Tan Cheng Bock
Singapore
“As I said, we have not done much. We must not be captured by our old style of managing the old. The new old, as I said before, are better educated and travelled, and are very knowledgeable. So we must quickly explore new ways and methods to meet the expectations of the new old.”
“If we only have such a small pool of talents in Singapore because of our population size, we should spare no effort in seeking every such talent.”
“Thank you. I accepted the Minister's reply on the different pricing in the outpatient polyclinics and the hospitals. My point is that the patient's problem has still not been solved. Whenever a doctor refers a patient from a hospital to an outpatient clinic, he still has to pay more.”
“Six out of the nine items were much more expensive. Sir, I am asking why is there such a difference. Is this a one-off incident or is it going to be a norm? How can doctors in the hospital then refer patients back to the outpatient clinic if the patient is going to pay more?”
“I move this amendment to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's stand on seat belts to be made compulsory for primary and kindergarten buses. I heard over the radio that the Ministry is reviewing the case. There are two issues here, question of cost and question of safety. I think safety has a higher weightage over cost.”
“I also want to commend the NTUC for working with the Government to put this package together. I believe that without the NTUC's representation in putting forward the workers' case, the workers would not be able to benefit so substantially this year from this package.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,095 lines we hold for Tan Cheng Bock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 22.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard Mr Ling's comments and in it, he mentioned that the Secretary-General of his party, Dr Chee, was not given a copy of the full text of Francis Seow's speech and, therefore, whatever he agreed may not be what he said. But it is irrelevant. I am sure he must have read Francis Seow's book To Catch a Tartar. And in that book, Francis Seow's stand on our judiciary is very clearly stated. His accusations of our judiciary are very clearly stated in that book. And if the SDP, having associated with Francis Seow and having read the book, can come to this House and deny that they did not agree with Francis Seow's speech on that particular day, I think it is not true. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, the Senior Minister gave an in-depth account of the meticulous selection process of finding good Judges and Judicial Commissioners to run the judiciary system. And today, Prof. Jayakumar gives us the reasons why a good judiciary is important for Singapore. Our judiciary is open and transparent and for this very reason, we are not afraid to defend the system, if challenged. There is nothing to hide and we are open to any scrutiny. Thus, what took place at Williams College, namely, Francis Seow and Christopher Lingle's accusations of our judiciary and, unfortunately, agreed by SDP representatives, Dr Chee and two others, will not draw silent response and, thus, this debate. I agree with Dr Ow's response two days ago in the Straits Times to Dr Chee's complaint that it was not right to debate the motion standing in the names of my Parliamentary colleagues, Dr Ow and Mr Davinder Singh, because the SDP representatives in this House were not at Williams College. So were also most of us in this House.”
“While praising Singaporeans, I cannot help but have doubts over the manner and intention of the Opposition parties at the same time. Why do I say that? On 10th April 1995, the SDP wrote a letter to President Ramos. On 23rd March, they issued a statement. On 11th April, 1995 the Workers' Party also issued a statement. What did they say? Let us first look at the letter signed by Mr Ling. The letter was addressed to the President of the Philippines. In the letter, he said - Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak) (In Mandarin) : Read it aloud! Mr Choo Wee Khiang( In Mandarin): Never mind, everybody can read it afterwards. There is no need to waste time. You wrote the letter, you can read it aloud afterwards!”
“Yesterday, I heard what the Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prof. Jayakumar, said, and I felt he was very thorough and patient in his explanation. At last, the people of Singapore will understand that in a matter like this, it cannot be dealt with in just a few sentences. We have cudgelled our brains and taken so much trouble and care to stand firm on our position and to handle this very complicated matter in a moderate and restrained manner. I believe the people of Singapore will now have a better understanding of the whole issue. I believe we have gained a good deal of enlightenment from this episode. First, Singapore and the Philippines are still friendly countries. We are still good friends not only at the official level but also at the people-to-people level. I only believe that a very small minority of people will add fuel to fire over such an issue. At the same time, I feel that from this episode we can see that the Singapore Government has been very consistent in handling both domestic and international matters. Its practice is to be firm, mature, cautious and moderate in handling such matters. The third revelation we can draw from this incident is that the people of Singapore are very cool and cautious. They have full confidence in what the Government is doing and they give the Government their full support, albeit quietly. So we can say that our people have confirmed and reaffirmed our judicial system and diplomatic policy. When we saw our national flag being burnt publicly in the Philippines, a number of our people were noticeably upset and they voiced their anger, but the vast majority of Singaporeans have exercised restraint and caution over such a matter. For this, I feel we should give Singaporeans our admiration and praises.”
“Therefore, when my constituents saw the reaction of the Filipinos on TV burning our flag and threatening our Singaporeans, some expressed regret that they ever toiled so hard in the past to help them. I cannot blame them for expressing out their feelings, but I explained to them that we should distinguish the two issues. One is for a humanitarian cause and, if we are able, we should continue to do so while the other, the Flor Contemplacion case, is a politically motivated one. However, relationship is now soured. Mr Romulo, former Foreign Secretary, has summed up the feelings and observations of many of us and there is no point to add further to his comments. Perhaps we should take the cue from Prof. Jayakumar's call and Mr Ramos' call yesterday to mend relations. We should keep the lines of communication between our leaders and the Filipino leaders open. Everybody knows that Flor Contemplacion was exploited as an election issue against President Ramos. Now that the elections are over, we hope good sense will prevail to put the issue behind us and to start a new chapter of relationship in the coming years. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I came into this Chamber this afternoon, I was disappointed because I did not see the Opposition Members here. We are discussing an important motion concerning our judicial system and the Police and yet the Opposition Members are not here. Yesterday, apart from Mr Chiam See Tong, the other Opposition Members did not speak because they were not here. Now, I see Mr Ling How Doong is here and I feel more comforted. I hope Mr Ling will speak on behalf of the SDP or all the Opposition Members, telling us their stand on the Flor Contemplacion case. I hope he will do that.”
