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 15 of 22.
“The Member for Cheng San GRC doubts if they did, and I feel the same way. For, they are directly involved in the scheme and obviously must have full confidence in it. Perhaps the views of the junior college principals, who have seen how SAP graduates interact with other students, would be more objective. But is their involvement in the various programmes run by the junior colleges a sufficient indication? That is still a question, particularly in the analysis of their social attitude and views. Observing their actions in other situations, for example, during recess or in their mixing outside school hours, or listening to their views on issues relating to multi-racialism in a frank and open atmosphere might perhaps give us different indications. Mr Speaker, I have nothing against the SAP scheme. If this is deemed to be the way towards tackling certain problems faced by the Chinese community of Singapore, ie, the erosion of their culture and proficiency in Mandarin, I think it is only proper that it should be implemented. However, while we seek to resolve one problem, we have to be sensitive to other issues that might arise therefrom. I therefore welcome the position taken by the Minister for Education when he said that the Ministry would monitor the implementation of the scheme closely. I am confident that, even if he could not accept the Member for Ayer Rajah's proposal to twin SAP and ordinary schools, or the Member for Cheng San GRC's suggestion that elements of multi-racialism be consciously incorporated, the Minister would be ready to make adjustments should any negative indications be detected in the scheme. Mr Speaker, it is the need to stress on multi-racialism and its elements in this issue that I wish to highlight here.”
“Minister for Education for having reiterated, clearly, the Government's stand with regard to SAP schools. In particular, I would like to thank him for his assurance that if the other communities want a similar scheme, his Ministry would certainly look into it. He said this is the logical approach to be taken by a Government that continues to believe in multi-racialism as a pillar of its policies. Mr Speaker, why the concern about the undesirable side-effects of the SAP scheme? Why has this been raised? I think our concern, including the concerns voiced by the Members for Cheng San GRC and Ayer Rajah, has reopened the debate on this issue and, indeed, these concerns are valid. Firstly, the scheme involves Chinese students from pre-school age going through the critical years of their emotional, intellectual and social development. The lack of exposure to the climate and realities of a multi-racial society in SAP students can to some extent influence their intellectual make-up and social attitudes. To my mind, the question of social attitude is most crucial to the future of multi-racialism in our country. This brings me to the second concern. Mr Speaker, the students studying in the SAP schools generally comprise those who are able to take CL1. Naturally, these would be bright students with the potential to lead the society in future. Would these graduates of the SAP schools have a positive social awareness and a positive attitude towards multi-racialism? According to the Hon. Minister, the discussion he had with the SAP school principals assured him that these concerns should not exist, that SAP students are in fact able to interact with non-SAP students. But did these principals express their views objectively?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes in our eagerness to preserve certain values and traditions, in this case the SAP schools, we may create some problems or concern. In this case, the SAP schools were seen as institutions not in line with what we are attempt- ing to achieve, ie, a multi-racial Singapore. Sometimes these concerns are not so evident now but may be so in the future. Therefore, as responsible MPs, we should bring this to the attention of this House and, if possible, come out with solutions that will help to allay the fears, in this case, of the minority races in Singapore. That is why after meeting many Singaporeans expressing concerns about SAP schools, I suggested the twinning of schools. And if I could refer you to the Budget debate on 16th March 1990, I said that the twinning of schools should allow the schools involved to develop programmes in the non-academic areas. For a start, like games, having a common rugby team with players from both schools, common football team or netball team and also common cadet or scout groups. If such programmes work out well, then we could extend to other areas. The sharing of academic teaching methods could be explored. Of course, these schools should preferably be sited close to each other and more details can be worked out with the Ministry and I am available if the Ministry needs me to make suggestions. We can work it out. I would like to thank the Minister for looking into this matter very seriously and for having met the principals of the various schools, and I am very grateful. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my parliamentary colleagues have articulated many subjects concerning local politics and municipal matters. These are important, and as they have been discussed with some detail, I want to take this opportunity to try to create more awareness amongst Singaporeans to think beyond our shores.”
“I just want to make an observation. I think Mr Choo was just trying to show the medical bill size of today. It was unheard of in the days before Medisave. So the Minister should not be too harsh on him. It was an honest observation. I agree that A and B1 patients should know the cost if they want to go to such wards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on this question of subvention grants, I am still not satisfied. I still feel that since the Minister is asking for approval for this sum to be given to the various restructured hospitals, they must account for it in the budget in the next Parliament. It is very important because we in this House want to know how that money is spent. It is not just showing us the annual reports and so on.”
“I learn that the Ministry of Health has now asked the various hospitals who have set up all these programmes to have neo-natal units. Do you know the cost involved to get a neo-natologist? Let me explain to this House what neo-natal units are used for. Actually, neo-natal care is for the first one month of a baby's life, and that is a very, very difficult period for any paediatrician to take care of the child. I think it involves very special equipment, special skills and these doctors are called neo-natologists. The Minister has now asked them to set up such units and he has given permission for seven such units to be set up. Now he wants them to have similar neo-natal units to be set up. It will involve a lot of cost. Do not forget that you need the embryologist. I do not want to take up too much of your time. But you need embryologists and they are very expensive people to bring in. So I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account all this before he allows the setting up of all these units. Then he said that many people want to go to B2 class and they do not want to go to C class. I asked some of my patients why they want to go to B1. They said, "I have no choice. My doctor would not operate on me if I stay in B2 or C class. So I have no choice. I have to go to B1 or A class." Of course, this is aided by the scheme to allow the children's Medisave to be used and this will encourage more of them to go to the B1 and A class wards. There are so many questions I want to ask, but I am sure the other Members also want to ask questions. So for the moment I will stop here.”
