Steve Chia Kiah Hong
Singapore
“A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election.”
“Sir, may I clarify with the Senior Minister of State? He did not answer my question exactly. My question is this. From the "positive list" of the websites that are approved and registered, a concerned citizen downloads all these materials and prints them out on his own, using photostating machine or whatever, and distributes them to the m…”
“Sir, with regard to chicken farms and especially slaughter house workers, I believe they must be well trained and briefed on the precautionary measures to take. But are they insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other kind of insurance in the event that they are afflicted with the bird flu virus?”
“Sir, I hope that the Minister of State understands that suicide is basically an attempt to cry out for help. In that time, if they do not have an easy number to remember, like SOS' 1800-2214444 hotline, can they call 999 or 995 and be redirected to the SOS in the event that they are thinking of suicide?”
“The clarification is that this individual, whom we do not know, is not our election agent or election helper. This is an individual in the constituency who wants to download anything and distributes it to the residents in the contested constituency. Is it an offence?”
“Active political recruitment has been going on inside and outside the RC and PA s organisation and premises. Although grassroots leaders are under no compulsion to join the PAP and can opt out if they want to, Straits Times' Forum writer, Ms Yee, had correctly pointed out that "joining a grassroots organisation seems to be a sure way for…”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Steve Chia Kiah Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister of State said just now that they are looking into the second option of reducing the number of maids in Singapore, which is fees. I hope the Minister of State would clarify that he is not thinking of increasing the maid levy in this aspect.”
“Madam, may I clarify with the Minister? For the purchase of HDB flats where the owners can actually get the loans from the bank, would they also be allowed to buy the CPF housing protection insurance, in this case? Would it be affected?”
“If there is a properly managed fund that can give us a slightly better return compounded over many years, it will make a real big difference to our workers' savings. But as we look back at the CPF changes, we should not be fixated on any single recommendation. We have brought the refocusing of the CPF back to its basics. But perhaps, Sir, more than refocusing, it is really a re-balancing of the CPF system so that we get out of a trap of being asset-rich, cash-poor into a more balanced situation where the three basic needs are equally well looked after. And if the proposal works here, and I am sure they will work, this will strengthen our social safety net for our workers and retirees and, hopefully, it will also keep workers working for as long as possible before they retire.”
“They must address the wage system so that all of us can benefit from it and have a more competitive labour and wage structure. Some employers have dismissed the CPF freeze and said that it is not effective. Some MPs in this House too have dismissed it as ineffective. Then the answer is, if it is not effective, give it back to the workers. It is very simple - put it back as a bonus, or MVC, or whatever allowance. There is no need to argue about this. The Singapore Technologies has come out with an announcement. I thank them, and I hope that more employers will publicly make a statement and follow the examples of Singapore Technologies and the civil service and put back whatever they think is not effective, in the first place. Sir, I think we should all take a step back and look at the broader picture and, today, we are just talking about CPF. We talked about the taxes in the previous session. As the other announcements are made from the ERC committees, we should look at the larger picture. Today, we have 14 recommendations, but most of us are focused on the CPF freeze for older workers and the property. But there are more important huge changes which deserve much more attention, for example, management of the pension funds. If every worker can get one more percentage point from his savings, over 35 years in his career, that will compound to a lot of money. That deserves a lot of discussion. We should be much more curious how it might work and get more people to talk about it and get the financial institutions to make proposals and let us look at this. Because it is not so important about how we invest our funds in unit trusts and shares, and so on.”
“And the seniority-based wage system is not a common system in the world. Over the last two weeks, my officers in the international department contacted various trade union counterparts all over the world to find out what their system is. So we did a quick survey, not a scientific one, but a rough one. In the US, Canada, Italy, Germany and France, they are all paid by job rate. This is a job, this is how much we pay, whether you are a man or a woman, young or old worker, it is the same rate. When there is an increase in salary, everybody gets the same. A fresh recruit comes in at a certain salary because he is new, there is a learning curve. Within two or three years maximum, he reaches the top of the scale, and he continues there. Even if he continues to work for 20 years, he is paid for the job. He is not paid for how many years he stays in a company. Japan and Korea are the opposite. They have seniority-based system and see how difficult the wage system is, how painful it is for their workers who enjoy lifelong employment with very high salaries as they grow older, how difficult it is to retrench and to downsize their companies. So we have to do something quick. The retraining programmes, the job assistance programmes, they take time to kick in. A worker needs time to be retrained and to find reemployment. But, immediately, what we want to do is to keep them in their jobs as far as possible. And therefore, NTUC supports the freeze of the CPF contribution for older workers. But at the same time, the real issue is not the CPF, and the long-term solution is not in the CPF. The employers must now do their part to also help restructure our wage system. This cannot be driven by the unions and the workers. The employers must do their part.”
