Simon S C Tay
Singapore
“Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions.”
“Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match?”
“What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.”
“And if they can establish free trade zones in various parts of the archipelago and create conditions which assure businessmen of stability, I think they can take off. And I was cheered that the US, the EU, Japan, the IMF, have all come up with strong statements in support of President Megawati. We would do our part, but we are small.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Minister of State doing his back-of-envelope work. 10%-20%, if it excludes the very large projects like reclamation, seems a little low, if I may say. Is there any inclination to push it up higher? Is the private sector up to the job? Historically, the Government has had reasons to doubt the private sector.”
The complete record
Every one of 525 lines we hold for Simon S C Tay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“Sir, I share the concern of the speakers before me as regards the powers of acquisition. Clearly, there are provisions under the existing laws for either general acquisition of land or the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme. I am not sure that we need to add another specific power to the various powers that already exist. I am particularly concerned, Sir, that the criteria for the exercise of powers are not made clear in the statute. In the Minister's statement, the reasons he gave us were perfectly reasonable but not being in the statute, we cannot be sure that this will always be so. I would suggest, therefore, that subsidiary legislation or regulations should be promulgated to set out the criteria. These criteria would serve not just to reassure people but would also therefore serve as relevant criteria to take the objections, from the owners, that is, if they should object. Additionally, Sir, I would suggest that another mechanism that may be of use to the Minister in exercise of these powers is to provide by policy that before any acquisition is made pursuant to this power, a public social impact statement should be made: that is to say, in any particular case, the situation, the upgrading plan should be studied thoroughly and a public document issued stating how many blocks are affected, for what purpose, and this would give a much better ground for people to make the decision that would vote yes or no for the upgrading. Sir, the Minister offers us a 75% voting ratio for upgrading as a safeguard. This is usually sufficient. But in the event that those affected would be less than 25%, the 75% could be easily obtained by those who benefit even if all those who were affected would say no.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider the use of exit voting, given that canvassing for polling is only nine days and people may already have work or other commitments to be abroad?”
“I quite agree with the Minister that we should not employ surplus graduates at this time. But clearly if there are a number of ministries or departments which are understaffed, according to their establishment guidelines, would the Ministry of Manpower consider, using this time, filling up those establishment limits?”
“I wish to clarify with the Minister that I was speaking on the financial assistance and the possible bilateral trade financing scheme, not the humanitarian assistance which I accept. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (Setting up) 3. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider setting up a development assistance programme, which is funded within our means and resources, to serve as a mechanism for providing (i) loans, grants, technical cooperation and other forms of assistance for meaningful projects in the region; and (ii) humanitarian aid, where the situation requires.”
“May I ask the Minister whether in giving financial assistance to Indonesia, will Singapore Government consider adding environmental conditions so that our assistance will not inadvertently accelerate economic activities and conditions in agriculture and other sectors that give rise to the haze, and especially if it leads to fire?”
“In the reply, he said, "Yes, we made a mistake, but please remember our main point, that to enable civil society, we must have quicker registration." The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, replied to me fairly in Parliament promising that that would be done, the main point would be addressed, that we were all of one mind, that this process needed to be speeded up. When I learnt of my mistake, because I had been misinformed, I wrote to Assoc. Prof. Ho. I have asked him before this whether I can make reference to the letter, and he has agreed. I wrote to admit my mistake and to apologise, and explained that I had not intended the mistake. I also encourage him to focus on the main issue on which we concurred. I think today he does not bear me a grudge and I hope I have not lost his respect. In fact, I hope in a sense that this small example is something we can learn, that people can speak up for good motive, even if they make mistakes, and then be accepted for the main point and to move on from there. To widen this trust and such a responsibility will take time. I think I am not alone in this. I believe that Prime Minister Goh's Government is sincere in wanting consultation and participation, civil society and the people sector. And I believe that the people's wish on their part is growing for consultation, participation and democracy. For these reasons, I cannot, with respect, support the motion.”
“Many Singaporeans have disagreed with our analysis. The point I want to bring up today is not about whether we were right or wrong in our analysis, but the reply of government. The Government in its reply, or the Minister or a member of the PAP in his personal capacity replied. Mr Lim Boon Heng responded to us substantively on the points we raised. Only, I would say, on three words, there was a sense of what people might think of as intimidation. The first, he called us "PAP critics" rather than simply a commentator or critic of politics as a whole. Second, there was a very vague promise to take us on, and I do not think at that point he meant to take us on in Parliament. The third was that he question marked our non-partisanship, that somehow we were coloured as being predominantly against the PAP. Except for those three points, the right to reply was certainly fair. Just as I had a right to speak, the Minister certainly had a right to reply. Let me give a second example, something which I think is a very promising example. I do not know whether anyone remembers the Budget debate we were engaged in, for even longer days than this. I spoke briefly on the cut on the Ministry of Home Affairs about the Registry of Societies, and I encouraged the Registry of Societies to expedite registration of organisations in order that we might have a more active and able civil society. In my comments, as an example of that, I brought up the Roundtable and I mistakenly said that the Roundtable had taken more than a year to register. The comment was reported in the papers and the mistake was pointed out by the Registrar of Societies. It was also admitted by the founding President of the Roundtable, Mr Raymond Lim, in a reply.”
“This trust is not automatic. It is earned. There is no free licence. Government must respond and engage. If an argument is wrong, it must continue to tell us why it thinks so. An example was brought up by Mr Jeyaretnam about the reply recently by the Prime Minister to developers who have asked for various concessions. I am not convinced at all that this example is one of fear. I have no doubt that businesses will continue to speak up. They need not fear. If they are organised, they will speak up. They are not incarcerated, they are not "blackbooked" in some way. I think that it is right for the Government to point out to the national interest, rather than to sectoral interest. These people will not be intimidated easily. But for the ordinary citizens, not the organised business groups, I encourage the Government to exercise a greater kindness, a greater caution, a greater restraint, to reply with the aim of persuasion and to remember that the Government can intimidate even if it does not intend to. If the citizen is sincere and on the issue, I hope the Government will respond likewise. In that sense, I hope for the evolution of certain rules of engagement, not just among Government leaders, but also with the civil service, to take ideas seriously and respond to them seriously and with a sincerity equal to what they are given. Let me give two quick examples from my own experience. The first is of the Roundtable, a non-governmental organisation of which I am a member, and Mr Zulkifli Baharudin is the President. The Roundtable offered its post-election analysis that one of the reasons the PAP had succeeded so much in this election was because of something we called "package politics". Of course, the PAP is free to disagree with our analysis.”
