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 16 of 22.
“They do not have fixed monthly salaries. Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not uncommon for us MPs to hear stories of the small employers failing to get workers and they are desperately running around to hunt for these workers. When you get a situation like this, there will be problems. The company will have to take risks if orders have to be met. Agents will exploit the situation. I am told that in the past certain businesses that can get workers more readily because of the value of their contracts have some of these workers hived off to smaller establishments and these smaller establishments will act somewhat like agents in getting workers from other businesses, and these together with their illegal workers are passed on to the various companies. We are trying to stop this practice by caning illegal immigrants but I wonder how successful we will be. I therefore see two major problems. First, the big companies, in spite of their quota, still need workers. Second, the small and medium- sized companies feel that they are being discriminated because they cannot get the workers. Let me expand on this. The present situation of the distribution of work permits has created a politics of envy among the small businesses. They complain that big companies get the workers, enjoy the benefits of overtime work with little adjustment in their salaries and, above all, need not pay CPF for such workers. Yes, they pay the levy but I was told that this has been incorporated into the salary structure. The small businessman has to pay higher wages to Singaporean workers who work from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. He has to pay full CPF and this will add to his cost. Worse still, he cannot get workers even if he is prepared to pay for the levy. He feels psychologically excluded from this policy.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see the need to introduce such a tough measure to curb the influx of illegal immigrants. But I also see the need for us to review the issue of work permits. Caning of illegal immigrants, agents and employers, will still not solve the fundamental question facing us, ie, our labour shortage. So long as there is good economic growth, and that is what we want, I see the need for workers increasing. So long as the situation remains as it is today, I do not think that all the laws and regulations made in this House is going to help greatly. People will find ways to circumvent our laws and regulations. We will try to stop it by closing the loopholes. In the meantime the game of hide and seek will continue to prevail at ground level between the companies and the authorities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a question of survival of these businesses, especially the smaller ones, which have difficulties in getting work permit workers. No one can afford to give up their livelihood that readily. It is easy to call for upgrading, change of trade, amalgamate. But the business world is not run like the civil service which can effect change but need not be aware of the effects of the change. Once I visited a factory and the manager showed me around. He told me why he could only upgrade to a certain level and that beyond that it was not possible and he needs manpower to finish the products which are of different specifications and sizes. It is simply not possible to upgrade, he said, not because of the cost but because of the constant change in specifications of the products. Businesses depend on customer needs. They cannot upgrade to please us. They will upgrade if it is economical and possible. Every month they have to work for their income.”
“There is the signing of an undertaking to return the amount withdrawn. I think this is in line with what my GPC proposed. However, in subsection (3)(b) of new section 21A, I am drawn to conclude that the Board is going to allow exemptions on the requirement of a guarantor. May I be allowed to read that subsection? Please refer to page 2. It says: ''(3) Where a member wishes to make any withdrawals for himself, his child or relative for the purpose of subsection (1), that member, child or relative shall - (a) give an undertaking to the Board; and' this is the important point '(b) if required by the Board, furnish a guarantee by any person acceptable to the Board, for the repayment to the Board to the account of that member in the Fund from whose account such withdrawals were made, all such withdrawals plus interest in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.'' Under what circumstances will the Board allow this? Who will be exempted? Whoever is required to furnish a guarantor will be subjected to further pressure or extra financial burden compared to those who need not. However, I see a case may be made out for those who are studying overseas because of the risk of defaulting payment is much higher than those who are studying locally. Apart from the points I have raised, I would like to thank the Minister again for making this decision. I hope he will take into account those two words I mentioned. And after about a year or two of his experience in implementing the CPF scheme for local tertiary education, I hope he will then consider allowing the use of CPF for overseas education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have established the purpose to allow the use of CPF for education. We have already agreed that CPF can be used for education and we are going to pass this CPF (Amendment No. 2) Bill after this Reading. I see a greater need for overseas students. I see an ever greater need for them because of the high cost. Singaporeans want to go abroad for quality tertiary education. They would add to our talent pool with their cross cultural exposure and experience. It also provides them with a wider perspective of life. However, I understand that there is a fear of the depletion of the member's CPF account because of the large sums involved for overseas education. I therefore would like to suggest to the Minister that the Ministry put a limit on the amount to be spent for overseas education to an equivalent sum for a similar course at our local tertiary institution. Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker, Sir. An account holder can only withdraw up to a maximum of $7,200 which is the fee for a medical course locally. Even if his overseas medical course in the United States is $31,000, you place that limit. I think this limitation is fair because it does not discriminate against students studying overseas. To ensure that students leave Singapore for quality tertiary education, the Minister could also, as pointed out in our GPC Report, draw up a list of approved courses. This means that members who wish to draw their CPF savings for overseas education must choose courses that are relevant to the needs of the country. This ensures that the students upon their return are more likely to have employable skills and could therefore contribute positively to society. I support the other provisions in this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. This issue of allowing CPF to be used for education has been discussed over many Parliament sittings. It has been a long drawn affair. Today, I am indeed glad that the Minister has agreed to the proposals laid out by my GPC and he has actually accepted many of the points raised in our Report. But to be fair, we must give credit to many Members of this House, especially some Members who have already left this Chamber, like Eric Cheong, Mansor Sukaimi, Chai Chong Yii and Tang See Chim. They pioneered this and I think they should be given some credit. I therefore propose not to speak on the pros and cons of the CPF issue again. I just want to zero in on this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would like to consider deleting two words. Can I refer him to page 3 of the Bill, new section 21A, subsection (6), on the definition of "approved tertiary institution"? I would like him to delete the words "in Singapore", so that "approved tertiary institution" would now be redefined to read, "means any tertiary institution approved by the Minister for the purpose of this section;". I seek this amendment to make the Bill neater. I foresee the possibility of extending the use of CPF for overseas education in the years to come. I think it is being realistic. There are about 11,000 Singaporeans studying abroad and I think there will be pressure on the Ministry. And this little deletion of two words would save him a lot of trouble in future. There is flexibility of purpose. Then there is ease of operating future requests and, of course, there is this administrative readiness for him if he could just delete these two words. He need not come back to Parliament to seek approval.”
