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 6 of 20.
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier that home owners should be made aware when they take a bank loan. There are situations where they may not be able to service the mortgage loans. But is the Parliamentary Secretary also aware at the same time that for many of these families, they do not have a choice. When they applied for HDB loans they were turned down. The only alternative to getting financing for the flat is to turn to the banks. It is not as if they have a choice.”
“The MOS is not responding to my question. My question is really whether the Government intends to set any targets or benchmarks by which it hopes to achieve in respect of these various schemes that are available.”
“Mr Speaker, I am gratified to note that there are so many schemes available to help the disabled. But I suppose the question really is whether the Government has set itself any benchmarks by which it measures the performance of these various schemes, and that will be key towards the Government helping these disabled people.”
“The flea market appears to have worked well and I would recommend it to the Government to seriously consider allocating more of such opportunities to needy residents. Sir, social enterprises come not only in the form of flea markets alone but also in empowering grassroots organisations to start business initiatives that would provide employment opportunity for those who need jobs but are unable to find it. Why should grassroots organisations not be encouraged to start business initiatives that benefit the community? I am particularly impressed by Prof. Yunus, the winner of this year’s Nobel peace prize. He started micro financing that helped to transform the lives of poor Bangladeshis and, in fact, many of the poor people around the world. The idea was simple yet effective, and we should aim to do likewise. If the Government is able to start certain initiatives that allow people to have better control over their lives and have independent existence, it would at least be taking one more step towards reducing poverty in Singapore. Sir, all my life, I have always believed in one Singapore - one nation united by a common sense of purpose and a need to survive. Although we are many races and beliefs, we are nonetheless one people sharing a common destiny. This is our home and our life. We know of no other. If we do not band together to help each other, no one will. Singapore must always be a home for all, and a place where, to paraphrase the words of Martin Luther King, its people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, their beliefs or even their worldly possessions, but by the strength of their character. With that, Sir, I support the motion. 2.36 pm”
“I would be confident at least that my radiographer is competent, the blood that they pump into my body will not be HIV tainted, the nurses will be professional and caring, and the hospital that I go to will be clean and well maintained. For that, Sir, many would not begrudge the fact of having to pay our local workers more than what they would be paying to similar workers elsewhere. That must surely be the reason why we can afford to pay our workers more than they are paid now. And this can only be achieved through a series of measures such as the restriction on the number of foreign workers at the lower level and aggressively pushing for higher wage levels through the NWC. My basic proposition remains - that our economy need not necessarily be uncompetitive simply because we have raised the average salary of our workers to close the income gap. Thirdly, we need to restore the dignity of labour through the institution of social enterprise. Let me be clear. There need not be any shame in poverty; neither should there be any shame in failure. People are poor not by choice but by circumstance. As a community, we must provide every opportunity to help them break out of the poverty trap. Where we are not able to provide that opportunity through employment, we should not be afraid to provide business opportunity to those who need it. We should be prepared to expand the boundaries of the informal sector to give Singaporeans a chance to close the income gap. Over at Tampines, we started the flea market to give residents the opportunities to try their hands at selling things. We have even conducted classes in soap making and other handicrafts so that they can peddle these items for profit.”
“We should bring back the spirit of gotong royong; an institution that we had years ago, when the Government required civil servants to go to the community to work in civil projects that involved community self-help and in the process provided the opportunity for civil servants to understand the people they served better. Only through the spirit of humility and service can the barriers of arrogance, pride and snobbery be overcome. Secondly, and although it may not be easy, we should continue to work actively towards reducing the income gap between the top and the bottom wage earners. Societies that are often considered stable and progressive are characterised more by the banding of the majority of the people at the middle class than by one where a deep gulf separates the elite few and the vast majority of those who form the underclass. We understand the lesson well. In a globalised economy, it is not be possible to pay an uneducated and unskilled worker middle class salary if he or she is only capable of low end jobs. That would be true for Singapore if we are only able to compete on the world stage purely on the basis of cheap labour alone. Sir, I would argue that cheap labour is not the value proposition for Singapore. We can never pretend to be cheaper than the workers in India and China. That would be suicidal for us. Our value proposition must surely lie in the Singapore society as a whole. When I check into a Government hospital, I may not be attended to by the best surgeon in the world. However, I do know that I can rest comfortable in the fact that it is the total system at the hospital that ensures that I would have a better chance of leaving the hospital alive.”
“Often a person is first introduced by reference to whether he is a scholar. Such attitude works its way through the entire administrative system and society. It is reflected in the way people and talents are perceived. We recognise the scholastic achievement more than artistic talent; top universities much better than local universities, foreign consultants better than local advisors; and the list goes on. Unfortunately, this colours the way we perceive success. It does not help with the negative perception of the elites if they are seen as being removed from the man-in-the-street. As a society, we must make the conscious effort to break down the labels that define our self worth. The schools have come a long way in this regard. I know that some schools go out of their way not to name the top class an "A" class. This way, it would be difficult for an outsider to know who the better students are from the class description. We must make a virtue of modesty and humility. We must make it a responsibility on those who are in a position of leadership to see their calling as a service to others and not to be served. In other words, to those who are given the privilege of going to top universities in the world, that opportunity to study abroad at taxpayers' expense is a privilege and not a right born out of ability. And for those who return from such august institutions, they must see it as their duty to help the less fortunate Singaporeans whose work has helped to pay the way.”
“It has to do with how we organise ourselves as a society, of how we define and celebrate success and how we deal with failures. Unless we are able to deal with these issues, we will only be scratching the surface in trying to reach out to the wider audience. We will continue to agonise and ask ourselves why it is that Singaporeans, who have got so much going for them, should continue to show their unhappiness with the Government. Sir, we obviously need to bridge the gap if we want to stay cohesive and united as a society. In this regard, I am gratified to learn in the President’s Address of the initiatives that the Government has taken to create a socially inclusive society; all of which I support. I would, in addition, like to suggest three areas that the Government can look into. First, we need to break down the institution of snobbery within our society. These attitudes reinforce the societal fault lines. Sir, more than any other society, we have perfected snobbishness into a fine art. I have mentioned this earlier in my speech. You are who you are, by the badges of achievement that you wear. Changing this mindset must surely begin at the apex; and in particular, the civil service. Within the civil service the perception exists that it matters much whether you had previously held an overseas scholarship. In fact, within the SAF, there is a reference to whether you are a scholar or a farmer. A farmer is one who is not an SAF scholar and who being the salt of the earth, belongs to the rank-and-file. On the other hand, a scholar is seen in a different light. He belongs to the elite few who have their career cut out for them. In a way, the class status tends to permeate itself through service.”