“That is also our history. We have all concerns and we are a young society. I think it is true that policemen have guns, even if they are trained that the first response is not to reach for that gun. I think that analogy can apply to the ISA so long as every use of the ISA is explained and checked by either the courts or by public opinion. I mention the word "public opinion" because it comes back to my point about trust. That if there is trust, as the polls have shown in the Government, then the ISA too can be subjected to the trust of public opinion and to the courts. But I want to question this more. Is the ISA a real obstacle to speech and participation? I want to point out that in comparison to many countries with similar laws, relatively few people have been detained in Singapore, and that the ISA, in my view, is often more an excuse for the tidak apa attitude, the indifference and inaction of citizens. But I also want to say that the ISA should not be a sacred cow in Singapore. I think an amendment to allow a judicial review or its abolition should be considered in the future. As our society knits more closely together, as dangers recede, as bad memories are confined to history and a history we are not doomed to repeat but have learnt to grow stronger from, when those conditions prevail, we must reconsider this law. How do we get to that point in the future? I believe we need to work on building trust and responsibility. This applies to both sides. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has spoken about some of the concerns that people still have, not so much of the ISA, but of being scolded. People must trust that the Government will listen fairly and act fairly. The Government, on its part, must trust that citizens will exercise their rights to speech responsibly.”
“Even the USA and UK, two western democracies, have clear war time cases in which courts have not ventured to second guess the Executive, even if they have technically the power of review. The US cases on Americans of Japanese origins who were interred during World War II for no crime other than the fact that they were of Japanese origin. The United Kingdom case of Liversidge v Anderson, which has been affirmed by our own legal system. Given this inheritance, we have to ask ourselves, "Is preventive detention now outmoded?" I think that clearly in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which is used against suspected criminals, mainly gangs, we have to recognise that with a largely Chinese population, many cities in the world have faced a problem in tackling crime. Next, in the Misuse of Drugs Act, where it is used for suspected addicts to search, subject them to test and then to treatment. I think our Government is correct in not making apologies for this, because drugs remain a problem, and we are very close to one of the centres of the drug trade. As for the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, where religious leaders mix with politics in an explosive element, I think again there is a real danger in a multi-religious society. That leaves me mainly with the Internal Security Act which, as correctly pointed out, was originally intended to deal with the communist threat. I want to point out that it is not in use at present except for Mr Chia Thye Poh, who is out of physical detention, still under supervision, even though allowed abroad today. Should it be revoked as outmoded today? Or should be it kept in reserve in case of emergency? For in recent events, the countries around us have shown, emergencies arise exactly as the word suggests, "emergency", urgently.”
“We must have a part in deciding how to do things, how to arrange the furniture in our home, and also we must have a hand in doing the chores around the house. We must do things for ourselves. To encourage this, I urge the Government to be more tolerant and have a greater acceptance of differing points of view. Let me turn then, with this view, to the particular concern of the motion of preventive detention. Is it necessary to abolish all detentions without trial? In Singapore, besides the Internal Security Act, there is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, which have similar laws. Let me focus first on the ISA. Mr Jeyaretnam has given the original justification and that it was inherited from the British. Some may feel that there is a change of circumstance, that today there is no serious threat of criminal unrest. But I think it is necessary to point out that very few countries which had inherited this law have got rid of it entirely. More so, that universal human rights recognise the right of countries to retain such laws of preventive detention in times of emergency, in times when the life of the nation is under threat. It is true that Singapore's ISA laws differ, in the sense that judicial review is limited. The judiciary can only comment on the procedure of detention and not the substance. The review is instead by an advisory board. But the point is that international law, human rights law and the practice of many countries accepts that there need to be emergency powers for the state to genuinely intervene when there is a problem.”
“Because the polls that showed the people want to participate more also showed that Singaporeans trust the Government and they expect the Government to solve their problems for them. That is also clear. These two things are not contradictory. Rather the trust of people means that people expect the Government to think and do everything for them. In some ways, there is the culture of over-dependence combined with the culture of complaint, to sit back and complain. This breeds a certain tidak apa attitude. Singaporeans expect others to do something for them, the Government to do something for them. I think it is also true, however, there is something that I have learnt to call the "black book" factor. That people do not speak up, not so much because they fear detention or jail, but because of smaller concerns, about not being in someone's good books, in being in a "black book". It is true that non-politicians who have spoken up have faced very strong robust responses. As Mr Zulkifli Baharudin has said before me, there is no promise today that we have a free for all. So today people who speak up risk being seen as engaging in politics, they risk being publicly scolded. I think this should change in the future. We need to move towards consultation which we have seen, and from there, to a greater sense of participation. We need to build up Singapore's heartware, we need to build up Singapore's civil society. This is the utility of freeing people from the "black book" syndrome and encouraging their speech and participation, to give people a sense of ownership, that Singapore is their home. If it is our home, we must be comfortable here. We must be able to speak freely.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, given the time, I shall try and give my comments as briefly as possible. I tried my best to listen carefully to both the NCMP who moved the motion and to the speaker before me, NMP Mr Zulkifli. But I want to differ from some of their comments. I am not a member of any political party, neither the PAP nor opposition. I wish instead to focus my comments about ordinary citizens and civil society in Singapore and then about preventive detention which I teach as part of constitutional law in the Faculty of Law. Do we citizens fear? If so, why? Conversely, should the Government on behalf of the nation fear and, if so, why? Those are the central questions I come to. And in addressing these questions, let me differ also from the NCMP, in focusing not so much on the past, but on the present day and perhaps some of the future. I think it is true that some citizens do not speak up or participate, or do not speak up much or participate much. I think it is also true, in today's Singapore, that this is changing. Polls have consistently shown that more Singaporeans want a say in the policies of the country and this is especially true of younger Singaporeans. A youth conference in the early 1990s was quoted in the papers as saying that the participants feared speaking up and therefore had no ideas. Today, youth conferences give frank and often well-thought through proposals, in detail, in writing. This has been my experience in working with the Singapore 21 Committee, of which I am a member (although I do not represent their views here). Sir, to me, fear is a very big word and the preventive detention laws do not sufficiently explain why Singaporeans do not participate more, or more Singaporeans do not participate.”