“Please don't confuse me. Since Mr Tarmugi's amendment assumes that this House accepts the measures introduced, we must be very careful. The amendment moved by Dr Arthur Beng calls for an immediate review, which means that we have not accepted the measures. I hope the House is clear on this.”
“It says, "but urges the Ministry to review the specific measures regularly as their effects are uncertain." Here, it means you are assuming that this House has accepted the measures.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on this amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment assumes that this House accepts the measures. Am I right?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise not to support Dr Lee Siew-Choh's amendment - although I thank him for his kind words about myself and Dr Arthur Beng because his amendment calls for a total withdrawal of all the measures. I think that is not the proper thing to do. We are going to create chaos in Orchard Road and, I am sure, in many parts of the island. I think he should not move that amendment and I would urge Backbenchers to think very carefully about this. This is not a very carefully thought-out amendment and I think we should not support it.”
“Dr Hong Hai mentioned that the motion is almost similar to his. But his motion supports MCI's policies in principle, which Dr Beng and I also support. But the amendment goes beyond that. It seeks also to reflect the people's feelings and unhappiness over some of the issues, like evening ALS, increased HDB parking fees to 100%. To many, these are inappropriate measures. The two motions are therefore different. His motion is conciliatory. The amendment motion is more realistic, more in tune with the people's feelings. So MPs in this House must not be swayed by his rhetoric and must let conscience be their guide.”
“Now, I wonder if you want to take a walk along Marina Bay you have to pay $3, no one is going to do that. I think you please review that too. Don't take life away from the city with your evening ALS. Mr Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to support the amended motion because it is, as I said, not unreasonable. Most of the speakers, I am sure, will agree with what I have said and will also probably be emphasizing and talking in more detail the points I have just put across. With their support, I am sure that the Minister for Communications and Information I should think he is a more reasonable person now will come to accept that some of the measures introduced should indeed be reviewed. Mr Speaker: It is 4.30 pm. Debate to be resumed what day, Dr Hong Hai?”
“Well, it amounts somewhat to that. But I think we must be very careful. In fact, BG Lee Hsien Loong's statement has actually destabilized the motor car industry. It is serious. It has created uncertainty and worry among car owners, car dealers and even financial houses. Why is this so? Because removal of the PARF would immediately reduce the value of your car to zero. Here, I must declare that all my cars have got no PARF value. Can't afford to buy new cars with all the measures introduced by the Ministry of Communications. On a more serious note, if out of your 250,000 cars, about 150,000 are private cars with PARF value of, say, about average $10,000. There will be written off $1.5 billion worth of assets. I was told that the financial institutions after hearing BG Lee's speech in the US, have also started to recall some of the loans from some of these car dealers. So you must be careful. Your words are very powerful. I think the PARF is a good system. You scrap one car to buy a new car. You can fine-tune it, but don't scrap it. I remember our Prime Minister once lamented at the lack of activity and life in the city. How are we going to bring back life to the city when the Ministry of Communications and Information is unhappy that Singaporeans are getting into the city between 4.00 and 7.00 pm to shop, to eat, to relax? You must understand our climate. Singapore's climate is very, very hot, and the best period is around after 5.00 to 7.00 pm. I think you should not take this period away from us with your evening ALS. You spend millions of dollars to upgrade your shopping centres, your recreational facilities, to have a nice Marina Bay, and yet you impose this ALS system.”
“Then I heard the Member for Bukit Timah asking for the scrapping of the PARF and I got a cutting from the Business Times quoting the Minister for Trade and Industry in his speech sometime back when he was in Washington: "higher petrol tax and removal of PARF system could be the next step". Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose --”
“Soon, he will have to pay more for his coffee, more for his hawker's food and drink, because the hawkers complained that they have to pay 100% more for their parking fees, both at home and at their place of work. Transport costs and services will naturally go up because your petrol prices have gone up, leading eventually to inflation and also more Singaporeans going across the Causeway and its consequent loss of revenue. In the coffee shop, the talk is that most of us in this House, Ministers, Members of Parliament and the richer Singaporeans who live in private homes, do not have to pay for the season parking fees because we have our own private lots and therefore we do not feel the pinch so much, and we do not care so much. This perception that the measures hit out at them must be dispelled. We have to explain more and, in this context, I agree with the Member for Fengshan that we should have more discussions with the ground. For example, we talk now that the car parks in the HDB were heavily subsidized and must be recovered. It is a little too late now because when we now tell them that the car parking lots are subsidized, they turn around and say, "Look, this is a building requirement and therefore when we pay for our flats, you have probably taken into account all this cost." This is something which they think and it is important that I think the Minister for National Development has to explain more. It is not pleasant but I think it is necessary that you all should know. HDB dwellers may not be aware that the private home owners pay for their parking space when they pay for their property. It is an upfront payment. It is part of the deal. It is not free. But the point is that they feel that we are just searching for answers to justify what we want to do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Fengshan because the amendment calls for a review of some of the measures taken recently to curb car growth. I would not have supported him if he had amended the motion to the effect that the recent measures were all unreasonable. In fact, I would probably oppose such an amendment. But the Member is a reasonable person and therefore I agreed to support him. And as a request for a review is fair, I think Members of this House should consider his amendment carefully and give their full support. To the ordinary man in the street, the motion moved by Dr Hong Hai is not action-orientated. What Dr Arthur Beng's amendment seeks to achieve is to get things done, not just words, to express the people's unhappiness. It also reflects the general feelings of many Singaporeans, especially those from the HDB estates. They do understand the need to have less traffic congestion and are prepared to accept certain measures to achieve this end. But they feel that, contrary to what the Ministry feels, some of the measures taken are not relatively mild, but harsh. If you think that a 100% rise in season parking is mild, I wonder what is harsh. After the 1988 General Elections, the Singaporean has to pay more for his maid, more for his taxi fares, more for his children's tertiary education, more for his health bills, more for his road and diesel taxes, and now more for his petrol, his season parking, his hourly parking, and for some, a $3 surcharge if he wants to get to his home in the CBD between 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm, or to bring his child home in the evening from a school in the CBD area.”
