Sin Boon Ann
Singapore
“Madam, with growing affluence, rising obesity has also become a national problem. Other than the health risk for the individuals, there are other related problems such as healthcare expenses, loss in productivity and so on.”
“Madam, mental health problems still hold some stigma in the society and will prevent patients from seeking help and professional advice early and impede their re-integration into the workforce and community after treatment.”
“Sir, the silver tsunami is almost upon us and we must be prepared for the transformation of our social landscape. One in every five residents will be above the age of 65 by 2030. Many Singaporeans can expect to live another 20 years more but the quality of life can vary greatly.”
“If they are eligible for HDB concessionary loans, they will not be affected. However, quite a number of HDB upgraders or downgraders do not qualify for such loans. They may be upgrading due to additional children in the family or taking in elderly parents.”
“Sir, rigorous and thorough training for our servicemen is necessary to prepare them adequately for their role as defenders of our country. However, training safety is just as important.”
“But I feel more needs to be done to consolidate the understanding even further. What are MINDEF's action plans with this aspiration in mind? What are the upcoming educational publicity and other programmes MINDEF has planned to enhance the awareness and understanding of our public.”
The complete record
Every one of 965 lines we hold for Sin Boon Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 20.
“Sir, a government of the people, for the people and by the people is not premised on the foundation of elected representatives alone. A government of the people must be founded on the cornerstone of what is best for the people. And this must surely include listening to the voices of all people in this land, including the voices whom NMPs seek to represent. I have said in this House that we should expand the space for participation in the governance of this country. I see the presence of NMPs as an example of expansion of this space. For this reason alone, if not for the reasons stated earlier, I beg to support the motion raised by the Leader of the House that there should be Nominated Members in this House for the term of this Parliament.”
“However, if you look at the whole issue of the NMP from the perspective of whether their contribution in this House is in the best interest of this country, whether their debate in this House would strengthen policy making process in this country, and if the answer is yes, they do, then I think they serve the interest of Singapore and they serve the interest of the people. Let us not forget that NMPs too are Singaporeans. We should accept as an article of faith that when the NMPs speak up, it is with the best interest of Singaporeans in their hearts. I do not believe for a moment that only the people's representatives in this House have the monopoly of the people's interest in this country. If by participating in this House, the NMPs can contribute to a more focused discussion and one that will help us to arrive at better solutions to our problems, then we should, in all honesty, support this motion and look forward to their presence here. That is sufficient moral authority for me. It is not true that the NMPs are not accountable to anybody. On the contrary, they are held to a higher standard of conduct by virtue of the office they are called to and we take comfort in the fact that above all these, they are accountable to this House and to the people of Singapore for their actions. In this regard, I am not unduly worried by the comments made by the Member for Ayer Rajah when he said that they represent vested interest groups, because I believe that ultimately they will have to satisfy this House that they carry the right credentials and the right standing and qualification to speak in the interest of Singporeans, and not for any particular vested interest group in particular.”
“To that extent, I think NMPs have helped to raise the standard of accountability in Parliament. The point was raised in an earlier debate that NMPs serve no purpose when you have the Feedback Unit, the Institute of Policy Studies and the various agencies which provide feedback. However, I would hasten to add that these are feedback which are not canvassed in a public forum such as this, and therefore the people of Singapore may not have the benefit of such views expressed as it is in this House itself. In this regard, we should appreciate that a debate in Parliament on issues of national interest is different from getting feedback from agencies and groups in Singapore. Sir, as I have said, one common objection against having NMPs in Parliament stems from the lack of moral standing of the NMP to speak as the people's representative. There is the perceived absence of accountability to any particular constituency of people. This ideal is premised on the notion that only those who have been voted in by the people would have the right to speak on behalf of the people. Sir, there are as many definitions of democracy as there are countries that make up the world. We have accepted that we must, as a people, settle our form of democracy that would help us move forward as a nation. I do not deny that NMPs have no electoral base. I would, however, look at the issue of NMPs from the perspective of whether having NMPs is in the best interest of Singapore. In this regard, I come to the point raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. He said in his speech earlier that because the NMPs are not prepared to go through a competition in an election, they lack moral standing to represent the people in this House.”