“But with these three basic groups and on top of it, there is the Federation of Chambers of Commerce for Singapore, which groups the three basic groups together, I think that is a good arrangement. The fact that we have three separate commercial groups is not a policy of racial segregation. Let me say that a beautiful painting is made up of different colours. Different races in Singapore, be it Chinese, Indian, Malay or Eurasians, are different colours. We paint the different colours on a piece of paper and as a painting, it looks beautiful. If you mix all the colours into one and paint it on a piece of paper, it is one colour. It will be a dull picture.”
“Although our purpose is to serve the Chinese community, students from other racial groups are allowed to join some selected programmes. For instance, our Students' Service Centre allows students of other races to participate in our training sessions. Many people probably have the wrong impression that self-help groups, based on ethnic communities, could divide our people. I think we had discussed this when we set up CDAC at the very beginning. But from experience we found that the most effective way for a racial group to help themselves is to let themselves produce and create the momentum so that they realise where their weaknesses are, and work out the programmes to upgrade themselves. If each self-help group has done its best, putting them together, it would be able to raise the level of progress of all groups in the whole nation, which need the necessary help, to a higher level. Let us look at history. When our forefathers came, I think they came as a group. We have Chinese clans; we have Indian clans. We have other groups. They probably operated and worked within their own group. They have contributed to the growth of Singapore today. And if you look at what we have in the commerce sector, we have the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the Malay Chamber of Commerce. I was involved in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for more than 10 years. I can tell you that if we mix all the traders under one roof, it is very difficult to work because sometimes the problem may not be a common problem. So it is not the most effective way to find a solution and to discuss common problems.”
“It is for this reason that our policies, whether in public housing or in community development, are such that we constantly encourage inter-ethnic linkage whereby people of all races would live together in the same housing estate and in one big community. Our activities are always aimed at encouraging people of different ethnic groups to have further understanding and interaction with one another. Of course, I also agree with her that we should have mutual tolerance and accommodation for one another. This is very important. On the motion before the House today, I feel that apart from urging the younger generation to recognise the contributions made by our founding fathers and reaffirm and record our appreciation for such contributions, we should also think of how our founding fathers might react to our expression of gratitude. They may say, "Well, we are very happy to see that you are showing gratitude but, more importantly, you must realize how hard we had fought to bring Singapore to what it is today. As a small nation, Singapore is very vulnerable. You must work hard to see that we continue to have a place in the global environment." If we remember how our founding fathers had struggled and endured to bring us to the enviable situation we have today, we must not let them down. We must continue to persevere and carry on building on the strong foundation that they have built for us. I think this may well be the best form of expressing our appreciation for what they have done for us, and indeed the best way of saying `thank you' to them. Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): Sir, I just want to make some remarks on Mr Simon Tay's comments. As the Vice-Chairman of CDAC, I would like to explain that a self-help group like CDAC is not based on racial segregation.”
“The day you forget this will be the day you begin your downward journey as a nation. Do not let Singapore go down, even if we have to lose our lives, or we will never come up again." Sir, our founding fathers had painstakingly built up Singapore, our homeland, to what it is today. It behoves us to defend, protect and build upon it. I am taking advantage of Mr Rai's motion to remind Singaporeans what our response should rightly be, following this expression of gratitude towards our founding fathers. I think Singaporeans would agree with me that this is the best way to say, `thank you'. I think there is no disagreement here that this should be our right response, although concerns have been expressed. Let me just say a few words in Mandarin in response to Mdm Chiang's speech. (In Mandarin) Nominated MP Claire Chiang felt that the lack of national consciousness among our younger people was probably due to language problem. Perhaps, in the past, we had not done enough to inculcate in our younger generation knowledge pertaining to national consciousness. But I think the main reason is that the younger generation of Singaporeans have not gone through the type of hardship and sufferings experienced by our founding fathers during the war, the difficult lives in the post-war era, and the struggles in our early days of nation-building. Since they have not experienced such difficult situations, they naturally would have different views, different mindsets and different feelings. So we should go one step further in strengthening the inculcation of national consciousness in our young. However, I agree with her that in the promotion of racial harmony, the important thing is to have more interaction and communications among the different ethnic groups in our society. This is correct.”
“If you have followed the news, that is what we are doing. I have no problem with what he has talked about, like, for instance, the need for immigrants to assimilate into our society and our culture. But, to me, to debate Mr Rai's motion, it would be pertinent to ask ourselves how our forefathers would react to our expression of gratitude. Put yourself in the shoes of our forefathers, and if they hear about this debate, how would they feel? If you allow me, Sir, I would submit that they would probably have the following response: "My son, we are happy that you feel grateful for what we have done for you. But we will be even happier if you truly understand how we have got here today and carry on doing the right things to protect, preserve and build upon what we, as a nation, have achieved thus far. We had come to Singapore in search of a better life. Our success did not come about by chance. We had worked very hard and through our sweat and blood, we had earned a good living for ourselves and for our families. There were oppositions along the way. There were people, and perhaps they are still around today, who wanted to lord it over us. But we took our destiny into our own hands. It was not easy because we are small. How did we make it? We made it by promoting harmony and unity among ourselves, by sheer discipline and hard work, and by implementing the right social and economic policies. But most important of all, we made it because we stood up as a sovereign nation, pursuing a consistent foreign policy of mutual respect, mutual cooperation and mutual benefit. As a small state, if we cannot speak and act as equals among bigger nations, then we will be forever at the mercy of others. Therefore, never, never forget this crucial truth.”
“But let me remind him that if you go to our housing estates, if you participate in our grassroots activities, you would notice that the racial mix is there. So our children in fact have got many opportunities to mix, interact, and get to know one another, even to appreciate one another's culture. I think the elected MPs would know, if you look at the cultural functions and activities that we organise, they are all multi-cultural, and the different races actually participate and learn from each other's culture. Even in schools, I believe that multi-racialism is taught very early and the schools also provide the environment to promote interaction. On the self-help groups, I think he would agree that at this point in time it is perhaps the best and most effective way for Singaporeans to help each other. Even in self-help groups, from my experience, a particular self-help group is not closed to other races to take part or participate in its programmes. But in order for us to draw the maximum support and involvement from Singaporeans, self-help groups are there to provide this most effective approach. Therefore, I would say - although I understand his concern about unintended consequences - that he be rest assured that the Government, the people and the organisations concerned know what they are doing and there is no question about the importance of multi-racialism. His concern about crisis affecting different races and whether it is uneven and so on, I think here again it is a question for the Government and the nation as a whole to tackle and I do not see any imminent problem in this area. I am also glad to hear that he talked about the need to extend humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries regardless of what happened.”
