Minister will take this point and advise the Syariah Court that it should treat legal dispute for hearing as a last resort. After all, we are an Asian society and the practice that has been followed in the Family Court is worthy of consideration. I would seriously urge the Minister to get his officials to look at it. Sir, I am glad that some of the proposals have been accepted. I am also glad that we will have two Presidents, one of them would be senior, ad-hoc Presidents and a Registrar who will help in the administrative work. And I would suggest that we should have a Deputy Registrar, if necessary. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee has received 31 proposals. The Committee has painstakingly examined all the proposals and has incorporated many of the proposals by the Members of this House as well as members of the public. This is very encouraging, Sir. There have been representations both from individuals as well as Muslim organisations. This is encouraging. The Bill has benefited from the public representation. It is important that this legislation will reflect the social norm of our time. This House must be prepared to change laws which need to be amended, and AMLA is such a law. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is one concern which I would like to share with this House. Other Bills which were committed to a Select Committee, the representation made by the Malay community was not very encouraging. May I urge the Malay community leaders that they should be forthcoming and air their views on national issues as well, not just on Muslim issues. The minority community should participate in activities from the grassroots level to the national level. Only in this way, can we build community bonding and multi-racialism. Sir, my other NMP colleagues and I have received a letter from one Muslim group, and there have been some serious views expressed in the letter. I would like to assure the group that I have considered their views very carefully and I cannot support them. One of the proposals was that the AMLA's amendment would in fact contravene the Constitution which, I think, is not correct. No provision of the Constitution is being contravened and that proposition has no foundation at all. Therefore, I would like to assure the group that their view was represented in the Select Committee. The Select Committee had published and considered their view.”
“So let us leave it at that. But I think Mr Kenneth Chen's suggestion is worth considering. He asks whether we could have some publicity as to who these people are. That will instill some confidence in the system because a lot depends on them. We can consider that. The next time the Ministry of Home Affairs appoints or reappoints members to the various committees, we can consider making these appointments public. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, I support this Bill and I hope the House will support it. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Rai for supporting the Bill. Sir, indeed, what they say is correct. The role of the private citizens in the process is important, because they play an important role to ensure that the process is indeed fair and that there is no abuse. When we talk about transparency, the fact is that the process, raison d'etre, is that witnesses do not want to testify. So that circumscribes the extent to which there can be transparency. But all the committees do their work carefully, fairly, examining every case and, as I have said, those cases where the committee has disagreed with the Ministry's order, we have also looked at their recommendations and in some of them, we have followed the committee's views. Sir, Mr Rai asked whether we should in fact have designated appointing authorities where we can invite recommendations, for example, from the Chambers of Commerce or whatever. Let me assure Mr Rai that the Ministry of Home Affairs takes much care in surveying the field to look at who is available and who is suitable. If we were to take his suggestion, we are in fact restricting our flexibility. Let us leave it this way where we do look at the composition of the various committees and the kind of work they do. We will continue to have a good mix of prominent people who have proven themselves in various fields. Like I have said before, there are 37 prominent citizens, of whom 11 are Justices of the Peace and about 30 lawyers. In the nature of the task at hand, there will be a need for lawyers to be there to examine the evidence available. At the same time, it is also good to get other views. Therefore, there is this mix.”