“If you look in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, it provides that only people who have distinguished themselves in private or public service may be considered for selection. The records of performance, as you have just heard, of the NMPs so far have clearly vindicated our belief that they can play a part in the debate in this House with added depth and breadth to the debates. NMPs have also, in my assessment, helped us to move forward towards a more consensual form of Government which is receptive to alternative views and one which seeks to accommodate constructive dissent. We have also heard that NMPs have raised many questions for oral answer by the Government. We have seen examples of the sterling performance of people like Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon who through their efforts have made legislative changes and also raised questions which brought about policy changes within Government itself. Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah raised the point that these people have done well in Parliament simply because they are good people themselves. I would like to differ with the suggestion. I would argue that it is a scheme which allows good people to be thrown up, people who are interested enough in this country to want to participate in the debates, but who are not prepared to go so far as to identify with the ruling party. It is therefore a scheme which has allowed good people to come forward, and this is an indication of what the scheme tries to achieve as a result. Sir, having NMPs in Parliament is one more reason why our Government cannot adopt a cavalier attitude in deciding policies. It provides an additional safeguard which serves to protect the interest of Singaporeans.”
“There were some Members who said that this is something that goes against the grain of our development in the political system. It weakens the political system and people who are not prepared to go through an election, as you have just heard, do not have the qualities which qualify them to be Members of this august House. Sir, when the idea was first mooted, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had argued that the principal purpose of the NMP scheme was to, in fact, strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated. Mr Goh also said that although PAP MPs have been encouraged to play the role of a constructive opposition by suggesting alternative and even contrary solutions to problems, the point remains that they are still Government MPs, subject to the rule of the Whip within the party itself. Mr Goh also added that NMPs will help remove any misgivings that the Government is afraid of dissent. Sir, NMPs are politically non-partisan. The NMPs can give a voice in Parliament to the views of protest voters, and those who are unhappy with Government policies. NMPs will, according to Mr Goh, play a constructive role. They can be relied upon to say things which no opposition MP will want to say; and NMPs can concentrate on the substance rather than the rhetoric of the debate. Since then, over the years, I have watched the development and acceptance of the role of NMPs. As non-elected Members, it seems to me that their stature and standing have grown in the eyes of the people. Sir, the law has laid down rather strict criteria for the selection of NMPs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Leader of the House. Sir, when the Government first mooted the idea of having Nominated Members of Parliament in the House in 1990, it received mixed reception from members of the public, including Members of this House. I was then a member of the teaching staff at the University. I was a lecturer in constitutional law. It was a compulsory subject for second year law students then. When you teach a subject such as constitutional law, you would follow the development such as Nominated MPs with some interest. What was foremost in my mind then was the question of legitimacy and the moral standing of the Nominated Member if he should come into this House, and this is an issue that was raised in some of the speeches we just heard. Sir, an ordinary elected Member claims the legitimate right to sit in this august House because he is duly elected by his constituents. He owes a duty to his constituents to speak, without fear or favour, and to advance and protect their interest if need be. Such were the principles of democracy. It is to the people that an elected Member is accountable to ultimately. An NMP, on the other hand, is chosen by a committee of this House without having to go through an election. In other words, he does not represent any particular constituency. His moral authority to speak on behalf of the people of Singapore is therefore apparently weak as a result. For this reason principally, Sir, I had my doubts initially as to whether the office of the NMP would strengthen and advance our political system. The misgivings were expressed in this House when it was first mooted.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did in my speech mention that I think there is a certain desire on the part of some Singaporeans for greater space for expression and I also did say that this Parliament and this Government will have to manage the extent of which the space is to be created. However I do not think this is the right occasion for us to talk about these markers. Perhaps at a later debate or engagement we can look at what these markers are.”
“The leadership and its followers may each have different understanding of what the freedom is and what it means. If Singaporeans perceive that they do not have enough space to express themselves in this country or have their voices heard, it would be difficult to involve those who suffer from this view in the process of nation building. We have to manage or even change such perceptions. This requirement is one that is necessary for us to strengthen the foundation of our nation. Sir, our nation will continue to survive if the people are prepared to pass on from one generation to the next, the message of our history, our constraints and our vulnerabilities. This process of passing the torch to the next generation is not a one-way process. It involves engaging future generations and giving them a stake in the civil process. We must spare no effort in making future generations of Singaporeans feel they are part of this nation, otherwise we may end up like the foolish man in the Bible who built his house upon the sand, which washed away when the rains came. Sir, I beg to support the motion of the hon. Member for Bukit Timah.”