“I am so sorry. I was thinking of the Minister for Finance. But this is serious. I am asking for a fairer implementation of this rule. If you can conceive such an idea, you must be able to implement this fairly. If your idea of introducing this Bill is to curb usage of cars, I think it is not going to work well. It is only a half-measure. Singaporeans, if their intention of going to JB is to buy cheaper petrol, can still continue to bring in half-tankful of petrol. Many think that this is a revenue-orientated move. If this is so, how significant is the $2 million loss in revenue in terms of the percentage of the total petrol used? Is it significant enough to have such an impact that this Bill must be introduced?”
“Yes, it is inconvenient. My purpose of going to JB is to enjoy myself, so why should I have to go and fulfil a requirement by the Ministry? How can you assume that I am going to commit a crime of buying cheap petrol? You are assuming that I have the intention to cheat.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister thinks that people want to go to JB to buy cheaper petrol. He may be correct to a certain extent but I believe most Singaporeans disagree. The majority of Singaporeans going to JB are actually taking advantage of the lower Malaysian Ringgit and this is beyond our control. I think buying cheaper petrol is a fringe benefit. If the dollar differential is small then more Singaporeans will flock across and in turn will bring back cheaper but higher grade lead content petrol. What if the revenue loss is more than $2 million, say, $3 million? Will you then change the law to say that Singaporeans will have to fill up to three-quarter tankful before leaving the Republic? I see the different grades of petrol as a more serious problem because it will negate your anti-pollution effort to bring down the lead level in the atmosphere. This perhaps is a more valid and acceptable reason in disallowing Singaporeans to buy petrol in JB. I hope the Minister for the Environment will agree with me. Apart from the many points raised by my fellow Backbenchers, like traffic jams, administrative headaches, and our relationship with Johor, I want to ask a very fundamental question. Is it a crime to have less than half a tankful of petrol? The imposition of a fine means it is a crime.”
“I do not know whether he will persuade me, but I will try to persuade him. So let us give his proposal a chance. I think they must have put a lot of effort and discussion and thought into the scheme. I am prepared to let the scheme go for a year or two and perhaps come back to this House to find out whether he would like to consider other options.”
“I think the suggestion by Dr Vasoo is quite reasonable. We can allow the Singaporeans to use their CPF for overseas education up to the limit of the tuition fees of our local universities. I think the Minister is a very cautious man and sometimes if we push him too hard in this House, he might give you a "no" answer. Perhaps I would encourage my fellow Backbenchers not to push him too hard but to give him a gentle nudge. Because I know, it took me quite some time to really convince him, and he was the one who resisted the strongest. I even approached Dr Tony Tan, 1DPM, and even Prime Minister to try to convince him, but he was very strong. So I would like to employ my usual style. I would talk to him and see whether I can convince him. BG Lee Hsien Loong: He will persuade you.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to take the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru about the use of CPF for education. Last year in this House, my GPC made the proposal to the Minister for Labour and it was only after hard bargaining that he finally agreed to accept the proposal. The final outcome of that proposal was from the Ministry of Labour. Our GPC just presented the case to the Labour Ministry and those proposals that were given to this House yesterday were from the Ministry of Labour. We did not contribute any more inputs. But, first, I want to touch on what the Member for Parliament for Kebun Baru has said about old age. I think we may be overplaying this issue. What actually do we need for old age? We need a home. The CPF has made this provision from the approved housing scheme. When you are old, you need some attention to your health, and that is taken care of by Medisave. So they have made these two provisions. Then we have the third one, that is, the third element, that an old man or an old person needs some cash. That is also provided for by the Minimum Sum Scheme. I think generally what Singaporeans want is to be able to use their CPF that is available after all their old age needs have been taken care of. I think we should not keep on using this "old age" as a stumbling factor to the way we want to make use of our CPF. As regards the CPF scheme that was proposed yesterday, our GPC actually asked for an option in the Approved Investments Scheme. You have used that scheme to allow Singaporeans to buy stocks and shares and gold. So what the GPC for Education suggested was to use this as the other option. If he does not want to use that, let him use it for education. I notice that there is a restriction to the use of CPF for overseas education.”