“I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, I want to ask him about this specialist treatment for C class patients. He has given this House examples of about 73% being operated in Tan Tock Seng Hospital by the neuro-surgeons. I think this House must be fully aware that such operations cannot be operated by medical officers or ordinary surgeons. They have to be operated by neurosurgeons. So his figure of 73% is a bit deceiving. Then the other example he gave was 54% for paediatric surgery. Who can do paediatric surgery? I cannot do. The ordinary medical officers cannot do. So this is again very deceiving. Then on open heart surgery, I think only the Minister knows who can do such big things? So he should zero in on the surgeons who are actually working in the hospitals. How much of their surgical skills are being used for the C class patients? He says there is a monitoring programme. I do not know whether he knows what this monitoring programme is. I am not sure. He has to give us more details on this programme. But is the time spent by surgeons on C class patients the actual operating time, involving the surgeons operating skill? They would say, "Okay, I spend the other time looking at C class patients." But they are timespent on non-surgical. I hope the Minister is clear, or else I will explain again. Then he said there is a coordination committee which will ensure that there will be no duplication of sub-specialties. I wonder how come seven hospitals have already been given permission to do this IVF programme. You must be careful when you allow this IVF programme and all these procreation programmes to be conducted by hospitals. Because, as I pointed out earlier, and so did my colleague, Dr Aline Wong, you need neo-natal care.”
“Sir, at the rate the Ministry of Health is privatising the Government hospitals, a day will come when this Committee of Supply's discussion on the Health budget would take a few hours, instead of two days. By then, you need not impose this 4-minute limit on us. Finally, I want to ask the Minister three simple questions. How is it that the cost per outpatient treated at the Outpatient Department went up by 64% from 1985 to 1990, compared to a 19% increase in the cost per inpatient at the hospitals over the same period? Outpatient treatment is simple and less intensive. Yet the cost has gone up so much more than hospital inpatient, with all the expensive and intensive care. Is there a cross-subsidy? Second question: why is it that home visits to elderly have come down when the elderly population is on the rise? I would expect more morbidity in this area. Lastly, I would like the Minister to define "accident and emergency unit". What is a non-emergency unit doing in an accident and emergency unit?”
“Because my fear is that if the grants are less than adequate, then I think the hospitals concerned will be reluctant to service subsidised patients. With the SGH and NUH given all the full publicity as centres of medical excellence, I foresee that the other restructured hospitals are being forced to join in the rat race for medical excellence. Sharing of facilities no longer exists among the competing Government privatised hospitals. These hospitals will have to come up with their own programmes, probably duplicating each other. For example, I am sure you will get laser treatment for gall bladder, surgery of unborn foetuses, as well as frozen egg, IVF, GIFT programme, open heart surgery and special eye centres, etc, etc. What do all these lead to? Higher expectations, demand and increased health costs. For those who can afford such services, it will mean more choices. But for the majority, this is going to be a problem. Any hospital administrator will demand and expect the hospital staff, including doctors, to show cause why their departments are not making money. This would lead to unhealthy medical practices and an increase in unnecessary medical and surgical procedures. The Government must retain at least a few hospitals from being restructured, because the day will come when Medisave runs dry and demand for C and B2 beds will go up. These hospitals will then serve basic medical and surgical needs. My personal belief is that the Government must not go and compete with the private sector in this area. It must provide the general population with basic health care, and leave those who can afford hotel-style hospital care to the private sector.”
“Sir, I would like to declare my interest. I am a private medical practitioner. Sir, I refer to Dr Aline Wong's query. These subvention grants of $72 million to SGH and $22.9 million to NUH, how are they derived? What are these grants for? And rightly pointed out by Dr Aline Wong, why the increases? Public funds were used to fund and upgrade these hospitals. They are therefore accountable, yet the data presented do not reflect the workload and performance of these hospitals. If you look at hospital admissions, you will notice that there is a drastic fall from 219,603 for FY 85 to 87,000 for FY 1990 (projected). Surely this drop in hospital admissions cannot be so drastic, unless data of hospital admissions from the Government privatised hospitals and NUH have been omitted. Anyone not familiar with these changes would have congratulated the Minister for cutting down hospital admissions, which is the performance indicator of a successful health care delivery system. I think such data and others must be reflected in the Ministry of Health's budget, as long as this House's approval is being sought for grants. Singaporeans question why these hospitals are given grants and yet unwilling to have C class beds, for example, SGH and NUH. The grants given to these hospitals, as I said, must therefore be accountable, and much of it must go to the subsidy of the C and B2 beds. It should not go to promote these hospitals as super-special hospitals. I understand Toa Payoh and Tan Tock Seng Hospitals are being restructured. I want to know the number of B2 and C class beds in these two hospitals and the subvention grants to be given, as compared to SGH and NUH. This is important.”
“In view of the short and neat answers, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I have two amendments and I shall take them together.”