“Secret society activities have moved even to our schools, and this is most unfortunate. Sir, one of the reasons why people are prepared to come and invest in this country is because we have law and order. And I think this is the safest country in the world, and we must make it that way. I would have no hesitation in giving the power to the Minister, knowing full well that this power will never be abused. As a practising lawyer, I have had opportunities in the earlier days of my practice to represent some of these cases. A parent would come and tell us, "Oh, my son is innocent. Nothing has gone wrong." And when you face the advisory committee, the truth is there, and the truth is always that the Police have done their work thoroughly. As the Minister has pointed out, the Attorney-General's Chambers is consulted. Sir, in order to maintain the record of the safest city in the world, may I urge the Minister to take the necessary steps. While the law will still be there, we must allow the educational process to go on. Sir, I wholeheartedly support the proposed amendment to include section 46A. I think more than secret societies, drug pushers and traffickers are the most dangerous and heinous criminals in the world, and their tentacles spread all over the world, in million dollar businesses and million dollar operations. We must do everything to assist the international agencies and ourselves. We are going to have the world at large if we can see that this place is clean from these dangerous elements. Sir, as I have said earlier, as a lawyer, I am in a dilemma whether to support this Bill when I look at fundamental issues. But when I study the reality of the situation, I find that I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity. As students of law, the concept of fairness and natural justice is ingrained in us. We learn very early in school that no man shall be condemned without a fair hearing. The fact that this law has a long life in the statute book and is still called temporary provisions is reflective of our philosophy. I hope that this will truly be temporary provisions but I am sanguine enough to believe that the law will be in existence for a long time to come. In 1955, Sir, William Goode, the then Colonial Secretary, moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Communist terrorism was on the rise and secret societies were a menace to society. There was no alternative. The British, who believe in natural justice, had no choice but to introduce this law. Sir, one of the most heartening things I would like to share in this House is the confidence the public has in our Police Force. I agree with the Minister that no person has been persecuted. Every case is thoroughly examined. But I agree with Mr Kenneth Chen that we should try to work out some transparency in the system. I am not for a moment doubting that our system is far from fair. We should improve on the system. The last time the Bill came before this House, there was some suggestion. I reiterate it again, Sir. The Minister will still be responsible for the appointment of members of the advisory committee. But may I ask that he invite the Academy of Law and the Chambers of Commerce to nominate one person to the committee. In this way, public confidence will be further increased. Sir, despite a very strong effort by the Police Force and the schools, we find that street corner gangs are increasing.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has comprehensively dealt with the proposed amendment to the Bill. I would like to share some of the concerns which I have. First of all, we have had very fair elections from 1959 to now. There is no question ever raised as to the secrecy of the vote. The secrecy of the vote is protected and I hope the Minister will reiterate this position again today, that the changes will not affect in any way but will in fact improve the system. Sir, another suggestion which I have is this. Although we have had fairly fair elections, in other countries (in Africa and Asia), the United Nations (UN) has to observe the electoral process. Here, we have been fortunate. May I ask the Government to consider whether it will be in the long term interest of Singapore to have an independent election commission, which is a practice in many other countries? Sir, the Presidential Election is likely to take place this year. I am glad that the amendment is being made. And may I again urge political parties not to take part in the elections and leave the electoral process as non-partisan, which had been done in the last election. Sir, before I end my speech, may I say that the reason why we have had very clean and fair elections since 1959 is because of what the political parties themselves have done and the people have taken the trouble to vote in fair and independent elections. Democracy is still young in Singapore. It is very important for us to have a system whereby the public is assured that the electoral process would always be protected.”
“Later on, will the Government also start a National Election Lottery to receive bets from the people on the results of the General Election and the Presidential Election? Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the only advantage of this Amendment Bill is that the Government would be able to collect a lot of tax money from this new form of gambling and lots of money will go into the coffer. Perhaps, this is the Government's novel idea of opening a new source of revenue in view of the tax reduction due to the current economic crisis!”
“They are licensed to set up betting stations all over Singapore. The extent of influence on our society is certainly different. Secondly, why do we want to peg betting with sports? Does the Government feel that only by pegging betting with sports can we make Singaporeans love the game of football? If the Government believes that this is the only way to promote the game of football in Singapore and to make more Singaporeans support the S-League Football started by the Government, then I would like to know for those who are crazy over football, are they crazy over the game of football, or are they crazy over gambling? For fans or spectators who support a certain football team, are they supporting the team from the area where they live to express cohesiveness in the community, or simply because they are betting on the team winning money for them? Initially when the Government decided to let the Singapore national team drop from the Malaysian Cup football league and started its own Singapore S-League, was it already intending to legalise football betting? What I am worried is that in future if a certain team loses and causes the football spectators to lose their money and hence their temper, will their feelings run so high as to cause a riot like what had happened in the other countries, and take it out on the footballers after the game? This would be very unfair to the footballers. If the Government feels that public feeling in Singapore is such that we can only go through gambling which involves personal interest to promote certain sports or events, then will the Government also consider amending the law to allow for the betting on inter-school basketball or volleyball tournaments to promote basketball and volleyball?”