“To the people of Philippines, flag burning is not uncommon. To us Singaporeans, the flag is an important national symbol. It has become an institution on which we build unity and strength. While others may allow their flag to be abused by making shirts out of their flags, we do not and should not allow it to be an object of such abuse. So we proudly fly the Singapore flag on very special occasions, especially during National Day celebrations. Where do we go from here? Yes, Singaporeans were saddened by the reactions of the Philippine government. My constituents were especially saddened by the whole episode. Let me explain. My constituents were involved in three massive exercises to help the flood victims in the Philippines. It was massive because each time they collected at least two plane-loads of clothing from their house-to-house collections. It was a huge community effort. It was painstaking packing the clothes and bundling them according to the age group needs. Then there was logistic problem of transport to overcome. In the first exercise, I even persuaded our SAF planes to help out to fly the clothes and blankets to the victims via Clark Air Base in the Philippines. At the end of the exercise, the Philippine Ambassador, Mr Francisco Benedicto, invited the helpers to his residence to thank them and treated them to dinner and a special cultural programme especially flown in from the Philippines. I was presented with a "thank you" letter from President Corazon Aquino for my constituents' generosity and gesture of goodwill. Such was the happy relations between the Philippines, Ayer Rajah constituency and Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the speeches yesterday, I am inclined to believe that the issue in this debate is not whether we should have granted a stay of execution for Flor Contemplacion but whether due process of the law was made available to Flor Contemplacion. As a layman I believe that there was adequate provision and time for Flor Contemplacion to seek redress on her case. In fact, I see the second trial as evidence of this. A private psychiatrist had pointed out that Flor Contemplacion could be suffering from diminished responsibility and he must have had evidence to provide this. It was an important piece of observation which must be addressed seriously and thus a second trial. This possibility of diminished responsibility was subsequently refuted at the trial. Yesterday, we heard Prof. Jayakumar's very detailed account to Members of this House how his Ministry together with the Ministry of Home Affairs carefully checked evidence and appeals to ensure that Flor Contemplacion was not a victim of miscarriage of justice. It was a very thorough exercise. In other words, Flor Contemplacion had been given every opportunity to prove her innocence through the various representations and avenues open to her. Mr Speaker, Sir, Philippines is special to us because she is our ASEAN partner and because she is special we stayed cool and calm and did what we considered very necessary. For example, we did the right thing by restraining from commenting on reports by their mass media. But we had to respond to reports that were official, like the Gancayco report. We did the right thing again when we protested strongly on the burning of the Singapore flag. Some foreigners asked me why we get so worked up over such a thing.”
“Our young graduates must not feel that they have missed the boat and that what the older generation Singaporeans with similar qualifications have, that is, a car and a house, seem too distant a dream for them. We must try and do something. But, first, let me give you some figures that I read from a cover story of the Straits Times, 1st September 1993. It headlined: "Private homes: Unaffordable now?", and I quote: `But have private property price increases outpaced household earnings? Looking at the basic correlation of an index of average earnings over the residential property price index (PPI), used as a broad measure of affordability, it can be seen that prices have been climbing faster than earnings since 1989-90. And last year, residential property prices moved up 16 per cent against an average of 7 per cent rise in earnings.' So, you see, Sir, I share the concern of many young graduate couples whose earnings are not able to match the rising property market prices. This relationship between earnings and property prices cannot be too far apart because in the middle-class Singapore society, salaries are used to pay off property loans and taking a loan to buy properties is the usual practice here. Thus, I support the Government in releasing more land for private residential development, hoping that this move will cap, if not slow down, the property prices which have gone up substantially over the past two years. I learn that 6,000 units will be added into the private residential market this year. Of these 6,000 units, I hope most will be for condominiums and private apartments as they will be more affordable to Singaporeans.”
“Sir, the Government wants to have a better mix of public housing and private housing. This is a good move. By the year 2010, it is hoped that the ratio of public to private housing units will be 75:25. In other words, 25% of Singaporeans will live in private housing estates in the not so near future. A sizeable portion of this 25% must come from HDB dwellers, that is, the HDB upgraders. Sir, I was told that HDB flat owners who bought their flats some 10 years ago can make a tidy profit of more than $100,000 if he sells his flat today. This capital appreciation of HDB flats has made many a Singaporean very wealthy and they are now eyeing the private property market. They can, with a loan of $200,000 to $300,000, be able to live in a private condominium worth about $600,000, if they sell their HDB flat today. This is a dream of not only the upgraders but of fairly young graduate couples whose combined income rules them out of the HDB housing and the increasingly high prices of private flats are becoming a dream of the past for some of them. A few have expressed their frustration by contemplating emigrating to places like Australia, where the cost of housing is very, very much cheaper than here. I think their concern is real. We do not want to lose them. They are born and educated here. They feel sandwiched between the two sectors - private and public housing sectors. It would be a pity if finding a roof over their heads becomes such a frustration. We may argue that they may be unrealistic in their expectations. Yes, while there may be a few who have unrealistic expectations by expecting to live beyond their means, most are down-to-earth and very realistic. Nobody wants to go and live in a foreign land. It is starting all over again.”
“Sir, the Government has promised that HDB flats will always be very affordable to the average income household, that is, within the reach of most Singaporeans. We must honour this pledge by assuring Singaporeans, especially the first-time buyers of HDB flats, that this will be so and will continue to be so in the future. Is there, therefore, a proposal to increase the number of HDB flats that is currently being built, that is, about 30,000? Do we have any intention of increasing this number to meet the demand? Finally, HDB's measures to assist the low income groups to own flats, as outlined recently by the Minister, by way of special financing schemes should be complimented. My GPC will continue to monitor this.”