“Sir, as the Singapore society matures, the opportunity for upward social mobility would reduce. Social strata will harden, making it difficult for people to advance and improve their status. Quite clearly, a child from a poor background will not have the same opportunities and exposure as a child from a middle or upper middle class background; and in an academically competitive environment, it would be a significant disadvantage. Simply put, not every child would be able to start from the same starting line when he begins his education in school. As income continues to widen, there will indeed be a greater tendency for people in our society to be differentiated socially. When this happens, we would run into problems with class perceptions; and with it, the "us" and "them" feelings that divide society; sometimes very deeply. A society united Sir, we need to ask ourselves why there is this deep and visceral reaction within our society when an unthinking remark gets passed by someone who is privileged and which is seen as a condemnation of the plebian masses. What happened in the case, coming back to this RJC girl, who made the remark, had little to do with the remark itself but rather with the fact of who she is and what she represents. It is a reflection of how divided we are as a society and how disaffected and alienated we have become as Singaporeans. We want to engage young and old Singaporeans to understand them better. We reach out in more ways than one. As leaders, we tried to redesign ourselves to be like one of them. We learn to hip hop, write blogs and spend time listening to them. These are good initiatives. However, these initiatives do not address the root of the problem, which goes deeper than that.”
“When we reduce the curricula by 30%, what it means is that most parents would probably use the extra time to go over the lesson again to ensure that the child knows the subject thoroughly. Our education system has sadly become so competitive that it would be unusual indeed for a child not to have tuition. The tuition industry has grown phenomenally in recent years. In many of our grassroots organisations, we know that tuition is a big time business. Tuition today is not the preserve of the better off. Even those who can hardly afford it will scrimp and save just to provide tuition for their children, just so that they may keep up with their classmates. Why have we become a nation so obsessed with performance? The short answer is because we know that it is the route to social mobility. Under the pressures of such extreme competition, a child's sense of self-worth is determined unfortunately by his academic prowess more than anything else. Although the system of streaming has changed somewhat recently, the fact remains that streaming in our education system is still carried out on the basis of mental ability. This has the effect of putting the children in their proper places in society. You are either Normal or Express, "O" level or "through-train", overseas scholar or the local tertiary institution. And the list goes on. What it does mean is that for a child who is able to excel in the system, he soars. He would ace his examinations, he gets a coveted scholarship, goes overseas and comes back as a mandarin with a career path properly mapped out for him. On the other hand, a child who fails in our system would, not surprisingly, suffer from relatively low self-esteem and perhaps allow his disappointment and anger inside him continue to fester and boil over.”
“It matters whether you end up, in the case of a secondary school, in a gifted class or in a "through-train" programme; or in the case of a JC, whether you are doing the "S" papers and are on the scholarship track. Take another instance, the civil service. This has been mentioned before. It is an open secret that if you are a returned scholar from an overseas university, the perception exists that the career path and the treatment will be different from those who join the service from the local university without a scholarship. True, there are many civil servants, from the local university who make it to the top of the service. However, the truth is that these are far fewer in number. There is a perception that exists, rightly or wrongly, that within the service, unless you belong to the elite scholars' class, your career choices will be limited. Sir, I am not passing judgment on the merits of the scholarship programme and neither am I necessarily criticising the school system here. The point remains that if you put these top students and scholars high up on the pedestal in our society, you end up creating a separate category of people who are set apart from the rest of the others. And Singaporeans wizen up to this fact of life rather early in life. Our parents bemoan the pressures of the education system. However, if we sit back and ponder over it, it is the parents and the entire society who put the pressure on our education system. I have often maintained the position that reducing the curricula in our schools by 30% does not reduce the pressures that our children are faced with in schools by the same corresponding amount.”
“Those who are not able to compete globally will find themselves out of a job as they are being replaced by cheaper workers elsewhere in the other parts of the world who are prepared to do what they currently do for a song. We are increasingly finding ourselves to be in this case. There is a growing number of middle aged Singaporeans who are not very well qualified and who are without employment. This perhaps explains the sentiments and fears of Mr Derek Wee, the gentleman whose blog started this controversy. As the income gap widens, the sense of disaffection and alienation within the underclass will continue to grow within our society. There will be greater pressure on social equity and fairer income distribution. No matter the merits of the debate on market forces for wage distribution, any government that ignores a growing income gap, ignores it at its own peril. Singapore is no exception. Our income gap has widened and will continue to widen. This is not our only problem. We have also become a highly stratified society. We are a society divided into different strata. Perhaps the most telling indication of how stratified our society has become is our definition of self worth. What do I mean? We have become a people that increasingly define success on the basis of conspicuous consumption and branded label. Who we are is determined by the school we go to, the house we live in, the job we hold and the car we drive. Indeed within each category, there is fierce competition to emerge among the best. Take schools, for instance. It is not enough if your child goes to a top school or a junior college.”
“Latitude must be given on the account of age and youthfulness. In the case of the girl, I would just put it to her relative youth and lack of maturity. There are many more of such youths who are given to such insensitive and provocative expressions. Just look at the language used on the Internet. Why should this girl be singled out for special treatment? Is it because she is bright and a potential scholarship recipient? Or is it because she is well connected? I do not think we will be better off as a society to take it against her. Certainly this may well be a humbling and a salutary lesson for her. I think we should move on. A society divided Sir, this deep and visceral reaction to the blog by the student should set us thinking about the deeper problems that lie within our society. Why was there such resentment and anger over what seemingly was a frank and honest opinion by a young and perhaps naïve girl? The answer, Sir, lies in the perception of the way Singapore society has become. Rightly or wrongly, many see this debate as clearly demonstrating the gulf that has developed within our society. The perception exists that Singapore is a society that is bifurcated between the elites and the commoners, the scholars and the normal streams, the gifted and the ordinary, the HDB dwellers and the private property owners, and the rich and the poor. Indeed, as we become a part of the globalised economy, the income gap between the rich and the poor will naturally widen. Those who are able to adapt and effectively compete on the global stage will be able to enjoy world class salaries.”