“Sir, the Bill is timely, especially we all know that betting is quite prevalent in Singapore. Football betting is something that is not new. Other countries have it. And I think we should have no qualms about it. But the money will be for a good cause. The only concern I have is this. Why has he decided to have 20%, instead of a lower figure? I know he could, by Government Gazette, prescribe another figure. But I thought he could probably start with 15%. Sir, with that, I support the Bill. Mr Low Thia Khiang(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main purpose of this Amendment Bill is to legalise football betting. The Government's decision to legalise football betting will create a precedence in pegging sports with gambling. First of all, I would like to know what kind of signal or values are we trying to send to our citizens by this Amendment Bill. Is the Government thinking that gambling can help to rectify the kiasu mentality of our Singaporeans? Do not worry, lay your bets. Give it a try, no venture, no gain! If the Government's reason is that if football betting is not legalised, people will still bet on football anyway, then there are now, in the market, various forms of illegal gambling in Singapore, for example, the traditional chap ji kee, betting on billiards, betting on bowling, and betting in high class games such as golf. So, is the Government going to consider legalising all these forms of gambling as well? In fact, the greatest difference between illegal and legal gambling is that the illegal operators do not dare to promote their activities openly and they do not receive bets openly. But the legalised operators can brazenly promote their activities. They can even advertise in the newspapers, which they do.”
“Could I ask the Minister to set up more boarding schools?”
“The other problem, which I feel ought to be also addressed, is the question of standard, to which the Minister and BG Lee have both given assurance. It is important for the Indian community, especially the Tamil community, that the language which we are going to teach the students reflects the existing standard. Let us not take Tamil Nadu as our yardstick. Our linguistic requirements and our environment are different. So, we must nurture the Tamil language. I am glad that Tamil Murasu is doing its best and I am happy that its circulation is going up. But what is required is an effort to see that the Tamil language is reflective of our standard here. Another area, which I would like to ask the Minister to consider, is Higher Tamil. Because, as my Malay friend, Mr Hawazi, earlier pointed out, most of the Indian students offer Tamil, as a second language, and unlike the SAP schools, the standard will definitely be lower. I would urge the Minister to consider ways and means of having more Tamil students offering Tamil at higher level.”
“Sir, let me congratulate Mr Iswaran for having spoken in Tamil. He has made us all proud and the Indian community proud. This is the first time I am hearing Tamil since I entered the House. I hope more Tamil will be heard. The only Tamil here is the translated Tamil. Sir, Singapore's bilingual policy has been the cornerstone of our education. I applaud the Government's and Minister's assurance that it will be so, despite SAP schools and other measures. Sir, I would like to continue where Mr Iswaran has left. As far as the Indian community is concerned, in fact last year, I rose to speak on the question of Tamil language, and being a small community, we do not have the resources to propagate Tamil language as the other communities have. Therefore, I would urge the Government to give us a helping hand which we need. Being the underdogs, we require some help and support from the Government and the community at large. 1.15 pm Sir, there is this problem that, in many schools in Singapore, there are not enough Tamil teachers. So the children have to go to another school in the afternoon. May I make a suggestion to the Minister? Probably, we should appoint roving teachers who could cover two neighbouring schools. The other alternative is this. This has been experimented in the Hindi centre which runs Hindu classes. There are many expatriate teachers from India who have settled here. In fact, the experience of the Hindu Centre is that most of the teachers were trained in India and they have done very well. Could I suggest to the Minister to try and get these teachers on a part-time basis? They could cover many schools and, in this way, the Tamil students will not be disadvantaged.”