“Sir, we have been informed in this House that slightly over 30,000 flats that HDB intends to build every year will be sufficient to meet the present demand. And, in particular, the Board's target is to meet the needs of the newly-married couples, namely, the 26,000 new households which are formed every year. However, if you include the upgraders, bearing in mind that more than 50% of the applicants for HDB flats are upgraders, then that figure of 30,000 would appear to be on the low side. This has caused some anxiety amongst upgraders and first-timers who want to purchase flats as quickly as possible to avoid the rising cost of flats each year. They want to buy ahead to beat the rising cost. Building HDB flats takes some time. From the time the land is cleared to the time the flats are built, I learn that it is about four to five years. Therefore, there will be price differences between those neighbourhoods built earlier and those built later. This is inevitable because of increased material and labour costs. Meanwhile, the purchaser's monthly mortgage payment plus the initial downpayment for his future flat will also rise. Can he meet this rise with his monthly income which has also gone up? Therefore, may I request the Minister to assure this House and those waiting to purchase flats that their monthly mortgage payment, as a percentage of average monthly income, is still within the figures he gave some time ago in this House, that is, for a 3-room flat, about 9% of their monthly income (ie, the 1992 figure) and 22% to 23% for a 4-room flat (this figure was given to me some time ago). In other words, can an HDB purchaser be able to meet his monthly mortgage payment, through his CPF or cash or using both cash and CPF, in the light of the increased price of HDB flats?”
“Sir, I rise to speak on a topic which I think is quite important, ie, to request the Minister to re-educate food handlers on the use of disposable gloves. This could provide some answer to Mr Teo Chong Tee's concern about the spread of food poisoning cases. Sir, disposable glove, by its name, implies throwing it away after use. However, if you watch our food handlers wearing gloves to prepare food, both in our hawker and food centres and even at food courts, you wonder whether the use of these gloves is to protect us, the consumers, or the food handlers themselves. As far as I am concerned, its use protects the food handlers, and not us, the consumers. These food handlers, if you watch them carefully, are fully gloved. They prepare the food, they receive the money from you, they wipe their gloves on the apron, and get back to preparing food. This ritual is repeated without changing gloves. What does this mean? You do not need to be a medical doctor, like me, to see how soiled the disposable gloves have become after a few preparations. These disposable gloves are harbouring a lot of germs and bacteria from this exchange of cash and food preparation and it is no wonder we get sporadic outbreaks of diarrhoea, vomiting and food poisoning cases. I understand our Asian way of preparing food. They need to use their hands a lot. But it should not be used as an excuse to do away with gloves. Therefore, I would like to request the Ministry to have a re-education programme of these food handlers on simple basic hygiene and how germs are spread, why they should wash and wipe their hands after each preparation of food. Finally, and most important of all, those who are preparing food should not handle or receive money. 12.45 pm”
“I will be brief. I hear many Members of this House calling these litterbugs by many, many names. They said that littering is wrong. But have we asked ourselves why is it wrong? Perhaps we have, in our enthusiasm to eradicate this problem, given our young the wrong reasons for littering. We want them not to litter. Why? Because there is a fine of $500. But is it a good reason for not littering? Perhaps if we have told them that littering will spread dirt and mess up the environment and, thus, spoil our beautiful environment, spread germs when the sputum is thrown out because when it dries up, the wind carries the germs around and it spreads diseases, and worse still, attracts cockroaches and rats if we throw food around which will again spread dirt and illness, then we may have given them good and sound reasons not to litter. So let us not scold them for littering because of the fine. Let us teach them why they should not litter, so that this value system becomes internalised in them and becomes a way of life for all Singaporeans.”
“Sir, since the Minister has talked at length about littering, just give me a few minutes to speak on this subject.”
“Sir, I saw in the Order Paper Supplement an amendment on MRT car parks. As a Board Member of MRTC and SMRT, we do not build, we do not own, and we do not operate car parks. Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I forgot to respond to Mr Heng just now. He has asked that the feasibility studies of the North-east sector line be presented to Parliament. I will consider his suggestion.”
“In a short while, Sir. First, there is a need for legislation not to force Singaporeans to sign such a will, but to honour the rights of those Singaporeans who want to make a living will and to protect those, including doctors, who honour that wish. The many details must be carefully worked out with law makers, religious bodies, lay people and the medical profession. Singaporeans must be well informed that the will will not be compulsory; that it is made consciously and not under pressure; that it is made when the mind is mentally sound, that he can revoke the will if he so wishes after making that will on whether to start life-sustaining treatment or to stop such treatment should he become terminally ill with no chance of recovery. This, to my mind, is the essence of what such a will should be.”
“On the contrary, the high cost of maintaining a terminally-ill patient in the intensive care unit, including Government subsidy, may become an important factor. Then there are other alternatives to a living will. There is such an order called "DNR", meaning "Do Not Resuscitate", which in the eyes of some individuals, including doctors, is better than a living will as an advance directive. Thus, Sir, I have posed some of the many questions that need clear answers and some issues on this subject that need closer examination and scrutiny when the Bill is introduced. Again, without going into further details on the moral, religious and ethical aspects of this issue, a very fundamental question that Singaporeans need to ask is whether life sustained by machines is living, especially when death is certain. Modern science can prolong a dying man's life by way of the latest life-support systems. For example, machines can take over the functions of a dying man's heart and lungs. If I am terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, I want to be spared further suffering and would like to die naturally in peace and with dignity. I am sure there are many like me who would do likewise. But lest I be accused of being too clinical in my judgment, I support the development of a framework for those who would want to draw up a living will by way of legislation.”