“Sir, like my colleagues before me, I too rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob to thank the President for the Address. Sir, some weeks back, one RJC student wrote, in her private blog, a response to another blog by a middle-aged Singaporean. The older Singaporean had expressed much concern and reservation about the security of his own future in the face of globalisation. The gentleman, like any other middle-aged worker, was genuinely worried about his ability to meet with competition. These are perfectly legitimate and realistic fears that resonated well with many Singaporeans. Many wrote openly on the Internet in support of his concern. However, what many Singaporeans did not expect was a sharp response from a young Singaporean who lambasted the poor man as a poor loser who was just expecting too much from the Government. The girl appeared insensitive and arrogant. Quite naturally, the response that came from the netizens was swift and furious. There was much anger. It did not help that the girl was from a top JC in Singapore and had appeared to come from a privileged background. The debate, unfortunately, forced into sharp focus a difference of opinion between the elites of our society and those who are not as fortunate or as capable. It certainly did not help that the RJC student ended her blog by asking the man to “get out of my elite uncaring face”. It is unfortunate that she made such remarks. In any democracy, she is entitled to her views. Not everyone on the receiving end may like what she has to say. This must be placed in perspective. The right to disagree and express a legitimate opinion must surely be ours as long as that right is not an imposition on others.”
“Can I ask the Minister of State whether he feels that MDA is satisfied with the level of funding and support that is given in the area of educating the children and users of the Internet?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their very comprehensive and detailed replies to the issues raised under this head of expenditure. It is indeed heartening to know that our Government and MCYS are committed to building a cohesive and resilient society in Singapore under the various initiatives organised by the Ministry. It leaves me now the pleasant duty of asking for leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $973,714,450 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $66,109,400 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: (a) whether the Government could provide an update on existing and new youth initiatives undertaken by MCYS; (b) how will the Government intend to provide additional opportunities for our youths to be involved in contributing to society; how is the provision of youth community space in town or elsewhere coming along? (c) what new initiatives does MCYS have in store for our youths in the coming year?”
“Sir, the older generation of Singaporeans have carved a strong sense of responsibility and identity towards our nation, because their spirit, resolve and ties with their fellow men were strengthened in various crises in the early days of Singapore the fight for independence, racial riots and economic uncertainties. For the post-65 generation, they have experienced nothing but stability and independence as a result of our economic success. They have never really had to consider issues larger than themselves. Hence, it is not surprising that their interest seems to be heavily skewed towards personal success, with seemingly little interest in national issues. The youths of today, therefore, sing and dance to a different beat compared to the earlier generation. Not that this is necessarily bad, but it does signal the prospect of communication difficulty between two generations because of differences in their life s experience. Nothing can be more stark than the discovery I had sometime back when I learned that our National Education Programme is not as well received as it should be by our students. If this is true, it is rather disconcerting. We need to continue to engage our youths of today for two principal reasons. Firstly, we need to pass on to them our values that represent the wisdom that has been distilled from the generations which have gone before us and, secondly, we need to listen and understand the youths of today in order that our policies may be aligned and in tune with their aspirations, outcomes and concerns. In this regard, I know that MCYS has taken several initiatives in the past year to address the concerns of engaging our youths.”
“While members meetings may be called to elect new office bearers, if at all, these meetings may be dominated by controlling members with vested interest and the ordinary members are none the wiser as to how their money is spent. It does seem strange to me that while private limited companies are tightly regulated by the Companies Act, which sets out a clear regime to protect the members interest, the same does not apply to charities. It is not uncommon that within some of these charities, large sums of money are given by members. Yet, often, there is very little accountability and transparency as to how this money is spent. In the light of the above, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would now consider strengthening the regulatory framework for these smaller charities to protect the interest of members who may be called upon, from time to time, to donate money. Additionally, I would also like to ask the Minister, now that the IMC report has been submitted, whether the Government would consider adopting the proposals of the IMC in its entirety. Charity and Voluntary Welfare Organisations”
“Sir, the NFK saga throws light on the need for stronger governance on charities and IPCs. Indeed, following the NKF fiasco, the Government appointed an Inter-Ministry Committee to study the issue of governance and accountability of charities and IPCs and, at the same time, to strengthen the regulatory framework in order to raise the level of public trust and confidence in the charity sector. The IMC completed its report recently which was submitted to the Government. The key thrust of the report s recommendation centred on the areas of: (a) regulatory framework; (b) governance, financial and fund-raising regulations; and (c) facilitating the work of charities and IPCs. In essence, the report focused mainly on strengthening the regulations relating to public fund-raising and the regulation of IPCs and large charities with total annual income of $10 million or more. It did not, unfortunately, substantially tighten existing regulations on charities that do not have that kind of annual income and that are not IPCs or institutions of public character. Sir, I would say that it is unfortunate because charities in this category at present do not have an adequate framework that addresses the issue of accountability and transparency, even to its members, not to mention members of the public. At the moment, members of these charities have limited involvement in decision making. How these members may be involved is largely left to the discretion of the existing management committee; and the accounts may often not be rigorously prepared as they should have been.”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for the reply and for stating the Government's stand on supporting social enterprise. I am also glad to know that the Government is looking at amending regulations and rules to facilitate the setting up of social enterprises. What I would like to ask the Minister of State is whether or not the Government is prepared to relook at some of the rules of tender in order to assist social enterprises. By this, I mean if a social enterprise were to tender for a public site, would Government be prepared to amend the rules of tender to give them an easier passage to acquiring the rights to the use of the site. One of the biggest elements of costs is land cost, and it is surely the greatest hindrance in the setting up of business in Singapore. The second question which I would like to ask for clarification is in relation to the statement by MOS earlier about processing of applications being made within six weeks. What I would like to know is whether or not the six weeks include the time when money is dispensed to those who apply for ComCare assistance. Their application may be processed by six weeks but the time the money gets to the needy may take more than six weeks. The Minister of State also mentioned earlier that there are 51,000 cases that were assisted by the ComCare Fund. What I would like to know is what percentage of those 51,000 cases were actually helped by way of being able to return to being self-reliant as a result of the ComCare assistance. 1.00 pm”
“Sir, active aging is the buzz word these days. As we become a more mature society we have a larger pool of older Singaporeans and certainly we need to engage older Singaporeans in their retirement to keep them active in their later years. In many countries, the elderly have been roped in to participate in the various activities. I can think of getting the elderly to participate in municipal-level activities, such as the Town Council and the grassroots organisations. In the context of our society, I wonder whether or not more can be done to rope in, and provide a special location for the elderly and the retired to stay active by being more actively involved, either in the grassroots organisation or the Town Council. I do know that within the community centres they have the Senior Citizens' Executive Committee. The question really is whether or not we are satisfied with this present arrangement and whether or not more can be done to rope in these senior citizens and engage them in the management of our community. Additionally, I would like to also ask whether the Ministry is actively looking at how the elderly is relating to the younger generation of Singaporeans and also how they are relating to members within the family itself. I do know from my MPS that, very often, the elderly finds it difficult to get along with family members simply because with limitation of health, they are placing an increasing burden on their family members and, thereby, creating much tension within the family. Is the Ministry, for example, looking to study how the present situation is and whether or not steps can be taken to improve inter-generational interaction and dynamics between the elderly and the younger members of our society and also within the family itself?”