“Therefore, in this selection exercise, not all who want to get in will be successful. It is an honour, a recognition of his exemplar behaviour, character and abilities when selected. The question of performance bonus for Ministers in my opinion is unnecessary. I think we should not put politicians in the same category as civil servants, as mentioned by the two previous speakers. The Cabinet, I strongly believe, must work as a team. It is untenable and it will create disquiet among Ministers if some get more and some get less bonus. Ministers may be tempted to take short-term views instead of long-term goals. Most of the Government's policy decisions are taken collectively in the Cabinet. In the event of a wrong, how much of the blame can be apportioned then to the individual Minister? Conversely, how much will competing Ministers share their good ideas if by so doing the other Minister is going to look better than himself? I strongly object to this and would encourage the First Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider and, in fact, drop such a move. I suggest he pays all the Ministers the bonuses he wants to give.”
“I support this rise with the hope that we may be able to attract the third or fourth generation leadership of men who may be in their middle thirties and who may want to switch career at mid-stream because we are able to convince them of the need to come out and identify themselves as political leaders, ready to take over the helm after Mr Goh and company. This group has to make a difficult decision, giving up the opportunity to be a chief executive of a company to enter politics. I was once told that the most certainty in politics is its uncertainty. And because of this, those who want to join politics must have some form of assurance or attraction to overcome this initial reservation. Salary is one. Exit management is another. Many enter politics with noble dreams. But as the heat of politics hot up, some get disillusioned and want to get out. But getting out of politics in midway is unpleasant and a fear of being labelled a failure, probably deterred many. Exit management is important, more so in today's context because our population is affluent and sensitive. Our past records of MPs and Ministers leaving Parliament leave much to be desired. Let us pay more attention to this and it may help us to get more talent. One weakness in using salary to attract talent is a danger of getting the wrong men in. This is the fear that strikes the minds of many Singaporeans. I too share this fear. However, the one consolation is the very stringent criteria of selection. We must use this safeguard in getting the right people. We must ensure that the other qualities of commitment, loyalty to country, compassion, personal integrity and wisdom are placed much higher in priority in our selection process than salary. Salary is just one criterion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is about talent scouting for the political leadership. The task is not easy. Years ago, it was easier because we had not tasted success and wealth. There was a cause then. There was a special calling, an anti-colonial fervour and urgency for independence. Many answered that call. They brought men of many diverse backgrounds into the political arena. In such a situation, many great leaders were thrown up. They were men of the ground, experienced in political craft and committed to the cause of building Singapore. Those who joined the political movement could see the changes they set out to do. I am sure it gave them much pride and satisfaction to see attap huts, laterite roads, turned into HDB flats, beautiful parks, roads and hospitals. It was easier to satisfy Singaporeans. But now with economic success and wealth, the environment has changed, such that there is no cause to fight, no ideological motivation, no reason to throw one's weight into politics. We are not hungry. We are victims of our success. We are now consolidating our position. We need men of quality, knowledge, wisdom, to run this place. It is getting more difficult to run because expectations are higher, and often tough to meet. So it is not surprising that many men of talent do not want to be in politics to face the ever demanding populace. I am sure even with this high salary, we will not be able to attract men who are already well estab- lished and comfortable in their present jobs.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“But as the Unit grew and we learned from some of our earlier mistakes, tempers cooled and sanity prevailed, and we realize that Singaporeans are not just the complaining kind. They have good ideas and they want to share. Our initial worry that the dialogue sessions would be just grousing sessions turned out not to be so. Technique, style of approach to issue, sharing and understanding their concerns, putting across points not in the manner, "we know best" attitude, helped a great deal. Above all, it is the behind-the-scene approach of my Unit that is most time-consuming but many a time rewarding. I remember having to chase five departments, including the Ministry of National Development, the Ministry of Education, URA, MRT, National Preservation Board, to try to resolve the resettlement of the Malabar Street Temple. In that exercise I made sure that no bulldozers got too close to the temple while negotiations were under way. It was not easy getting a very old temple, claimed to be more than 100 years old, to be demolished for progress. Tempers were high. And worse still, this happened in the midst of the recession when businessmen needed help from whatever source, including praying to their Gods. But I must point out that the various Government departments did give the Unit their support and I do appreciate their contributions. The Feedback Unit is beginning to gain acceptance. I wish the new Chairman and new panel members all the best and would encourage Singaporeans from all walks of life to continue to support the Unit.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JJ 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I move this amendment wo that I have the opportunity to tell this House how grateful I am to the civil servants who manned the Feedback Unit, my panel members, the numerous resource members and the many Singaporeans, including shopowners, hawkers, taxi-drivers, and the professionals. Running an outfit like the Feedback Unit is not an easy one. Although one of its original aims was just to listen and pass the feedback to the Government, the Unit went beyond its role by adopting a pro- active stand and went out to seek the views of many Singaporeans on many matters, sensitive and otherwise. In so doing, we have stepped on the toes of many people, including a few Frontbenchers. It was all in the line of duty. But I must admit that they responded positively most of the time, that is, after many exchanges of correspondence and personal contact. To carry out this duty, my colleagues and I spent many nights, especially in its early formative years, moving from community centre to community centre, holding dialogue sessions with associations, societies, and different groups of Singaporeans, so as to get a feel of the ground. Not only gathering feedback was our objective, but we also exchanged ideas, clarified government policies, gave them information, and explained government policies in an environment in which everyone was at ease to talk with. There was this free exchange of views. I must admit that in the beginning it was confrontational - the people against the Government, them against us.”