“It must be set out in clearer language, understood by most Singaporeans. The better educated may find this term "advance directive" more acceptable but, generally, the average Singaporeans do not understand "advance directive". I put this term to many Singaporeans from many walks of life, including very educated professionals, and most do not know what it stands for. Some even thought that it was a term used in the stock market in futures trading. It used to be known as the living will. Sir, I prefer to call a spade a spade, a cangkul a cangkul, rather than calling a spade or a cangkul a gardening implement. Thus, I prefer living will to advance directive. Living will carries a more understandable meaning with ordinary Singaporeans. They can tie the two words together and guess the meaning after some time. However, a lot more explanation needs to be done, eg, its definition. How do you define a "living will"? How can we allay the fears that this is not mercy killing? How do we ensure that procedures in executing the will be properly followed and upheld? What if he changes his mind after making the will? Can he revoke the will? 1.30 pm Another very pertinent question being asked is: is this going to be another opt-in opt-out legislation like the Human Organ Transplant Act of 1987? Many are worried that we want to make it compulsory because the state does not want to pick up the health bill of these terminally ill patients. I do not think this is going to be compulsorily forced upon our people to sign such a will. Nor do I think our health care cost sharing system puts the Government totally responsible for looking after the very ill. The Minister can help dispel this.”
“Sir, not many people understand the term "advance directive". Yet, it has far-reaching implications. Far-reaching because it requires a person to make a decision in advance on his own life, whether he wants to continue medical treatment or not when he is terminally ill with no chance of recovery and depending on life-support machines to live. Far-reaching also because it involves the family and relatives, doctors, lawyers, religion, moral and ethical beliefs. Doctors have to make that crucial judgment. Families and relatives have to come to accept the judgment. Lawyers have to make sure that there is no misuse and many a time, religion is sought to give the blessings. Each group can be put in a difficult situation to make this crucial decision that draws on the emotions, the moral, ethical and religious beliefs. When faced with such an unfortunate situation, it can be very traumatic. Family members may disagree on pulling out the life supports for various reasons. As for the doctor, he will be the last to pull out the life support machine as he is trained to save lives. However, he has to face with the decision of certifying death. At present, there are two ways of certification: (1) the traditional test, when the heart stops beating and the lungs stop functioning; and (2) a more high-tech one, ie, when the brain is dead. Until very recently only, the Japanese, because of religious beliefs, accept the definition of "death" only when every part of the body is dead. So you can see, Sir, the problems doctors have to face. The doctors do not want to be faced with the dilemma of having to face a court action because of this unclear definition. We must handle advance directive carefully because, as I said, of its moral, ethical, religious and emotional attachments.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my question. Because of shortage of time, perhaps he could give me a written answer for this.”
“School principals should sit in this management committee. The centralisation of such management team would mean more efficient staffing, less duplication of equipment, purchasing of better equipment to save cost and time. Perhaps this team, after listening to what the Minister for Education has replied to Dr Kanwaljit Soin's concern about SAP schools, may help to set up a series of education and sporting programmes for SAP schools and neighbourhood schools. This will give students from both schools a chance to play and to work together. I understand the concern raised by Dr Kanwaljit Soin on SAP schools. I also share her concern. We are in a multi-racial society. Dr Kanwaljit Soin's concern about students in SAP schools lacking opportunities to mix with non-Chinese Singaporeans must be addressed. Some students in SAP schools have been studying in a totally Chinese environment since kindergarten. We hope the HDB environment can help to neutralise this because we ensure a multi-racial mix in the housing estates. But I am not sure we have been able to convince Dr Kanwaljit Soin. We cannot abandon SAP schools. The reasons for its setting up, as put forward by the Minister, we must accept, and I accept. Yet we should recognise the concern of Dr Soin and our non-Chinese Singaporeans. I therefore suggest, as I suggested before, that to minimise this lack of interaction between SAP schools and neighbourhood schools or the other schools, we should twin some of these schools, that means, we twin a SAP school and a neighbourhood school and allow this management team that I have suggested to coordinate educational and sporting programmes, so that we may be able to at least allay some of the concerns of Dr Kanwaljit Soin and our non-Chinese Singaporeans.”
“Sir, I move this amendment to seek an update on the issue of administrative support for schools. This topic was discussed at length during my term as GPC Chairman (Education). Today, has the situation changed for the better, or has it remained status quo? Listening to teachers, I seem to get the impression that this situation has not changed. There is one clerk per school and teachers are still bogged down to a large extent by non-teaching work. Some of the reasons given are because of poor recruitment, because the job is not interesting enough and, of course, low pay - maybe we are not paying people well enough for them to want to seek clerical jobs in schools. I often wonder whether some of our teachers leave because of the lack of such support. They entered the teaching profession full of ideals to teach but found they are doing a lot of non-teaching work, and that must have frustrated many. Thus, I am suggesting that we should divorce the two - teaching and management in the schools. Teachers teach; administration, management manage. Leaving admininstrative work to a management team will create more time, more quality time, to be paid to students by teachers. This will mean a more satisfying job and I hope less resignations. This administrative group can help teachers organise school activities like ECA, help out in the clerical work of printing, cyclostyling notes, test papers, and help to run the library service for schools. I am sure we can work out a more detailed work specification. If this administrative support is not possible per school, can I suggest a cluster management of schools, that is, a few schools nearby should share a common management team to take care of these activities that I mentioned, and even more.”
“Sir, for donation draw-tickets, which category does it fall into? Goods or services? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, it is a Goods and Services Tax.”
“Sir, the Minister has earlier explained the tax policy for fund raising projects. I would just like to seek a small clarification. Why are donation draw tickets, for example, subject to GST?”
“If the time comes when the water needs have been stretched to the limit, we may not have much choice. In the meantime, we must continue to better manage this industrial water to be less corrosive. We must experiment with different piping systems. I hope the time will not come when industrial water may have to be reintroduced to flush our toilets in public and private housing. To avoid this, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must save water.”