“And they retrench because they merge, because they outsource, they restructure, they downsize, but they do not close the whole company. The retrenchment is selective, small departments here and there. When the company retrenches selectively, it is the oldest workers who are the most vulnerable. So when we see this kind of trend, naturally we are alarmed. And the better the economy, the worse it is going to be. As China opens up and more companies relocate away from South East Asia, including Singapore, into China, and as the rest of ASEAN countries pick up, more and more companies will outsource or restructure and shift part of their operations out of Singapore. There will be more selective retrenchments. Hence, we need to do something for our workers who are aged 50 and above, or even 40 and above. When we explained this to union leaders, at least in their heads they can understand, even though in their hearts they feel very concerned about the effect of a CPF freeze on the older workers. But they understand that the key problem is really the seniority-based wage system, and it was the unions that have been pressing employers to do something about it. And as early as 1986, Mr Lim Boon Heng already mooted the idea of a base-up wage system to bring the wage gap between the older workers and the younger workers closer, so that the older workers will not face this problem. And come the Asian financial crisis, the same thing happened and NTUC came back to urge employers to apply or implement a wage system that is more base-up, rather than seniority-based. Employers are very slow to apply or to implement the measure. The NWC, last year, called again for base-up system. Again, things are not moving. So really, we have to get to the key of the problem.”
“Some union leaders were very concerned especially about the freeze of the employer's CPF contribution. Some were angry. Many of them argued the same points that Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay argued, perhaps less passionately than him, but making essentially similar points. Some even got angry with NTUC leaders and said that NTUC should be the first to ask for wage increases and not wage cuts. But, Sir, to do nothing is to be irresponsible. Among the trade unions, we collect statistics of retrenched workers. Let me share one set of statistics which is very alarming to us, and this covered the last four quarters. In the second quarter of last year when we were in recession, those who were retrenched from the unionised companies, who were above 50 years old, was 10% one year ago. For the second quarter of this year, one year later, and we are seeing a pick-up in the economy, those who were retrenched and above 50 years old have gone up from 10% to 25%. Let us bring the age lower, down to age 40, and four quarters ago the percentage of those retrenched above 40 years old was 35%, about a third. In the second quarter of this year, it has gone up to 59%. So, workers above 40 this year, as a proportion of all workers retrenched from unionised companies, have gone up now to 59%, from 35% last year. And I puzzle over this. Why is this so? We are supposed to be in a recovery. The reason, I guess, and we are going to do more research on this, is that last year, in a recession, companies folded. So when a company closes, the whole workforce goes, young and old. This year, things are different. The economy is picking up, but companies are still retrenching.”
“My wish was that the entire ERC report comes out in its entirety and then we can see the whole picture of where we want to go and how we want to go about achieving that. But, unfortunately, some things are more urgent than others and we have to make the announcements as they come. So, we announced the tax changes, and today the DPM announced the Government's acceptance of the CPF changes. Both are urgent, and both will have long-term implications. Just last week, I was talking to a French businessman who is stationed in Singapore, and we talked about the tax changes. And he said that he loves Singapore and he wants to live here and work here, but his operation in Singapore is very small. Most of the business is done from another country with other countries in the region. But because of the tax changes, he is considering very seriously to bring the bulk of his business into Singapore and be based in Singapore and to be reported in Singapore and, more importantly, to be taxed in Singapore. We will create more jobs and we will collect more tax from his company. So, just two months after the announcement, immediately we see this kind of reaction from the business community. And I hope that more companies will consider the tax changes in such a positive way and make those decisions that are critical to our future job creation. For the CPF changes, we have conducted more than 10 dialogue sessions, big and small, with our union leaders. By and large, union leaders support the thrust of the recommendations, which is to re-focus the CPF system back to its basics for retirement expenditure, for basic housing and for medical care. But, Sir, by no means is the agreement unanimous as far as the details are concerned. Naturally, when there is pain, people react.”