“Otherwise, they may feel alienated and dispossessed and they will find it difficult to relate to a country where their dream is only a pipe dream and no more. Besides concerns for material security, many young Singaporeans, I believe, want more space to express themselves. The desire for more space is shaped to some extent by the outside world which Singaporeans have access to in the last 30 years, an access which no doubt is hastened by improvements in telecommunication and information technology. And the reality of our modern world is the invasion of western ideals, led no doubt by the Americans whose dominance in the world stage today in most fields of politics, economics, the arts and sciences has touched most aspects of Singaporean lives today. This invasion has influenced to some extent the way Singaporeans think and behave. Sir, I believe that this country and this Government give Singaporeans sufficient space to express themselves. Over the last 30 years, Singaporeans have become more vocal and strident in expressing their views. A survey of the letters to the Forum page of the Straits Times will support this view. Privately, discussion groups have also emerged. These groups are free to discuss issues on Government policy without any fear or favour. Singaporeans do accept that any public discussion must observe the basic rules of engagement. These being making sure that the remarks are not defamatory or calculated to incite any civil unrest or rebellion in Singapore through the stirring up of racial or religious sentiments. The desire for greater freedom of expression as a political end cannot be ignored by any Government seeking to preserve its legitimate right to rule. However, the context in which freedom is defined may vary.”
“Besides teaching the values of our nation to the next generation of Singaporeans, we should allow young Singaporeans to have more say in the policies of this country. To do this, we need to understand what issues are important to them. At the moment, I believe two major issues relate to material security and individual space for expression. An ability to address these issues will enable us to strengthen the foundations of our nation. Let me explain. The typical young Singaporean today wants a more secure future for himself and his family. Security in this context includes a better material life. The debates on the cost of living, health care, transportation, housing and education are but a manifestation of this deep and understandable desire of young Singaporeans for security. As Singapore becomes a more developed economy and society, the Government's ability to address these concerns becomes even more challenging. For the young adult stepping out into the world, the prospect is daunting. At present, any couple wishing to apply for a HDB flat for the first time will have to wait at least three years. The waiting period would have been longer had the Government not intervened. Cars are not likely to get cheaper and will continue to be a heavy expenditure item for most people. Medical costs will continue to rise. The pressures of our education system on the young will continue as we strive to maintain our edge as the most competitive nation in the world. We must continue to address these concerns and give Singaporeans as much opportunity as possible to participate in the process of policy making, especially in areas that affect their lives. Singaporeans want to have a say.”
“The visit to Capitol Hill no doubt leaves a distinct impression on the visitor with a sense of history and an understanding of the pride an American has for his country. In the streets of the city, I noticed how readily the Americans fly their flag. All civic institutions, as far as I could see, display the flag. The flag is, to the Americans, a symbol of freedom, democracy and civil rights. Together with the Constitution, the American flag is in essence the soul of the nation. The Americans have ensured that memories of the past are carried from one generation to another generation. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address, it was stated by the Minister for Education that LaSalle-SIA College of the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) will upgrade their courses, with LaSalle developing a Centre for Visual and Performing Arts with emphasis on Western and South-East Asian cultures, and NAFA concentrating on Fine Arts and Design, focusing particularly on Oriental cultures. I understand that the Government will assist the two institutions by expanding them, financing them, improving the administration and helping them defray their annual operating expenses. I welcome such a move by the Government and I hope that the Government will also use the expanded role of these two institutions as part of the nation-building exercise; for nothing is more powerful, nothing is more forceful than to use the visual arts in the drive to create a certain passion amongst future generations of Singapore, a passion that we want them to have for this great country. Thirdly, nation building for young Singaporeans is more than just National Education alone. It is a two-way process.”