“Dhanabalan, then the Minister for National Development, to understand the depth and extent of the issue, and now my residents do not need umbrellas and plastic covers to go to the toilets. But it was a heavy and costly price, a tidy $22 million had to be put in to repair and replace these leaking pipes. At this point, I must thank the Senior Minister whose support finally turned the issue around. On behalf of my residents of Teban, Pandan and, I am sure, Boon Lay and Jurong, I thank the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and Mr Dhanabalan. Mr Speaker, Sir, you need two systems - a potable water system and an industrial water system. You need two sets of pumps. Industrial water, as I said, is very corrosive. It eats into the pipes, especially cast iron pipes and also it leaks at the joints. It is smelly because it is not treated sufficiently well as it cannot be drunk. It stains the toilet bowls and, worse still, it invites mosquitoes into the flats, even the highest flats. Because mosquitoes lay their eggs in the reservoirs, and by the time they are transported and go into the flats, into the water closet, they become adults. And they fly out through the water closet outlets, so you get mosquitoes right even on the 20th floor. On top of this, the use of more pumps means more noise and more frequent breakdowns. I understand my fellow MP colleagues' concern about our water problem. I too am concerned. Their suggestion to use industrial water to flush toilets seems a very practical and logical one. But my Ayer Rajah's experience shows that this seemingly practical idea turned out to be a nightmare for my residents. Having said all that, I do not want to discourage the use of industrial water. Presently, it is being used to serve our industrial estates.”
“This is one of the suggestions being considered by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Mr Speaker, Sir, industrial water is very corrosive and was used in Teban and Pandan HDB estates and some estates in Boon Lay and Jurong. It was an experiment conducted some 18 to 20 years ago when the estates were built. The water corroded the pipes very quickly and before long, these toilet pipes leaked. My poor residents spent many years warding off smelly, messy industrial water by way of umbrellas and plastic covers over their heads whenever they went to the toilets. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter, Mr Speaker. They went through this. I tried to persuade the Government to stop its use for the last 15 years. And in fact, I spent a good deal of my MP life chasing and persuading every newly-appointed Minister for National Development to intervene. But to no avail. Because it was a Government policy. I even brought photographs to this House to show the Minister and all present to prove my case. But my poor residents continued to suffer from the leaking toilet pipes washed by this corrosive industrial water. I almost gave up fighting. But each time, I visited their flats, I was more determined to help. It was very embarrassing visiting them because the first thing they wanted to show you was their leaking toilets. This embarrassing experience was also shared by Mr Ong Teng Cheong, our present President who was then making a Ministerial visit to my constituency, and I believe you also, Mr Leader of the House, when you visited my constituency. Finally, in 1991, armed with the 75.5% support from the last General Election, I succeeded in persuading the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Mr S.”
“We could provide tax concessions and incentives to those who put money into the research and development of water conservation systems in the estates, both private and public. Town Councils should be encouraged to look into ideas to conserve water within neighbourhoods to clean our corridors and void decks. I believe it can bring out the best in people who have to face very difficult situations. Singaporeans must read what Prime Minister Goh said recently about the water situation. Ignore this and we will be queuing up for water very soon. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, I sought your permission to share my constituency's experience on the use of industrial water to flush our toilets. But time constraint did not allow me.”
“It is just that PWD and the town councils cannot agree on the terms of dovetailing the two. Both have their reasons. PWD gives nine conditions for town councils to comply, amongst which town councils must pay and maintain the upgraded bus stops. Town councils cannot be responsible for maintaining bus shelters. Town council funds are used to improve the estates. However, we have reached an impasse. The question is: Are we prepared to let this mis-match to be perpetuated? I think we should not. Beneath all this exchange of letters and meetings, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suspect PWD has not set aside funds for this. Therefore, can I ask the Minister to be generous to PWD if they do apply for funds for upgrading or even to town councils by the CIPC funding, if the Minister thinks town councils should be allowed to do the job. I leave it to the Minister to decide whom he thinks fit. All that we want is to bring some sense of balance and proportion to our otherwise beautiful HDB estates. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the water conservation tax. Yesterday, the Minister for Trade and Industry had told this House about the pressing need to conserve water, and I support this call and the call made by the Prime Minister earlier this year. This tax is a reminder that we should not take this very precious commodity for granted and that we should save today to avoid unpleasantness in future. Perhaps, instead of using punitive measures, we should reward those who make special efforts to save water. For a start, we could give tax incentives for those who build water tanks in their homes, not HDB or in flats, and we can also give those who build water tanks in factories. Of course, the design and safety aspects must be carefully looked into.”
“Many will also have health problems which will rob them of some or all of their mobility. The monograph calls for a study into support needs of this group. I am therefore suggesting that this group of Singaporeans, which falls into the 60 years and above category, should be assisted by way of crediting a similar amount of $500 into a Special Medisave Account. It is no use putting aside $200 into their Ordinary Account or top-up $300 for the purchase of shares. I think it is good to put it into a Medisave Account for their health needs, especially hospitalisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are about 247,000 Singaporeans over the age of 60 years. Of these, 20% are working and therefore can benefit from the present schemes. 80% or approximately 180,000 Singaporeans are not working, do not have CPF accounts, and therefore cannot benefit from the schemes. If the $500 given to the Singaporeans with CPF accounts is also given to this group, the Government will have to pay out approximately $98,700,000. I think we can afford to give out this amount to these Singaporeans as we have sufficient surplus. Let me bring to the attention of this House and you, Mr Speaker, Sir, an observation that irks me, and I am sure your goodself, and many Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you happen to visit some of our HDB estates, you will probably be impressed generally by the estate. However, if you let your eyes wonder to the bus shelters, you may wonder if our town planners have lost their sense of balance and aesthetic taste. Look at our bus shelters and look at the new covered linkways. It is a contrast. A beautiful linkway ending in a tardy bus shelter. They are a sight for sore eyes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the town planners' fault.”