“All I would urge is that whatever education system we choose, it must suit our national multi-racial and multi-cultural needs. This is my advice to those members of the minority communities who want SAP schools for Malays and Indians. I would urge them not to do so. To do so would be counter productive. You are going to allow these people to be isolated in small cocoons and they will never have much to do with other communities. It is not very sound to have this proposition. The lead must come from all the communities and through the meritocratic process, it will throw up some of the best from this stream. Sir, I now move on to another aspect. I would call it "Privatisation of Schools". The Government's move with independent schools is a good one. Can we move one step further? Would the Minister consider in the long term that schools be run by Town Councils? Get the community involved in the running of schools. Many countries have done this. I know some Members are laughing. They think it is an idea that is not worthwhile. But if independent schools can work, why cannot schools be run by the community? In many countries, the community is involved in education. Some of the best schools are run by the community. The Minister may want to consider this in the long term process. If he is not prepared to do that, is he prepared to allow the administration of the school to be passed to the community? I leave it to him. The choice is his. The third point which I would like to raise is this. Would the Government give encouragement to private schools so that we could become a hub for education not only at the tertiary level but even at the secondary level? We can become a hub for education in this part of the world.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Education has received the most number of amendments. It shows how popular the Ministry is and how all Singaporeans, including Members of this House, take education as a serious issue. I would like to speak on two aspects of the school. First, SAP schools. Last week, Mr Shanmugam spoke on this matter. After his speech, the Prime Minister spoke to Dr Vasoo, Mr Shanmugam and myself on the issue. We gave him our feedback. DPM Lee informed the House that we had moved from the colonial days when schools were based on language. That is why the Government has the Sang Nila Utama Secondary School and the Amar Pulavar Tamil Secondary School and there were numerous Chinese primary schools and secondary schools. Things have changed for the better. We have now moved to SAP schools. There have been some reservations. I hope the Minister would address the reservations that Mr Shanmugam has raised in this House. I have discussed this matter with several friends, inside the House as well as outside the House. The views seem to be divided. Many feel that the minority communities are not being sensitive to the majority community. They say Nanyang University has been closed, so have many Chinese schools. Unless there is a national effort to keep the Chinese language and culture alive, it would disappear from the scene. Sir, nowhere is this more visible than if you look at the dress of my Chinese friends. The Indian and Malay communities still preserve this national dress for both the ladies and men. The Chinese members of Singapore have totally adopted the western dress. Whether it is good or bad, I am not passing judgement. But just one classic case. Over the years, the cultural values have changed.”
“Sir, child abuse is on the increase and public education requires to inculcate both parents and those who are in care of their children to be more fair to their children. I am not against the idea of using the rod. But I think it should be used sparingly. By all means, instill fear in the child, but do not go to the extent of abusing the child. Many of the children, unfortunately, those who are abused, do not receive medical attention. The reason is that the parents or the guardians fear that they will be brought to book. Besides education, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider having a legislative measure in the long term to see that those who abuse their children are brought to book, if wise counsel fails. A recent newspaper report was very, very shocking when it reported that adopted children were abused and, if not for the timely intervention of the teacher, God alone knows what will happen! So I urge the Minister to consider this position.”
“I think the people who have worked behind it have done a good job, and I hope and pray the Minister will adopt all the proposals. I would like the Minister's comment.”
“No talk, also. So I think it is very important to urge the Cabinet that this is an area which we cannot afford to be less than generous. We have to be generous. I will move on to the amendment now, Sir. I wholeheartedly agree with my Chairman, Dr Vasoo, and Mdm Claire Chiang earlier that the public assistance scheme must be re-examined. The time when it was first laid down had changed. I would ask the Minister: would he consider in the near future to raise the ceiling? I also urge the Minister to go one step further. We have Edusave. We have Medisave. Can we save a substantial sum of money and set aside for a Community Fund? I see no harm in being a bit of welfare state when there is a need, after all, the citizens have worked out. Give them something in return, and this is the time now when we should consider those of our citizens who are jobless, sick and disabled. They are not asking for public assistance as it is done in other countries, which becomes a social norm. Here they do out of necessity, Sir. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider setting aside a fund. Sir, voluntary organisations and others are affected by this economic downturn. They are getting less funds. I disagree with the political leadership that we should not dip into the reserves. There is no need to dip on the past reserves. The present Government has got enough surpluses, and part of the surpluses could be set aside for this community project. Sir, as time is running short, I would touch on another aspect of it. The Ministry should also strengthen family values, as earlier Members have spoken. I am glad that both the Ministry of Health and MCD have come out with a package for the elderly.”