“I think this is a commendable act and I agree with him that Singaporeans ought to feel a sense of gratitude for the contributions made by our founding fathers and indeed our forefathers. This is the kind of values we want to promote in our society. Mr Rai is right in saying that every dollar spent is well spent on the Exhibition. Everyone that I talked to, who has watched it, tells me that it was good. But their experiences vary. Some of the older Singaporeans were so touched that their tears flowed. The younger ones were less so. Mdm Claire Chiang tried to explain why. Although the younger ones equally enjoyed the show and felt that the production was good and entertaining, we cannot expect them to have the same degree of emotions as the older ones. The lessons, however, are no less relevant today. Mdm Claire Chiang and Mr Tay spoke about the concerns they have. Let me just respond to some of these concerns, and after that I would like to go on to something which I think is even more important. I agree with Mr Tay that we should not take harmony for granted. He expressed concerns about some policies, like the Speak Mandarin campaign, self-help groups, SAP schools, and so on. I am glad to hear that he realises that there is no intention to look at the policies from the racial angle. He knows that the intention for these polices is really to help build a stronger nation. If he takes the Speak Mandarin campaign as an example, he would agree that mother tongue is very important and if we lose this part of our culture Singaporeans will be less rooted. He talked about SAP schools. Again, here it is important that we want to promote the mother tongue, and he thinks that because of that, racial mix is reduced.”
“The other present concern I want to share with the House is our efforts as a country, Singapore, to assist other countries in the region. I think we would be right to condemn the violence against the Chinese in Indonesia. But we, as a nation and a people, would be wrong to stop the condemnation from allowing us to help the genuinely poor and starving in the countries around us. The victims of famine and violence are not just Chinese. There are other races too. And we should provide assistance without regard to race, people to people, as good neighbours, as human beings, because human rights are being violated. As I have said, many of these policies which Government has put in place, I understand, and I think many Singaporeans support. I have tried to share some of the dangers of unintended consequences. We have a good base and I join Mr Shriniwas Rai in supporting this motion. It is a good base, however, and all history is, to build towards a future, not to sit back and take for granted. The greatest tribute to the past is that we move on from racial tolerance to racial harmony to racial understanding, and perhaps, at least in my view, to a future of a non-racial Singapore, a society in which race is no longer a factor to be considered in life, either for merit or demerit, but a society in which we are truly individuals and truly judged on our merits. The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Rai and Mdm Claire Chiang were touched by the National Education Exhibition. The historical events and lessons depicted by the Exhibition had moved him to move the motion.”
“I wonder if this continues to be necessary. I point out that this is highly artificial given that our rules, as I understand them, follow the paternal line only. So there are classification problems for some people of mixed marriage who may continue to be registered in whatever race their father is despite how many other races they are married into. The connected concern is with newer Singaporeans and PRs. Many are racially similar from China, India or other countries in the region around us. But we must question if these newer immigrants understand the heritage that Mr Shriniwas Rai has talked about in moving this motion. Do they assimilate to this multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual belief in Singapore? Do they understand? It is not just our children, a newer generation, these are newer arrivals. Tensions may arise between them and us, the older Singaporeans, and the basis should not be on race, on where we come from, but on citizenship and where we are going together as a nation. I have tried to look forward to the future and now I turn to the present. I have two concerns. The first is whether we should be thinking about how this economic downturn differently affects different races, and the efforts of help to all these people to upgrade themselves, whether they are Chinese poor, Malay poor, Indian poor or other disadvantaged groups, through their self-help and education, these efforts should not be wiped out in the present downturn. They should be monitored and this economic hardship should be evened out and helped along. Otherwise, as we learn again from other countries, economic hardship, if it is uneven, can lead to racial jealousy.”
“But there is a concern that the inter-racial and cultural mix in such schools is reduced, the understanding and interaction of the bright and young is limited to those who are predominantly of one culture, one race. We must remember that schools are not about purely what we learn from books but what we learn from each other, from fellow classmates. The skills of citizenry, of getting along, are built in school. This must include in Singapore racial understanding. So we need to search for a balance in these policies, and to guard against unintended consequences which we may face in the future. The third is of ethnic self-help groups. The Government has said that it thinks this is the best way to mobilise self-help. I think self-help groups are a fact of life which many people embrace at present. But it should also be emphasised that ethnicity of race should not be the only basis of volunteering your service, or volunteerism. People may and should increasingly volunteer for a common cause, not for a common race. There is a need to foster community across ethnicity. So when I see initiatives such as the Prime Minister's call for civil society or for CDCs which are based more in geography, or neighbourliness, this is good. Further along, we need to encourage self-help groups to have more joint projects and, if I may voice a suggestion, that one day further down the road, we should set a sunset clause for ethnic self-help groups, that in the end Singaporeans should help Singaporeans, not just those of the same race or ethnicity. Connected with this, the debate that is happening in Indonesia must touch us. One of the commoner suggestions in this debate is that identity cards or other official materials which describe a race should have this removed. Our ICs are similar.”
“English is not superior to Chinese. But neither is Chinese superior to English, nor to any other language. I think that there is nothing wrong with each race trying to learn the language which they associate with their mothers, even if their mothers do not speak that language. But I am concerned of the unintended consequence of this policy. I have heard many anecdotal stories of unthinking individuals who, in the name, the misused name of the Speak Mandarin campaign, switch to Mandarin when there are Malay, Indian or others like me, non-Mandarin speaking colleagues, present. This is an exclusionary practice. Must all Chinese Singaporeans speak Chinese? Is English language only for work? What if, as I do, I think, dream and write from my very heart in English? As I said, I do not claim that English is superior, but I do not think I am less Singaporean because I do not speak Mandarin and Chinese, and I am Chinese. I tried my best to learn about Chinese history, the overseas Chinese from English books. I hope my child will learn Mandarin because that is the school rules now. But I do not think I enjoy a lesser place in the sun, and I do not think that is what Mdm Claire Chiang was saying. The second unintended consequence which follows from this is the concern of SAP schools. Mr Shriniwas Rai, the NMP, said that our schools tried to build multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual harmony. I think that is true. That is what we are trying to do. I think it is good to promote bilingual students among those who can cope with two languages as first language. Do not get me wrong. SAP schools themselves are a useful thing.”