“Those citizens who rely heavily on property assets as a means of retirement are going to be hardest hit. Therefore, I would like to urge the Economic Review Committee to look more boldly and creatively into how this problem can be prevented. Other than these two concerns, I support the other changes as presented. The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the changes. Last week, I heard a most painful story, and I want to share this with the House. This is an interview on BBC radio, and the interview was with a woman, and she was from Argentina. As we know, Argentina is in financial crisis; peso has gone down in value; five changes of President in 12 days, and so on. This woman who was interviewed had a tailoring shop which failed. And all she had left were two pairs of scissors. Every day, she goes to the town square to sell her body to earn some money. She is 60 years old. According to the interviewer, the reporter, this is not uncommon in the city and in other parts of Argentina. This is pain, and I hope that we will never see that kind of pain in Singapore. And to avoid big pain, we have to make small changes, incur small pains. When we tighten our girders, when we chop off the loose parts, when we tie up the shaky bits, there will be some pain. I think Singaporeans will understand enough to accept small pains when they come to avoid the big pain. The ERC is doing a lot of work. There are seven sub-committees, and they are all busy studying various subject areas. There are working groups and sub-committees and many consultation processes going on.”
“As a society, our savings are very heavily invested in property. This is a very unhealthy misallocation of our scarce resources. Can the Minister tell us, as a nation, what is the total amount of money committed to property? I suspect it could be near a few hundred billion dollars. Therefore, a 1% drop in value is going to wipe out billions from our asset value. The Government in aggressively promoting its home ownership policy has made Singapore very expensive. It all started when CPF was freed up for property purchases in the early 90s. So, it is a good thing that the sub-committee is addressing this issue of over-investing our hard earned CPF money into property. However, I feel that the 120% target over the next five years is not aggressive enough. The Government should be bolder and reduce it to below 100% in the long term. Having too much of our assets tied up in property is going to cost retirement problems for our aging population. Singaporeans who think that they can retire comfortably by selling or downgrading their expensive property for profits or cash should seriously reconsider their retirement strategy. We know that property prices are determined by supply and demand. Assuming limited supply, prices can only go up if there is a constant high demand for property for the next few decades. But where is this demand going to come from? If we fail to remake Singapore from an investment to an innovation-led economy, if our economy wavers and growth declines due to our inherent high cost, then, we are going to see an exodus of citizens and international talents to more attractive cities to work and live. If and when that happens, our property values will plummet, and this is going to create economic hardship and more bankruptcy for our citizens.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to raise two concerns about the proposed CPF changes. First, I would like to urge the Government to stop making micro decisions for Singaporeans. Whether workers between 50 and 55 get 16% or 20% CPF contribution from employers is something that should be decided upon between the employers and the employees. Why should the Government make a blanket assessment and decide for all? There could be employers out there who are still highly profitable and want to reward some of their more valued older workers with a higher contribution rate of 20%. So, instead of capping it at 16% for workers between 50 and 55, and even lower for those who are older, let them - the employees - negotiate with their firms for a contribution rate in the range that is agreeable to both parties. Should the Government not let go and stop micro managing for its citizens? Empower Singaporeans and their companies to improve their negotiation skills and take more responsibility for their own future. Why should the Government interfere in this? Also, if some employers and higher-income employees are willing to stay at the $6,000 contribution rate, why should the Government force them and legislate to lower the maximum rate to $5,000? Please leave this decision to them. We are a developed economy. Our high income earners are not there by coincidence. They have the intellectual capacity and maturity to decide how to save and what to spend on. Give those higher-income earners the personal choice. Empower them to plan for their own retirement savings. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to express support for the limits on the use of CPF funds for property investment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if taxis are allowed to cover the same areas as the transport operators where they can actually send the residents within their estates, why cannot such small Bus-Plus services be provided for residents where they can actually be picked up from the MRT station to go to their house? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, as Mr Steve Chia has mentioned, that service is already available through the taxi service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, must it be on a similar footing as the current operators? Can it not be on a complementary service where you have an additional service for residents who actually want the comfort and efficiency to reach their house faster?”
“)" I can only hope that the Government is not driving our citizens to despair and leave Singapore. Singaporeans are not asking for much. They just want a place where they can work hard, make enough money to start and build a family, and retire without worrying about "money no enough". The Government can try to be a lot nicer and more caring by not being too greedy and sucking up the people's money too much. This is all we ask. The people's welfare is paramount for, without them, there can be no nation. Can the Ministers please take heed?”