“Sir, in view of lack of time, may I have a few brief words. One of the main reasons for my not supporting the pre-primary school is that it caters only to those who want to take Chinese. This, to me, is not proper because Singaporeans at such tender age must be exposed to study, learning and interacting with students of the other races. On the subject of Religious Knowledge, the introduction of RK has led to many administrative problems, both in terms of time-tabling and curriculum time allocation without serving its objective. The subject has limited scope because it is limited to only one religion or school of thought. The principals are afraid that social segregation may occur as religious groups are formed. I therefore am glad that the teaching of Religious Knowledge is being reviewed. Finally, the teaching of core values in the mother tongue in primary schools may have one setback and, that is, teachers who are weak in the mother tongue but have the aptitude and attitude in the teaching of good moral values, may be left out of this. It would be a pity. With that note, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Can I ask the Minister two questions? Would you exempt the existing students from this present hike in fees? The other question I want to ask is: would it be possible for the university to do a projection study on the fees that the students will be paying in, say, five years?”
“But a more important point I hope the Minister would accept is that the University should formulate a "long-term cost recovery rate" for each student in faculty, so that every student knows what is the target subsidy rate and what will be his recovery rate. This will be useful to students and their parents because they will know how to prepare their budget before they are admitted into the university. This will also be useful for the various faculties to exercise control over their recurrent expenditure. Another topic is that when I talked about 'O' level above-average students in the House last year, I suggested that such students should enrol in the Polytechnics instead of Junior Colleges or Pre-U Centres. This is because the 'A' level students' chance of entering the university is only 60%. Moreover, the diplomas of these Polytechnics are of economic value and easily marketable with quite high starting pay. However, many parents still hope for high achievement and insist on sending their children to universities in order to obtain a University degree, just like collecting stamps, as mentioned by the Minister for Trade and Industry. In the Straits Times of 11th March, there was an article: "Is there Life without a Varsity Degree?". This article reflects the feelings of many people. In order to encourage more secondary students to enter Polytechnics, I would urge the Minister to prompt the NTI to recruit more Polytechnic students with good results into NTI.”
“However, with the increase in the number of Malay students in our tertiary institutions and the increase in tuition fees, some some rumblings or grouses are heard from the non-Malay students. In fact, the young people have got a new set of values and viewpoints, different from the older generations. Young Singaporeans stress on fair competion and equal treatment. They ask: when the Malay students graduate from the university, will they not be receiving the same high pay? Then why should they not be required like other students to pay back some of the money to the society what the taxpayers have subsidized for their education? I hope the Minister and the government will not overlook such latent feelings of grouses. The third point: in 1987 when the Minister announced the fee increases, he said one reason was that university graduates receive good pay after they come out to work and therefore they have the duty to repay part of the subsidies the society has provided them. Another reason is the principle of the American system that we should follow, that is, the tuition fee should be linked to the cost of educating a student. The fee should be fixed at a certain percentage of the recurrent cost per student. However, in practice, there seems to be some conflict between the two principles. The cost of educating a law student is lower in comparison with that of dentistry, engineering and science students. However, lawyers are better paid than most engineers, dentists and science graduates. Therefore, there seems to be some incongruency or contradictions between the "market value" and "cost".”
“On both occasions the fee increases were announced by the university during the examination when students were intensely preparing for and taking the examinations. To those who come from the well-off families it is all right but for those who come from poor families, on the one hand they have to prepare intensely for the examinations and on the other they have to worry about the increased financial burden on their families. This will greatly affect their mood and mental condition in the examinations. It seems the university is beset with a sadistic complex. This is incongruous with the benign and compassionate manner in which the Budget was presented by the Finance Minister. It is a full three months before the next academic term starts in July. Why should the fee increase be announced at this juncture amidst the examinations? On the one hand, the Labour Minister is delaying his announcement on the scheme for the use of CPF balances for university education. On the other hand, the Minister for Education is impatient and has been hasty in announcing fee increases. Can the two Ministers not coordinate on timing this policy? The second point is more sensitive. In 1987 the Minister for Education clarified that Malay students would not be affected by fee increases. I believe the position will be the same for the Malays in the latest fee increases. According to our Constitution (Article 152), Malays in Singapore are given special concession on education. I believe most Singaporeans of my generation and older generations accept the Article and the need for the special treatments for the Malays.”
“Provide Singaporeans with a projection of the university cost for the next five years or so, just like the long-term CPF projections. This will help to allay uncertainty in financial planning of their parents. Finally, can I ask the Minister to have a heart? Do not announce such bad news in the midst of the examinations. Wait till the exams are over. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, once again tuition fees for university students have increased. This increase is not entirely due to the increase in costs but because over the last two years the increase in expenditure has been only about 20%. Here, I must declare that I am an academician and this increase in cost has nothing to do with me, because since 1985 I have not been promoted, and my salary has remained the same. The Prime Minister has announced it to all Singaporeans. In 1987, the Minister for Education in announcing a hike in tuition fees in the House said that he would not like to see another major increase in tuition fees. But no sooner had he said this that in the course of a short two years, there is another increase in fees by 30% to 85%. This is in comparison to the fees in 1987. If it is compared with the figures in 1986, the increase rates are 117 to 454%, according to the figures given by Dr Aline Wong. Some students were hit twice by such fee-hikes. I hope the Minister would think about the plight of the families of these students. For those students who come from poor families, such repeated increases have caused them and their parents endless trouble and worry. They do not know when will the next increase be, how big will it be and whether they will be able to shoulder such burden. We have to remember that the loan that they can get only pays for half of their tuition fees.”