“Sir, I had not intended to speak. I jotted down some points, but I thought the motion moved by the Nominated Member was so self-evident and worthy of support that it was not necessary for me to speak. However, I do rise now to raise some concerns for the future. I share very much the gratitude, expressed already, that we build from our good days of racial harmony in the past and I share a pride in that Singapore, when it was in Malaysia, stood for Malaysian Malaysia, and then stood for Singaporean Singapore to act, as our pledge says, regardless of race. But I am perhaps more cautionary for the future. One of the lessons I extracted from history was that we should not take harmony for granted and that there are possible concerns for the future. We stand in good stead because the Constitution promises, in Article 12, protection of all citizens against discrimination based on race. But I must share with this House a perception that we have moved from the idea of a pledge, regardless of race, to a policy of acting with due regard to race. I think this perception is wrong. I think there is no change in Government policy. But I do share some concerns that there may be, and I stress the words "may be", unintended consequences of some existing policies. I hope I am not misunderstood here - policies which in themselves may be nothing wrong, maybe good. But there have been concerns raised at various youth seminars I have attended in this last year that I wish to share. First, and I think this touches very much on NMP Mdm Claire Chiang's point, the Speak Mandarin campaign. As far as I understand from the interpretation, she suggested that English-speaking Chinese Singaporeans, such as myself, were wrong to regard English as superior. I think she is right.”
“That is why I said in my speech earlier on in this House, that the primary function of the tribunal would be to see whether it is an arm's length transaction, bona fide, no collusion and so forth. But, at the same time, there may be exceptional circumstances. I have mentioned one, which is that no party should lose out financially. If you sell your property at a loss or you sell your property and you cannot redeem it with the bank, then it will be a ground for the Board to intervene. So let us take that approach and see how the Board works. Sir, the Bill will go to a Select Committee. So I do not think I need to go into the details. I want to thank Members for their many suggestions. Some of them are technical suggestions to improve the working of the Board, to improve the working of the Bill, which can be considered at the Select Committee.”
“Yes, there will also be other minority owners who, because of emotional or sentimental attachment, do not want to move. Therefore, I would agree that we should not fix them with the term "tyranny of the minority". When I used it in this House in the earlier debate, it is not to characterise them with a slur, but to describe the situation where one person saying no will prevent the transaction from going through. In this sense, it is one person's objection which has prevented the realisation of the desires of the vast majority. So the corollary to that is that we should not characterise majority owners, which has been done in this House by several speakers, that they are greedy, they are avaricious, all they want is to make money. I think it is not fair on majority owners, if it is what they are waiting for. But it does happen that Government's actions result in certain people getting richer, getting a windfall. So shall we begrudge that? I would say no. Shall we facilitate it? Well, if it results in a public interest being met, which is the creation of more homes for Singaporeans, a lot of them in prime freehold areas, then I will say yes, provided, of course, there are sufficient safeguards, and the interests of all parties are taken into account. And this indeed is the approach we take in the Bill, if you look at the specific criteria in the Bill taking into account all the objections of the minority, all the circumstances of the case, all the interests of the parties. Nevertheless, part of the basic approach is that we know that it would be difficult to go away from basic objective criteria.”
“I think, like I have said in my speech, it is an important safeguard. The Strata Titles Board will be enhanced. There will be more members. And as Mr Rai has rightly pointed out, based on personal experience, the Board comprises senior professionals in the various fields which are relevant to what the Strata Titles Board will have to do, not decide on the law, but decide on whether the sale price is one where there is no collusion, decide on the method of distribution, whether it is unfair to the minority owners. The composition of the panel will ensure that this task is better done, rather than a judge sitting in court fettered by the rules of evidence. The other point, of course, I think Mr Rai again brings it out poignantly is the mediatory role of the Board, which again a court will be less suited to do. In a more informal setting, the Board takes a mediation role. That is very critical. As I have said in my speech and Mr Rai, based on his experience, has also backed up, in many cases, the Board will mediate. In many cases, they will succeed in mediation. In many cases, people who may not want to sell, especially those who are not based on financial reasons, if there is skilful mediation, if the parties, especially the majority parties, are encouraged to give some latitude to the minority owners, maybe arrange, if a person wants to live in the area, for the developer to give a right of first refusal, so that he or she can continue staying in the area, relocation or whatever, I think many of these problems can be settled. The Board will be much better. The other point which I want to say is that I would agree that we should not typecast majority and minority owners, because there are minority owners who may not want to sell based on financial reasons.”
“Sir, I just want to clarify that I did not mean that I was encouraging the Bill to allow stipulation of terms and conditions. I was only pointing out that terms and conditions in different en-bloc offers do differ, which may then have to be considered by the Board. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Thank you for the clarification. Sir, going on this basic objective of creating more space for Singaporeans, we have decided on the 10-year rule. Going on present records, it will not lead to national wastage. One or two speakers had asked whether the 10-year rule, where the buildings are relatively new, would lead to wastage at the national level. From the records, only about 20% of en-bloc developments have been less than 10 years. Nevertheless, we also know that there may be good reasons why owners in a development which is less than 10 years would want to sell en-bloc. It could be because the plot ratio has been enhanced substantially. It could be because the development is next to a vacant plot of land and there is reason to sell it so that development can be built on a larger piece of land. Or it is next to another development which is perhaps also less than 10 years old, but it makes economic sense to sell it together. As the approach we take is to facilitate en-bloc sale, we have adopted the 10-year rule. Mr Lew says that this will mean that it goes against another objective which is to rejuvenate estates. That is a secondary objective. In time to come, when estates become older, I think this will come to the forefront. But at the moment, the primary objective is to help realise enhanced plot ratios so that many more homes can be created for Singaporeans. The other big area that we looked at was the role of the Strata Titles Board.”
“They are well organised and can speak with an equal and loud voice. There has been some anecdotal evidence about Kim Lin Mansions or other isolated cases. The Minister has not shared with us how much feedback, how many complaints. And I would ask that the Select Committee go beyond just being open to views but rather seek to survey, study and genuinely solicit views. The second wider suggestion I have is that the Bill be better served and the minority interest better protected if the majority who wish to sell be placed in a fiduciary relationship to the minority whereby undertaking the sale, they will take on duties to safeguard the interest of the minority as best as possible. The third and a more general point I wish the Minister of State to put before the Select Committee is that, might it not be better not to exchange existing private rights, but rather to change them prospectively for land and developments that will now arise. This of course has the disadvantage of making different types of land and making choices more complex. But this has the advantage of making sure the people who are presently situated in one system of rights do not find that system changed to their adversity.”