“I would like to suggest, therefore, for those below 60 years, we should give them an option to have the $300 top-up into the Share Ownership Top-up Scheme, the Medisave scheme or the Special Account. And for those over 60 years, we should credit the $500 into a Special Medisave Account for all Singaporeans aged 60 years and over and who have no CPF or very little CPF. The first option is worthwhile considering because not all Singaporeans are interested in shares, stocks or gold. Some, for personal or religious reasons, do not find the stock market a place to put their money in. I suggest allowing them the choice to put their money either in the Special Account or the Medisave Account. The second option is for putting aside $500 into a Special Medisave Account for Singaporeans aged 60 years and over. I think we can create this account. This is to ensure that the surplus is shared by more Singaporeans than what the working CPF members are at present enjoying. My thinking is many Singaporeans 60 years and over have little CPF or no CPF because they worked at a period when CPF contribution was low or negligible. They are now in the autumn of their lives. Cost of living has gone up. Inflation has eaten into what little savings they have and, above all, some are beginning to have medical problems. Many in this group of Singaporeans are women, and I think there are about 53% of Singaporeans 60 years and above who are women. This group was highlighted recently in a report by an NUS lecturer, Dr Shantar Kumar. And in this report, amongst others, he highlighted the plight of many 60-year old women who would very likely go through their twilight years, widowed, with little or no income, and with low savings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance. Many have spoken in this House in support of the Government's move to help Singaporeans offset the introduction of the GST. Like them, I welcome the 10% rebate on personal income tax, the rebates for HDB homes and the crediting of the $500 into the CPF accounts of Singaporeans. I also agree with the development expenditure to upgrade HDB flats, build schools, hospitals, improve on our transport system and R&D spending. The various tax measures to promote high value-added financial activities and to encourage regionalisation have been examined by more able MPs expert in this field and I do not wish to go over them. I would, however, like to cover a few areas like the CPF scheme, water conservation and funding for bus shelters. Mr Speaker, Sir, we intend to give out $500 into the CPF accounts of Singaporeans. I receive this with mixed feelings because not all Singaporeans will benefit. In fact, we might have missed giving to certain sections of our population like housewives in their late 50s or 60s. We also intend to credit $300 into the CPF Share Ownership Top-up Scheme. Not all Singaporeans want to put their money in the stock market. Having said all that, I would like to put forward a few thoughts and ideas which the Minister may like to consider. To begin with, we may perhaps categorise Singaporeans into those below 60 years old and those above 60 years old. The two groups, I believe, have different needs. The first, being younger, want to venture into stocks, shares, housing. The second group may, in my opinion, be more concerned about health and financial support.”
“No. I thought I could just say something.”
“Sir, I thought you would allow me to share this experience because ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the Minister's suggestion that we should use industrial water for flushing of toilets. I thought that it would be fair for me to give the experience in Teban and Pandan on what actually happened when we used industrial water for the flushing of toilets. Teban and Pandan estates were used as experiments for the use of industrial water. Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Tan, are you making a speech or do you intend to seek clarification?”
“The big worry is that we might actually attract the wrong sort of people who would try to become Ministers solely for the money and people who regard Ministership as a career choice rather than a service to the country. Our only safeguard is our selection system which is not practised stringently in other parties. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, governing Singapore in future is not going to be easy. The kind of Singaporeans we are trying to nurture depends on what value system we imbibe in them in schools and at home. If money is the yardstick to reward and measure success and especially if Parliament appears to take the lead, then where do we go from here? There will be a political price to pay for this exercise. I hope that Singaporeans will be persuaded by the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister that this pay package is but a small price to pay for good, clean and honest Government. 1.52 pm”
“Their generation of Cabinet leaders and political appointees have carried themselves well in office and putting Singapore on the world map and paving the way for us to emulate and follow. They were a special breed. They were our heroes and they were our role models. I joined the PAP because of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team. They gave me a sense of pride and honour to be a Singaporean. As regards our present Cabinet Ministers and political appointees, can we, looking at them from this side of the House, say they entered this Chamber and became Cabinet Ministers for money? I do not think so. They share the same image of honesty, integrity, commitment and service to our nation. Since they took over from the Old Guard Ministers, Singapore has continued to grow and prosper. They deserve the salary increases throughout their years in office, although a few, I am sure, were a bit embarrassed by the last January increment which puts them into the $1/2 million annual salary mark. Then what about our future leaders? If the January revision of $1/2 million needs a further revision to $800,000 to get people into Cabinet, then the question asked will be what sort of future leaders will we get. During a Deepavali visit yesterday, someone passed this remark, "I will now have to look at a Minister more carefully than before." There is a hidden message in this remark. The big question mark is whether a person in Cabinet is solely for the money will hang over his head and a negative effect would be that good people, even those earning reasonably high salaries, will think twice about joining politics.”
“Many feel that the Minister has the power, the prestige and enjoys perks. These were not mentioned or factored into the salary in the White Paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you can take away one-third of the benchmark salary because Ministers must sacrifice when they come into politics, surely there must be a trade-off for power, prestige and perks. If personal sacrifice has been given a value, an arbitrary value of one-third the benchmark, can we make up a case for an arbitrary value for prestige, power and perks? I suggest that this value be of one-sixth of the benchmark figure of $1.2 million. The White Paper gives an arbitrary value. I think I am not wrong to propose an arbitrary value. If we accept this one-sixth figure, then the total package, after the one-third discount and this trade-off value, will work out to be half of the salary of the top four in the six professions. This is still fairly high. It works out to $608,500 per year. This is the basic salary for the Ministers. The Grade II Ministers will get 12% more. There have been proposals but the final outcome cannot be less than the January 1994 revision. Therefore, what I suggest is a compromise. Accept this formula but introduce a new element, a trade-off factor of one-sixth for the three Ps - prestige, power and perks. Money is an important consideration but we should not overplay its importance. Too big a jump at too short a notice has distorted the debate on Ministers' salaries. Sir, there is a political culture handed down to us by the Senior Minister and his Cabinet and his whole team. It carries with it a strong political image of integrity, honesty, commitment and service to country.”