“For a start, like games, having a common rugby team with players from both schools, common football team, netball team, and also common cadet or scout groups. If such programmes work out well, then other areas, including shar- ing academic teaching methods, could be explored. These schools should be sited preferably close to each other. More details could be worked out by the Ministry and the schools. We must not just talk about a multi-racial society. We must make it work. And we have done so with our GRC and our HDB estates policy. I hope this integration programme of the SAP schools will further reinforce the concept of racially integrated neighbourhoods in our HDB environment.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I move this amendment because I want to share with the Ministry two ideas which I feel would lead to better integration of our students in the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools. Sir, I understand the reasons behind the setting up of our SAP schools. But one nagging concern that I have is the school environment that these students are in. Can you imagine, Sir, these students since primary 1, or some as early as in kindergarten, till Secondary 4 are doing things, playing and studying in a totally Chinese environment. The Ministry of Education has stated that there will be SAP schools for Malay or Tamil students if there are sufficient numbers. This, I believe, would lead to isolation of our better students along the respective racial groups. I dislike this and would advise the Minister and his Ministry to look into ways to avoid this without losing our purpose of allowing the better students to do English and their mother tongue at first level. I therefore propose that either all SAP schools must twin with national type schools, or all SAP schools should have students from all racial groups but having separate programmes for each group whilst studying in the same environment, ie, within the same school. They are our brighter top 10% students, and they are potential leaders of our society. Their formative years are important and they should not develop prejudices and attitudinal set patterns that will hinder their decision making in future. The twinning of schools would allow the schools involved to develop programmes in the non-academic areas.”
“In 1989, the Ministry announced that the study of Religious Knowledge has become an elective subject, and it is to be taught outside normal school hours. At the same time, it was stated that Religious Knowledge would no longer be considered as one of the entry requirements for university. At the moment, the Ministry is now re-writing the Civics syllabus to replace Religious Knowledge which has been implemented for a few years. In order to get RK off the ground, the Ministry has employed experts and consultants from overseas and held many seminars. At the same time, they also ran classes to train teachers how to teach the subject. And more important, a considerable number of teachers have been seconded to the Ministry of Education to work on the syllabus. The amount of money and time the Ministry has spent on the programme has been considerable. Although at the moment, the subject is still in existence, it has lost its effectiveness. Sir, from the above three examples, we can see that certain major policies of the Ministry of Education are constantly changing and it is little wonder that parents and teachers all feel the same, that is, no policy will stay very long. Of course, policy changes are something that are unavoidable because new situations are constantly arising and we have to make the necessary adjustments to accommodate the demands. But when these changes are too fast and too often, it will lead to many people feeling lost, and at the same time, they feel that the planners lack foresight. This is particularly true with education because education is a long-term pursuit. Just as the saying goes, it takes 10 years for a tree to grow, but 100 years for the spirit to be established.”
“And the aggregate for six subjects must not exceed 20 points for admission into junior college. The three main subjects must come from arts, science and mathematics. Pre-university admission standards have been repeatedly changed. Many parents not only find difficulty in adjusting to the system, but teachers and students also feel they are caught unaware even though the Ministry of Education has given ample time for students to get used to the changes. The second example was in 1979 when the Ministry of Education started pre-primary education in 30 primary schools for the five-year old children. The objective was to provide the extra year for a better foundation to be laid in the two languages. The scheme was warmly received by parents and the role has been increasing all the time and many schools, in order to meet this extra demand, have made adjustments and improvements to accommodate this pre-primary programme. In 1989, the scheme was brought to an end, the reason being that the expenditure did not balance with the result. This change by the Ministry of Education has led to many parents being disappointed and school principals and teachers expressing regrets. The third example. In 1984, the Ministry of Education started implementing the Religious Knowledge programme, making it compulsory for Secondary 3 students to take up one Religious Knowledge study. Religious Knowledge consists of six areas in all. Among them, Confucianism, Moral Education and Buddhism can be taught either in English or Chinese, while Islamic Studies can either be taught in English or Malay. The subject is to replace the original civics and current affairs studies. This can also be considered as one of the subjects for admission into pre-university and junior college.”
“Sir, before I withdraw, can I request Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to keep their replies short and sweet so that their speeches will not eat into the speaking time of my colleagues and also spare you, Sir, the agony of having to listen to long preamble speeches. With that note, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC)( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Some of our education policies are constantly changing and they are changing very fast. This has resulted in many parents finding it hard to follow. Although I agree that things cannot remain unchanged because if there is no change it means there is no renewal and no improvement. But when something is constantly changing, parents will find it hard to adjust. This is why we should look at this problem. Let me cite three examples to illustrate these parents' complaints. First, take the pre-university admission standard, for example. This has been changed three times to-date. The first admission guideline was a composite standard requiring a pass in five subjects, that is to say, students must take up subjects in arts, science or commerce. These five subjects must be related to their course and the aggregate must not exceed 20 points for admission into junior college. The second admission standard is one first language and four other subjects with an aggregate of not more than 17 points in five subjects for admission into junior college. The third revision came two years ago, that is, one first language and three main subjects plus any two electives, and this makes a total of six subjects.”
“Sir, can I request the Ministers not to give us such long answers. I think we Backbenchers have no time. They are eating into our time. Thank you.”
“Sir, the Minister seems to be concentrating on the weaknesses of CL2 among the students. I think there is a bias towards the English educated. This is a feeling among some of our Singaporeans. What steps has the Ministry taken to help those who are weak in the English language?”
“As parents, we must know whether our children have the ability or the aptitude for what kind of tertiary education. We all want the best for our children. But a university education may not necessarily be the best option for our children. Parents have to take advantage of the opportunities in the economy of Singapore when helping their children to decide so that their children will get the best in salary, perks and satisfaction. It is a fact that many have earned higher incomes with a polytechnic diploma besides making a bigger contribution to the economy. I therefore welcome the setting up of a third polytechnic. Polytechnics have an invaluable role to play and great care should be taken to strike a right balance in post-secondary education between diploma and degree level work, as work requiring degree graduates usually need the support for well trained and skilled supporting staff. This I quote from Lord Dainton. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now let my GPC Members and the other colleagues to bring up other educational matters.”