“Sir, I would like to ask whether or not the Government can support such initiatives at the grassroots level to empower these grassroots to build on this initiative so that we can allow people the ability to do work meaningfully themselves rather than to continue to receive and depend on Government for handouts. This is really the essence of social enterprise. 6.15 pm”
“I, therefore, would like to urge the Minister to consider how else we can level the playing field, through the various schemes, so that the "nice-to-have" which has now become a necessity for our children can become something that they can realistically come to expect in their lifetime in Singapore. Social Enterprises Sir, I would like to speak on a sort of organisation that marries the aims of commerce and social mission. These are called social enterprises which are defined as sustainable businesses that exist to achieve some form of social mission or objective. They are not-for-profits, and they operate and generate the capital they need to carry out their mission - a new paradigm based on sustainability and social entrepreneurship. Cooperatives are a good example of these sorts of enterprises that one talks about. Social enterprises should have a viable and sustainable business model, just like any other business. So, to those who think that social enterprises are in some way immune to the vagaries of the market, they would be mistaken. Having said this, social enterprises ought to receive special attention from the Government because they go beyond the simple concerns of making profit. At the moment, social assistance is given in the form of handouts to those in need. This is akin to giving fish rather than teaching people to fish. We need to empower our grassroots organisations with the ability, flexibility and financial resources to start business initiatives for our residents. These may include cooperatives, for example, to run bakeries that are tied up with pastry shops, and cooperatives that provide micro-financing for housewives to start small businesses so that they can be financially independent in their undertakings.”
“All I am asking for is for the Government to ensure that no child receives a second-rate education because his parents could not afford a first-rate one. Sir, I am grateful for what has been done, and for the help announced so far. I would like the Ministry to consider whether or not more can be done, and whether or not more can be done differently. For one, the school is only part of a child's life. What we have done is only address what goes out in school. We need to help children at home to be looked after as well, and that means looking after the child's education as part of his growing up experience within the family. We need to consider how we can help the parents, who are facing problems with their marriage and other personal problems, to help their children as they are growing up and as they are going through the educational experience. We need to support them by giving family service centres more incentives to help families in counselling and providing earlier intervention so that these children from these families will not be deprived simply because of the family background that they come from. My parliamentary colleagues, such as Dr Lily Neo, have noted that there should be more programmes to support children from lower-income homes and these would include providing them with additional enrichment lessons at the state's expense, which would include reading lessons, more education exposure trips, and so on. Sir, I have previously said that what was considered "nice-to-have" in the past, is now a "must-have" for students.”
“Sir, I join the many Singaporeans who welcome the slew of newly introduced assistance schemes for children of low-income families, starting from the first of this month. For one, the income ceiling has been raised for the Ministry of Education's financial assistance scheme, which helps children with their school fees. With this new measure, some 33,500 low-income family children pay little or no school fees - more than double the current 15,000. The qualifying household income level for the Edusave Merit Bursary has also been raised, enabling 17,000 more children to receive the award. Most of all, a $48 million Opportunity Fund has also been set up to subsidise such children for things like enrichment courses, overseas trips and computers. To me, the most important part of this part has to do with its regressive nature of assistance, ie, neighbourhood schools will get double the amount for every student they have compared to independent and autonomous schools. This is because most children from low-income families attend neighbourhood schools. Sir, I know what has been said about MCYS - that social causes are a black hole into which you can pour money, and still more is needed. This is, however, not what I am going to do. It is unrealistic to expect that all children, regardless of their home background, to have exactly the same kind and type of classes - I am not sure at all that this is good for the longer term. The school of hard knocks is perhaps a good training ground for life. There are many of us here who came up the hard way, and feel we are more resilient and tougher because we came through a more difficult route.”
“This is, after all, our country and if we do not make ours a more cohesive and resilient society, no one will. ComCare Sir, the ComCare Fund was the big bang for many of us. When it was first announced in January last year, the thing that stayed in my mind was the phenomenal sum that Government has committed to helping the poor and needy. And this is, indeed, a welcome news for those who are in need. Sir, I have two questions. The first question, of which a series is related, is whether we can have an update of what has been achieved to date? How many people have been helped? How have the various community grassroots been involved? Is there a common set of criteria to be applied across in giving out these funds? Is there a central database that is increasingly relied upon in handing out these schemes? Additionally, can I also ask the Minister whether the administration of ComCare funds across the various Ministries is not hampered because different agencies are involved and also to give the assurance that the money to be dispensed will not suffer the delays arising out of the necessity to deal with the different Ministries?”