“' The White Paper therefore stays silent on the bonuses that the Ministers will receive as proposed in the January revision. Does this White Paper's recommendations supersede the January revision? There are some misconceptions about Ministers' pay which the Prime Minister must answer, and must clarify to the ground. (1) Ministers need not pay income tax. We all know that this is not true. But that is what is being repeatedly questioned and asked by the ordinary Singaporeans. (2) Ministers' trips are all paid for by the Government, including private trips. Again, this is not true. But that is the ground's talking. (3) Family members also enjoy such privileges when they travel with the Ministers. Again, this is not true. But I think the man to really clarify all these will be the Prime Minister. The question of accountability keeps cropping up when Ministers' salary is discussed. Some think that the Government is afraid to debate this controversial issue in Parliament and want to opt for a way by which Ministers are paid annually based on a fixed formula without having to come back to this House. It is sad to think that this Government has any hidden agenda. This is a transparent system. But to allay a more sophisticated and educated public, the Government must make the salary adjustment even more open. I would suggest that in the Budget for each financial year, under Section II, Summary Tables on Expenditure, we introduce an annex to state the total annual salary (including bonuses and all allowances) of all political appointees from the Prime Minister to Political Secretaries. This will allow MPs an opportunity to question Ministers' salaries during Budget time. Sir, power, prestige and perks (the three Ps) have also been brought up in the debate.”
“Again, those who disagree argue that the top four earners have put their whole life in work and are probably at their peak or end point of their career. They have gone through a lot in life. They are very matured citizens. They command high salaries because they bring goodwill and talent to the company. The goodwill factor is important. It accounts for a big portion of the big salaries. Therefore, it may not be correct to equate their payment with politicians. Further, Singaporeans want to know if the January revision of Ministers' salaries to the half million dollar mark annually was successful in recruiting men and women into politics. In other words, was the half million dollar package tested? If not, why are we pushing and asking to consider a new package of $810,000 per annum? Pegging the Ministers' salaries to the top four of the six professional groups is a win-win situation. This point has been laboured. I would not want to labour it too long, but just to say that the top four may not necessarily be the same top four the following year. However, the Ministers' salaries will continue to be pegged to the top four earners irrespective of any change. Is the salary all that the Ministers will get? Or is there going to be more? This is what they want to ask. If you refer to page 12 of the White Paper, the fifth paragraph says: `This benchmark figure is an estimated average, not a fixed entitlement for every Minister or civil servant. It includes basic pay, Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance (NPAA), Annual Variable Component (AVC), a typical Performance Bonus, a car allowance plus imputed tax on it, plus a new Special Allowance. The actual amount received will vary from Minister to Minister, and from officer to officer.”
“The hue and cry outside the House is simply this: that the Government has gone overboard on this issue. Again, it is not Ministers should not be well paid. I will focus on the formula. We are asked in this House to support this formula to peg Ministers' salaries to the private sector's average salary of the top four individuals from the six professions. Is this the correct and proper thing to do? Listening to opinions outside this House, there seems to be more people who disagree than agree. Those who agree genuinely want good people to help the Prime Minister, and they asked me to tell the Prime Minister to go ahead with the high salary without any discount even. But, unfortunately, there are more people who disagree. They disagree and argue that it was only in January this year that this House approved Ministers' salaries to exceed the half million dollars per annum. It was considered on the high side, but acceptable. But this present formula to up the salary to $810,000 per annum has made those who supported the January revision to sit up and ask these questions. Why do they need so much money? Are they saying that half a million dollars is insufficient that they need $810,000 per annum? Have the lifestyles of the Ministers changed so much that their needs cannot be met by the present salary? Why do politicians want to rank themselves against such top earners? Is it to justify their salary increase? Is the ranking so important? Nobody cares about the ranking, they told me, except we, politicians. These are questions asked. We cannot discount these questions. We should address them and see whether we can convince them that what we are trying to do in this House, to up the salaries, is justified. They are really sensible and genuine concerns.”
“Sir, I have never been inundated by so many phone calls and requests to see me ever since I stepped down as Chairman of the Feedback Unit, until recently, when the price of COE passed the $100,000 mark and upon the release of the White Paper on Ministers' salaries. Let me share with you some of the comments and questions asked. Please do something about the COE. How can we be so insensitive as to ask for higher Ministers' salaries at this juncture when COE is so high and cost of living going up so fast? An ex-colleague of mine asked me to tell the Prime Minister and all the Cabinet Ministers, do not take the people for granted. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are some of the unpleasant sentiments told to me, and it is with this backdrop that we are here today to discuss a formula to once and for all settle this issue of Ministers' pay. It is not going to be easy. Ministers' pay has been debated many times in this House, and each debate is always charged with calls for personal sacrifice, commitment, integrity, ability and an appeal to be realistic and pragmatic and to pay well to get the best into Cabinet. The issue about having to pay Ministers well is now accepted by most Singaporeans. Thus, in January this year, this House approved the Ministers' new pay of between $587,000 per annum and $776,000 per annum, depending on the Minister's grade. Therefore, why are we doing another revision so soon after the January revision? Singaporeans are just beginning to accept the high salaries of our Ministers and before long, they are being asked to consider a new proposal to up further the salaries of our Ministers. We are asking too much, too soon. The issue for discussion today is how much more should Ministers be paid and not why Ministers should be well paid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not speak for too long.”