“This is a hard dollar and cent reason for us to help people hang on to their properties and not have them pried out from their hands. And, of course, I do not think this House needs to remember that in the present market where prices are lower than the peak, it could result in a loss. I am gratified that the Minister of State now says that we guarantee that deals do not go through if they result in a loss. I move on to my third point that more safeguards are needed. I share Prof. Chin's concerns that it is the court who is much more appropriate to fathom the mixture of personal loss, economic loss, rather than the Strata Titles Board. And I do not echo the sentiments expressed by my fellow NMP Mr Rai. I also share the concern that if we are to consider any factors put forward by anyone, this is not in the Bill as drafted. I think we have to consider this particularly because, as I understand them, en-bloc proposals may differ considerably not just in terms of price but also in additional terms such as preferential treatment for new apartment once it is built, rent-free periods - all these differ from deal to deal - and there must be room for the Board or the court to fully consider these reasons as well as the price. I also noted the Bill, and the Minister of State has emphasised mediation. But I suggest that this mediation is not sufficient because if it fails, the majority can still rely on the price. I share the concern about the timeframes regarding the 10-year properties and the voting percentages outlined earlier by the Minister of State. I wish to finally close on just a few broader points or suggestions. The first is that when this Bill goes to a Select Committee, I ponder who would speak for the minority owners. I think the developers are well taken care of.”
“So I want to distinguish between this idea of public interest and the majority in a private building and, secondly, the idea of communal living against the idea of private property. As I said also, there is an emotional attachment to a home and this is very difficult to translate purely to monetary terms. As such, I share the concern many Members have expressed that the conditions of a bona fide sale at arm's length transaction are simply not enough. The attachment which an older member may feel for his or her home of 20 years would be considered irrelevant in this equation. This is a monetarisation of emotional attachment and that idea is contrary to the idea of Singapore as home. There are many personal reasons for preferring not to sell. It includes circumstances like the owner, such as an elderly or ill person, who may not be able to stomach the idea of having to pack everything and move. There is a convenience factor of being near to other family members or the school or amenities, or to simply a neighbourhood with which you are familiar. Additionally, there are hard economic reasons for some preferring not to sell. The purchase price paid by different owners at different times may vary considerably. For example, a condominium unit that fetched, say, a quarter million dollars in 1986 or 1987 may cost by 1990 some $400,000, and then 1994, perhaps at the height or later, to fetch $1 million for the same unit, more or less. As such, if an en-bloc sale results in a price of $1.1 million, say, to all the buyers, the profit of different owners would differ considerably. And so they have different incentives to sell. This is a rational decision, not an emotional one.”
“I believe the Minister of State used this term in an earlier parliamentary sitting when he introduced the outline of the present Bill. But others did not see this as a tyranny but rather as a minority simply protecting their rights. They point out that the majority is not stopped from selling their units if they choose to do so. What they cannot do is to get the windfall premium by selling en-bloc. No one is trapped in a building but they are stopped from selling somebody else's house under them. And I think in this sense, this is a debate not simply about efficiency in land use, about abstract rights. This is a debate about the idea of Singapore as our home. We have encouraged home ownership. We wish that Singaporeans feel that the nation is their home, their permanent home which no one can take from them. Of course, this is best served by allegiance to the nation as a whole. At our National Day, I am sure many people will feel that allegiance. But on normal days, in our dreams, in our thoughts, in our hearts, that sense of rootedness of home belongs to one's specific home, one's specific neighbourhood. And in many ways I think that is why private property in Singapore has demanded a premium not merely for the facilities or the quality - the HDB quality is going up all the time - it is for that idea that this home is a private property belonging to me. Therefore, I do not agree that condominiums are about communal living. The way I look at it is what is common is very small. If we ask ourselves: can somebody by vote at the management committee invite them to my front door, I think the answer is no. If the answer to an invitation to the front door is no, then how can it be that the majority can also sell out not just my front door but my whole house from under me?”
“I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. I rise to welcome the reference by the Minister of State of this Bill to a Select Committee, which some of us have asked. I think we need to carefully consider the Bill because we are changing existing rules and private rights. We are changing the ball game. And I want to share some comments and thoughts with the Minister, hoping that this will go to the Select Committee, based on four topics: first, the question of public interest; second, the difference and balance between private property and what the Minister of State has called "communal living"; third, the safeguards; and fourth, the use of the Strata Titles Board as opposed to court. The first is on public interest. As many Members have said, land is a scarce resource and Singaporeans accept the principle of land acquisition for public interest by the Government. Some, however, will feel that these amendments differ on the public interest but instead serve windfall private profit. I also agree, as many have pointed out, that there is a public interest to protect Singapore's landscape against slums. However, I urge us just to consider that this concern can be met much more simply. Government authorities may issue orders to management councils of such slummy buildings to maintain properly or to face court proceedings. And if they persistently refuse or fail to do so, then condemnation orders can be served or the management corporation may be dissolved. So I do not see this strongly as a matter of public interest. It is more a question of that majority in the building of private owners against a minority. It is certainly true that under the present law, many may be frustrated. Some have called this the tyranny of the minority.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, if I understand the Minister correctly, he supports the motion. May I clarify that with him?”
“What I am saying as such, Sir, is that we need a mix of help and sanctions, of carrots and sticks. We need to help those who genuinely want and need our help, and pressure and impose sanctions on the bad guys. Sir, the motion is that the Singapore Government should do more. I have given some specific suggestions, but these are not part of the motion itself. The precise measures can and should be left to the Minister for the Environment. The more fundamental question, I urge upon the House, is whether we have done enough today, whether our people perceive that our Government has done all it can and all it should. If not, then we should do more. And all those who wish the Government should do more, including the Government itself if it plans to do more, should support this motion. I believe that we should do this and not sit passive. We should do this because this is a transboundary issue, not a domestic matter, but a matter of common concern, of great relevance to all of us. We should do this because the international law is on our side, and against the fire starters. We should do this as part of our contribution to help save the global environment from further climate change gases and loss of biodiversity. We should do this because our economy needs more stimulus and growth, not further strain and grey skies from the haze. We should do this because Singapore is our home, and in our home, we, especially our elderly parents and grandparents, our young children and grandchildren, should be kept safe. Question proposed.”