“There are good reasons why this should be so which are connected with the nature of the development of young people in the 17-21 year age range, the variability in quality and effectiveness of school teachers and other factors.' He further advised: '(b) an investigation of the utility of interviews, aptitude and motivational tests and school-constructed "profiles" and assessments of potential in providing valuable supplementary criteria for selection of students.' And to give added value to Mr Goh Chee Wee's Committee's call for review of entry requirement, he has also suggested and I quote him again: 'Consideration should be given to admitting university studies mature individuals who would profit from higher education but who for personal, financial or other valid reason were unable to enter on leaving school.' Sir, Mr Goh - he is not around - can feel consoled that, not being a Minister, he has already two suggestions to his credit. Lord Dainton's report has yet to be approved by Cabinet. If accepted - and I think it probably will, as getting Angmohs to advise us is getting fashionable - I wonder what our NUS Vice-Chancellor, Lim Pin, will have to say about using examination results as the sole criterion of entry. However, I personally feel that there should be no lowering of standards. We must maintain standards comparable to that of the British redbrick or good British provincial universities. With the recent announcement of the expansion and upgrading of the universities, I hope it will not be read wrongly by parents that polytechnic education is less fashionable. Through their ignorance, parents do their children no good by sending them to university when they are better suited for the polytechnics.”
“Sir, we must produce versatile graduates because in many decision-making situations, there has been growing appreciation of a multi-disciplinary approach to the resolution of issues. There is hence a strong likelihood that a graduate of a double degree will be much sought after in the future. Sir, a discussion on tertiary education is never complete without mentioning the criteria of entry. Much debate was generated in 1988 when the Estimates Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Goh Chee Wee called for a review of the NUS entry rules. He did not get much support from the Ministry nor NUS. But his call did not turn to deaf ears. This time he is lucky. His Committee's view is shared by Lord Dainton who has called for the criteria used to select students to enter the universities to be carefully examined and I quote him from page 1 of his report: 'This scrutiny should include: (a) a thorough study of the predictive power of the examinations taken at school-leaving for future performance in higher education.' Perhaps I should refer you to page 4 of the report by Lord Dainton to make it clearer. I quote: 'There are other reasons why existing admission procedures warrant closer investigation. In the first place, in many comparable contemporary societies there has been considerable work showing that performance in 'A' level subject examinations is a far from perfect predictor of the class of degree ultimately awarded in the same or cognate subjects, especially for those pupils scoring middle grades which is where the "cut-off" point for admission to Singaporean universities seems to be located.”
“In this respect, I note that the NUS will be introducing new undergraduate courses in Mass Communications and European Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the establishment of three post-graduate institutes - an Institute of Micro-Electronics to undertake engineering research relevant to the critical needs of Singapore's micro-electronic industry; a Clinical Research Centre in the Faculty of Medicine to complement the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology at the National University Hospital, and also a Centre for Advanced Legal Studies in the Law Faculty, to put the Faculty in the forefront of legal research. The undergraduate programme in NUS/NTI is typically a three-year degree course with an additional year for Honours student. With this upgrading, our very good students can be stretched in their fields of study. One way is to allow further specialisation of post-graduate work, as already mentioned; another is to channel outstanding students into the direct Honours programme where they will obtain their degrees at the end of the third year. This has also been done. However, there is yet another way which the universities can look into, and that is, to allow the very good students to major in two fields, such as Economics and Law, or Science and Engineering. They can then be awarded a double degree. A number of overseas universities do in fact offer the double degree programme. In our local university, we force our able students who are equally strong in two disciplines to choose only one for specialisation. This is not necessary and implies some loss of talent. Instead of gaining a graduate versatile in two disciplines, we have a graduate who is specialised in only one.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. I move this amendment to express my GPC's support for the upgrading and expansion of the universities and polytechnic education. My GPC supports the establishment of two strong comprehensive universities - the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University - with the two universities competing and offering many subjects on their respective campuses. The demand for university places has always been hotly debated in this House. And only last year, many of us in this House were clamouring for expansion of our tertiary institutions. Do we need more graduates? There are strong signals that more graduates are needed. One such signal comes from the MNCs. In the recent National Marketing Workshop in August 1988, the MNCs expressed concern over the shortage of graduate quality personnel in Singapore. The MNCs found that the commanding pay for graduates in managerial positions in Singapore is higher than in Australia and New Zealand. A second and more important signal comes from the not-too-distant future when Singapore is likely to thrust into the brain-intensive and related industries which will demand more for the better educated graduates. We in the GPC are therefore pleased that the Government has addressed this question of access to university education. The demand for better graduates must surely mean the restructuring of some of our faculties and the introduction of new courses.”