“On Sunday, we read that the CEO of the zoo had resigned. One reason cited is that he is not good in financial matters. A new CEO with good business figures will be selected to replace him. The question is: are we going to see a hike in the zoo entrance fees soon? With the Government and Government-linked companies leading the way to price increases, it is quite certain that private businesses will follow soon to jack up prices to maintain their profit margins. Their reasoning is simple: if the Government can do it, why not they? Already, a number of private car-park operators have announced that they are raising their charges too. Parking charges at various shopping centres and office buildings are likely to go up by as much as 20 cents per hour. Soon, to cover their rising operating costs, hawkers and small business operators are going to jack up prices too. Thanks, but no thanks to the Government, prices will spiral up. Luckily, Singaporeans have a Committee to Combat Profiteering. It is headed by the hon. Member from Joo Chiat. This Committee can check hawkers and retailers if they increase prices unreasonably. However, it has no power to challenge the Government and these public service providers if they profiteer. The Government and the GLCs are clearly the biggest culprit in this series of price hikes, not the small hawkers and retailers who are suffering from price increases themselves. In closing, I would like to quote a recent Straits Times forum page writer: "While we may not have much choice about who sells us (the) services, we can choose which countries to live in.. Given Singapore's relatively short history, we should not be surprised if people choose pragmatism over patriotism, (and vote with their feet.”
“Finally, what will happen if they do not raise the fares this time round? Will they really go bankrupt? In short, show us how these operators do their sums. Let us see where the major expenditures go. The nation is certainly not short of accountants and interested individuals to scrutinise their numbers. This hike should not take place just because the Public Transport Council, whose members have a vested interest, thinks that it is all right to do so. Therefore, I support the call to review and reject this latest fare hike. Why must the public pay more when there is a recession? The PTC needs to re-examine its formula on how it approves fare increases. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now move on to urge the Government to ensure that the prices of public services are not unreasonably increased during these difficult times. Just eight months after the November General Election, Singaporeans have been informed of so many increases in fees and charges for public services. Since May, refuse collection fees have gone up. Just last week, transport fares and utility fees have also gone up. Come September, it will be carpark charges. Then, maybe telephone charges. Soon, more ERP. Then, night ERP. Next January, we will have GST. What else? And what is next? It seems that many Government-related agencies and companies are upping their fees and charges to increase their profits in this difficult time, before the GST increase sets in. It was recently announced that the Government wants Singapore to be a broadcasting hub. The Media 21 Report sought additional funding for various initiatives to make this a reality. These are additional public investments. The question is: are we then to expect higher TV and radio licence fees soon to recoup these additional investments?”
“Yes, Sir. But now, the economy is so bad. So many people are being retrenched, and many more are having their pay cut or frozen. Many businesses are suffering. Transport operators are not the only ones. So, why should their profit margins be protected at all? These transport monopolies cannot simply go to the public ATM - which is all the transport commuters - and press them for more monies when their profits drop. Nobody will dispute a fare hike if there is a genuine need. But this latest increase is clearly just aimed at boosting their already fat profit margins. At such a difficult time, wide margins are unrealistic. Despite the public's many protests and unhappiness, the Government went on to support this hike. Why is the Government so insensitive and uncaring? Is it taking the public's overwhelming support at the last election for granted? This current fare hike is so revolting, because the operators have yet to explain specifically why it is needed satisfactorily. Let us not talk about previous or future hikes. Given current circumstances, with SBS Transit and SMRT still highly profitable, why should this hike be allowed to take place at all? What we, Singaporeans, really need and want to know are: 1. How has this profit margin been worked out? 2. Is this a reasonable margin in these recession times when everybody is feeling squeezed? 3. What are the specific investments these operators have actually made to justify the fee hike? 4. Are these investments what the commuters really need? If not, why should they be made to pay for these unnecessary extras like expensive plasma screen TVs? 5. More importantly, have the operators improved the connectivity and frequency of buses and trains to a satisfactory level? 6.”