“Are we confident that our people are now better able to share in the belief that ours is a common destiny, and that our collective interest is better served by helping each other and going out of our way to accommodate each other's custom and religious belief? Can our society better withstand the sectarian forces that threaten to tear us apart as it has with the other societies? To be fair, our Government has done much in this regard, including the formation of the IRCCs. However, we know that these initiatives are often perceived as coming from the top. Unfortunately, these matters of the heart are just not matters that can be induced externally, but are matters that should, at the same time, come from within. It has to be imbibed into the values of the population and grown internally at the same time. Sadly, when we try to introduce these values in schools through the curricula, it is seen as an unnecessary detraction from the real business of focusing and doing well on the core examinable subjects. Despite these efforts, we still have Singaporeans leaving this country permanently to settle in greener pastures elsewhere; we are still very concerned about over taxing the rich so that more assistance can be extended to the needy Singaporeans; we are still very concerned about giving the poor Singaporeans too much and over too long a period to the extent of robbing them of their work ethic; and we are still very concerned over the fall-out that a terrorist incident in Singapore might create on religious and racial harmony in Singapore. Sir, over the next two days, we will no doubt be deliberating the various subject headings under the charge of MCYS. I hope that my introductory statement will set the framework with which to consider these issues.”
“As a society, how do we go about organising ourselves in the face of a globalising economy so that everyone can stay together, bonded with the unity of purpose, and committed to building this place we all call home? This concern becomes especially acute, if the economic disparity mirrors the ethnic groups in our society. Our challenge must surely be to remain not only a cohesive society but also a resilient one as well. We want our people to bond as a community, where those who are more capable are not adverse, but feel it their duty to carry those compatriots who are not able, either through choice or circumstance, to look after themselves. We want to build a society where our people are united in the face of adversity, whether through hard times or arising from forces that threaten to tear our social fabric and multi-racial harmony apart. 6.00 pm In rising to these challenges, our approach has been to build a nation based on the self-evident principles of individual responsibility, family support, community outreach and Government assistance; in other words, providing many helping hands to help forge a common sense of destiny. In line with this principle, the Government, either through the ComCare Fund or the Progress Package, as announced in this year's Budget, has sought to ensure that no one is left behind in our nation's progress. These measures, although seen as short-term relief by some, are no doubt generous and would lay the foundation for the long-term development of our society. Yet, despite the generous handouts and active intervention by the Government over the years, we are constantly faced with the basic question of whether or not we are a more cohesive society and a resilient one today than we were 10 years ago.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, as Singapore continues to stay engaged in the globalised economy, it will increasingly be confronted with the reality that the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. In an environment where labour and capital are not confined to national boundaries, those who can adapt to the challenges and the demands of the changing economy will not only survive but will be given the opportunity to reach for the sky. On the other hand, those who cannot compete will continue to suffer from job insecurity and low wages. Very often, many of these lowly educated workers have no bargaining powers and are left to the mercy of the market place, as foreign workers continue to come and "steal" their lunches. Such stark differences in wealth distribution do not augur well for the future of our society. With the income gap widening, there is a greater likelihood of unhappiness existing among poorer Singaporeans. One can understand the feelings of a coffeeshop assistant, struggling to meet the monthly expenses of the family when he looks at the increasing number of spanking and brand new Mercedeses and BMWs whizzing past him. At best, the coffeeshop assistant could have shrugged it off by saying that this is his destiny in life; at worst, the perceived differences of wealth could breed deep resentment, jealousy, hatred and alienation from the wider society that he lives in. If this is so, it would be sad for Singapore and all Singaporeans, as this would undermine all that we have worked hard at building over the past 40 years. The challenge for us is indeed present and real.”
“Sir, the transformation of the SAF in recent years into a 3G army has been dramatic and represents a quantum leap in the capability of our armed forces. Following the transformation, the SAF would be a leaner and more potent force employing new operating concepts and systems while maximising our limited manpower resources. In particular, the 3G SAF will be chiefly characterised by its ability to use the state-of-the-art technology to gain an asymmetric edge over its potential adversaries in areas of precision strike, advanced network and unmanned systems. This transformation of the SAF into a 3G army, as I understand it, mirrors the transformation of the US Armed Forces as well. However, despite the deployment of advanced technology, we have seen in Afghanistan and, in particular, Iraq, how a technologically superior armed forces can be bogged down by low intensity and unconventional warfare. I refer in particular to the challenges faced by the US Army on the ground in dealing with the security threats posed by guerrilla fighters and terrorists. Indeed, we have seen in Iraq that technological superiority has limited protection against suicide bombers and snipers. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether the transformation of the SAF into a 3G army would take into account these developments and whether we are observing the situation in the Middle East closely to see how lessons can be learned which may be applicable in our context.”
“I can understand the application of this policy in the context of a family that can hardly afford to make ends meet. Does the same also apply to the family where the man is blowing 20% of his $20 million net worth to gambling? Can his wife and children come before the Council to ask for an exclusion order on the grounds that their needs and welfare are being substantially reduced because of his gambling habit? It would help if the Ministry could provide clearer guidelines on these matters as it serves to, firstly, guide the Council in coming to a decision and, secondly, to provide better guidance to members of the public on the circumstances where help from the Council may be sought. Sir, this is a very comprehensive Bill on casino control and I applaud those who had a hand in drafting this Bill. This is a Bill which I support. From the debate that we have had in this House, it is clear that our concerns, as Singaporeans, go much wider than the nuts and bolts of the policy that this Bill has come to represent. Of necessity, we accept that we have to take this route with Vice for company. While we may be fellow partners in this journey and do all we can to prevent an over intrusion of Vice into our lives, we must never forget that this Vice can be evil and will not hesitate to consume us if we are not careful. 5.42 pm”
“In the way that it is drafted, clause 129 leaves very much to the imagination of how one can take all appropriate steps to ensure that these illegal activities are not carried out in the premises. I am concerned that the Bill itself did not do more to set out the standards and the measures by which a casino operator can take appropriate steps. And I would hope that, at some future point of time, the regulator and the authorities can provide further guidance on what is considered to be adequate or appropriate steps that they can take to minimise or to prevent such activities from taking place. Finally, Sir, greater clarity and guidance for the National Council on Problem Gambling. It is laudable that the Government has taken the proactive measure of setting up a National Council on Problem Gambling. This is done in recognition of the potential harm that gambling may bring not just to the individual, but also to his family and his loved ones. In as much as living with a casino in our front yard and may be new to us, the Council, in its initial stages, will be left very much to finding its own compass in virgin territory. This Bill has attempted to chart some directions by clarifying some provisions. These relate, for instance, to clarifications within the legislation on the nature of serious harm to the family and the circumstances under which the Council should have reasonable apprehension. While such efforts should be lauded, it is unfortunately insufficient. I can, for instance, think of situations where the Council will no doubt have to formulate its own guidelines as a compass. For instance, would a spouse under the Bill include a common law husband or wife? Under clause 162(2), what would the needs and welfare of the respondent's family members be?”