“I think I better re-phrase it for him. I am staying in a 3-room flat and now I want to upgrade to a 4-room flat, as my family has grown from four to maybe seven members. I really need a bigger flat very urgently. I am prepared to sell my flat to HDB at HDB's price. Would HDB let me buy the flat first over those 8.7% of the upgraders that the Minister talked about earlier in his speech?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has forgotten to answer my question. Perhaps let me re-phrase it for him.”
“How much of that will take up the 40% of the supply for upgraders?”
“I think it can be easily defined. For example, for those living in the present 3-room flats and their families have grown larger and the space is very small, I think we can consider them to be in fairly urgent need for upgrading. They have to compete with those people who have just moved in. As the Minister has just said, 8.7% of them have just bought their flats and stayed for less than five years also wanted to upgrade. I think we must make a clear distinction between those who are really in urgent need for upgrading and those who are not. Would the Minister therefore consider allowing these people, who really want to upgrade but do not want to be in this scheme, to buy a new flat first, and later let them sell their old flat back to HDB at the valuation price? At least, we meet the needs of this group of residents who want to upgrade. Now, 5% of the total flat supply will be allocated to the Multi-Tier Family, Joint Selection and Third Child Priority schemes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to ask a few questions. My first question is: Why three zones? We have a very mobile population and you find that Singaporeans move from North to South and East to West quite readily. Would HDB then consider a single register? It would prevent this problem of having to deal with these crossing-overs. If you do not accept a single register, then perhaps you should give some flexibility to those who are, at present, in the old scheme, trying to make adjustment to the new scheme. In the management of upgraders, I notice that the Minister has not made a distinction between those who urgently need to upgrade and those who are not in urgent need for upgrading. An hon. Member: How do you define them?”
“The Elected President has a custodial safeguard power. He acts within the rules until such time as the legislation is entrenched. If he does not like something, some transaction, or he is not satisfied about a name, he has the power to say "No", but he does not have the power generally to initiate. Similarly, here, the Government would be the one which will have the power to initiate. The Cabinet will advise the President and the matter will be referred. It does not mean that the President has no recourse, because the Elected President plays a custodial role. If he is unhappy with a legislation or he thinks the Government is curtailing his powers, he may not be able to refer the question, but he can veto the legislation. Then the Government must either call a referendum or it must take the matter to the tribunal and the matter will be tested out, and the tribunal will decide whether the President is acting within his rights or the President is acting ultra vires. Thirdly, if there is a disagreement between a President and the Cabinet, and the Cabinet wants to ride roughshod, and says that it is quite convinced and refused to refer the matter, I think that the Government will be under considerable public pressure to have the matter tested in the courts because, finally, what is the test? The courts must decide issues of right and wrong. They cannot decide issues of policy. Whether you should or should not do is not their business. Whether that is the correct legal interpretation, that is their business. So the Government will be under pressure to refer to the Courts. I think we take one step. We introduce Article 100. Let us work the system and see how it works.”
“The question which arises is whether Article 22H applies to itself and protects itself today, because Article 22H says it applies to everything to which Article 5(2A) does not apply. Article 22H is protected by Article 5(2A). But you can make a literal argument that since Article 5(2A) has not been brought into effect, therefore, Article 5(2A) applies to nothing. Therefore, Article 22H applies to everything. Therefore, we have locked the door and thrown away the key. The Attorney-General's considered opinion is that that is not the case. The Government's position is that that is not the case. But the President prefers this to be tested in the courts and the Government agrees that it is good to have this question tested in the courts. This is what we will put to the tribunal to decide. The existing Article 22H is not a putative future amendment. If the courts rule that we have the power to change, then we will decide whether we want to change, and when. At some stage, it must be done. If the courts rule that we cannot change, we will find some other way. But it has to be put right. So that question raised by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, in fact, does not arise. On Article 100, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked, "Why not provide for the President to have the right to refer questions to the tribunal acting in his discretion rather than on the advice of Cabinet?" Firstly, we have drafted Article 100 following the Malaysian precedent. That is how the Malaysians have worked their legislation. It has worked for them. We think that it is safe for us to follow them. Secondly, it is the intention, the design of the Elected President legislation, that the initiative lies with the Government, and not with the Elected President. So the Government decides and sets the rules.”
“And if they decide, then they must have the wherewithal to execute that decision, and that is why we need Article 151A. You have to balance between safeguards and flexibility. If we want full flexibility, we could just say the Prime Minister and Defence Minister will decide and that is the end of the matter. But we have said that the Chief of Defence Force and the Permanent Secretary (Defence) must recommend. If they do not recommend, then it cannot go through. Can they be suborned? Yes, sure. So can the President. So can the Prime Minister. What happens if the Prime Minister goes mad? God help us! You are looking for certainty, assurance and safety using fallible human digits. And you are trying to make a scheme which will give you that certainty, not a probability of one, but a probability of 99.9% that the system will work even if individuals within it go wrong. As for Article 22H, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon raised the question whether the drafting is loose and whether we need to pass an amendment first, or whether we can refer a Bill to a tribunal. We do not intend to refer a Bill under Article 100 to a tribunal of the Supreme Court for a decision. The decision which we seek from a tribunal of the Supreme Court concerns the existing Article 22H. We want an interpretation. As it stands, Article 22H clearly protects non-constitutional legislation. If you want to amend non-constitutional legislation and it curtails or circumvents the President's powers, the President can veto and it can be tested in the court. If you want to amend non-core provisions of the Constitution, Article 22H is also clear. It is wrong, but it is clear. The President can veto that, and the court will decide whether in fact it curtails or circumvents the President's powers or not, and that's that.”