“Because the Minister for Finance said that education is an investment. We should not reduce the subsidy to such a degree that the cost of university education is out of the reach of the average Singaporean. Those involved cannot reconcile this move. Because while the economy is good and many enjoy the fruits of economic success by way of pay increases, they have to dig deeper into their pockets. I am not advocating no increase in fees. But I think while we can afford, let us maintain the subsidy and not reduce the percentage further for, after all, brain power is our only national resource. And these students are the best brains we have. They are our future technologists, leaders of industry, education and even politics. Next, operating costs. The University Students' Council has written to me with suggestions that the administration be streamlined to minimize operating costs. Perhaps they may be aware that some things in the university need to be streamlined. This is a fair and reasonable suggestion and ways and means must be found to trim costs. It is a very important factor, operating costs, because if this cost is up for whatever reason, it will be passed to the students. Because, as I said earlier, tuition fees is worked as a percentage of the recurring cost per student. Let me give you some suggestions as to how to ease the burden of the students. I think first we have to release CPF for education. I hope the Labour Minister is not sitting on it for too long. Loan schemes. Make it more liberal, up to 100% loan with minimum fuss. Provide students with more bursaries and scholarships. More information to students on banks and financial institutions which are prepared to assist in providing loans. Allow existing students to be exempted from this present hike.”
“The Minister is an honourable man. I believe he must have good reasons for such drastic increases of the fees within two short years. I hope he will give a satisfactory answer to this. The universities adopted the American system whereby tuition fees are fixed at a certain percentage of the recurring cost per student for the various courses in the universities. If in adopting this system fees are going to go up at such a rate, I suggest the Minister had better review it or university education will be beyond the reach of the bright but poor students. And in the words of my colleague, Dr Aline Wong, "university education would become the exclusive rights of a very privileged few". I do not want to see it happen in this country. Education is an investment. Do not make it unaffordable. There are thus two basic issues to contend with in a discussion of university tuition fees. (1) Reduction in subsidy. How much? (2) Operating costs of the university. Can it be controlled and maintained trim as much as possible? If we accept that education is an investment, then I do not see why we cannot continue the present percentage of subsidy for the university students. We talk of a $3.8 billion surplus this year, 11% growth rate and we expect growth for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it seems odd that we want to reduce the subsidy for tertiary education and pass it to the Singaporeans. Do we need to shift this subsidy for university students to the other student population when we are doing fairly well? Can we not maintain the subsidy and increase the subsidy for the rest of the student population? I hope the Minister for Finance is here but he is not around. Yes, the Minister of State for Finance is around. He should be listening.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I want to bring up the subject of university tuition fees. In March 1987, the Minister for Education said that in order to have a fairer distribution of the education budget, he proposed a reduction in subsidy for tertiary students. He said that in 1987 the Government was spending $14,400 to educate a student at the university level, as against $1,900 for each pupil in schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres, the polytechnics and VITB. Our university students comprise only 16,000 students, representing 3% of the student population and yet absorbing 20% of the total recurrent expenditure on education. The rest of the student population, 97%, which make up about half a million students, spend 80% of the total recurrent expenditure. Therefore, to ensure a fairer distribution of the education budget, he proposed a reduction in subsidy for tertiary students and he announced the hike in tuition fees then. In answer to a question posed by the Member of Parliament for Ponggol whether there would be another upward review of fees in the foreseeable future, this is what he said and I quote from Hansard of 4th March 1987, Vol. 49, col. 33: 'I would hope to allow these fees to settle down for one or two years. We may have to make a small increase in 1988 but I would not like to see another major increase coming too soon after this one.' Let us compare the increases. In 1987, non-laboratory-based faculty fees were up by $800. This year, it went up a further $600. Laboratory-based faculty fees were up by $1,200 in 1987. This year, it went up a further $700. Medicine and Dentistry fees were up by $2,600 in 1987. But this time it went up a further $3,300.”
“This is one way we try to make up, but the amounts are relatively small. They are nominee directors. The Government appoints them. They are generally not shareholders. We give them an allowance out of a divided pool. A committee decides how it is shared out. I forget the exact numbers now, but I think the limit is about two months of salary. It varies depending on how many directorships he holds, whether he is an Executive Chairman or whether he is just sitting as one member of the board. But it is not a large amount. We will review this as one additional avenue for flexibly rewarding civil servants.”
“In fact, we are trying to do this and to establish some linkages between the Administrative Service, the statutory boards, and the other services so that at the top we have identified not just Administrative Officers who have come up from this group but a corps of Top Administrators who have come in from many parts of the Civil Service. They can go many places, not just end up as Permanent Secretaries, but also run statutory boards as CEOs and, I would even venture to say, even serve in some Government companies on secondment. We are working on that. It is not straightforward, but we are thinking about it. I do not know whether it is a good idea to have civil servants answer questions in Parliament. The worth of a civil servant is not judged by his glibness but by his overall contributions over a period of time. I am not sure Parliament ought to substitute its judgment for that of the PSC. We had better leave the PSC to do it and not change the Standing Orders unnecessarily. One more point from Mr Loh -- matching officers to unglamorous jobs. The worth of a civil servant is shown by what he can make of his job. The size of the job depends on the quality of the man. If he is good in a small ministry he can make a lot of initiatives. If he is not good and you put him in a big post the boundaries will close in and the post will become a small one. Some jobs are not as popular as others. Some Ministries are not so popular as others. But I think we have to take it as a rotation during a career. I tell soldiers this, and I think it applies to civil servants as well; "Good soldiers do what they are told and go where they are sent." So should good Administrative Officers. Dr Dixie Tan asked how much do Permanent Secretaries earn from directorships.”