“Sir, before I move on to my amendment, let me declare my interest. I sit as a resource panel member for the GPC and I am also a member of the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal. Sir, we all are grateful to the MCD for the fine work it has done. It not only looks after the needy and the community, but I think it carries two very important aspects of software without which I think we will be at a loss. I speak of the work of the People's Association (PA), which comes under the Minister, as well as the Feedback Unit. It is a very important instrument. And I think over the years, both these institutions have grown. Yesterday's plea by the Members has made the writer of the Gallery column in the Straits Times, Miss Chua, to say that we all have been very socialist. We are socialists, Sir. Even the Opposition, the Government Party and the NMPs believe in social causes. That is why we are urging the Minister. Unfortunately, the Finance Minister is not here after the Budget. I would urge him to give just less than half a billion dollars to MCD. No money, no work.”
“I am saddened to say that we have progressed but we are retarded because of these social culprits. May I ask the Minister to use his power to see that this social evil is eradicated once and for all.”
“Sir, Mr Heng Chiang Meng earlier spoke of illegal dumping. I am coming to the problem of keeping our rivers clean. Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has spent millions of dollars and it has done a good job in keeping our rivers clean. We no longer have the foul smell we used to get. But what is happening now? We can see discarded furniture and everything one can think of being thrown into the river. I live near the Whampoa River where I go for a walk almost every morning. Sometimes, the river is clean and sometimes it is dirty. I think public education plus penal provision would be good. May I suggest to the Minister that a Community Watch Group be formed? It should also consider appropriate legislation to punish the culprits. In contrast to the Whampoa River, the Singapore River is cleaner. I do not know why but the Minister could probably explain to this House. It is very important for us because I hope to urge the Minister to allow boating in the river. But as it is now, I do not think it would be feasible. Can we one day, like many other cities in the world, have boats in our river? Next, I move to littering. Despite many years of effort, littering still exists and it is a social disgrace to see people throwing papers and bus tickets. Last year, the Senior Minister of State explained to this House the efforts of his Ministry. I am glad that the Ministry takes this seriously. Here again, I have a novel suggestion which the Minister may want to consider. Authorise some of our national servicemen, especially those who have served in the Police Force, to book these people because only when it hurts their pockets will Singaporeans learn their lessons. No amount of campaigns, Sir, after so many years since SM Lee Kuan Yew started the campaign will help.”
“Sir, the present bus structure is such that the minimum one passenger pays for four fare stages is 60 cents. But I urge the Minister to reconsider the position. We should possibly allow two or three fare stages for 40 cents and then go up gradually. Now, it is actually 60 cents for the first four fare stages and another four fare stages. Could we have two fare stages at one fare and then the other two fare stages? So it would be equitable and fair. I share the sentiments of both my colleagues, Dr Lee and Mr Peh. It is most unfair to travel a short distance and pay so much. Why do we not follow telephone usage? The longer you use, the more you pay. It is only fair and equitable.”
“It is also a way to save the environment as well. If we have less pollution, it will be better for Singapore.”
“Sir, before I move on to my amendment, I would like to associate with the sentiments of Mr Gerard Ee. I hope the Minister will give him due consideration. Sir, on public transport, I applaud the Ministry for having given Singapore one of the best public transport in this part of the world. Having said that, let me say that there is further room for improvement. I agree with Mr Yeo earlier. We must devise means and methods to shorten the time of travel on bus. Sir, I would urge the Minister to give consideration to one area, ie, perhaps the bus companies could work out a schedule so that passengers who are sitting in the office could find out from the Internet what time a bus would reach its destination. If we know this, Sir, it will save travelling time. 3.00 pm The second matter is a more difficult issue, but I would urge the Minister to consider. At the present moment, we have a duopoly, TIBS and Singapore Bus Service. May I ask the Minister to give consideration to the possibility of having a third bus company or a fourth bus company. We know monopoly is not a healthy sign and it will be good for Singapore in the long run to have more bus companies. Another area which has not been explored is that we should help the public transport. To relieve congestion from the roads, cycling should be encouraged for short distance. Going to the wet market or buying something in the provision shop, even for a short distance of half a kilometre, or two hundred metres, people still go by car. I see my good friend, Mr Yatiman Yusof nodding his head. I hope he is supporting my suggestion. He is championing the cyclists' cause and I think it is healthy to cycle. Many of us, when we were young, used to cycle to school. I think that is not done now. We should encourage cycling.”