“Just like security, education and healthcare, public transport is one of the key services that the Government is required to provide. If the Government is not willing to subsidise the cost of providing this essential service, then the Government should seriously look into liberalising this transport sector and allow for more competition. Citizens pay taxes so that the Government can provide for these essential services. It is not to give higher pay and higher bonuses. The Government cannot regulate public services, demand high profits for the operators, continue to collect taxes and shirk its social responsibilities, all at the same time. While this and consistent future fare hikes may not mean much to the well-rewarded high income-earners and civil servants, the bulk of aged low income families will have more difficulties in trying to make ends meet. Coming back to the question on the kind of profit margins these operators want, is earning more than $50 million every year not good enough? When times are good, and everyone is making a lot of money, nobody would be so pissed off with a fare hike. Commuters can accept and tolerate it. But now ---”
“If this is the notion of the Government's Swiss standard of living, then I believe many Singaporeans would rather not have it. Are Singaporeans being conned? The Government boasts that we have a world-class transport system. Again, like many Singaporeans, I do not see it. The newspaper reports that the LRT in Choa Chu Kang constantly breaks down. Many commuters staying in outlying areas have to change a few buses or trains just to get to work every morning. During peak hours, the buses and trains are constantly packed like sardines. Sometimes you have to skip and miss a few buses or trains before finally boarding one. Is this the Government's idea of a world class transport system? I wonder. Has the Transport Minister ever squeezed in with the crowd during peak hour traffic? If there is anything in a class of its own about our transport system, it is what Singaporeans pay to own a car. The Government discourages car use, and wants to encourage Singaporeans to take public transport. But what could be worse than being forced to take public transport? It is being told that the public needs to pay more money to these public transport operators so that they can maintain their profit margins. Otherwise, we are told, these monopolies will lose money and commuters will be worse off. The public transport operators are the only two listed companies in Singapore, whose profits and shareholders the Government indirectly protects, and the Government happens to be the biggest shareholder of one. By listing these transport operators, the Government cannot be allowed to evade its social responsibility to provide efficient and affordable public transport.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the speakers before me have done a good job, reflecting the public's unhappiness. But I must still go on and have my say because more voice will add to the strength and support for this Motion. Minister Mah has disagreed with certain issues, one of which is subsidy. I disagree and I do not buy his argument for not subsidising. We are an active society. This Parliament House is not static. We argue and debate over an issue to come to a conclusion and, for every case, we decide whether it is worth the subsidy. So, it is not that because we subsidise public transport, we are going to subsidise for many other issues that come along the way. I do not think that is the case. Every case has its own merit to be debated in Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not too long ago when this Government boasted about more good years, more jobs, more investments, more wealth-creation and more economic prosperity for Singaporeans. This Government has gone further to boast about reaching to the Swiss standard of living and about a world-class transport system. These days, we can only hear the Ministers telling Singaporeans to lower their expectations, not to be too fussy and to accept lower paying jobs. More retrenchments are expected to be on the way. So, what happened to those promises? What happened to the PAP's "More Good Years"? Where are all the new jobs that this Government promised during the last election? The Government claims that we have reached the Swiss standard of living. I do not see it at all. What I, and many other Singaporeans see, are rising costs and charges. The economy is in recession. Yet, the cost of living is going up. The biggest culprit creating this rising cost is the Government and Government-linked public service providers.”
“Sir, have any local students been edged out by these foreign students?”
“I thank the Minister for his long and very extensive explanation and clarification. The Minister has not answered my question. Has the Ministry and the CPF made a mistake in the interpretation of the law and, in this case, has an apology been made to Mdm Jenny Koh?”
“Would they be considered for invitation, Sir?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether civil society activists like the Roundtable, AWARE, Think Centre, etc, would be invited to the function?”
“Sir, in view of the difficult times that we are facing now and the many other increases from the various Ministries, would the Minister consider delaying this increase until the economy has recovered?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a shortfall of junior doctors until 2007. What is the Ministry going to do during this interim period to cover this shortfall of doctors?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has said that there is a shortage of junior doctors. The question is: are the junior doctors being forced to work extended shift hours of up to 120 hours per work week, and will such punishing work schedules possibly endanger patient care?”
“Sir, if I may clarify further that it is actually T-plus-3. So it is four days of trade, and not three days. Effectively, the Stock Exchange is only using three days which is, if the stock is bought on Friday, it is still not closed for that matter. I think the Stock Exchange has not used the correct calculation, when they used only three days. They should have used four days instead.”
“Can I clarify with the Minister again? Why did SGX take the three days? Why did it not take T-plus-4, the four days trade, or the two days' trade, or just on Wednesday itself, instead of having the three days' trade?”
“May I clarify with the Minister? Is it not more equitable to require all trades, whether before the suspension or during the three days of trading, to be dealt through the normal settlement process? That means, those who have bought and sold accordingly are due, whether they sold the shares, they have to get them delivered, or if they have bought, they have to pay, rather than having a retrospective step of removing the three days and say that all trades done during that particular three days be nullified. Is it not equitable in that sense?”