“There was a time when we feared that everyone would leave immediately the bond was up. But as the bonds came due we found to our relief and satisfaction that many people were happy to stay because we had treated them fairly. I know of very few who resigned the day the bond expired. Recruitment, top three, total income or earned, I think I have addressed this question just now. It is mainly earned income but even if it is total, it is based on himself rather than based on inherited wealth. That is what IRD tells me. I do not doubt that if we let a top Administrative Officer loose in any of those professions, he will reach somewhere near the top, which is the reason why we must keep the pension scheme. The pensions may not be effective for keeping people early in their career, but it is quite good for keeping them in after they have stayed 10 or 15 years and become Permanent Secretaries. I agree with Mr Loh that we have to find some way to address particular needs of the younger people. He mentioned buying a house. We have housing loan schemes which are quite generous which enable a young officer to buy a house sooner than he would otherwise be able to outside. It is not just the terms but also the availability of the loan. We will look into other ways to do this but I would be cautious about getting rid of the pension scheme altogether. Mid-career recruitment, which Dr Tan has suggested, is feasible for the private sector. I think we should make it feasible for as much of the public service as possible, but there are some parts of the public service where you cannot. You cannot join the SAF as a major. For the Administrative Service, it might be possible.”
“No. What I mean is that bonding could deter some of the able scholarship students from joining your service. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, they want the scholarship but they do not want the bond. That is right. But after the scholarship they will voluntarily join the Civil Service. It does not follow. The Americans have a thing against bonds. They believe it violates fundamental freedoms. We don't. This is a contract. We send you to university on scholarship. You agree to come back and serve us for a certain number of years, and we are not going to pay you peanuts. You are going to get a fair wage and a reasonable advancement. I think the bond serves a purpose. It also has a psychological purpose because the person who then goes to university thinks in terms of a civil service career. Otherwise, he says, "Now, starting point, this multi-national, that firm, that bank, somewhere down, fifth or sixth, PSC, let's go and give it a try." Young people today are very knowledgeable. They make very good calculations, and choose highly optimized paths. So better to have the bond. The scholarship is a lure. It is fair because you are going on scholarship. It is generous. We are allowing you to get into universities which you might otherwise not have been able to enter because, while you can go to a university without too much trouble, to go to a top American university or a top British university is not so easy and not so cheap. So the scholarship is worth something. I return, we would like you to serve with us and we hope that by the end of the eight years we have persuaded you that it is a good career and you will stay on. Dr Tan does not believe me, but in the SAF where we have used bonds for SAF scholars.”
“I would like to ask the Minister: since he thinks that this bonding of the civil servants is of not much use because the private sector can buy out all these good civil servants, then will he consider reducing it or even abolishing it? Because you will then encourage more people to join the civil service. If you do not have the bond, then at least those who were not willing to join in the first instance may now want to join. Your annex C, monthly income of the top three executives. I am not very clear about this. Is it the earned income of the person doing his job? Or is it the total income, that is including his investments not pertaining to his job? Because this figure could be very misleading. Since you are so short of talent, would you consider recruiting from outside into the civil service? The Minister is very concerned about the performance of the civil servants. I was wondering whether he would like to take the cue from the Minister for Finance who, I believe, in March 1988 made a suggestion that perhaps the civil servants should come to the Parliament House and answer some of the questions fielded by Members of Parliament. I think that is a good way of assessing these civil servants. If they are good, I am sure they will be praised. Do not always think that we are going to shell them. 2.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you never know how people can overstay, especially our Malaysian relatives who sometimes stay here for long periods and forget to renew their visas or social visit passes. You must let us know the extent of this problem on this group of foreigners. My concern is on a government-to-government level, there is understanding of each other's security and social problems. But people-to- people level, I am not so sure because this involves a punishment that has emotional connotations, unlike drug traffickers and drug pedlars. I think the nature of the offence is different from drugs. Singaporeans travel a lot, in particular the Asean area. I feel that such an action could lead to misunderstanding and ill-will. Therefore, if you look at this issue from a national viewpoint, the Minister should re-think and not make it mandatory to cane these illegal immigrants who probably in their eagerness to seek a better job here are unaware of the consequences of their actions, of our laws, when they take the risk to come here. I think it is the middle men, the agents, the employers of these illegal immigrants, the recalcitrant illegal immigrants and those who commit crimes who should be caned, not just any illegal immigrant or overstayer. I therefore suggest that we should allow the courts to decide who should be caned and who should not rather than making it mandatory. For example, I am for caning the agents, as I have said, who bring in these people to Singapore. They are like drug pushers. They are the guilty ones.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some comments on this Bill. I am against illegal immigrants. They impose on our way of life, on our social and security system. Worse still, they may bring in diseases because they are not screened. Therefore, they should be punished. It is obvious that the Ministry must be fed up or must have given up all the soft options, including sending them back after a jail sentence, to come up with such a strong measure. Moreover, I learned that it costs $10 million a year to upkeep these illegal immigrants currently serving jail sentences here. Departmental interest therefore demands that the Government should do something before the situation becomes worse. It was reported in the press - in fact, it was also told to Members of this House - that the number of illegal immigrants entering Singapore has risen by 16.6% from 3,500-odd to about 4,120, all within the space of one year. And the number of those arrested for smuggling these illegal immigrants has also increased from six in 1987 to 18 in 1988. To stamp out this problem the Ministry has decided what it considers the most effective method, and that is, caning of illegal immigrants. This is a logical administrative departmental decision, but not all administrative decisions are good decisions. I want to ask the Minister whether his department has taken into account wider national implications. What are these implications? Our country is a big tourist attraction. I believe 4 million tourists come to Singapore or have entered Singapore last year, and I believe that just one case of caning an overstayer who has not committed any crime will do us no good. We are making caning a mandatory punishment for unlawfully remaining in Singapore for a period exceeding 90 days.”