“Therefore, there will be competition among hospitals to get the patients, resulting in patients being put unnecessarily on such procreation programmes, especially young career women, eager to complete a family by the age of 28 years and who might not be fully aware of the implications of such programmes and are now encouraged by these tax rebates. I was told that these are good programmes for the sub-fertile couple, though there are higher chances of multiple births of low birth weight. Such low birth weight babies, probably also premature, need intensive care which ranges from $200 to as high as $2,000 per day in a private hospital. The tax rebate of up to $60,000 for quads, I hope, was not designed to help these procreation programmes in the hospitals. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may call me a cynic. But how can I not be cynical when the Ministry of Health regards medicine as an industry? Sir, I support the Budget.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget. It is a tough budget to criticise because there are many goodies in it. However, I would just like to make two observations. Our Prime Minister has said in his speech at the PAP party convention that the philosophy of the Government is to give the consumer the money and let him choose whether, what and where to buy. I was therefore hoping that the personal income tax relief would be raised. Instead the Minister has given only a one-time rebate of 5%, which works out to be a miserly sum for many. And this is in spite of the huge surpluses recorded and our economy expanded by 9.2%. Perhaps the Minister would like to consider raising the personal income tax relief the next time if we continue with this performance. The next point I would like to touch on concerns our procreation incentives. I read with trepidation a front-page article in the Straits Times dated 8th March 1990 headlined "Big tax rebates with twins, triplets and quads". This seemingly innocent headline has more implications than at first apparent. There are now many procreation programmes. Hospitals with special programmes like the IVF, GIFT programmes, etc, will be encouraging their patients to use them. There are seven such hospitals providing these programmes. These programmes are expensive and were set up with large sums of money. And like any other departments in the private or privatised Government hospital they must also justify their existence in the hospital set up.”
“I want to ask two simple questions. Can the Minister allow the payment of the licence fee to be spread out over a 10-year period, instead of a one-time payment? The other question is about vintage cars. I sympathise with Mr Chiam because I do own a 22-year old car and, like him, I also have to pay. But I can assure the Minister that these cars that we own are not that bad and we are prepared to give him a ride.”
“No, we are not handing them the right. We are taking advice from them.”
“But we still have over-riding powers. We can still not believe what that advisory body has said. They can delay legislation, let us say, for a fixed period. But at the end of the day, if we do not accept, it is our own look-out. We have to face it at the polls.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal that I have suggested is actually not new. It is meant to delay legislation.”
“Though they will not vote on constitutional and money Bills, to me, Nominated MPs means a dilution of the democratic process, a dilution of the one-man-one-vote parliamentary system. My dilemma, Mr Speaker, Sir, is also faced by some fellow PAP colleagues. Having spoken strongly against the Bill, I am now required to vote for it because the Party Whip is not lifted. Sir, if for only this reason, Singaporeans have to accept NMPs, then it is a sad day for parliamentary democracy. They do not really understand what they have to give up.”
“I am for a body outside of Parliament to vet legislation passed in this House, perhaps an enhanced body of the existing Presidential Council. I quote from the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966, page 4, paragraph 16: 'The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council can delay legislation for a specified period, except for money Bills and Bills of urgency. Parliament can heed its advice or reject it. In other words, the Council has no over-riding powers over Parliament. It is far better than having a group of vested interest, non-elected Members of Parliament who have no credibility to speak in this House. Sir, I tried to search for reasons to support this Bill. But my conclusion is that Nominated MPs will not in any way improve our parliamentary system. It is not essential to achieving good government in a modern parliamentary democracy. The First Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers have not been able to convince me. Referring this Bill to a Select Committee will mean acceptance of the proposal to nominate MPs to this House. This I will not agree to.”
“In other words, the like-minded and the pro-PAP. People see this scheme as an insurance to hold on to the reins of Government or to nurture an "Opposition" which is actually friendly towards us. I honestly think we do not need such assistance to win the next general elections and I also think this is furthest from the First Deputy Prime Minister's mind but this is how the people perceive this plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I come to the solution. As far back as 1966, we had this problem of getting good people into the political arena. This difficulty will always be there. It is not a new circumstance. And despite this, the past leaders have done very well without nominated Members of Parliament. As I said earlier, there are already sufficient channels of feedback and consultation. The First Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech, said that the people are concerned that we should have a strong Government and they want Nominated MPs so that they can air their views. But I do not agree with him on the second point. What the people of Singapore want is to build in some checks and balances in our system of government. That was the feedback I gave to them when I was the Chairman of the Feedback Unit. Because of the increasing complexities of new legislation which is in line with our rapid development, it may be necessary that Bills passed in this House be further scrutinised before they finally become law. Another area is redress for Singaporeans resulting from wrongdoings of our civil service. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the two areas which we should take up in the 1990s. In 1966, the Constitutional Commission highlighted these two issues. Those men of vision saw the need and we should re-examine their recommendations to adapt to our times.”
“If a situation arose where a political party is not sure of a clear-cut majority, there is a real danger that the party may be forced to compromise to any group which holds the balance of power. Thus, you may be forced to concede a seat to a religious group or racial or special interest group which knows that their support can turn the tide in any election. We must avoid such close encounters. Someone has already designated NMPs as third class MPs. I look on them as armchair MPs. Mr Speaker, Sir, shielding them from the rough and tumble of real life politics is most unrealistic. When they talk they do not have to think of how the electorate will be affected by the legislation. If they wish, they can say the most irresponsible things without having to answer to anyone at all. They are protected by parliamentary privilege. They can intellectualise on legislation in a vacuum without minding the messiness of the human factor which is the electorate. Mr Speaker, Sir, how are we to expect these passionless men or women who are too squeamish to take part in real politics to challenge and debate with the Ministers and risk being humiliated publicly? If they do not speak up, then in the public's eye they will certainly become stooges of the Government. To begin with, Nominated MPs are non-starters because our selection of nominees depending on a panel of MPs headed by the Speaker is open to question. I do not doubt the ability and integrity of the Speaker and panel. But people perceive this as an attempt to put our own people into this House through the back-door - those who were not fielded in the last elections, those who were defeated in the elections, those who were associated with us in the statutory boards or Government-owned companies.”