“Sir, there is absolutely, to my mind, no basis for assuming that those who can afford the entry levy are better able to exercise self control and look after themselves than those who could not; or that those who can afford the levy will not end up losing their pants at the gambling table as with those who could hardly afford to enter the casino. The way to deal with it is not to restrict entry but to place the burden on the operator to rely on their software to fish out those who run the risk of problem gambling. The operator would be in a position to pick this out very easily by tracking the patrons on a daily basis and the amount they spend. Such information can be channelled to the Council who would then be in a position to seek out those at risk. Alternatively, an upper limit on gambling could also be imposed on those who choose not to furnish information on their financial standing. Sir, while the Bill has also taken pains also to ensure that those who could ill afford it are prevented from entering the casino, I believe more could be done to prevent those who enter the premises with the sole purpose of perpetrating evil. I am referring to the loan sharks and those who are intent on prostitution and other forms of illegal activities. One of the pillars of concern in relation to casino activity has to do with loan sharking and illegal prostitution. In fact, all prostitutions are illegal, to begin with. And for all our concerns, I am surprised that the present Bill only confines such restriction to just one particular section, and that is to be found in clause 129 of the Bill.”
“Similarly, it also seems inconsistent to me that while we prevent people who cannot afford the $100 per entry levy or $2,000 annual membership fee from blowing their hard-earned money or savings in a casino, we make no effort at preventing Singaporeans from spending a fortune on buying Toto, patronising jackpot rooms at the various clubs, going on cruise ships that have floating casinos or even making a visit to the Singapore Turf Club which, to my mind, is another form of legitimised gambling. Why should this be so? Sir, the issue is not about whether we should not allow poor Singaporeans the right of entry, but rather about problem gambling. It would be presumptuous to think that poor Singaporeans have limited or no self-control. Poor Singaporeans who are minded to gamble are not discouraged by the $100 levy, which the authorities intend to impose. Serious gamblers, no matter how poor they are, will be able to meet the obstacle easily. And even if they are prevented from patronising the casino by the levy, they will have other means to feed their habit. There are many Singaporeans, especially the poorer ones, who have limited or no opportunity to travel overseas but who would like to visit the casino for the experience. The integrated resort should be seen as an asset for all Singaporeans to visit and to enjoy, including the casino. Nobody is going to have a serious problem with someone who visits the casino as part of an outing and punts the odd dollar at the gaming machine. Imposing a levy on entry coupled with an openly stated policy of protecting the low-income from the snares of gambling as a justification for the levy puts us in an unwarranted position of being seen to be engaging in class discrimination.”
“For this reason, Sir, I am not too happy with the existing clause 51 of the Bill and would ask that the Government consider amending it to include a formal process of consultation with all interested parties if further expansion is required for the existing casino operation. Secondly, the artificial nature of the restriction to entry. Currently, the proposed restriction of access and entry into the casino is limited, amongst others, by age and levy. The underlying principle of this restriction lies in the protection of minors and a certain segment of our society who are not able to look after themselves financially. I do have some difficulty with these suggested barriers to entry as there is an element of arbitrariness about them. Under the proposed provision, minors are not allowed to enter a casino. Minors in the Bill are defined as those under the age of 21. Now, Sir, I find this rather odd, especially in the context of Singaporean males. I say this is rather odd because, in the context of Singapore, our boys, who enlist at the age of 18 and who are considered old enough to bear arms and to kill in defence of our country, are not considered old enough to enter a casino. Is it an irony? I would suggest that, to streamline this anomaly, we should consider allowing those who are 18 the right of entry into casinos.”
“Sir, it does seem odd to me that while we took pains to ensure that Parliament decides on the number of casinos that are allowed to operate in Singapore, we are quite prepared to allow the Authority the complete discretion to decide on the expansion of the size of the facility which, at the end of the day, may have the effect of providing more opportunities for the people to gamble. This approach to policy would seem rather inconsistent with our stated policy of limiting the number of casinos here to two. Let it not be forgotten that while we may have allowed the establishment of casinos in this country, we do not and should not allow the issue of further expansion of gambling facility to be dealt with lightly here. Certainly, I do not think that the matter of the expansion of the casino facility should be left in the hands of civil servants alone. Any expansion of the gambling facility of the resort should be a matter of concern to the public and should be carried out only after due consultation with the stakeholders who have an interest in the process. This would include not only the operators but also the National Council on Problem Gambling and the other voluntary welfare organisations that are concerned with the problem of gambling in Singapore. We are not calling for Parliament to interfere in the process, as this would prove too cumbersome. Rather, we should at least go through the process of consultation to ensure that any decision taken to expand the facilities of the casino would be taken only after due consideration is given to all who may be directly or indirectly affected. And this should be written into our statute books to ensure compliance.”