“" It is true. We cannot change our geography. But I urge against this counsel of apathy and fatalism. That is not the response of Singapore when faced with so many crises such as the regional economic crisis. In that case, we have been among the countries that have sought to focus international attention and assistance, and we have done our share, some say more than our share, with the loans, to help our neighbour. This same positive, proactive and helpful response should be used for the fires. There are also some who say that Singapore can indeed do more. But their version of what we should do is to give money and keep quiet. I do not share this view. I do not recommend that we throw money at the problem. Nor do I say that we must interfere in our neighbour's internal politics. I want to stress that this, as I see it, is not a case of Singapore against Indonesia, or Indonesia against Singapore. There are those in Indonesia who genuinely wish to solve the problems of the fires and haze and to enforce their own laws. After all, as I have said, the Indonesians are the ones who suffer the most, not us. If such people have the will and the skill, but lack equipment, know-how and funding, Singapore should assist them. It is the right thing to do and it is in our national interest to do it. There are others in Indonesia who wilfully set the fires or who close one eye to those who set the fires. These people profit from flouting the laws and causing damage to others. These people are no friends of mine, nor should they be friends of anyone in Singapore, I hope. It is not help or funding that we should give such people. We have to find legal sanctions and trade and other measures that can press such people to do the right thing.”
“The power of the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia to control forest and agricultural lands is not at all clear. I move on to my suggestions on how Singapore can help itself, ie, self-help. The first proposal I hope the Government will consider is to promote and facilitate eco-labels. Sir, this is not jargon. Basically, it is a certification process by which we can discover which products have a good environmental background and which are manufactured or produced in an environmentally harmful way, in ways that use fire and result in haze. Certification processes are already used by our Government for a range of products. I urge that the certification of products be applied to those connected with the fires and haze, which are timber and oil palm. Certification would allow Singaporean consumers and those environmentally-minded consumers in Europe and America and elsewhere to vote with their dollar signs, to punish the corporate offenders directly in the market place. The second measure for self-help I propose is that there should be an advisory to all Singaporean companies investing, lending or trading with Indonesian companies. The advisory should spell out at least their obligations to observe Indonesian laws against the use of fire to clear land. If we do not do this, Sir, we are polluting ourselves. If we do not do this, Sir, it will also be a political embarrassment to Singapore, if our companies pollute overseas and flout laws. The third self-help measure, I hope the Minister and the Government will consider, is to assist in investigating Singaporean companies, if requested by the Indonesian government. Sir, when we face a large problem, such as the fires and haze, some among us may shrug our shoulders and say, "We are a very small country, what can we do?”
“Examples of such courts exist in the Nordic Convention among the Nordic countries in Europe and in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Thirdly, on bilateral issues, Singapore has promised billions of dollars in loans to Indonesia for their economy and for trade guarantees, in particular. Sir, I urge the Government to consider that any further assistance to Indonesia must be tied first to their environmental performance. We are Indonesia's friends. I think in giving those first loans, that is clear. But the Indonesian government must do its utmost to help its own people and environment, and the people of the region, including Singaporeans. Indonesia should implement its own laws against the use of fire. It should investigate and name offending companies and enforce those laws against the use of fire, against all companies equally and effectively. Foreign investors may be among those offending shareholders, including Singaporeans. There have been statements by Indonesian ministries to that effect. Sir, I do not urge that our Government should protect Singaporean investors abroad if they are truly offenders. But I do urge our Government to ensure that Indonesia's prosecution of such corporate offenders should be equal and that Indonesian offenders should also be prosecuted on par with foreign investors. Fourthly, Sir, I call on the Singapore Government to engage the Indonesian government more broadly, not just the Minister for the Environment but also the Indonesian Ministries of Forestry, Agriculture, Trade and Industry and Finance. And these engagements should be at the highest level. Sir, as many experts, and I believe the Minister too, have recognised, there is a lack of coordination in Indonesian authorities on this issue.”
“Sir, the experts we have consulted have advised that this is of great expense and of little effect, especially without sufficient fire-fighting on the ground. Given the economic crisis, I have no doubt that the Singapore Government may come under pressure, alongside Brunei, to fund such spectacular but really quite unproductive efforts. I urge our Government not to take this step. On bilateral measures between Indonesia and Singapore, my suggestions are four. First, we have refrained from emphasising state responsibility of Indonesia and their liability for damages suffered by our people and economy. We have shown good neighbourliness and understanding of their circumstances. This is good. But our friends in Indonesia must recognise that there are limits. This is especially because the fires are caused, not by the poor in Indonesia, not by the Government, but by large companies. The poor in the affected areas of Indonesia suffer even more than Singaporeans. We must ask Indonesia to recognise its responsibility and to fulfil its duty to cooperate to prevent a recurrence of the fires. Indonesia must recognise its responsibility for transboundary pollution that affects us. My second plea on the bilateral relations is that Singapore should not necessarily conduct itself only on the level of country to country, government to government. Sir, I urge that the Government consider means to make these disputes at their natural level, ie, largely between citizens and corporate offenders. Our Government can, with Indonesia's consent and cooperation, set up a special court between the countries or, alternatively, to allow special access to courts in either country.”
“I wish to highlight just a few suggestions here today and add some of my own. As I speak in the Singapore Parliament, I shall focus more today on what I hope Singapore and our Government may do. I shall divide my suggestions between, first, Singapore as part of ASEAN; second, bilateral measures between Singapore and Indonesia; and, third, self-help, ie, what Singapore can do for itself. First, ASEAN. I urge that the Singapore Government work with ASEAN members to extend and strengthen the existing Action Plans. These Action Plans rely too much on goodwill without binding obligations, and I urge our Government to work with partners towards a binding treaty, which must accept the principle of state responsibility that Indonesia or other countries which cause the fires are responsible for them, and then to create a system for dispute resolution among ASEAN members. Secondly, I call on ASEAN to recognise that Indonesia has acted contrary to International Law and Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. Indonesia is causing great damage not only to our region but also to global climate change and biodiversity, and these are subject to two international treaties to which Indonesia and Singapore are members. Singapore and ASEAN should therefore work to focus international attention and assistance on the problem. And this proposal, in some senses, is like our response to the economic crisis. Singapore can serve by being a focal point on this issue. The third suggestion on how Singapore should work with ASEAN is a negative one. I believe our Government and ASEAN should not over-emphasise water bombing, throwing water on the problem.”