“I worry that the NMP scheme will result in the unexpected polarisation of racial, religious and interest groups. Because we are multiracial, we cannot nominate all Chinese MPs. Minority races will have to be included. Representatives of interest groups will invariably fall along racial, religious and even clans. These are the groups which are clamouring to be heard. Those groups which the First Deputy Prime Minister wants in, ie, the professionals, the businessmen, intellectuals, all have the ability and the channels to make their views known to the Government. The racial/religious groups and others like the associations and clans are the groups we do not want to have in Parliament. But this Bill gives them hope and if we dash their hopes, we create more dissatisfaction and unhappiness. In trying to please some, we are going to displease more. Nominated MPs will see the possible creation of two undesirable political situations, one within Parliament and one at the ground level. Under the present circumstances, I do not foresee the Nominated Members being a strong political force. But they could be in the event when this House has a narrow majority. In such a situation, Nominated MPs can play a strong political role in spite of not being able to vote on no-confidence motions and money Bills. The fact that they know that they can hold the Government of the day to ransom is real. There are enough issues to speak and vote on - education, health, social issues - to cast doubts on the Government of the day. How can a group of non-elected MPs be allowed to do that? Similarly, at the ground, there is also the danger of having to compromise Nominated MP seats.”
“Select Committee, there is always a way in. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose ---”
“Sir, it is very simple. All that you need to do is to nominate a person who has got a very strong belief, say, in a particular faith and get him selected. What is going to happen then? Mr Goh Chok Tong: There is a Special Select Committee.”
“And here we have a Bill asking for such nominated representatives to air their views in this august Chamber. As the Prime Minister said, they do not have the standing to tell elected Members what to do and not do. In fact, we must beware of the eager-beavers who are supporting this scheme because they want to get into this House to serve their own ends and not the interest of Singaporeans. These opportunists are out to exploit this. What better place to articulate their views without fear of punishment? Moreover, we are inviting communalistic and religious groups, etc. to come in by the back-door, either by proxy representation or direct entry. Mr Speaker, Sir, we took so long, so much time in this House and outside arguing for the GRC concept, because we want to prevent racial politics and now we are creating a loophole by allowing these Nominated Members into Parliament. Two years is enough for them to undo what we took so long to build.”
“The above facts were uncovered from the proceedings of the Second Legislative Council, Colony of Singapore, Fourth Session 1954/1955. Sir, since 1954/1955 we have moved ahead in terms of economic development, education, social development and the Legislative Assembly has given way to this House with Members representing the widest diversity of background. I can think of no important sector of our social and economic fabric which is not represented by at least one elected MP here. I ascribe this to the thoroughness of the PAP's selection process. Sir, we have filled that gap which the government of that period was concerned about. We have economists, bankers, businessmen, employers, unionists, Ph.D's and non-graduates, every race, religion, language. In fact, we have already a microcosm of Singapore society. Sir, it will be a retrograde step if we introduce Nominated Members into this House. Peddling self-interest is another concern. One of the most obvious areas of concern is peddling self-interest. The question of interest/functional group was debated at length in this House in 1967. In accepting the Presidential Council, the Prime Minister in his political wisdom cautioned and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, col. 1289: 'A President's Council, which really is what the Council of State will be ... can make a valuable contribution ... provided that there are sufficient safeguards to see that no sectional or functional interest can be peddled.' And he continued: 'In other words, nobody can get on a hobby-horse either for life or for a specific period to pursue a particular sectional interest, whether for gain or for any other reason.' And he went on to say that such a meeting of council of non-elected men should not be in public.”
“Can the Government, if publicly challenged by non-elected Members of Parliament to change certain policies, accept these changes? Listen to what our Prime Minister said, and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, Col. 1290. He was referring to a nominated Council of State. I quote him: 'If anybody challenges the right of the representatives of the people to take a particular course of action, then they must have the courage to come out openly into the political arena and denounce these policies. But if they reserve to themselves the right to advise caution or perhaps to take a middle course,... then this advice should not be given in public, for it is impossible for any elected government to accept a change of its policies once it has been joined in political debate.' Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must be clear as to what we want. If we want them to advise and caution, then this is not the place to do so. If we want them to act as an opposition, then their efforts are already doomed. We do not have to search so far to know that there are 20 countries which have Nominated Members in their Houses. In the early days of pre-independence, we had a Legislative Assembly of nominated and elected Members of the House. It was understandable and acceptable then because democracy was in its infancy, the educational level low, and educated people few in number. It was spelled out in the Rendel Commission that there should be four Nominated Members to represent and defend the views of any significant minority group whose interest might be in danger of being overlooked. There were concerned, in particular, of trade and economic interests being inadequately represented. Their recommendation was to have such Members for a transition period only. It was not a permanent feature.”