“Sir, regarding contra trades, the trades were actually done within the three days and the client would have assumed that they had already been settled. But it was suspended, and after one year the Stock Exchange came and said that the trades were actually nullified under the settlement process. So it was not that the contra traders did not prepare for it. They actually prepared for it but the market had fallen in the one year and whatever savings they had to buy the shares had already been depleted by the market. My question to the Minister is that, in the last three days of trading, the stock prices would actually have gone up, implying that the syndicates had bought more shares to corner the company. So if the Stock Exchange had nullified the trading by requiring that it be settled in cash, would it not be giving the syndicates an easy escape route?”
“Sir, if I may clarify with the Minister. Are not elected MPs part of the Government service, as the elected MPs are elected by the people? We are here [Interruptions] not as Government, but as part of the body where we actually do this service to the people. Specifically, the Minister said that Opposition MPs are always opposing. Can the Minister give specific examples of what the Opposition MPs are opposing for the sake of opposing? Is it not the case that the PAP MPs nowadays are actually even more opposing than the Opposition MPs?”
“Sir, I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. What vision and what objective are the Minister referring to? Has he tried any of the Opposition MPs to realise that their vision and objective are quite close to the PA? Second clarification. Just because it is an Opposition MP, the grassroots organisations become politicised. It would not be politicised when the PAP candidates are appointed as grassroots advisers. Is that the case? Third clarification. If the Minister wants politics to stay out, should not the elected MP stay in as the grassroots adviser instead?”
“Sir, the People's Association is a statutory board, a public body funded by the people through the State. As Mr Charles Chong has said, it has been passed between the Prime Minister's Office to the MCDS and now back and forth. Officially, its objective is to promote racial harmony, social cohesion and community bonding through its many CCs, CCCs and RCs. The People's Association is a public body and it should be politically neutral. Yet, ever since its establishment in the mid-60s, the PA has played a very important role in rallying grassroots support for the PAP. This is not right, Sir. Can the Minister clarify if this is not an abuse of State funds? If the real objective of PA is to serve the people, then why did the PAP Government deny legally elected MPs from serving their wards by appointing PAP candidates who lost in the elections as grassroots advisors? It is so strange that all the grassroots advisors are all Members of Parliament, except in Potong Pasir and Hougang constituencies. Can the Minister justify why the PA is not appointing Mr Chiam, Member for Potong Pasir and Mr Low, Member for Hougang, as the official grassroots advisor respectively? Can the Minister explain why he allowed the PA to appoint the losers in the general election as grassroots advisors instead?”
“Otherwise, incidents like the shooting in the school campuses in the United States may well happen in Singapore too.”
“Together with the current curriculum and emphasis on knowledge and skills, we will have developed a new generation of future leaders for Singapore - brilliant and talented. Mr Ong Ah Heng(In Mandarin): Madam, the number of juvenile delinquency cases has dropped from 3,400 in 1999 to 2,500 in 2001. The number of cases involving students also dropped from 2,200 in 1999 to 1,500 in 2001. In Singapore's context, these figures are still high. My main concern is about the problem faced by students in the neighbourhood schools. I notice that many of these students have been recruited by street gangs to be their members. The street gangs make use of them to sell pirated CDs in the neighbourhood. I am worried about their future. I often wonder what else can these young and innocent students do? Street gang members who come from low-income families probably were forced by circumstances to join the gangs. Perhaps, they wanted more income. It may well be that they are under the illusion that these street gangs can offer them more protection and care than what their families could give them! Their parents have to work the whole day, and probably even at night, to make ends meet. They are unable to monitor the activities of their children. As for those coming from middle and upper-income families they probably join them because they want the company of these "friends". Perhaps they are the neglected ones. Although their parents can offer them material comfort, they lack the concern, guidance and support of their parents. Very often, the gang leaders are normally those who have the most pocket money to spend. We must consider ourselves lucky that in Singapore, possession and carrying of guns and other dangerous weapons are prohibited.”