“In our case, clause 41 of the Bill specifically provides that the regulator shall not allow more than two casinos in Singapore within a specified period of time. This provision, one would suppose, is to give much assurance to the rather apprehensive Singaporeans of our serious intent in not allowing casinos to proliferate in our country as a soft option of bringing in more of the tourist dollars. Under the present arrangement, the Government will have to come back to Parliament for permission if it wants to have more than two casinos than is currently provided for. This is indeed quite assuring for us. However, I am not sure if this assurance of limiting the number of casinos to two is somewhat negated by the provision in the Bill which allows for the expansion of the space of the casino within the Integrated Resort. In this regard, I share the concerns of my fellow colleague, Mr Ahmad Khalis, who earlier expressed some reservations on the matter. Clause 51(2) of the proposed Bill provides that the Authority may, from time to time, redefine the boundaries of the casino premises within the designated site for which the casino licence is granted as it thinks fit, on its own motion or on the application of the casino operator. This provision seems to suggest that the area to be occupied by the casino operator, ie, the size of the facility, may be expanded at the absolute discretion of the Authority to take in more crowd. While it is the current intention of the Government not to allow the size of the casino operation to exceed, I believe, 3% of the total area of the resort, it is technically possible for the Authority to designate the entire resort as one big casino by an administrative decision.”
“Sir, at the onset, I should declare my interest in the debate on the Casino Control Bill as I am currently advising a client on the tender for the Integrated Resort project. With your indulgence, Sir, I seek permission to proceed, as what I am about to say relates to the wider concerns of Singaporeans on the matter. The current Bill before us broadly reflects the general policy enunciated earlier by the Government on the establishment and operation of casinos in Singapore; one where we try to strike a balance between the social excesses of licensed gambling in our society and the need to develop Singapore as a world-class attraction for tourism and conventions. By and large, I should add that the Bill faithfully represents the broad compass that Parliament has debated and agreed to last year on the setting up of casinos here. This Bill, therefore, represents the nuts and bolts of the policy and the framework by which Government's intent is carried out. It would not serve any purpose for us now to revisit the merits of having casinos in Singapore. Rather, we should look at the particular details in the Bill. In this regard, I have three specific comments to make. First, the potential insidious expansion of casino activities under the Bill. Currently, the Bill provides specifically that there should only be two casinos in Singapore. The number of casinos, it seems, is specifically limited by a statute of Parliament rather than by administrative fiat through an exercise of executive power. This seems rather unusual, as in many countries, the decision of whether or not to license the setting up of a casino is left very much to the regulator rather than to the legislators.”
“Sir, the Minister of State has said that the concept of the budget air travel is still an evolving one and the other airports are just observing how this business is going to evolve. Are we not being too hasty by going out there to build a Budget Terminal ahead of its time? Could we not have used an existing airport in areas, like Seletar or elsewhere, as a designated budget terminal first, and then wait and see how this model would evolve before finally deciding to spend money building a new terminal?”
“Applying this principle, it could be that a person such as Melvyn, who is too old for uniformed service, can be permitted to perform his national obligation to Singapore. So to satisfy the obligation of service to the country, National Service for people like Melvyn could and should perhaps take other forms that would benefit the wider society. Let me be clear that this is only an exception. The privilege of an alternative service should only be restricted to a person like Melvyn Tan or people in the situation, as to extend it to others outside the category would undermine our long established policy of maintaining a citizen's armed forces which is vital to the security of our country. Sir, I am not saying that a defaulter should not be punished, neither am I saying that he should be released from his obligations to serve his country. What I am saying here is that the punishment must commensurate with his wrongdoing and it need not always be a jail sentence, and National Service, in some cases, need not always be in the form of uniformed service. Justice is never served by blind insistence on punishment. As our society matures, let us be prepared to broaden our minds to accept that there are those among us who may not be like us, and let us reconcile the different ways that Singaporeans can contribute to society. For if we can accept this as a starting point in this debate, there will be less angst and unhappiness over the Melvyn Tan episode. Let us learn to be a more generous society by rising above our basic instincts by being more giving and forgiving. We have gone far down the road of refinement as a society in the last 40 years. Let us, Sir, not make the mistake of taking one step forward and two steps back. 4.36 pm”
“In certain cases, we may have to honestly ask ourselves whether justice will indeed be served by inflicting punishment on the defaulter. I can think of many who went away when they were young and whose decision to remain overseas was determined by their parents. Should a custodial sentence be imposed on the defaulter should he now want to come home and perform his National Service? Also, we should consider very special circumstances to include considerations of whether the larger interest of Singapore would be served by allowing the defaulter to return. In this regard, I would consider people who are brilliant scientists, highly successful entrepreneurs and world class performing artists to meet the description. I would consider Melvyn Tan to fall within this category. Against the broad canvas of our society, Sir, we must accept that some will be thinkers and others will be doers. It would not be possible to fit everyone into the same mould much as our sense of fair play may dictate. Our bonding as a nation must be forged out of the self-evident proposition that everyone must play his part in service to his country, no matter how difficult or different the circumstances may be. And we must accept and respect that there are others who would always be treated differently from the majority of the population. Be that as it may, our different circumstances as individual citizens should not permit us to derogate from our basic duty to our country. However, such services need not and do not always have to be uniformed services. Such services can be broadened to include the sciences, the arts and services to the economy. The underlying consideration must really be whether Singapore will be a better place for their service.”
“In this regard, I maintain that to now openly have a policy of pressing for a custodial sentence for defaulters may unnecessarily push the Government to a corner which it may find difficult to get out of. Justice must always be tempered with mercy. In our case, I do not believe for a moment that Singaporeans do not have it in them to embrace a more compassionate solution that would be acceptable to all. Let me be clear at the onset that I firmly believe in the principle of universality of National Service and that for nearly all of Singaporean males, there is no alternative to National Service. Let me also be clear that I firmly agree that we should press hardest for a custodial sentence in cases where the defaulters took flight from the country and his National Service obligations on the account of some criminal acts or flagrant irresponsibility. However, there are very strong mitigating factors that warrant an exception to the policy, and I would urge the Government to be open to this possibility and not close its mind to it. To my mind, there are two-pronged tests that one should adopt in deciding this issue. First, are there very special circumstances in the case that would warrant an exception to the policy of pressing for a custodial sentence; and secondly, to address the issue of the fundamental obligation of every citizen to perform his duty to his country, can an alternative way, if he is beyond National Service capability because of age, be found to discharge his national duty? Sir, I believe an argument can and should be allowed for exceptions to be made for very special circumstances, and I would repeat, very special circumstances, if we do not want to paint ourselves to a corner.”