“More than just understanding the Constitution, we should imbibe these values in our lives as well. Secondly, our recent history must be made relevant and alive to the young Singaporeans who are trying to relate to it. Our young students must have an effective appreciation of our past to develop a certain passion for our country. They must imbibe our core values as a nation and our sense of history. The Government has rightly pointed out that this is not achieved by the teaching of National Education in the classrooms alone. I support the proposal that we must organise regular tours to the various civic institutions in the country such as Parliament House, the Supreme Court, SAFTI MI, the Stock Exchange and our water treatment plants. Teachers and properly trained tour guides should be on hand to give a detailed and lively explanation of the significance of the places visited. We should make every effort to fly our flag more readily and not confine the practice to the time of the year when we celebrate National Day. No child should leave school without an understanding of who our political pioneers are, what our ideology is, what we stand for as a nation and what our constraints and vulnerabilities are. Sir, in this regard, we can learn from the Americans who have put in much effort in preserving the past and in inculcating the right social and political values in their children. At Capitol Hill, where I was recently, visitors are shown huge paintings that line the walls. The scenes in the paintings depict the milestones of their struggle as a nation. These are carefully explained to the visitors by trained volunteers. The imposing high vault and the massive rotunda give an air of grandeur and importance to the visitor.”
“It will weaken our social cohesion. When the crunch comes, will our people stay and close ranks together or will they take flight to safety? That issue must surely arise someday. When it does arise, will we be there to stand up for Singapore? I therefore agree that this Government and this Parliament must concentrate its efforts on National Education. This is a necessary part of nation building, an exercise which continues to make a nation rather than a state out of Singapore. Sir, it is against the backdrop of our discussion on nation building and National Education on the future generations of Singaporeans that I would like to focus my subsequent comments on. These comments are attempts to reflect the views of the post-65 generation, a generation that I would identify more readily with since I was no more than eight years old when we became independent. First, in our approach to nation building, we should treat our Constitution as a living document. Every nation has its distinct and particular experience that is appropriate to its circumstance. Our Constitution, as with any other constitution, attempts to set out, among other things, the institutions of Government, and the balance between individual rights and the rights of the community. However, what gives our Constitution meaning are the values which we attach to it. This defines our Constitution and what Singapore stands for. Why do we have Article 152 which entrenches the special position of the Malays in Singapore? Or what do the fundamental liberties mean to us? Or why do we have the institution of the Elected President? For us to have a consensus in nation building, these issues must be understood and accepted by all Singaporeans.”
“Because of those trying times, our people and our leaders are determined to ensure that Singaporeans will never have to live with those uncertainties again. Sir, our nation was conceived out of the struggle against colonial rule, of disparate migrant groupings of race and persuasion thrown into a crucible forged out of a necessity to survive, and of a belief that all men are equal and that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of his colour or his creed. The ebb and flow of time tends to wash away memories of the past. For Singapore, it is imperative that the roots of history grow deep in the psyche of its people. Unless we have deep roots, Singapore as a nation will not have the ability or the strength to weather the storms. Let us not forget that we are essentially a migrant people. Our forebears came to these shores in search of opportunities and of a better life. A migrant people with a migrant mindset will not sink roots naturally in a new country. For them to have emotional attachments, there must be a sense of national identity and pride. Sir, we stand at a very crucial time of our history. Ours is the Parliament which will usher this nation into the next millennium. Ours is also the Parliament which must deal effectively with the issue of how best to pass our values and all that this nation stands for to a generation that has only known stability and material abundance. How can we sink deep roots in nation building in the hearts of young Singaporeans? These concerns underscore the importance of nation building and hence National Education. An absence of a single minded purpose of who we are and what we stand for as a nation will not give Singaporeans and, in particular, young Singaporeans a sense of loyalty and commitment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, thanking our President for his Address at the Opening of the Ninth Parliament. Sir, our President in his Address spoke of focusing on National Education, and of getting our people to learn how we became a nation, how we are different from other countries and why we must always make a special effort to stay ahead of others. With these sentiments in mind, the launch of National Education by DPM BG Lee could not have been more timely. I speak in support of it. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.27 pm Sir, we became independent more than 30 years ago. Since then, a new generation of Singaporeans have grown up. Many of them have little or no recollection of the upheavals that marked our struggle as a nation, of the communal riots, the separation from Malaysia and the withdrawal of the British forces which brought a most uncertain future. For the post-65 generation of Singaporeans, a majority of them only know of a Singapore that is successful. Our economy prospered and has grown beyond expectations. Our Government found employment for the people, housed and provided them with a system of health care that few can reasonably complain of. Providence spared the post-65 generation from having to deal with the worst possible nightmares that haunted our leaders at the threshold of independence. Yet, those who lived through the 50s and the 60s know the pain of having your neighbour turn against you because you are of a different colour, and of living with the uncertainty of not knowing if you still have a job before the year is over.”