“Mdm Chairman, I recently talked to an overseas scholar who told me that he never really understood what "brilliant" meant until he went to MIT in Boston. He went on to explain, "Brilliance is the ability to think on your feet and deliver a very confident and eloquent argument when called upon." According to him, there are many brilliant students in these prestigious universities who are highly eloquent and very confident in their presentation. Madam, I do not have the privilege of an overseas education but I do agree with this understanding. To be considered brilliant, one of the key ingredients is the ability to think on our feet, stand and deliver - with the confidence and eloquence. Confidence and eloquence are something that can be built and trained. Although not every child will grow up to score 100 marks for eloquence, or become super-confident, they should at least score an A or a B+ with more training and more practice. Sadly speaking, I do not see this being emphasised in our schools. The current education system expects our children to sit quietly and listen to the teachers in a class setting. When children make any noise, they are told to keep quiet and shut up, or stand up and get out. These acts are not helpful in the building of confidence and speaking skills. They will all learn to keep their mouths tightly shut like the fishes in Jack Neo's movie, "I Not Stupid". This will be at society's loss. Madam, I hope the Education Minister can see this point of view and look into implementing greater emphasis to help build the confidence of our children and students in public speaking, encouraging them to speak up and build up their eloquence.”
“Our so-called Independent schools are really not independent at all. They are very much controlled and regulated by the Ministry of Education. Since our schools are centrally controlled, one would expect that there is uniformity in all Government schools in Singapore. All our children wear uniforms in our schools up to the level of junior colleges and the curriculum and syllabuses of all Government schools, as one would expect, are fairly narrow, restricted and uniform. Sir, in all developed countries like England and America, private schools blossom in those countries. Those schools are privately run, and are dynamic and vibrant. They produce outstanding students who serve their countries well. I think we should also encourage private schools to be built in our country in the light of Singapore wanting to encourage entrepreneurship. The Government must change its attitude and be more liberal. The Education Act must be amended, together with its related laws, to make it easier for enlightened Singaporeans, who wish to set up private schools to do so. I think funds are not the real problem. The obstacle is the reluctance of the Government to encourage private schools. All private schools we see in Singapore are set up by the foreign communities here. If funds are not an obstacle to foreigners building their own private schools in Singapore, why should funds be a problem to local Singaporeans who outnumber the foreigners?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I understand the Ministry's problem in wanting to recruit more teachers and to double the number of schools if they are to reduce the class size. We are not talking about doubling or reducing a class size by 50%. I also understand that the Minister actually understands that certain subjects like English would be most beneficial if the class size is smaller. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider reducing class size for this subject in particular. Having a small class size is the first step in the right direction. It gives more individual attention to the students in their learning and practice of this language and, also at the same time, reduces the workload and demands on the teachers. The learning of English is very much a practice subject and individual attention of the teachers would be there to help spot grammar mistakes and correct pronunciation errors. Where there is a shortage of good English teachers in Singapore, I will support the Ministry in its overseas recruitment for more qualified native-speaking English teachers to come and teach our children. In view of the importance of good English language in our society, and the generally weaker English language foundation of our students entering the neighbourhood schools, I hope the Ministry can start and put more emphasis on the reduction of class size for this particular subject. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, before the PAP came to power, nearly all Chinese schools were private schools. They were known as private schools because they were all privately funded and administered. Nowadays, all schools in Singapore are Government schools except for the foreign schools which are all private schools. All Government schools are centrally controlled and supervised by the Ministry of Education.”
“Sir, I want to clarify. I understand that it is very expensive and that maybe there is a need to co-pay. I appreciate that the residents have to co-pay, but I am asking whether the Ministry did actually violate a legally signed contract in this case. What is the Minister going to do about this violation of a contract, if there is a violation of contract? That is my main concern.”
“Sir, the HDB introduced lift upgrading in the last few years as a special upgrading work that will benefit only certain residents in HDB flats. These residents are required to co-pay part of the lift upgrading cost. Yet, as I understand it, in the sales and purchase agreement that lessees sign with the HDB, it is clearly stated that any external works to be done outside the flat at the block will be borne solely by the HDB. Lift upgrading is clearly external works. Can the Minister kindly explain if it is violating a legally signed contract by demanding that the affected residents co-pay for the upgrading works?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I am not saying that NTUC should close shop or reduce their size, but rather a balanced approach may be taken and maybe considering limiting their growth and expansion aggressively to let the SMEs have a chance to grow. Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, Mr Chia assumes that NTUC is a bigger fish compared to SMEs. But I put across the point to him that when NTUC moves out of the way, a bigger fish would come along.”