“Sir, as we mature as a society to become more gracious, we must learn that the world is not always cast in black and white. There is a whole spectrum of colours out there that we have to live with. This is a three-dimensional and not two-dimensional world. Let us reconsider this issue. What if the defaulter in this instance was Einstein or Stephen Hawking? Can we honestly say that we would also insist that he should equally go to jail simply because he defaulted on his National Service obligations? Alternatively, what if the defaulter was Bill Gates who has the potential to invest substantially in our economy and bring employment to thousands of Singaporeans? Will our position be different? The question we should be asking ourselves, Sir, is whether the interest of Singapore will be better served by insisting on a custodial sentence. To insist on a custodial sentence will only result in one certainty - the likes of Einstein and Bill Gates will never return to our shores. Will we be a richer society and nation for this, or will we be poorer? Honestly speaking, a majority of Singaporeans will find it very difficult to say no to these gentlemen and stop them from coming home by insisting on the full penalty. Sir, if we accept that such sons or even daughters ought to be exempted from the full application of the law, how then are we going to reconcile this with the principle of the new policy of pressing for a custodial sentence in respect of defaulters? Quite obviously, we run the risk of having double standards if we fail to maintain a consistent application of the new policy.”
“We seem to operate on the belief that equity and fairness will only prevail if the jail sentence is imposed on the person who in the eyes of the society has committed a wrong. Such a punishment must apply, irrespective of the mitigating circumstances that may surround the case. In Melvyn Tan's case, does it matter that he has stayed away for more than 30 years through self-imposed exile from the country of his birth? Does it matter that he is not able to enjoy the ability to spend as much time freely with his frail and ageing parents in the final stretches of their lives? And does it matter if the forces that determined his decision to remain in the United Kingdom were not entirely within his control - being parental influence and perhaps the rare opportunity to pursue a path of excellence in music which may otherwise disappear if he came home at that point in time to do his National Service? Sir, we aspire to be a world class city. To be a world class city, we must, at the same time, be a world class city of values and generosity. We have the generosity of spirit. Singapore has and will continue the march of progress on the foundation laid by the enlightened minds that guide us. Our progress as a society was greatly served when we decided to permanently remove certain criminals from public record. We did it because we believe that a person with a checkered past should be given a chance to start life anew on a clean slate. Indeed, our spirits cheered greatly when we embraced HIV sufferers as part of the larger Singapore family by facilitating easier access to medical treatment. So why can we not have the same generosity of spirit extended to Melvyn Tan or to other Singaporeans in a similar circumstance?”
“Sir, the Melvyn Tan episode raises deeper questions about the Singapore society and us as a nation if we care to look further. At the heart of the matter is the universality of National Service and it being fairly and equitably applied to all. Sure, for the many male Singaporeans, myself included, who sweated it out over the two to two-and-a-half years in green army fatigues, sacrificing many weekends often to chase amorphous enemies, it does seem unfair that one could get away with such a light fine for defaulting on enlistment. In this case, insult was further added to the injury when it was perceived that Melvyn has had a privileged upbringing beyond the reach of an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans. Against the deluge of angry public sentiments over the light-handed handling of Melvyn Tan's case, it would not be possible for our Government to agree with the present sentencing policy without running the risk of undermining the institution of National Service in Singapore. If we want to ensure the security of our country, it would not be possible to run a National Service where the servicemen felt that the Government practises favouritism. At the moment, it does seem that the public's anger will not be appeased unless and until an NS defaulter is sent to jail as punishment for his crime. In other words, there will not be any satisfaction until the pound of flesh is exacted. When the dust of the matter is settled, we should perhaps re-examine the issue and ask ourselves some honest questions. In pressing for a person in Melvyn Tan's position to be sent to jail, are we better off as a society?”
“Sir, thank you for your indulgence. I just want to raise a point of clarification. I think the point was made earlier that if there is very little restriction toaccess on content in the Internet, why can the Government not allow people to then subscribe for satellite television if they are broadcast from outside of Singapore? Because, equally, you have access to content that would otherwise be available on the Internet.”
“Sir, the Minister says the guidelines have been effective. Why are there so many middle-aged workers complaining all the time at my meet-the-people sessions about discrimination at work?”
“Sir, finally, it would be wrong of me, as Chairman of the GPC for MCYS, not to register my deep appreciation and thanks to the Government, in particular the Prime Minister, for sincerely trying to help the poor and needy in Singapore. When I think of the Fund, I can think of the family in my constituency whose father is a dialysis patient, mother is diagnosed with cancer, both of whom are not working and with a child in primary school. The money from the Fund would go a long way for them. I can also think of the family I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. At least, as their MP, I can give them the assurance that their father, who is in his late 60s, does not have to worry about having to go out to work so that he can support his two sons who are mentally unwell. Sir, there are many more families that I am sure each of my colleagues in this House can recall. For each family, the ComCare Fund will provide some relief and help to help carry a part of that burden. In doing so, we are telling fellow Singaporeans that this Government cares for them and is prepared to walk the talk with them, unlike so many other countries that we know of. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“In the case of welfare assistance, if one were to look at it, it would be easy to give a proper explanation of it, so long as we are able to show that the money was given to the poor or is used to help those who are in difficulty. If we did that at the grassroots level and even at the Government level, one could not be faulted. However, if we did that, are we being honest with ourselves in the way we want to help those in need? This attitude seems synonymous with a person just continually giving small sums of money to those who see him and send him away without actually applying his mind as to how welfare recipients can properly be helped to be financially independent in the longer term. We have heard the common and popular saying that we do not just want to give him fish which is good only for the day but rather teach him to fish so that he will have fish for a lifetime. I have no doubt that the objective of the ComCare Fund is to enable families and those in need to look after themselves. However, if we are not careful, we could fall into the trap of just giving the fish and not teaching the recipient to fish. The $500 million - and subsequently $1 billion - is a fairly substantial sum to be giving away over a period of time. What would be remiss on our part would be to give away the money without being in a position to determine for ourselves just how effective the giving has been to those in need, whether overall the quality and conditions of our general poor and needy have improved over a period of time. In other words, we need to develop a proper measure of effectiveness and framework of accountability for the ComCare Fund programme overall, and I hope that the Government will come up with one in due course.”