“After all, these appointees are not elected, so they represent nobody but themselves. Moreover, I recommend cautious acceptance of their so-called objective analysis. Their lack of grassroots or contact will give their perspective an ivory tower slant. We would do well to remember that this House enacts legislation for the people, not digits, in our society. The important question of whether to have Nominated Members sit in Parliament had been closely examined by Singapore's most eminent persons way back in 1966. In 1966, a Constitutional Commission headed by our Chief Justice Mr Wee Chong Jin examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State (which later became the Presidential Council) should be a part of Parliament - and they concluded that this should not be so. I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966: 'It will be a body separate from Parliament but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament take upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.' The effectiveness of non-elected and Nominated Members is open to question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1964, the success of the PAP Government policies have consistently won the approval of the majority of the Singapore voters. The era of our first generation of PAP Government, now coming to an end, inevitably means a change of style of government. The succeeding generation of PAP leadership has opted for a more consultative style. I believe this Bill was introduced to further encourage wider participation in Government. There are already 80 Members of Parliament in this House to support PAP legislation. So I do not think this Bill is introduced to find more of such people, which is to say, this Bill seeks to co-opt into Parliament people who are likely to have oppositionistic views. It is true that there are a lot of people outside Parliament who can make valuable contributions to our legislative process. The question is: by appointing 6 non-elected Members of Parliament, is it the best way of tapping this pool of knowledge and talent? May I remind this House that the Government has already established many avenues to get views and opinions. The Feedback Unit is the First Deputy Prime Minister's own creation. He himself, I am sure, heads a think tank of intellectuals. There are also the Economic Councils, the Institute of Policy Studies, Government Parliamentary Committees, Presidential Council. If Ministers desire more opinions, they can also tap the professional bodies, trade organisations, NTUC, employers' federation, University faculty staff. It will be to the Ministers' advantage to reach out to all these multifarious bodies for discussion on proposed legislation rather than be limited to a few appointees who may not even have the particular area of expertise required. It is only expertise we are talking about here.”
“In our secondary schools, there should be one set of common teaching materials on ethics or moral values so that our students may be inculcated with a commonly shared and accepted traditional moral values and concept irrespective of ethnic origin and be able to discern and cultivate good and high standard of personal character and conduct so that they will be imbued with our correct moral values and attitude and be able to ward off any undesirable western decadent influences and stand up as morally upright and self-respecting Asians and good Singapore citizens, not subjecting themselves, in their spirit to be slavish to western decadent sub-culture and values through the English language and the neglect of one's own social responsibility as against extreme Western individualism as a duty owed to one's own country. I hope that this set of common moral textbooks will come into being very soon and our schools, including our principals and teachers, from now on will pay more attention to the education of moral values in the schools and try to set examples to the students to guide them in their ethical behaviour. Sir, the difference between religion and moral education lies in the fact that religion is a kind of faith in some metaphysical deity imposing certain precepts binding on the believers, whereas ethics or moral education depends on the teachers untiringly setting good examples to show the students how to behave, how to be upright and good citizens. In view of this important role of the teachers, a long time is taken for education. I hope and believe that from now on our schools, teachers and all people concerned would respond to and take active part in this task and challenge.”
“What particularly would call for our attention is the NUS sociology scholars' study-report on religion in our society, what they have pointed out about the possibility of social tension and religious conflict resulting from religious revivalism and fervent religious propagation by some groups. On the abolition of Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject, I believe the majority of the principals and teachers will also agree with the decision of the Ministry of Education. But here I would like to say that this decision also behoves us to go back to our traditional moral education, ie, moral education without religious colours, such as to subjects like Civics. On this point, we have noticed that in the past, even now, subjects like moral education or ethics, which had nothing to do with examination had been ignored by the schools and the students. Some schools even made use of the period for such subject for other things such as supplementary teaching and make-up classes for other subjects. This neglect on teaching of moral education or ethics is possibly the major problem in our schools, moral education. So we must try to rectify this situation. In fact, at the moment, we also lack one set of common subjects on moral education or ethics which would be acceptable to all schools, particularly secondary schools and to students of all ethnic communities as a continuation of Civics subjects taught in primary schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, I would just like to say that I have pointed out the similarities and the differences of the Ministry's recommendations and my GPC's recommendations. I have also pointed out the implications of this change, how it will affect the school, how it will affect the students, how it will affect the enrolment in JCs, and whether this new subject will also be an examination subject when it is combined with Moral Education or combined with Pastoral Care. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I concur with the Minister that ultimately the family plays an important part in inculcating values to our Singa- poreans. This must be strongly recognized and that the schools only play a supportive minor role. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that the present decision is a very difficult one to make. But I believe the decision made by the Minister for Education is a very fair one which meets the long-term interest of our people and our country. I firmly believe that we must insist on the policy of separation of religion and politics or the State. Therefore, I am of the opinion that religion should not be brought into the school. Therefore I support the Government's decision on this point. Undeniably Religious Knowledge has its good points to the students. But now we have also seen its maladies. Because of changes in objective circumstances we now can see that if we were to maintain the present status quo there would be more disadvantages than advantages. He who adapts will suit the time. Now it is one time, then it was another time. The situation five years ago was different from the situation today.”
“But we would like to say that its syllabus could include citizenship education as well as the values of the proposed National Ideology together with a broad over-view of the main beliefs and practices of the various religions in Singapore, focusing on shared moral values in order to promote greater racial and religious understanding and tolerance. Such a course should emphasize shared loyalties and values and not differences as does the present RK Programme. This new subject, Civics, should be taught as a non-examination subject to students at Secondary 1, 2 and 3 levels. Here, among my GPC Members, there was disagreement. Some felt that it should be an examination subject, but the majority thought otherwise. We suggested that at Secondary 4, it will be better to allow the students to concentrate on the other examination subjects and leave teaching of Civics or whatever subject that the Ministry is proposing to stop at Secondary 3 level. We are also concerned that measures should be taken to ensure that the periods allotted to the teaching of this subject are not utilized for other purposes, such as make-up or remedial lessons for other subjects. In my dialogue sessions, we encountered many requests from religious bodies that they might not be able to cope with this new change. They suggested that the Ministry should consider providing the necessary facilities such as administrative and physical arrangements necessary for the holding of such classes which could be centralized in certain selected schools. This interim measure will allay the fears of some religious bodies which have, as I said, no facilities to conduct these classes.”