“I am sorry, Sir. Will the Minister look into the request made by the Member for Tampines GRC and not just brush it aside and say that the present subsidies are adequate?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tampines GRC has raised a very important point. In fact, I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I think he should look into ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Siglap. I want to speak on two areas, education and the other is on participation and consultation and consensus. I do not think I have the time, Mr Speaker.”
“The number of key appointments requiring concurrence is so extensive that it reaches every facet of government. If the Prime Minister and President disagree on even one appointment, say, the Chairman of the PUB, we may face a Constitutional crisis or otherwise a paralysis of that department if the Prime Minister does not take the issue to the people. Is it right to so encumber the Cabinet? Singapore's competitiveness and advancement depend so much on our being able to respond quickly to external changes. Will this mean that our ability to respond quickly be diminished? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not able to cover in this short time all the misgivings of the people. Some members of my Feedback Unit have already expressed some of the views on the Vice-President and on many other matters. But I have prepared a report for the First Deputy Prime Minister and since he is not here I will give it to him later. I suggest that he go through this report very thoroughly. But for the moment the people need to ask themselves a few questions. Do we want an elected President to check the Prime Minister? What extent of our reserves need to be protected? What are the key appointments that are so critical as to require concurrence? We need a system that will assure the people of a better government, not paralysis of our political system. I propose that this House give the people and its Members the opportunity and time to examine all consequences and alternatives. The issues should be thoroughly aired, including a Select Committee, and also a referendum held so that Singaporeans know that they themselves are responsible for their own destiny. 11.25 am”
“Instead the Prime Minister would have to invoke para. 36, ie, the decision to remove the President will rest only on the Supreme Court and three-quarters' majority vote in Parliament. It will be well nigh impossible to remove the President under such circumstances. The whole exercise, as I see it, only reviews his Presidential powers but not his decision. I shall now touch on financial assets and reserves. Para. 45 deals with the President's concurrence in the use of our financial assets and reserves. The definition of "assets" is indeed very wide and may in practice mean every cent and every square centimetre of Government land in Singapore. Singaporeans want to know if this means that every parcel of land sale must be approved by the President? Must the sale of HDB properties have his assent? Will the sale of every HDB unit or every block or every defined estate have his assent? What about resale? Does it mean that if Temasek Holdings wants to sell 100,000 SIA shares, the President's signature must be sought? And does this mean that if PSA wants to sell a vacant lot of land or a tugboat the President has to concur? These seem to be absurd questions but such a situation may arise to paralyse the Government unless the definition of "financial assets and reserves" is properly thought out. In the White Paper, the Presidential jurisdiction covers assets defined as assets which the government itself has not accumulated. In a democracy such as Singapore, there are possibilities of change in government, not probable in the foreseeable future but certainly possible down the road. After successive government changes, how will the assets be defined as those accumulated by each government? There will be disputes. It will be an accountant's nightmare. I come to appointments.”
“36: 'He may not be removed before his term of office expires, except upon a resolution passed in Parliament with a majority vote of at least of the total number of Members of the House upon a finding by the Supreme Court that he is incapable of discharging his functions by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, misconduct involving abuse of his powers of office and any offence under the law involving moral turpitude.' In other words, the removal of the President will depend on the Supreme Court's finding of incompetence and a three-quarter vote in Parliament. For paragraph 36 to be invoked, who will have the authority to convene the Supreme Court to sit? Does this also mean that paras. 26 and 28, ie, two-thirds of the votes in Parliament plus two-thirds of the votes in a referendum, cannot be applied for the removal of the President if there is a Constitutional crisis in the middle of a Presidential term? Imagine there is a disagreement over the use of $5 billion reserves. The Prime Minister, even having two-thirds majority in Parliament, may be refused by the President and has to go to the people for a referendum. He gets two-thirds of the votes in a referendum. Does this mean that (1) the Prime Minister can change the Constitution to do away with the Presidency or limit the powers of the President; or (2) remove the President and call for fresh Presidential election; or (3) the decision of the President and of Parliament and the referendum is binding on the President? As it stands, there is no provision for the decision of two-thirds of the votes in Parliament and two-thirds of the votes in a referendum to be binding on the President.”
“Imagine this condition having to be applied to the many issues which the wide powers now being proposed for the President. It must mean that the Prime Minister will have to give in to the President all the time or else his government will fall, though he has the majority to govern. In effect, the Prime Minister will have to look at the President and ask, "Who do you want?" instead of arriving at the best decision with his Cabinet. Will this mean that a compromised candidate instead of the best candidate will result? And this will surely erode our system of meritocracy. Para. 35 of the White Paper limits the choice of a President to a select group of Singaporeans with relevant experience. But as the candidates have to be approved by an impartial body, it does seem that the people have no free choice. First, who appoints this so-called impartial body? As they are appointed, can they be impartial? It is good that people are to be made aware of the qualifications and experience a potential President needs to have. I suggest that the potential Presidential candidates should then be made to declare their experience, qualifications, assets to the people directly and let the people decide. This will help Singaporeans develop their power of judgment and their sense of self-confidence as a voter. Para. 36 deals with the removal of the President. I refer you to para.”