“Sir, I am stating what I have observed as a problem among the SMEs. I am asking the Minister what kind of solution can be given. I am not saying to let Carrefour come in and take over, or that NTUC is not giving employment. Yes, they are giving employment, but the SMEs, the small shopkeepers, are actually having a lot more employment, and if NTUC is coming in aggressively, it will cause these small businessmen to close shop and the unemployment figure will actually go up. So I am asking what kind of solution can be given. Maybe it is a question of balance, rather than stopping them totally. It is a balance, an issue which I would like the Minister to address.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SD 1500. Sir, like the Minister had responded earlier, I agree that the NTUC has come a long way in helping nation building and being the people's representative. However, the NTUC cooperative has become the small shopkeepers' nemesis. The NTUC group of cooperatives has stretched itself very aggressively in the last two decades, into too many diversified commercial activities. Consequently, it has edged out many local business persons and small shopkeepers and endangered the viability of many more. As we all know, the small business enterprise plays a very large role in keeping Singaporeans employed. Can the Minister look into this matter and see how it can restrain the NTUC's ambitious commercial empire, so as not to cause greater business difficulty and unemployment in the small business sector?”
“Sir, like Mdm Halimah and Ms Indranee, I would also like to talk about protection for mothers and also about the $1,600. Currently, the labour laws provide for the protection of pregnant employees from being dismissed or retrenched from the company on condition that she is not under probation and that she earns less than $1,600 per month. What help is there from the Ministry for pregnant employees who are earning higher than $1,600? In today's economy, where many women are highly educated and earning higher salary, I wonder if this amount is considered too low. Can the Minister look into reviewing this matter? It is common knowledge that pregnancy is a very stressful and difficult time, as what Ms Indranee has also said. There could be hormonal swings or morning sickness. Employees may be on more frequent medical leave and work performance may be affected during this period, thus affecting the company. If the company is small and cannot afford the luxury of personnel disruptions or employing more additional employees, are they allowed to dismiss these pregnant employees? Do they need to give reasons for such dismissal? In view of the difficult economy that we are facing, it is important to reassure mothers-to-be that their jobs will be protected. Can the Minister explain what kind of help can a pregnant employee obtain? And who can she turn to for help?”
“Thank you, Sir. I will make it in two minutes with my questions. First, can the Minister tell us how many applications for society registrations have been rejected in the last three years? If any, can the Minister also explain what and why they were rejected? Second, it is unreasonable for the Registry of Societies to charge $400 simply for the registration of a society. Any subsequent changes to the constitution, the ROS charges $140. Can the Minister look into reducing these charges significantly? Third, can the Minister kindly explain the rationale for restricting the societies to certain parts of Singapore, like in Geylang? In view of the excess capacity of HDB shophouses, will the Minister look into allowing societies to register and function in these shophouses? Sir, I will now go on to my second cut on public entertainment licence. Can the Minister also explain why it takes 21 days to issue a speaking permit? Can the Minister look into reducing that? The Minister said previously in Parliament that they are going to shorten the period. I want to know how it is getting along. Can the Minister cut the approval down to three days in the name of efficiency and productivity? My last point. Can the Ministry also do away with the need to apply for the entertainment permit personally and physically? Like all Government Ministries, I hope the application for the public entertainment licence can also be done electronically on line?”
“Finally, Sir, I hope the Police will take a serious view of this.”
“Some crazy drivers reportedly even disturbed a motorcyclist by cutting in very closely by, then slowed down, and then cutting in again. Others pressure the small cc motorcyclists by tailgating so closely behind. We always hear of newspaper reports of a motorcyclist losing control of his motorcycle, but never explained why. Something is wrong somewhere here. I hope the Police will investigate further.”
“They should take the first year of their licence to familiarise themselves with the road hazards and improve their riding skills before they be allowed to pillion a passenger. This may sound harsh, but my experience in motorcycling tells me that this will save lives. Having a pillion on a small cc motorcycle changes the power and handling dynamics of the bike. If a motorcyclist is a new rider, he will not be able to handle a sudden road hazard like a negligent or drunk driver driving straight into them. Two, defensive skills training. All class 2B bike licence holders should be encouraged to go for licence upgrade after one year. This could be done with insurance company to offer higher discounts for insurance premium for the licence upgrader. The class 2A test should also include greater defensive skills element in its training content. Three, heavier punishment like jail and caning for motorists who cause fatal accidents through negligence or drink driving, or for lack of care for vulnerable motorcyclists. My experience and many anecdotal evidence from fellow bikers confirmed that there are many big car owners out there who neglect the safety and risk of other motorcyclists by cutting too close into their lanes. There are also some crazy drivers”