“(b) That students be allowed to take it as an examination subject if they so desire, and the grades they receive can be considered for Pre-U/JC admission, as is the present practice. The Ministry of Education has now agreed that it could be used for Pre-U/JC admission but only up to the year 1994. I was about to ask the Minister how this will affect enrolment in the JCs and he has given us the answer and therefore I would not want to pursue. But I agree with him that this will cause some unhappiness, especially among those students who took up RK as a subject because they could use it as a subject for entry into Pre-U. I support the Ministry in this because I think sufficient time has been given, up to 1994, and therefore adjustments could be made by then. In doing away with RK as a compulsory subject, steps should also be taken to streamline and link the present Moral Education Programme taught to Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 students with the Pastoral Care Programme at the upper secondary level. We make this recommendation and it may sound a little bit odd mixing the Moral Education Programme with the Pastoral Care Programme. But discussions with teachers give me the impression that there are many similar topics being taught by the Moral Education teachers and also by the Pastoral Care teachers. There seems to be a lot of similarities. That is why we suggest that it should be streamlined. This will make the curriculum neater and also easier to manage the time table. Accordingly, we propose that a new subject called Civics be introduced and this is also in agreement with the recommendation of the Ministry.”
“When asked for an opinion, the representative from the Singapore Teachers' Union said that Confucian Ethics was too difficult and abstract to teach effectively at this level. I shall now give the views and recommendations of my GPC. Whilst recognising that the teaching of the RK may provide moral guidance to pupils, our GPC is of the opinion that it should not be taught as a compulsory subject during school hours for the following reasons: (a) Teaching only a few religions, especially the main ones as practised in Singapore, is not being fair to the other religions, bearing in mind the multi-religious fabric of our society. Nor is it fair to the large numbers of free thinkers, an increasing section of the population who have no RK option. (b) Making RK a compulsory subject for all students does not appear consistent with the secular basis of the Government and State. (c) Teaching students only one specific religion may lead to religious exclusivity and is likely to further accentuate the religious differences which, in turn, may indirectly hamper our efforts to create a united nation, especially when, as happens, religious and ethnic divisions coincide. (d) With the recent religious revivalism, there is a danger that the continued teaching of RK may heighten religious proselytization by certain religious groups leading, in turn, to the same by hitherto inactive groups from the other faiths. In view of the foregoing and after taking into consideration the feedback and views received, our GPC would like to make the following recommendations: (a) That the teaching of RK as a compulsory subject during school hours be discontinued and instead be taught as an optional subject outside school hours. This is in line with the Ministry of Education's thinking and recommendation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this fair recommendation and I wish to put forward some views and make recommendations to the Ministry of Education. I also want to put on record in Hansard my GPC's stand on this subject. I do not want to go through the introduction of my paper. I will just come down to the summary of feedback received by the Ministry of Education. Generally, there was no firm consensus from the participants at the public hearing that my GPC conducted, and the subsequent informal dialogue sessions as to the future direction that the Ministry of Education should take with regard to the teaching of Religious Knowledge (RK). There were four different schools of thought and I shall summarize these as follows: 1. That RK should continue to be taught in its present form, ie, taught during school hours as a compulsory subject and which can also be considered for Pre-U/JC admission. This was strongly supported by the representatives from the Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim religious bodies. 2. That RK be taught as an optional subject during school hours which can also be considered for Pre-U/JC admission, a view propounded by most of the other participants including the Christian and Tamil Teachers' Unions. In that case, the Taoists and the Bahais would also like to see equal treatment being accorded to all religions. 3. That in addition to making RK an optional subject, Civics should also be reintroduced into the school curriculum, as was suggested by the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union. 4. That RK be replaced by a Moral Education Programme which also incorporates the essentials of the main religions, a proposal put forward by the Singapore Teachers' Union and the Tamil Language Society. No one spoke up for the retention of Confucian Ethics.”
“In such a situation, we might unknowingly be forcing some of our enterprising Singaporeans to commit a crime. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the present situation reminds me of my medical student days when I had to do a subject called bacteriology. For bacteria to grow you need the right medium, and in the right culture medium you can see bacteria growth very readily. So long as you do not change the medium, the bacteria thrives. If you add the right antibiotics, you can see rings in the culture medium indicating that the bacteria has been killed and the antibiotic has been effective. Today, the crux of our problem, shortage of labour, provides the right medium for the growth of illegal trafficking of workers. We are only nipping at the problem. We must review this situation. Perhaps for a start we should apply the quota system of 6 Singaporean workers to 4 foreign workers to more sectors of our economy and if Singaporeans are prepared to pay for the levy we should be more flexible. To avoid employing illegal workers unknowingly, as feared by the Member for Paya Lebar and the Member for Potong Pasir, I would suggest that they check with two departments when they want to employ workers - the Labour Ministry and the Immigration Department. In fact, to facilitate this, it may be proper to set up a special unit to expedite case-tracing of these workers. This will save time and facilitate business. Finally, I am not in favour of first-time offenders being caned. I would prefer to make mandatory caning for the second time offenders.”