“It also estimates the loss of tourist arrivals for just one year, 1997. If the haze is a recurrent problem and our region has a bad reputation among tourists, we do not know how much more our economy may lose in the future. I therefore urge our Government to consider how it can do more to deal with the fires and haze. In calling for them to do more, I acknowledge the work that the governments of ASEAN, including Singapore's, have done to date. Credit should go to ASEAN governments that they have continued to meet to discuss the Haze Action Plan and other responses to the fires despite the economic crisis. There has been some progress, which I leave to the Minister for the Environment to explain. I believe that many Singaporeans still do not know fully what our Government is doing to protect and care for them on this issue. I believe too that more can be done by Singapore, in addition to what has been done already. There are, of course, many things that Indonesia can and should do for itself. After all, the use of fires is illegal under Indonesia's own laws and the bulk of damage is suffered by her own people and environment. In making these suggestions, I draw from a policy dialogue which was organised in early June 1998, by the Singapore Environment Council on which I serve as a director. This dialogue brought together some 40 non-governmental organisations (NGOs), think-tanks and experts. Many of these NGOs are working in Indonesia and have experience on the ground there. There were also representatives from the private sector, the Asian Development Bank, ASEAN Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme. I chaired the dialogue which issued a statement with some 30 suggestions for governments, international donors and the private sector.”
“The third threat is that the economic necessity to increase exports and gain foreign currency for Indonesia will lead to more unscrupulous, unsustainable and illegal logging and clearing of plantations by fires. The crisis and political transition in our region and Indonesia also create a window of opportunity. The opportunities are two-fold. First, that in the economic and political reform, policies with negative environmental impacts may be corrected. For example, the previous IMF package set out a number of conditions, including reform on the allocation of forest concessions. If transparency is brought to the system, more responsible land users can be preferred over those who use fire to clear land. The second opportunity is that among the reformers in Indonesia today, there are those who have cared and still care for the environment. There may therefore be more people in Indonesia itself who will work with us in Singapore and others to safeguard the environment of our region. Sir, I believe that the recovery for Indonesia and the region should aim to be on the basis of sustainable development, rather than one that needlessly destroys nature and natural resources, and harms our environment and human health. We must prioritize actions against fires and haze. Let me emphasise that this is not just an environmental issue about forests, about nature, about animals. The human and health costs are high. Moreover, the fires and haze are also economic phenomena. An international study has estimated that US$4.4 billion was lost by Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in the 1997 fires alone. This is a considerable amount of money, especially in these bad economic times. This sum, moreover, does not consider possible longer-term health effects.”
“We should act before the haze is upon us again. It may be good politics to talk about this when the skies are grey outside, but it will be too late to solve the problem. We should discuss the issue and set out what we need to do now, so that we will not have to suffer the same fate again next year or in future years. If we postpone our actions again, it will be too late. We must act preventively. We should act when the skies are clear, to make sure they stay that way. Yes, Sir, I recognise the economic crisis in the region is serious. In fact, it is the background of the fires and haze, which originate largely from Indonesia, our neighbour. We have to understand that the environmental problem is tied up with economics. It is the unscrupulous big businesses and companies who are behind the fires, not the natural El Nino phenomenon alone. Experts agree that the dry weather makes things worse. But the origin and underlying causes of the fires are man made. Moreover, because we are learning that El Nino is a cyclical event, we must be prepared for the next time it comes. And even the experts do not know exactly when that will be. Weather forecasts have been wrong before. We cannot therefore depend on the vagaries of rain to save us. The economic crisis is both a threat and an opportunity for the haze and fires. The crisis may lead to a worsening of the fires and haze. There are three threats. The first threat is that Indonesia will lack administrative and financial wherewithal to deal with the fires. The second threat is that Indonesia will give low priority to the fires. Singaporeans will remember that the former Environment Minister of Indonesia placed the issue no higher than fifth in his list of priorities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That in view of the economic downturn and political transition in Indonesia, the Government should do more to help control and prevent fires in Indonesia that impact Singapore with haze pollution and affect the environment, human health and economic activity. Sir, many will remember the grey months in 1997 and early 1998. We all suffered from the haze pollution. It was more than an inconvenience. The elderly and those among us with respiratory problems were particularly affected. Our young children were especially vulnerable. One of the world's worst ecological disasters; that is how the Chief of the United Nations Environment Programme described the fires and haze in our region. Yet, some have short memories. In preparing this motion, some ask why I should seek to move this motion now. Our skies are quite clear, and the latest meteorological predictions are that rain in the region is likely to keep haze pollution levels lower than they were last year. Moreover, some have asked me to feel that the economic crisis of the region should take precedence. Yes, it is true that the rains have put down most of the fires for the moment. I also recognise the great and turbulent times Singapore and the region face, especially our neighbours. Yet, I also believe that it is more important and timely for us to focus on the issue of fires in the region and the haze pollution. We must do this because the fires and haze are a recurrent problem. In the 1990s alone, heavy haze was experienced in 1991, 1994, 1997 and this year. Each time, concern and anger arose. Then the sentiment evaporated when the skies cleared, and in our inaction, the fires and haze have happened again. So we must not be inactive this time when the skies are clear.”
“Does the Minister have an opinion on the view of NGOs that free and fair elections are not possible in Cambodia, given the suppression by certain forces?”
“The question relates to observations by non-governmental organisations looking at Cambodia. Some have felt that elections ---”
“While I understand the wish for Singapore to take part in the UN process, would the Minister not agree that since Cambodia's membership in ASEAN will trigger on the elections, thus ASEAN and Singapore should actually take a larger role in this beyond provision of eight officers, like what we did in 1993?”
“May I ask the Minister how the figure of eight compares to Singapore's contribution to the last election in 1993?”
“Given that the hotels themselves do have approved refurbishment, is the principle not the same for studies? And leaving aside toastmaster courses, would courses by recognised universities or other institutes here and abroad not be worthwhile projects? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: In theory, yes. But, in practice, it is very difficult to define such worthwhile courses and to police it in a way which makes the system fair and not open to abuse. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD EXECUTIVE FLAT APPLICANTS (Waiting list and incentives to shift over to purchase private condominiums) 3. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many applicants are on the waiting list to buy a Housing and Development Board (HDB) executive flat and how much time and Government subsidies will be required by the HDB to meet this housing demand; (b) how many of such applicants have shifted to the purchase of Executive Condominiums instead and how quickly can the Government meet the demand of all applicants; and (c) whether the Government will consider providing incentives for applicants to shift over to the purchase of private condominiums since many private condominiums are now offered for sale at prices comparable to Executive Condominiums, thereby reducing HDB's burden of meeting the public housing demand.”